EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
Popular content
Today's Top News
Penn's War: Media Lap Dogs Backed Iraq Mess
Actor Narrates a New Documentary That Indicts U.S. Involvement in Iraq
Sean Penn, the actor-director-turned-political-activist, narrates a new anti-war documentary that alleges U.S. presidents since Kennedy have manipulated the public to wage wars.
The searing documentary coincides with the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and asserts that the mainstream media have been cheerleaders for a war that has cost the nation -- according to Department of Defense figures this week -- 3,980 lives.
The star, who won for best actor in the 2003 film "Mystic River," has been an outspoken critic of the war, often calling it "Dante's Inferno."
This week, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" has been released for home entertainment to distributors like Amazon and Best Buy and on Netflix. The film premiered in New York City, Saturday.
Penn, 47, has toured Iraq twice -- once just before the Bush administration stepped up drumbeats for the war in December 2002, and also as a correspondent for the San Francisco Chronicle.
Written and directed by Loretta Alper and Jeremy Earp, the film weaves archival footage from World War II to the Iraq War. It is based on the book by the same name, written in 2005 by Norman Solomon, founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.
'No One Else Has the Guts to Go'"I invited Sean Penn out of the blue, when no one else had the guts to go," Solomon told ABCNEWS.com. "When I worked on the film, I contacted him and he didn't hesitate at all. He donated his time, his work and his reputation."
Penn was unavailable for comment because he is in production on a film about the life of Harvey Milk, his publicist Rachel Karten of I/D Public Relations told ABCNEWS.com. The actor is set to play the gay politician of San Francisco's 1970s in a biopic directed by Gus Van Sant.
Penn has been a growing political force in Hollywood. That is no surprise, considering Penn's roots: His father, actor and director Leo Penn, was blacklisted in the 1950s for his support of Joseph Stalin.
From his early days portraying an airhead in 1982's "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," Penn has played more highly charged roles like a death row inmate in "Dead Man Walking" (1995) and Sgt. Eddie Walsh in the anti-war film "The Thin Red Line" (1998).
Penn answered a call to help in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in 2005, literally pulling people out of the water. A year ago, Penn led a town meeting in California that was critical of President Bush and his handling of the war, drawing both public praise and scorn.
Penn once paid $56,000 for an ad in The Washington Post criticizing the war, according to a report in USA Today. He also baited Bush for his handling of Katrina and his "inflammatory rhetoric" toward Iran.
"You and your smarmy pundits -- and the smarmy pundits you have in your pocket -- can take your war and shove it," Penn told the San Francisco Chronicle at the time. "Let's unite not only in stopping this war, but in holding this administration accountable."
Reaction to "War Made Easy" has been favorable, according to Adi Bemak, gift director of the Media Education Foundation, which produced the film and is distributing it worldwide.
The project also received support from actor Matt Damon, who was listed in the film's credits as a "friend" of the foundation.
"We thank all the friends who have supported our work, and that really means in all kinds of ways -- networking, hosting events, hosting staff, making donations," Bemak said.
Toll or Deaths, InjuriesFive years after the American "shock and awe" campaign to oust the regime of Saddam Hussein, 159,000 troops still remain in Iraq, according to the Department of Defense. In addition to military deaths, an estimated 29,275 have been wounded. But the largest toll has been on Iraqi civilians, with 81,964 to 89,448 dead, according to the Brookings Institute.
One of the highest prices of the war has been the public loss of faith in the ability of its government to tell the truth and in a docile press corps, according to the film.
Solomon's meticulous research and rarely seen archival news footage from World War II through the Vietnam War, Panama, Grenada, Bosnia and two Gulf wars analyzes the way in which the media regurgitated the politicians' justification for war.
Every president since John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- all except Jimmy Carter -- came under fire for their war rhetoric. But Solomon is even harsher on the news media that trumpeted the government's war cry.
Even Walter Cronkite, whom Solomon calls "the patron saint of journalism," did not escape attack, as CBS footage chronicled the newsman's participation in an aerial mission in Vietnam. Cronkite marvels at the weaponry and U.S. military superiority.
Analyzing the press coverage of the Iraq War, Solomon points to the masterful use of public relations by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he called on 500 journalists to "embed" themselves with the troops. In doing so, the press showed only the perspective of the "attackers" and not the victims.
Solomon contends he is no pacifist: "If war is justified, the government doesn't have to lie about it."
"The public supported World War II even though it went on for so long, because the public never felt it was based on lies," according to Solomon, who, in the film, reminds the audience of the now-debunked Bush mantra that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In one of the most compelling scenes of the film, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., speaks out against impending war in Afghanistan in never-seen footage three days after 9/11. She cast the lone vote in Congress against authorizing force in the emotional aftermath of the terrorist attacks.
Journalists as Stenographers"War Made Easy" is being distributed to schools around the country in the hope that Americans can learn "media literacy" and be more critical consumers of the news, looking to more than mainstream sources, the film's distributors contend.
Solomon also urges the media to get back to solid investigative reporting that challenges the reins of power. Today, he said, they are only "stenographers of the war makers in Washington."
"Journalists want to be ahead of the curve, but not out on a limb and they don't want to take professional risks," Solomon said. "There are great reporters through all the eras, but they are islands of good journalism swamped by oceans of received wisdom."
"It's an appeal to democracy that can create genuine alternatives to war," he said. "Journalists need to fight back and the public needs to challenge itself."
However, Rich Noyes, director of research at the Media Research Center, sees the press coverage leading up to the war in Iraq differently. He has just released a five-year study of the three major television networks.
"The left has claimed that the media didn't do enough to stop the war in its tracks," he told ABCNEWS.com. "But if you go back to the questions asked and the articles that were written and the news that aired, there were great skeptics, adversarial coverage and even hostile news coverage."
The most aggressive, Noyes said, was Peter Jennings of ABC News. "We have pages and pages of quotes."
Despite the media's attacks, Noyes said the media historically has had a "liberal tilt."
Since the onset of the war, the media have been even more anti-government, according to Noyes.
By 2004, with coverage of scandals like Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, the negative stories "more than outstripped the coverage of Medals of Honor winners and Silver Stars," he said.
"The vast array of coverage showed soldiers as anonymous or victims of policy perpetrators or misdeeds," said Noyes. "This sort of bad news hurt the morale of the country."
Alan Schroeder, associate professor of journalism at Northeastern University, told ABCNEWS.com that investigative journalism is not alive and well today. He worries that corporate forces have taken their toll on an independent media.
"Investigative journalism takes a lot of time and you don't produce daily stories and it requires a financial investment," he said. "Journalism is a business and subject to all the pressures of the marketplace."
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

78 Comments so far
Show AllMy only comment is that the history of journalists being complicit in war mongering has an even longer reach than that of the documentary when one considers the cases belli of the Spanish-American War: Hearst used it to sell newspapers. The idea of journalism being an neutral reporter of the news is a relatively recent one, while rags with a definite point of view have a much longer history. Since we are in a time where Dubya, Cheney, & Co. are in the midst of executing a "Great Lurch Backwards" to a redux of the Robber Baron era with "Spoils System" government, is it any surprise that the corporate media is what it is?
Three cheers for Sean Penn!!! Of course the media has been complicit in the casus belli of the illegal occupation of Iraq. They slowly are realizing their folly and should NOT receive a public dispensation.
The Media Research Center, cited towards the end of this article, is part of the right-wing extremist Republican propaganda machine. Rich Noyes, the MRC's director of research, is a deliberate liar. ABC News might just as well quote Rush Limbaugh. MRC has just about as little credibility. They are nothing but a shill for the Republican Party of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.
Noyes'specious claims of a liberal media and Abu Ghraib coverage hide the fact that in the build-up to the Iraq war, the media coverage was astoundingly tilted towards war-mongering. I wrote a hundred letters to the editors. It didn't stop the war. But maybe next time it will. "The public supported World War II," however we were tricked into that war also, and perhaps rightly. We were already waging a low-grade war on Germany, but they refused to up the ante. We economically and diplomatically strangled Japan until they attacked us (and don't think for a minute that we luckily had our aircraft carriers and our new class of battleships far from Pearl.) In this article the movie "The Thin Red Line" is characterized as an 'anti-war movie.' I always thought of it as just another interesting regular war movie. It's very realistic in death and suffering and in the propaganda and politicking needed to motivate the soldiers.
-The most aggressive, Noyes said, was Peter Jennings of ABC News. "We have pages and pages of quotes."
If you look into Jennings' bio you will find that unlike most of the people acting as journalists on American TV, he had proper training in news gathering at Canadian radio and TV stations. This is pertinent because, unlike the US, Canada is one of the countries whose press puts a premium on the veracity of it's news reporting. This might partially explain his high journalistic standards, which are in turn, the cause of the attacks on him by Rich Noyes, Rush Limbaugh and other defenders of George Bush's actions over the last several years.
Sean Penn, Great job, it takes a lot of courage. Haven't seen the film but I hope to. You guys can take a lot of satisfaction in knowing that you are right.
It doesn't help that journalists like Tom Brokaw publish books glorifying war. I am sorry Mr. Brokaw, but it was not the "greatest generation." In fact, there was little if anything that was great about it.
",,,the largest toll has been on Iraqi civilians, with 81,964 to 89,448 dead, according to the Brookings Institute?????"
MORE LIES....its sickening
No kidding Claudius, how about the people in the 60s, they stopped a war. They should be "The greatest generation".
klakin,
Agreed.
call bush at 202.456.1111
If we the People were in control of the government or were the government like we are supposed to believe, we would be offended by the above "Since the onset of the war, the media have been even more anti-government, according to Noyes."
The further Irony is that the Neo Cons and our political conditioning specialize in telling us what we have heard all our lives that Government is evil or should be shrunk down so that it can be drowned in a bathtub.
I will try to refrain from using "Leftist" or "left" to label me or the Peace People of the planet because Left was given to us to demonize us... Just look up the definition.
This is a hard habit to break but I will try just like
Black folks are trying to end use of "Nigger" even among themselves.
This article throws out "Left" and "Right" as gospel but I wonder if they are unconsciously demonizing themselves in the process.
When we argue we label each other constantly and it gets us nowhere.
The world is divided not by those who hate government and those who like it but those who are trying to end the War Economy and build peace and understanding and those who are too caught up in the profit of War and Hate and misunderstanding.
We should not be Left against Right because that is not a fair contest...Also insane when you realize that we would not exist without the relative balance of left and right in Nature.
The real fair and Just fight will be better served and framed between the Lovers and the Haters of this world.
I guess we also need to change our frames of reference and language to win.
I will work on it but I need Help.
Go Sean!
Love....
Despite the media's attacks, Noyes said the media historically has had a "liberal tilt."
A usual diversion, one that is repeated often by Limbaugh (the "drive-by media"). Alas, most Americans do not know the difference between investigative journalism and spin.
Sorry to bicker over words, but the corporate media are not lap dogs; rather they are the dogs of war. They LED the US to war more so than the politicians. The corporate media sold the war and continues to make it sound unreasonable to demand "TROOPS OUT NOW" which was the rallying cry during Vietnam. Understanding who is leading who, who is in control, how this stuff works is important to grasping the difficulty of the task to overhaul what we have or whether it must be overthown--at least to some degree.
TROOPS OUT NOW
OVERTHROW THE CORPORATE MEDIA
"Investigative journalism takes a lot of time and you don't produce daily stories and it requires a financial investment," he said. "Journalism is a business and subject to all the pressures of the marketplace."
That line says it all. Journalism is a business and war sells, big time. Who wants to read about another sunny and peaceful day?
Is Rich Noyes related to Faux Noyes? They seem to share the same viewpoint.
Hey Sean:
In the eighties, I thought you were nothing but a spoiled brat. I want to
thank you for showing me your REAL substance and proving me wrong(sometimes
the best thing in the world is being wrong).
My guess is that the ABC journalist who did this story was told by her bosses to get the "other" side.
So let's see. One of the major points of this article is the media buying into and selling the war. I think they just made their case again. Quoting "sources" such as the Media Research Center is precisely how we got into the war in the first place. Right wing pundits lined up, while Phil Donahue is yanked from MSNBC because he had people on who questioned the war.
Nothing has changed.
It takes a lot of guts to stand up for whats right when you are surrounded by everything that is wrong. I admire Mr. Penn's integrity and intelligence. If we had more like him, who's humanity is comparable to their bravado, the world would be a better place.
WAY TO GO DUDE!
THIS MAY BE OUR ONLY HOPE FOR ANY "PUBLIC" REALITY CHECK...EVEN WITHIN THIS ARTICLE, THE "LIBERAL BIAS" OF THE MEDIA BUGABOO LET'S FLY IT'S EVIL SMIRK..THAT HAS GOT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST ATROCIUOS AND BIZARRE LIES AND PROPAGANDA PLOYS IN THE HISTORY ON PUBLIC DISCOURSE...THEY HAVE "FACTS" THAT SHOW THAT THEE IS A "LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MEDIA" HOW CAN WE SHUT THESE IDOTS UP ONCE AND FOR ALL..WELL..THIS MOVIE IS A START..FACTS! NOT HOT AIR...FACTS! SO WAY TO GO AMIGO'S..YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD THING..I WILL SEE IT, I WILL DISCUSS IT WITH OTHERS, AND I WILL LEARN..AND I WILL GLOAT AS I WATCH THE FACES OF RIGHT WING CORPORATE FASCIST THEOCRAT LOYALISTS..CONTORT WITH RAGE AS THEY ARE SHOWN THE "FACTS' AND CANNOT REFUTE THEM...
FINALLY..HEY..RICH GUY'S...WHY DON'T YOU BEGIN THE "PRIVACY REVOLUTION"..C'MON, WHATTYA SAY? START AN AIRLINE THAT DOES NOT STRIP YOU OF YOUR FREEDOMS JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE ON VACATION AN DON'T WANNA TAKE THE BUS. OR THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY THAT SAY'S "WE DON'T USE FINE PRINT TO STRIP YOU OF YOUR PRIVACY, OR HAVE NO CREDIT.." PRIVACY BASED BUSINESS' THAT ACTUALLY PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY BY SECURING YOUR DETAILS VIA A PROCESS THAT ACTUALLY GIVES YOU ANONYMOUTY...EVERYBODY IS A MR.SMITH...I DUNNO HOW TO DO IT..BUT IF THEY CAN LAND A MAN ON THE MOON...
FINALLY..RICH GUY'S..HOW ABOUT TAX REVOLT...SOUNDS LIKE IT'S TIME TO ME...PUT SOME ADDS IN THE PAPERS..IF THEY DON'T CENSOR THEM..AND ADVOCATE A "GENERAL TAX STRIKE"..THE ONLY POWER WE HAVE LEFT IS THE POWER OF THE PURSE...SO WE SHOULD STOP PAYING FOR THEIR LITTLE 100 YEARS OF WAR FANTASY..S IF WE HAD A 100 YEARS LEFT AT THIS RATE...STOP PAYING FOLKS...OR BE COMPLICIT IN THE CRIMES...DO NOT DECLARE..AND RICH GUY'S..HELP SPREAD THE WORD...PLEASE!
jcrumb, you make really good points, but are the CAPITALS necessary?
Good for Penn for roasting our corrupt MSM. He should also spend time thinking about practical solutions and conveying them.
Since most major news media are privately-owned businesses acting under 1st Amendment rights and vaguely-defined licensing regs, the only way government, acting in the name of The People, can hope to foster fair and accurate reporting is very indirectly: Namely, by regulating diversification of media business ownership via the Constitution's interstate commerce clause and associated legal powers.
The idea here is that media ownership diversification of licensed public airwaves and other publicly-regulated transmission utilities tends to yield fact and opinion diversification which diversification in turn tends to favor consumer choice of the best "product" -- in this case, Truthful Reporting.
While this is fraught w/ catch-22's and other foibles, any other kind of governmental oversight concepts/mechanisms are either implicitly Unconstitutional or too potentially dangerous to functional free speech -even if Constitutional.
AT MINIMUM, then: reversal of present, gov-regulated ownership centralization allowances can and should be immediately promulgated in favor of maximized ownership diversification.
This will help ease the problem of mega corp-dominated NEWS reporting; and any progressive US president could easily institute it, simply by firing most of the present FCC and associated fed regulators and replacing them with fair-minded people who understand the news media's vitalness to democracy. Present centralization of printed newsmedia ownership can be similarly reversed via ICC-associated fed regulatory powers.
Meanwhile, a US president can and should also make a major public issue of the need to keep Internet content COMPLETELY UNREGULATED by gov, while fostering regs to prevent further ownership centralization of ISP companies and services.
NEXT: Citizens should support those public-interest media watchdog groups which are currenly tyring to set up a highly-visible, publicly-chartered, National Code of Journalism Ethics and Review Board, jointly determined and administered by media owners and citizens alike.
This, too, is fraught with foibles and Catch-22's and, in any case, it would not and should not have any official 'police powers.' But it could in the end bring some formal public review and consumer accountability to a journalistic process that is now a kind of cultivated anarchy which favors no mechanisms of public accountability whatsoever.
There's much more that can be done to make private news media more accountable to the needs of democracy with sufficient citizen will and courageous presidental/congressional leadership - but more on that in following posts.
Journalists in this country could very well stand up for truth, if they would only be willing to lose it all to gain their self-respect. It's easy, just scale back on your lifestyle, and I mean really back, to where your own family will be thinking that something is terribly wrong. Then, brace yourself for the most rewarding life you could ever dream of. What have you got to lose, only material possessions. What have we all got to gain with you doing this? Lives saved.
Reminded of Al Franken's discussion with Sean Hannity where Hannity made fun of Franken for having a small number of outlets for his radio show while he had 460 or something. Like a kid on a schoolyard. He smirked his way away and you could see that with 460 stations carrying his drivel that drivel would obviously become the order of the day. Well, drivel has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and filled Hannity's pockets with gold. What a shameful man.
Note of correction for ABC: If I'm not mistaken, Sean Penn's father's name is Arthur Penn, not Leo.
The media was asking tough questions?
Bullshit.
Not one of the msm, outlets, had the balls to even bring up PNAC, for discussion.
Anyone remember the whitehouse press Q and A's with Bush? They all looked like goddamn scared shitless deer, caught in the headlights, and threw him nothing but softballs. What a joke!
Give me a break!
A good conterpoint to the work of the actor Tom Hanks and "his people."
At Nuremberg, media and propaganda officials who'd participated in the Nazi propaganda campaigns were tried as war criminals.
A quick Google search turned up this ... http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/apr2003/nure-a16.shtml
Maybe someday we'll see the same in this country. There's no doubt that some in the media have a lot of blood on their hands for what they've done in creating and supporting the Iraq war.
----------
Make no mistake about the corporate media. They work doing what their bosses tell them to do. Like anyone in any organization. And the bosses are of course interested in the corporation making money.
I see people on the left who haven't gotten this who always seem to think that the coverage is just a mistake and if we point it out with phone calls and letters to the editor, it will be corrected. But that's fundamentally wrong. Because the coverage is not a mistake. The coverage is designed to increase the profits of the corporation.
In some cases this is obvious. For instance, General Electric, one of the world's largest 'defense contractors' (aka arms merchant or merchant of death) is the owner of NBC, which means they control NBC, CNBC, MSNBC. And of course those stations support the war, which in turn of course creates more direct profits for the 'merchant of death' divisions of the corporation.
Or, for the news organizations, war means more viewers which means higher ratings which means more advertiser revenue. When we are launching "Shock and Awe" against Baghdad, more people tune in to CNN or Faux to watch. That's a direct Cha-Ching into their corporate revenue.
Sometimes its more subtle. For instance, any media outlet gets its revenue from its advertisers. So, does Boeing, Lockheed Martin, GE, etc advertise in their media. If yes, then they'll be careful with their 'news' coverage so as not to offend.
Or sometimes is just supporting a politician who they think will otherwise be friendly\useful to the corporation. When the politicians are using the FCC to relax anti-monopoly rules, or using the WTO talks to force other nations to allow American media into their countries, then the corporation will be willing to support that politicians war in order to gain benefits elsewhere.
But one thing you can be assured of. The corporations are acting to amass as much power and money to themselves as possible.
Say thanks to the Clintons and the Democrats by the way. The first wave of relaxing the anti-monopoly rules that led to todays concentrated, monopoly media was their work. Their "Telecom Act" of 1996 was step in this direction. And I'm sure they were well compensated with bribes, uh contributions for their efforts. Is it any surprise that in this year Rupert Murdoch (of Faux news fame) is helping Hillary raise money?
Sean Penn is super cool.
The quick rule to learn about corporate media is .... THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE.
Take nothing they say at face value. Be aware that anything they promote is for their interests. They promoted this war for their bottom lines. We are paying the costs of a $3 trillion war and 4000 casulties.
If they support a candidate, we should immediately know that candidate to be our enemy. If they give favorable publicity to a candidate, we should immediately be sceptical as to why. The candidates that are on our side will either not be covered on the corporate media, or they will be ridiculed, scorned and attacked.
Learn to spot this. Look for the candidates they don't cover. When you see the corporate media attacking someone, learn that this is someone you need to go check out and listen to.
To get our country back, we need so many people doing this that favorable coverage on corporate media should be the kiss of death to any campaign.
"That line says it all. Journalism is a business and war sells, big time. Who wants to read about another sunny and peaceful day?"
----------------
The key is, it didn't use to be. TV Networks used to regard 'news' as a public service. There used to be 'walls' between the business operations of a media outlet and the new operations of a media outlet. The people on the 'news' side were free to report and comment as they saw fit without worrying about the business implications.
This was all destroyed back in the 80's and 90's during all the corporate acquisitions of media firms.
The above is what gave us journalists like Cronkite or Murrow. The above is how it must work in a democracy where an informed citizenry is a requirement.
I didn't get too far into this article to see proof of Penn's assertion that "...the mainstream media have been cheerleaders for a war that has cost the nation — according to Department of Defense figures this week — 3,980 lives."
This war has cost a lot more lives IF YOU COUNT THE IRAQIS. The failure to realize the consequences of the invasion is a huge loss of life. Obviously backers of the occupation would like to minimize that figure.
Last time I checked, the Iraqi women and children who've been killed were no less human and no less dead than our own people, unless of course racism is a part of the imperialistic plan justifying endless colonial occupation, which would make those lives count less than those of the occupiers.
For the media to write as if the decision to invade and occupy Iraqi indefinitely has cost 3980 lives is the same pattern of media complicity that failed to challenge the assumptions on which the war were based. Instead of letting the WMD lies slide and the notion of a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq to fester, this very same media now neglects to ignore the many thousands of people lost in part due to their complicity in the war.
An independent media is a cornerstone of democracy. With so much media consolidated and controlled by corporations--many of which like GE's NBC profit directly from war spending--the antiwar perspective has been and is continuing to be repressed.
Having failed the American people, I hope more people continue to stream to alternative news sources to get the facts. Mainstream media can't be trusted now as it should never have been before the war. Complicity between the Bush administration's White House Iraq group and their marketing of the war and the Corporate Media must be investigated. Judith Miller and the Plame outing are two examples of how the media has served the political aims of the Bush junta, presumably in exchange for access.
JBPeebles: Complicity between the Bush administration's White House Iraq group and their marketing of the war and the Corporate Media must be investigated. Judith Miller and the Plame outing are two examples of how the media has served the political aims of the Bush junta, presumably in exchange for access."
But who will do the investigating? The Plutocracy owns and controls the congress, the media, and the Military-Industrial-Telecommunications Complex and its subparts.
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, L. Brent Bozell III runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures.
What else can be said after the above 2 lines?
God Bless you Sean Penn, true patriot of the 1776 brand.
The 1st amendment is alive, but not well.
The corporate media serves its own greedy inerests,not the American people.
We must all do what we can to throw the bums in jail.
Thank you Sean
Yes, the big myth of the liberal media still burns strong in many peoples minds. What I say to them is would truly liberal media be constantly blowing the whistle on it self? If the media was actually liberal wouldn't they be pushing the myth the other way and we would constantly be hearing about the "right wing media dominance" from the MSM (corporate media)?
In fascist Germany you constantly heard about the "Jewish conspiracy" to subvert this, to take over that; that they were corrupting the very soul of the nation and world. The Fascists where using the Jews as scapegoats accusing them by projecting their own dark impulses on the ever more disenfranchised Jew. A diversionary tactic Karl Rove would eventually embrace like a new bride.
Penn is a Patriot. Apparently the Media Research Center blather was put in the article to give it "balance". The kind of balance that comes from a media entity (ABC) that has and continues to work with the CIA Psyops division.
I do have to ask CD's if there was not a better source?
Sean Penn is the man! Thank you Sean for being steadfast against these neocons and their filthy war. You make my heart sing.
What US media? You mean US government propaganda organ?
What US citizen? You mean brain dead sheeple?
What US politicians? You mean war criminals?
Read "Internal Combustion, How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the Alternatives" by Edwin Black.
citizen 1
agree with your descriptions.
the worst being so many brain dead citizen sheeple.
but you gotta try to start reform somewhere, notwithstanding all the millions of dead brains...
My TV just about stays on a "news" channel and I haven't heard a reporter ask a hard question of Bush or Cheney in the past seven years. They let them get away with lie after lie and never question or disagree, even when the facts are
right at their fingertips. You can get more facts from "The
Daily Show" with Jon Stewart than on CNN, and his show is
comedy. At least when George makes a statement that is totally BS, Jon will show a clip that proves it's BS. Our government sucks big time and the "media" just helps them
by regurgitating their drivel.
It's the little people fighting everyday in the trenches that count. Famous movie stars look and sound good but that's about it.
Sean is correct. Nixon took the US off the gold standard by getting rid of Bretton Woods. In doing so, Nixon enabled the private central bankers print money at the NON 'federal reserve' without anything backing the money but a promise.
Nixon did this to accelerate the vietnam war.
The Left needs a new poster/bumper sticker to appropriate the favorite phrase of those who worship 9/11 as a cause for righteous war---"Iraqistan: WE TOO will never forget!" Haven't had an adequate one since "Kill Your Television" for provoking weird looks and second thoughts. When people saw that one their faces looked as if they had read "Kill God." I especially want the media to know that I will never again even fathom how they still have jobs, let alone credit their "credibility and reform"....
"...alleges U.S. presidents since Kennedy have manipulated the public to wage wars."
Never mind that Roosevelt intentionally provoked the Japanese and then permitted them to attack Pearl Harbor by not alerting his commanders of an attack which he was fully aware was coming.
Speaking of the press and JFK: The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in
missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor
leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a
monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means
for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion,
on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice,
on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has
conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a
tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is
questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the
Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope
or wish to match.
"In one of the most compelling scenes of the film, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., speaks out against impending war in Afghanistan in never-seen footage three days after 9/11. She cast the lone vote in Congress against authorizing force in the emotional aftermath of the terrorist attacks."
Never-seen? It's in Mike Ruppert's video on 9/11.
WaPost EDITOR SHOWS WITH NEW DOCS CIA INVOLVEMENT IN JFK ASSASSINATION AT HIGHEST LEVEL.
(Sorry, I am tired of the Left being Gatekept away from the stories that could actually get large numbers of people intereste even though they might not listen to tweedy university sociologists. Dont think this is a left gatekeeping strategy? See The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts an Letters, by Francis Stonor Saunders. Also see The Mighty Wurlittzer: How the CIA Played America.
Laftgatekeeping has a well documented history. It creates dichotomies between structural analysis and something that is called conspiracy theory to create a cowcatcher, baby and bathwater psychological effect.)
Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the
CIA
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Man-Mexico-Winston-…
ALSO THE AUTHOR IS FIELDING QUESTIONS ON THE BOOK AT EDUCATION FORUM
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php…
DAVID KAISER, AUTHOR OF THE ROAD TO DALLAS JUST PUBLISHED BY HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, WHICH ALSO ARGUES THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY IS ALSO GOING TO BE FIELDING QUESTIONS AT EDUCATION FORUM
——-
A critical question makes the Kennedy Assassination perhaps more relevant to today than ever:to what extent is the nominal leader, the President, really in control of the permanent military, political, and communications bureacracies that shape his options? In 1961, when Kennedy became president, key components of this permannent bureacracy were thirteen years old. As a parent with a teenager there were moments of tension when one can wonder who or what called the shots. This was uniquely the case in 1960, as for eight years– the truly formative ones in the developement of the entire post-war US society– the CIA had been given extreme lattitude. Kennedy's relations with the permanet political and military bureacracy can serve as basis of comparison for how matters of war and peace are decided today, when blame-game controversies sometimes seem mere PR strategies for plausible denial 10.0
Jefferson Morleys book leaves little doubt that no matter what our betters tell us, the CIA was to a very significant degree doing its own things in 1963. The reason this emerges far more clearly than in other books, is that Morley's never allows the ocean of detail to alter his camera agle. It is not a totalizing focus like some other books that mistake thickness for ambition. Rather, it sticks to the Mexico City CIA station, its chief Winston Scott, and his close World War Two friend and possibly his own privatest Idohaon– the only one weirder than fellow poet and contemporary Ezra Pound– James Jesus Angleton.
Morley is carefull. When your asking about unauthorized actions of the CIA people who normally talk freely in the New Yorker have a way of clamming up. It is hard to find sources in the middle ground, for example on the question of who knew what when about the Bay of Pigs. Far easier to treat this grey area as the blacktop of the Langley 500, the way Tim Weiner does in his childishly simplified and baldly propagandistic narration of Kennedy relations with the CIA.
How does he get insiders to talk for a book that is lethal to the government sanctioned version of the assassination? By not oversating things. By mentioning enough right wing cubans without so many as to lose sense of thier handlers. By clearly delineating who was in charge of what CIA operation, and who didn't know about them as well. We can see the critical wires cross, and are not confused in a whirl of unessential relations. We can see the extra piece– George Joannides– being added like one too many bones in an ankle and the clarity with which one could mistake treason for the logical coorination of a counterintelligence
operation. Individuals are not blamed here, but the flow chart that teaches how the Cubans were "turned" is clear for the first time. At least for me, but I'm gradual.
Also Morley tells the story from the persepctive of Win Scotts family. This "works" in many ways. It might just be the footwear necessary for treading accross one the most contested and and important middle grounds — between president and permanent bureacracy– in twentieth and 21st Century history. cont. at
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Man-Mexico-Winston-…
"My TV just about stays on a "news" channel and I haven't heard a reporter ask a hard question of Bush or Cheney in the past seven years."
Holy smokes , with a remark like that the news channel and its advertisers are laughing at you . As long as you are watching , they are making money and telling lies . You and 50 millions of Americans who think like you , TURN THE DAMN THING OFF. Then again , my choice of the word "think" may have been overly-optimistic.
Sean Penn is a fine actor (saw him in "Dead Man Walking") and a fine human being. I'm going to get his other movies.
Thank you, Sean, for your bravery and hands-on work. God bless you and protect you. I'm praying for you.
Sorry, I am tired of the Left being Gatekept away from the stories that could actually get large numbers of people intereste even though they might not listen to tweedy university sociologists. Dont think this is a left gatekeeping strategy? See The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts an Letters, by Francis Stonor Saunders. Also see The Mighty Wurlittzer: How the CIA Played America.
Laftgatekeeping has a well documented history. It creates dichotomies between structural analysis and something that is called conspiracy theory to create a cowcatcher, baby and bathwater psychological effect.
Anybody seen Tim Ossman lately?