Paul Craig Roberts plaatste gisteren een bericht op Information Clearing House aangaande de censuur die langzaam maar zeker op het internet wordt ingevoerd.
Roberts plaatste op 7 oktober jl. een bericht over de terreuraanslag in Las Vegas, waarbij hij vraagtekens plaatste bij de versie van het gebeurde, zoals deze door de VS overheid werd opgelepeld. Een video die zijn ‘vraagtekens’ verduidelijkte, werd door YouTube van het internet gehaald…….. In deze video waren blijkbaar acteurs te zien, die gewonden zonder zichtbare verwondingen in het ziekenhuis afleverden…..
Voorts schrijft Roberts over de goede banden tussen de reguliere media en de CIA, zoals die met de Washington Post (WaPo). Hij noemt een aantal andere voorbeelden, waarin de reguliere media glashard hebben gelogen (leugens die veelal nog steeds worden aangehaald door die media)….. Ook Udo Uilfoffe en zijn boek ‘Purchased Journalism’ (Nederlandse titel: ‘Gekochte Journalisten’) brengt Roberts onder de aandacht, dit boek werd in noodtempo van de markt gehaald en ook dat heeft alles met censuur te maken……
De laatste censuur is in het belang van de reguliere (massa-) media, die niet wensen dat u weet dat ze zich laten gebruiken door de CIA en wat de waarheid over veel zaken is…… Het schijnt nu al zo zot te zijn, dat het grootste deel van de VS bevolking er geen moeite mee heeft dat ze worden voorgelogen door deze massamedia………. Alsof de VS is veranderd in een staat als nazi-Duitsland……. Daarover gesproken: nazi-Duitsland afficheerde zich als het Derde Rijk, het is intussen meer dan duidelijk dat de VS het Vierde Rijk is………
Hier het bericht van Roberts, daaronder kan u klikken voor een vertaling:
Hard
Censorship Hits the Internet
US
Media Credibility Collapses
By
Paul Craig Roberts
October
08, 2017 “Information
Clearing House” – According to
this report,
YouTube has shut down all independent media coverage of the Las Vegas
shooting in a desperate maneuver to protect the official narrative.
I
cannot attest to the truth of this report. However, it has been
brought to my attention that the video made from inside the hospital,
which Iprovided
in a link in my article, of
what appears to be crisis actors carrying pretend wounded into the
hospital has been taken down by YouTube. Clearly, if there are real
wounded carried to the hospital, why at the same time have crisis
actors acting the part? It seems obvious to me that the video was
taken down, because those being carried are clearly not wounded and
are not being handled in a professional way.
I
am aware of books by former insiders that describe the CIA’s
alliance with members of the media. When I was a member of the
congressional staff, I was warned of the Washington Post’s
collaboration with the CIA. And we have the case of Udo
Ulfkotte,
whose book, “Purchased Journalism,” was a best seller in Germany,
but the English translation was yanked from the market. Ulfkotte, an
editor with one of Germany’s main newspapers, wrote that he and
most European journalists post articles handed to them by the CIA.
The
way that the One Percent rules is by controlling the explanations.
They do that through official statements endlessly parroted by the
presstitutes who have sold their souls.
Remember,
the presstitutes sold to the public the false story of “Saddam
Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction,” the false story of
“Assad’s use of chemical weapons,” the false story of “Iranian
nukes,” the false stories about Gaddafi, about “Russian invasion
of Ukraine,” about Afghanistan, and on and on. When the
presstitutes are willing to lie at the expense of the destruction of
millions of peoples, the infrastructures of the countries, and
millions of refugees inflicted upon Europe, how can we believe the
presstitutes about Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc., especially when
contradictions in the official stories are never cleared up and in
place of hard evidence we are given only assertions and photoshopped
photos?
Senator
Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said two
days ago that the committee’s investigation of Russiagate uncovered
“quite a few” news outlets that ran stories that were not factual
about Russiagate. He
said “we
will use the findings of our report to let the American people hold
every news organization accountable for what they portrayed as fact.”
Government
in the United States and the media whores that service government
agendas have an immense credibility problem. We cannot rely on the
veracity of any government or media statement. Like the boy who cried
“wolf,” Washington and the presstitutes have made it impossible
to know when they are telling the truth.
Whitney Webb publiceerde op 25 augustus jl. een artikel op MintPress News, een bericht over het nieuwe censuur beleid van Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft en Twitter.
Webb geeft in het artikel de alternatieven waarmee je de censoren en geheime onderzoekers (geheime diensten) van de overheid en het bedrijfsleven kan omzeilen, zo kan u uw eigen ‘Virtual Private Network’ (VPN) opzetten, waarmee u zelfs uw IP-adres geheim kan houden.
Google heeft de laatste maanden diverse onafhankelijke mediaorganen geblokkeerd, die niet het algemene westerse politieke (neoliberale) beleid volgen en zich verzetten tegen de enorme berg leugens in de reguliere westerse massamedia……… Google en anderen doen dit in de strijd tegen ‘fake news’, waarbij men voor het gemak even vergeet dat vooral diezelfde massamedia verantwoordelijk zijn voor het brengen van nepnieuws, ofwel ‘fake news……….’ Anders gezegd: Google verzet zich tegen ‘fake news’, door juist de alternatieve media te blokkeren, die ditzelfde ‘fake news’ dag in dag uit aan de paal nagelen!!
‘Fake news’ (of nepnieuws zo je wilt) in de westerse massamedia >> neem de berichtgeving voor en tijdens de illegale oorlogen tegen: Afghanistan, Irak, Libie en nu weer Syrië…….. Om over het tot voor kort lange zwijgen door die media over de oorlog tegen Jemen nog maar te zwijgen… (wat ik nu dus niet doe..) De smerige oorlog en genocide die de reli-fascistische dictatuur van Saoedi-Arabië tegen de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen voert/uitvoert, dit met behulp van een arabische coalitie, aangevuld met de hulp van de VS en Groot-Brittannië……. (en met de stilzwijgende goedkeuring die de meerderheid van westerse politici, als de mislukte PvdA sierkwast Koenders, aan deze oorlog en genocide geven….. Die goedkeuring geven ze door te zwijgen!)
Of wat dacht je van de totaal foute en valse berichtgeving in de westerse massamedia t.a.v. de fascistische apartheidsstaat Israël……
Hier het bewuste artikel van Webb dat ik overnam van Anti-Media, doe er je voordeel mee!
Your
Guide to Avoiding Internet Censorship of Independent News Journalism
There
are lots of good strategies for beating both corporate and government
Internet censors and snoops. These range from alternatives to Google,
Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter — to direct subscriptions to
authors and pubs — to setting up your own VPN. All are worth the
effort.
(MPN) — While Google’s
Information Age dominancehas
long been recognized to have some unsavory consequences, the massive
technology corporation has, in recent months, taken to directly
censoring content and traffic to a variety of independent media
outlets across the political spectrum — essentially muting the
voices of any site or author who does not toe the establishment line.
This
new offensive has coincided with Google efforts to clamp down on
“fake news” and “extremist” content, which – on its
subsidiary, YouTube – led to the
categorical blocking of
videos portraying war crimes and other disturbing events of the
Syrian conflict and Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Other
independent media figures, such as Luke
Rudowski and Carey Wedler,
on the popular video streaming service, saw many
of their videos demonetized.
Though
the crackdown on YouTube was more obvious, the Google search engine –
the most popular in the world – is now burying or blocking
independent media sites from its search results.
Conservatives have
long claimed that
Google was selectively targeting their content due to the personal
political bias of the company’s executives — but now, since
Google announced its new guidelines, numerous progressive,
transparency, and anti-war websites that act as watchdogs to the
establishment have seen their traffic diminish substantially.
Counterpunch,
World Socialist Website, MintPress News, Democracy Now, American
Civil Liberties Union and Wikileaks are just
a handful of
the sites that have seen massive drops in their returns from Google
searches. The World Socialist Website alone experienced a 67 percent
decrease in returns from Google following the implementation of
Google’s new algorithm targeting so-called “fake news.”
MintPress News, however, has suffered the steepest decline, having
seen a 76 percent decrease in traffic from Google since the new
algorithm was put into effect.
Google
has its reasons for choosing to censor viewpoints that clash with or
even raise questions about the official narrative. Google shares deep
connections with the U.S.’ political powerbrokers, notably with the
CIA, which originally
helped fund Google
into existence with the intention of controlling the flow of
information.
Understandably
— in light of its deep connections to those who stand the most to
lose from the actual free flow of information — Google has emerged
as a leader of the “fight” against so-called “fake news.” The
concept of “fake news” took on sudden weight following last
November’s U.S. presidential election: in the tweets and rants of
newly-elected President Donald Trump, media predictions of a Clinton
victory were ridiculed as “FAKE NEWS,” while Clinton supporters
also wound up blaming “fake news” for Clinton’s loss in the
election.
In
short order, the term became a term of derision and dismissal applied
to any and all disagreeable reporting. With the “fake news” net
cast so wide, the ground was fertile for a campaign against the
official story-challenging work of independent media — dependent
for its reach, to a far greater extent than its mainstream media
counterparts, upon the good graces of monster Internet traffic cops
such as Google.
The
following guide offers a variety of solutions and options for those
concerned with Google’s overreach and its decision to become the
Internet’s unelected “Ministry of Truth.”
Dumping
Google Search
Dominating over
80% of
global searches made on the Internet, Google’s chokehold on the
flow of information is undeniable. Now that its algorithm has been
shown to target news sites critical of the establishment on both
sides of the aisle, finding an alternative becomes an essential task
irrespective of one’s political leaning.
However,
don’t expect other brand name search engines like Microsoft’s
Bing or Yahoo to come to the rescue, as these too have
been caught censoring
search results in the past. Microsoft, in particular, is very
untrustworthy, given its eager
participation in
the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program — where it illegally shared
the Internet user data, including search queries, of U.S. citizens
without their knowledge.
Given
its willingness to cooperate with the government against the interest
of American citizens, Microsoft would be perhaps more willing even
than Google to censor access to so-called “fake news.”
Yahoo
is little better, as it too was an early adopter of the PRISM
surveillance program, second only to Microsoft. Like Microsoft,
they willingly
cooperate with
government censorship efforts – as well as the outing
of dissidents –
in other countries.
Thankfully,
as far as search engines go, there are other options available that
not only respect your privacy but also offer fairer searches,
including some features that even Google doesn’t offer.
DuckDuckGo
Of
all the viable Google alternatives, DuckDuckGo is
the most well-known, having been promoted by PCMag.com, the Guardian,
and The New York Times as a “long-term” threat to Google’s
search dominance. It was even one of the top 50 sites of 2011,
according to Time magazine.
However,
the “mainstream” accolades are, in this case, well-deserved.
DuckDuckGo is best known for its motto “the
search engine that doesn’t track you,” complete with Tor
browser functionality. While
this is a clear boon for privacy enthusiasts – or anyone concerned
about illegal NSA spying – it also results in search results that
are not filtered based on your search history. In other words, users
are more likely to be presented with search results that challenge
their existing ideas.
DuckDuckGo
also boasts an
impressive search algorithm that
excludes Google results but includes results from other well-known
search engines, mixed with the data obtained by DuckDuckGo’s
own web
crawler bot.
The results are filtered for spam and re-ordered using its trademark
“Instant Answers” platform, which places high-quality answers
above other results and advertisements. The “Instant Answers”
platform gathers answers provided by top popular websites, like
Wikipedia, in addition to community-built answers.
For
those tech-savvy users who don’t trust the spam filtering or even
the “Instant Answer” platform, these functions — as well as
DuckDuckGo itself — is open-source and also offers DuckDuckHack,
where users can create their own plug-ins for use in DuckDuckGo and
even help improve the search engine overall.
For
less savvy tech users, DuckDuckGo conveniently functions like any
other search engine, in addition to providing several features even
Google doesn’t offer. It
also has a search app for both iPhone and Android, as well as
plug-ins for Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, and offers support in
several languages.
Ixquick/StartPage
Ixquick is
an American/Dutch meta-search engine, meaning itsimultaneously
searches multiple
databases and other search engines,
including Google, across the Internet. It uses a “star system” to
rank search results, placing a star next to each result for every
search engine that ranks that result as one of its 10 best for a
given search. A five-star result, for example, means that five search
engines considered that result to be among the 10 most relevant.
Ixquick
— which has now merged with its subsidiary, StartPage — also
tackles the issue of privacy by not storing user-specific details
such as cookies or past search results. Like DuckDuckGo, Ixquick
offers unfiltered search results generated by Google’s
“personalized” searches. Privacy enthusiasts may recognize
Ixquick as the default search engine for the Tor browser.
Ixquick
is supported in 17 languages and offers a plug-in for Mozilla
Firefox. They also offer a privacy-minded, encrypted email server
called StartMail.
Gibiru
Gibiru,
like the aforementioned search engines, prides itself on offering
maximum privacy. It avoids tracking its users by providing anonymous
and encrypted searches. It describes itself as “the preferred
Search Engine for Patriots” and offers non-personalized, anonymous
web results while emphasizing the disdain of its developers for the
NSA. Part of what sets Gibiru apart is its claim to offer
“uncensored” searches, as their web crawlers intentionally
include pages that Google has blocked or buried in its search
results.
Gibiru
also has a unique feature called “Uncensored News.” In addition
to aggregating results from other search engines, Gibiru adds its own
algorithm that specifically looks for results from independent media
outlets, particularly those that tend to “promote ‘alternative’
views from the mainstream.”
Recognizing
that mainstream media results are picked up by Google and Bing,
Gibiru does not use its bandwidth searching through these results.
Even up-and-coming independent media sites can gain inclusion in
Uncensored News results by communicating with the Gibiru team.
Gibiru
offers both a toolbar and a plugin for Mozilla Firefox.
Subscribe
directly to your favorite pages
Though
the above search engines can assist in more accurate and less
censored internet searches, the best way to get news you trust is
directly from the source. Anyone who reads independent media
eventually develops preferences for certain sites and authors whose
content they consistently find reliable and interesting.
If
you are concerned with Google’s clampdown on independent media, the
most surefire way to ensure your access to the sites you enjoy is by
subscribing directly to them via email. Most independent media pages
offer you the option to subscribe to their mailing lists, where you
receive their top stories on a daily basis. Some pages charge for
subscriptions, but most – such as MintPress
News’ Daily Digest –
are free and allow you to unsubscribe at any time. Some websites,
including MintPress, also
offer apps for
Android or iPhone, which allow users direct and convenient access to
the content of those pages.
If
you are concerned that all of the newsletters and stories of the
pages you want to follow will clutter your email, there are several
good options. Some mail servers allow you to label certain types of
incoming mail, and creating a specific label for “news” can
streamline the process of following all of your favorite pages in one
place. Alternatively, you can create an email account dedicated to
news in order to keep it separate from email accounts more focused on
work or socializing.
In
some cases, however, your favorite writers may not regularly publish
in the same place, making their work difficult to follow via email
subscription. Many authors have either their own web pages dedicated
to their work or publish on websites such as Medium —
a site offering both free and premium membership options, that hosts
the writings of many big names in independent news from across the
political spectrum.
Signing
up for Medium allows you to follow any writer you like, even
mainstream ones – a boon, for instance, if you like a certain
writer at, say, The Wall Street Journal but don’t trust the paper
as a whole. Certain popular writers in independent media — such
Nafeez Ahmed’s Insurge
Intelligence —
even publish some of their biggest stories exclusively on Medium.
Dump
social media for news
Facebook’s moderation system, which combines an automated flagging system with limited human oversight, has consistently drawn criticism, once banning a satirical account which criticized U.S. military spending.(AP/Czarek Sokolowski)
Though
some may value their Facebook account for keeping in touch with
friends and family, the social media giant is quickly becoming
unreliable for receiving news content posted by your friends as well
as the people or pages you follow. Facebook and Twitter have each
been caught censoring on several occasions and both now openly patrol
for “fake news” and “hate speech” — burying stories that
users would otherwise see, based on the recommendations of Facebook
or Twitter-approved flaggers. Many of these flaggers have been found
to publish “fake news” themselves or have a strong bias against
particular viewpoints, particularly those critical of conservative
politics.
Just
as with Google, Facebook and Twitter users can no longer be sure that
their newsfeeds contain the news they want to read, just as content
creators and publishers can no longer expect the same scope and reach
they once enjoyed on social media.
Unfortunately,
the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter are few and lack the large
user communities that make a social network successful. However,
there are two notable sites that are attempting to change that.
One
of those sites is Steemit. Steemit is
a social media platform that runs a blogging and social network
website built on top of a blockchain database. Steemit now boasts a
decently sized community, though it hardly compares to Facebook in
terms of daily users. Part of its success has been due to the site’s
commitment to paying users for creating and curating popular content
on the site.
Per the site’s system, users receive digital points (“Steem”)
depending on the success of their posts, which they can exchange for
more tangible rewards or payment via online exchanges. With $1 of
Steem now
worth just
over $4 USD, some people have found using Steemit to be both socially
and economically beneficial.
Another
potential Facebook competitor is Minds —
anopen
source, encrypted, and community-owned social network site that
values free speech and
doesn’t bow to government or advertiser pressure. It hosts
individual user profiles and blogs and creates an unfiltered
newsfeed for its users.
Members
can even be paid for posting their content if it garners a
significant number of views and upvotes. Although at present the
Minds community is tiny compared to that of Facebook, it may in years
to come become a more popular alternative, as Facebook continues to
disappoint.
Avoiding
outright censorship if and when It happens
While
censorship has long
been a reality in
countries like China, Western governments like to tout themselves as
being the guardians of freedom and the free flow of information. But
many of these governments, particularly the United States, have come
to realize in recent years that they are on
the losing side of
the “information war,” as trust in the corporate-owned media and
the government itself has sunk to historic lows.
Though
Western governments have, so far, outsourced censorship to technology
companies like Google and Facebook, there is little reason to believe
that these governments will refrain from demanding the outright
censorship of information that doesn’t toe the official line.
Take,
for example, the recent rhetoric of U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May
who, in the wake of the Manchester bombing, has pushed for censoring
“extremist propaganda” online. May’s assertion concerned
internet watchdog groups,
who likened her proposals to China’s widespread censorship of the
Internet.
If
official government censorship comes to your country – or if you
suspect that it is already there – the easiest workaround is
setting up a virtual private network, or VPN. A VPN allows you to use
your computer as though it were connected to a network other than the
one you actually use. In the event of government censorship in your
country, a VPN allows you to virtually connect to a network set up in
another country where such censorship is not in effect. Using a VPN
has the added bonus of greater Internet privacy — as effective VPN
protocols encrypt your traffic, helping to protect you from
government surveillance as well as censorship.
VPNs
are provided by VPN service providers, not all of whom are created
equal. VPN providers with good reputations include Strong VPN,
SurfEasy, and TunnelBear. Of these, TunnelBear is the least
expensive – offering a free service – and SurfEasy the most
expensive at $11.99 per month. However, the Opera browser now
includes SurfEasy’s VPN services for free. A comprehensive guide on
how to choose the best VPN service provider for your needs can be
found here.
Gevonden op blog Stan van Houcke, die het op zijn beurt van ‘rebelvoice.blog’ haalde. In de film ‘Life of Brian’ werd een belangrijke scene geschrapt, waarin de draak wordt gestoken met de zionisten en deze worden vergeleken met nazi’s.
Het team van Monty Python was haar tijd ver vooruit, immers in de 70er jaren was er maar een relatief kleine groep die het Israëlische bewind als fascistisch zagen. Tegenwoordig tonen de zionisten zich meer dan overduidelijk als fascisten en in Israël hebben de zionisten zelfs een apartheidsregime geïnstalleerd, waarbij de uiterst gewelddadige omgang met Palestijnen ‘niets meer te wensen overlaat………’
For
all fans of Monty
Python,
this is a special treat. Anyone who has watched The
LifeOf
Brian will
remember the crack
suicide squad who
appeared at the end of the movie when Brian was on the cross. They
promptly killed themselves for no apparent reason other than they
were a suicide squad and wanted to prove it.
At
the time, I thought that their appearance was just one more strange
quirk to be expected of the Python team. I was wrong. The following
clip provides context for the suicide squad and their actions.
This
clip was edited from the final cut. The reasons have become fairly
clear.
The Monty Python team
made a strong statement about religion and fanaticism in The
Life Of Brian.
It is regarded as not only one of the funniest movies of all time,
but also one of the cleverest. The crack suicide squad were, in
fact, Zionist
supremacists.
They are depicted as such in the following clip. They are also
compared to Nazis, a comparison that many across the globe readily
and accurately make today with regard to the rogue state of Israel.
The Python team were well ahead of their time in not only their
comedic genius, but also in their assessment of geopolitical affairs
in the Middle East. The message from the comedic team, therefore, is
clear to even the most reluctant supporter of Palestine. Zionism can
be equated with Naziism, in the 1970’s (when the movie was made)
just as it can be today.
What
is of interest though, is that while The
Life Of Brian does
poke fun at Christianity in a light-hearted manner, and although it
also casts a critical and comedic eye upon our perception of society
at that time, it does not cast serious aspersions upon Zionism in the
way that would appear to have been first intended, as evidenced by
the content of this short passage of film.
The
question could be asked, just what pressures were brought to bear
upon the Python team
and their backers to coerce or force them into editing content,
openly critical of Zionism, that provided necessary context for a
later scene?
please
share widely
Hier nog meer scenes die uit The Life of Brian werden geschrapt:
De medewerkers van de Washington Post is het verboden om op wat voor manier dan ook kritiek te uiten op de adverteerders van deze krant…….. Kortom de krant de ooit faam verkreeg door het onderzoek naar de Watergateschandaal is in handen en onder redactie van de grote bedrijven…….
Niet alleen dat, ook de CIA mag niet langer bekritiseerd worden, daar de eigenaar van de Post, topgraai miljardair Jeff Bezos zaken doet met de CIA……… Vandaar ook dat de WaPo vorig jaar de berechting van Edward Snowden bepleitte, terwijl het eerder NB zelf uit WikiLeaks had gepubliceerd…..
Lees dit ontluisterende relaas en u zult gegarandeerd nog beter begrijpen, waarom het fout is, dat mediaorganen in handen zijn van grote investeerders en supergraaiers. In Nederland is het overigens niet veel beter, vandaar ook dat je maar al te vaak ziet dat men kritiekloos uitermate foute standpunten van bijvoorbeeld de inhumane neoliberale regering Rutte als zaligmakend neerzet. Zelfcensuur in de reguliere westerse media is aan de orde van de dag en dat is niet voor niets……..
Het is nu zelfs al zo zot, dat de WaPo en de New York Times mogen beslissen van wat wel of niet als nepnieuws moet worden gezien…….
Washington
Post Staff Banned From Criticizing Corporate Advertisers
A
new policy at the Washington Post will punish its employees for using
social media to make critical statements about the paper’s
corporate advertisers. The policy was approved by Jeff Bezos, the
billionaire head of Amazon who purchased the newspaper in 2013.
(MPN) — The Washington
Post’s
journalistic decline over the past several years has been remarkable,
especially following the newspaper’s 2013
purchase by
Amazon founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos, the world’s second-richest
man after
Bill Gates.
In
the face of controversies concerning the use of anonymous
and often inaccurate sources
and the
publication of false news in
order to foment anti-Russia hysteria, the Post is
now set for another scandal thanks to a new Bezos-approved
company-wide policy that seeks to prevent employee criticism of the
newspaper’s corporate backers and advertisers.
The
policy, which took effect in May, now
prohibits Post employees from
using social media in such a way that “adversely affects The Post’s
customers, advertisers, subscribers, vendors, suppliers or partners.”
According to the policy, the paper’s management team reserves the
right to take disciplinary action against violators “up to and
including termination of employment.”
A
clause of the policy cited
by the Washingtonian also
encourages employees to rat out other employees for potentially
violating the policy: “If you have any reason to believe that an
employee may be in violation of The Post’s Social Media Policy […]
you should contact the Post’s Human Resources Department.”
The Post confirmed
the existence of the policy and its more controversial clauses and
provisions to the Washingtonian,
though the paper’s management later attempted to soothe the nerves
of rattled journalists by
assuring them that
“no one would get in trouble for such social media activity […]
But that’s the way the policy is written.”
While
the Post’s own journalists are sure to feel the
heat from this new policy, several of the newspaper’s corporate
advertisers and backers are likely relieved that critical content
targeting them or their products will now be absent from the social
media activity of the paper’s employees – and likely its
reporting as well.
This
new policy offers a simple loophole to corporations that wish to
avoid criticism from the Post, as becoming a sponsor
of the paper would quickly put an end to any unfavorable coverage.
Among
the Washington
Post’s advertisers
are corporate giants like GlaxoSmithKline, Bank
of America andKoch
Industries.
With the new policy, social media posts criticizing GlaxoSmithKline’s
habit of
making false and misleading claims about its products, inflating
prices and withholding crucial drug safety information from the
government will no longer be made by Post employees.
The
policy also suggests that criticisms of Bank of America, one of the
nation’s most
lawless banks and a
key player in
provoking the 2008 financial crisis, will go unvoiced, as well those
regarding the
toxic empire that
is Koch Industries, an
integral part of
the U.S. fracking industry.
Another Washington
Post sponsor, though unofficially, is the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency.
Four
months after purchasing the Post,
Jeff Bezos landed
a $600 million contract with
the CIA for Amazon Web Services, a web hosting service that now
serves the entire U.S. intelligence community.
Long
before this latest policy was put into effect, some had speculated
that the connections between the CIA and the Post were
already affecting its reporting. For example, last year,
the Post openly
called for the prosecution of
Snowden, despite having previously used the whistleblower’s leaks
for their Pulitzer Prize-winning report on illegal NSA spying.
The
CIA has
long called for
Snowden to be tried for treason within the United States for leaking
details of the NSA’s domestic spying program.
While
criticism of the CIA is not technically prohibited by the new policy,
former Post reporters
have suggested that making such criticisms could endanger one’s
career. As former Post writer
John Hanrahan told
Alternet in 2013:
With Post employees
severely limited in what they can post on social media and discuss in
their writing, this new policy will only continue to erode trust in
the mainstream media, especially in light of the benefits it may
bring to its corporate and government backers.
“Post
reporters and editors are aware that Bezos, as majority owner of
Amazon, has a financial stake in maintaining good relations with the
CIA — and this sends a clear message to even the hardest-nosed
journalist that making the CIA look bad might not be a good career
move.”
With Post employees
severely limited in what they can post on social media and discuss in
their writing, this new policy will only continue to erode trust in
the mainstream media, especially in light of the benefits it may
bring to its corporate and government backers.
Zie ook: ‘How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth‘ (een artikel op ICH, met ‘een mooie rol’ voor de afhankelijke Washington Post en New York Times. Onder dat artikel kan u klikken voor een vertaling)
Boris Johnson wil de media controleren, daar hij de pest heeft aan kritiek op zijn Tory Party, ofwel Conservatieve Partij. Dit NB na een enorme smerige campagne (in aanloop van de verkiezingen) tegen Labour leider Corbyn, door de reguliere Britse media (waaronder de roddelbladen)……..
Johnson heeft door dat de reguliere media nog amper gewicht in de schaal leggen en de Britten zich massaal op de alternatieve media hebben verlaten in aanloop van die verkiezingen…….. Dit heeft geleid tot een verkiezingsuitslag die rampzalig is verlopen voor de regering May, Labour het opvallend goed heeft gedaan. Dit ondanks de smerige campagne die tegen hem werd gevoerd door de roddelbladen (en de reguliere media in GB), zo werd hij uitgemaakt als steunpilaar voor terroristische groeperingen.
Reguliere media in de vorige zin tussen haakjes, daar men in dit artikel niet spreekt over de reguliere media die precies hetzelfde deden als de roddelbladen. In de laatste link in het artikel (die in rood), wordt zelfs een BBC redacteur genoemd, die stelt dat de tabloids (roddelbladen) hun krediet bij het publiek hebben verspeeld en daarmee hun bestaan te grabbel hebben gegooid…. Ongelofelijk dat iemand van de BBC het gore lef heeft om dat te zeggen! Er ging geen dag voorbij, of de BBC had wel commentaar op Corbyn, ofwel zweeg hem dood, terwijl hij het nieuws had moeten halen met uitspraken, peilingen of aanvallen op smerig beleid van de inhumane regering May. Als je de BBC moest geloven, was Corbyn totaal incompetent………
Gegarandeerd dat Johnson met zijn uitspraken niet alleen controle wil uitoefenen op de roddelbladen, maar ook doelt op de sociale media.. The Canary die gisteren onderstaand artikel plaatste, stelt dat dit Johnson niet zal lukken, echter dat is maar zeer de vraag, daar Johnson bepaald niet alleen staat in zijn roep om de (sociale) media ‘te controleren’ (lees: te censureren)….. Wat betreft de reguliere media (inclusief de BBC), die heeft Johnson allang in zijn zak……..
Hier het artikel van The Canary:
Boris
Johnson wants to control the media. But he’s in for a nasty
surprise
Boris
Johnson has been caught trying
to exercise control of the media. But unfortunately for him, the
media landscape has changed significantly, and he doesn’t stand a
chance.
A
leaked WhatsApp message from Johnson to MPs stated that:
The
dramatic results of the general election and the ensuing hung
parliament have caught many
media pundits by surprise. But unsurprisingly, given that Theresa
May’s government now hangs by a thin thread – supported by
a confidence and supply agreement with the DUP that doesn’t appear
to have been finalised, the media are asking questions.
Central
to these questions are whether May has the mandate or the ability to
form a workable government. And given her utter failure to deliver
her stated aim of a “strong and stable” government, questions
will also arise about whether she can continue as leader.
A
hung parliament also raises questions over
whether there will have to be another general election. If neither
main party manages to gain enough votes to get a Queen’s speech
approved in parliament, then there will be.
These
are all crucial questions that people on the right and left of
the political spectrum will be asking. And they will be looking to
our media, in all its various forms, to discuss and analyse these
questions. This is not “mischief”. This is what’s necessary in
these uncertain times. And indeed, it should be the norm regardless.
Business
as usual
Johnson’s
message is business as usual with his eighth
point – “get
on with the job” being indicative of this. He also calls for MPs to
unite behind May. And he talked about
how he wants to control the narrative:
“We
have got to stop the narrative that Corbyn somehow won this thing –
he barely did better than Gordon useless Brown when we beat him in
2010. “
The
problem for Johnson is the two results are not comparable. May was
projected a landslide victory.
And Labour’s campaign has forced the Tories into a hung parliament.
Labour might not have won this election. But there is no way of
spinning this as a victory for the Tories.
May
can talk about
a “government of certainty” until she is blue in the face. But
nothing is certain, and it is not business as usual by any stretch of
the imagination.
A
changed landscape
But
the other major headache for Johnson is that there is now a different
media landscape. Politicians can no longer issue edicts to
the press and expect the rest of the population to fall in line.
Whether
it is The
Canary,
or places like Evolve
Politics and Another
Angry Voice,
people now have a strong independent media that is not dominated by
billionaires or a Westminster elite.
Time
and time again, Johnson has shown himself
to be a shameless liar. One who is prepared to stoop as low
as stealing interview
notes. He now wants to control the media agenda. But luckily, he’s
in for a nasty surprise. And the reach and scope of the corporate
media is now well and truly out
of the control of
the Westminster elite.
De Britse premier May liet afgelopen maandag al weten, dat het internet internationaal gecensureerd moet worden, haatzaaierij en extremistische uitspraken moeten geweerd worden.
U begrijpt, dat May daar ook eerlijke berichtgeving mee bedoelt, berichtgeving over bijvoorbeeld de steun van Groot-Brittannië voor Saoedi-Arabië, na de V S de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde. Steun aan een regime dat al meer dan 2 jaar bezig is met een genocide op de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen…… Britse steun o.a. in de vorm van militaire training en de levering van militaire ‘hardware’ als pantserwagens en munitie, waaronder clusterbommen…….
Men was na de aanslag in Manchester vooral geschokt, daar de aanslag tegen jonge mensen was gericht, hoe wrang te zien, dat juist kinderen en baby’s werden en worden vermoord in Jemen (ook de slachtoffers van honger en nu weer cholera, kan je zonder meer het slachtoffer van massamoord noemen, waar S-A en allen die dit terreurbewind steunen, de verantwoordelijken, ofwel de moordenaars zijn………
Terug naar de uitlatingen van May: zij misbruikt de aanslagen om censuur op het internet door te kunnen drukken……. Niet dat dit de terreur zal stoppen, maar wel om de bevolking een rad voor de ogen te draaien en te laten geloven dat ze hard optreedt tegen terreur…. Terwijl ze tegelijkertijd terrorisme creëert in landen, waar GB niets te zoeken heeft……
De daders van de aanslag in Manchester waren bekend bij de Britse geheime diensten en politie, die daarnaast ook nog eens door meldingen van derden als gevaarlijk waren aangemerkt. Deze mensen hadden met de huidige kromme wetgeving al zonder proces en aanklacht vastgezet kunnen worden, maar dat ontkent May met haar uitlatingen eenvoudig……. Vandaar dat ze vandaag nog eens riep om harde maatregelen tegen terreurverdachten (die al van kracht zijn), door te stellen dat wat betreft terroristen, de mensenrechten buiten werking gesteld moeten worden….. Het is dat ‘t zo triest is, anders zou je je doodlachen……. Die roep is dan ook niets anders dan kiezers lokken voor de Britse verkiezingen die morgen op de rol staan!!
Alles bij elkaar optellend is de conclusie (nogmaals), dat May en haar incompetente en inhumane regering de aanslagen misbruiken om grip op het internet te krijgen en de burgerlijke vrijheden verder in te perken….. Je zou zelfs bijna gaan denken, dat de geheime diensten zelf deelnemer aan de aanslagen zijn, daar zij het hardst profiteren van deze aanslagen, althans als het aan de regering May ligt………
May en haar voorgangers Cameron en Blair steunden en steunen de illegale oorlogen tegen Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en nu weer Syrië. De eerste 3 niet alleen middels politieke steun en wapenleveranties, maar ook met daadwerkelijke militaire bemoeienis (zoals Nederland dat ook heeft gedaan en doet….). De terreurgroep in Manchester werd door de geheime dienst MI5 gebruikt in de strijd tegen Khadaffi (Libië) en Assad (Syrië), men wist dat ze lid waren van een tak van Al Qaida en liet hen gewoon afreizen om terreur in Libië en Syrië uit te oefenen………. Zo bezien kan je stellen, dat de Britten zelf verantwoordelijk zijn voor de aanslag in Manchester……
Overigens, ook voor minstens één van de daders van de aanslag in Londen, van afgelopen zaterdag, waren de politieke en de geheime diensten gewaarschuwd door meerdere personen en zelfs door de Italiaanse geheime dienst………
Het pleidooi van May om de mensenrechten buitenwerking te stellen, (wat deels al is gebeurd, zoals u kon lezen) is er uiteraard één van een onpeilbare schunnigheid en een verdere stap richting politiestaat. Immers vandaag zijn het terroristen, morgen zijn het de mensen die hun recht op demonstratie willen uitoefenen. De regering May ziet wel wat in de maatregelen die Trump wil nemen tegen vreedzame demonstranten, die men als terroristen afschildert, iets dat men al in de praktijk bracht tegen de demonstranten, die zich vreedzaam hebben verzet tegen de aanleg van de Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL)…..*
Afgelopen maandag ontving ik van Anti-Media** het volgende artikel:
In
Wake of UK Terror Attacks, Government Ready To Seize Control of
Internet
(ANTIMEDIA) – In
the wake of the second alleged terrorist attack in England in as many
weeks, Prime Minister Theresa May is calling for new Internet
regulations and the suppression of digital tools that facilitate
online “safe spaces” where attacks can be coordinated. The
proposal comes one day after a Saturday
night attackin
London that left seven dead and nearly 50 injured. It also comes on
the heels of an increasingly draconian ‘Big
Brother’ counter-terrorism
strategybeing
implemented in the U.K.
In her
remarks,
May said, “We
cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that
is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide
internet-based services provide.”
“We
need to work with allied democratic governments to reach
international agreements that regulate cyberspace to prevent the
spread of extremist and terrorism planning.”
May
offered no specifics on how the government planned on using internet
regulations to control terrorist chatter on social networks or other
online forums. However, the phrase ‘international agreements’
portends a potentially larger movement by governments and
corporations across the world to crack down on speech deemed to be
dangerous.
The
global corporatocracy has already begun working
to restrict extremist
speech on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google — with varying
degrees of success — but not everyone believes this strategy will
even be effective at disrupting terrorist activity. Peter Neumann, a
professor who studies political violence and radicalization at King’s
College in London, says Internet censorship will just cause
terrorists to move
their conversations to
encrypted platforms. As far as the use of social media to radicalize
new members, Neumann says online messaging alone is rarely enough to
mint new terrorists.
Furthermore,
efforts by England’s government to criminalize protest and speech —
measures that closely mirror legislation being drafted by U.S.
lawmakers — have earned its anti-terror strategy, known officially
as “Prevent,” the moniker ‘Big Brother.’ Maina
Kiai,
who served as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful
assembly, says “Prevent” is fundamentally flawed.
“Overall,
it appears that Prevent is having the opposite of its intended
effect: by dividing, stigmatizing and alienating segments of the
population, Prevent could end up promoting extremism, rather than
countering it,” Kiai
recently wrote.
“Students,
activists, and members of faith-based organizations related countless
anecdotes of the program being implemented in a way that translates
simply into crude racial, ideological, cultural and religious
profiling, with concomitant effects on the right to freedom of
association of some groups.”
The
failure of Western countries to prevent
terrorism,
in spite of veritable police state infrastructures — and in the
U.K., specifically, one of the most powerful surveillance
apparatuses in
the world — has garnered a plethora of explanations and theories.
They range from ‘blowback’ stemming
from the now sixteen-year-old War on Terror that has claimed over 1.3
million lives in
the Middle East (the same number as low-end estimates of civilian
casualties tallied during the Vietnam
War)
to “false
flag” attacks configured
to propagate fear in the civilian population and vest more authority
in the state.
Draconian
regulations on the Internet are likely to only further stigmatize the
issue and usurp more civil liberties away from the people. Hopefully,
the next Patriot Act won’t have online free speech in its
crosshairs.
** Anti-Media wordt beschuldigd van het brengen van nepnieuws (of ‘fake news’, wat u wilt), terwijl dit mediaorgaan amper is te betrappen op het brengen van zaken die niet kloppen, dit in tegenstelling tot de reguliere media (zoals de BBC), die er vrolijk op los liegen, de leugens van terreurentiteit VS als waarheid brengen (propaganda) en zaken verdraaien t.b.v. zittende westerse regeringen……..
Vanavond herdenken we de doden uit de Tweede Wereldoorlog, burgers zowel als militairen*. Een oorlog waar het verzet niet alleen vocht voor de bevrijding van het nazi-monster, maar ook vocht voor eerbiediging van de mensenrechten, voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting, tegen censuur en nog een heel aantal andere zaken……..
Oh ja het verzet vocht ook voor een land, waar men een normale toelating van vluchtelingen zou eerbiedigen >> ook voor WOII was de Nederlandse regering fanatiek op het verminderen van het aantal toe te laten vluchtelingen. Zo werden veel: joden, Roma, Sinti, homo’s en politieke vluchtelingen ‘gewoon teruggestuurd’ de grens over, recht in de handen van de Gestapo……… Denk daar alstublieft ook aan vanavond tijdens de Dodenherdenking! (het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei wil niet dat u vanavond vluchtelingen herdenkt…………)
Wrang dat ik gisteren van Anti-Media een artikel ontving, waarin de censuur-agenten genoemd staan, die Facebook aanstelt om ‘fake news’ (‘nepnieuws’) van de site te houden…….
Mag u raden van welke nepnieuwsorganen de twee censuur-agenten komen…… Oh dat werkt niet, welnu: van CNN, NBC en de NYT………. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Het gaat om Alex Hardiman van de New York Times (NYT) en Campbell Brown van CNN en National Broadcasting Company (NBC).
Weet u nog hoe deze mediaorganen alle leugens van het Pentagon slikten en fanatiek als waarheid hebben gespuit, vooraf en ten tijde van de illegale VS oorlogen tegen: Afghanistan, Irak, Libië en nu weer tegen Syrië (en zoals het zich laat aanzien meer en meer VS deelname in de wel heel smerige oorlog van de reli-fascistische terreurentiteit** Saoedi-Arabië tegen het Jemenitische volk….)……..
Onbegrijpelijk dat journalisten zich zelfs met deze zaak durven te bemoeien, laat staan als censuur-agent in dienst te treden………. Ach ja, zo komen dictaturen ook altijd aan censuur-agenten………..
Kortom Facebook doet lekker mee aan de ‘fake news’ hysterie, waarmee men juist de alternatieve pers de mond wil snoeren, niet de reguliere massamedia, die oorlog en ellende als rechtvaardige zaken door de strot van de mensheid proppen, middels de ene grove leugen na de andere!!!
Eén ding is zeker, het is de hoogste tijd, dat Facebook een week of langer wordt geboycot!! Hoewel 1 dag waarschijnlijk al een fikse kostenpost zou zijn (mits minimaal 60% van de gebruikers meedoet).
Lezen mensen!
Facebook
Puts New York Times Veteran In Charge of Stopping ‘Fake News’
Facebook Puts New York Times Veteran In Charge of Stopping ‘Fake News’
(ANTIMEDIA) On
April 10, Anti-Media published
an article titled
“Google Putting CNN, Washington Post, NYT in Charge of
Fact-Checking News.”
The
title says it all. Through its new Fact Check feature on news
stories, Google has put the job of informing the citizenry of what’s
true and what’s false — on Google searches, at least — squarely
in the hands of the corporate media.
Now,
it’s seeming more and more that in the future, Facebook will be
relegating its share of the fight against so-called fake news to
corporate media outlets as well.
“Facebook
has appointed a veteran of The New York Times to lead its news
products division, which is responsible for stopping the spread of
fake news and helping publishers make money.”
That
veteran, Alex Hardiman, held a half-dozen positions during her
decade-long stint at the Times. She left as vice
president of news products.
It’s
all part of the Facebook Journalism Project, announced in
January after the social media giant took heat during the election
over its refusal to
take responsibility for the content it propagates.
That
announcement came just a few days after the company revealed it
was tapping former CNN and NBC anchor
Campbell Brown as its head of news partnerships.
Brown said her
new role would be to “help
news organizations and journalists work more closely and more
effectively with Facebook” and
to “help
them understand how Facebook can expand the reach of their
journalism, and contribute value to their businesses.”
Appropriately
enough, in a Facebook post on
Monday, Hardiman described what her duties will be in the
newly-created position:
“We
will spend time building better products and tools for journalists,
working hand-in-hand with Campbell Brown and her team to strengthen
the relationship and value exchange between Facebook and news
providers. We will also partner with teams in Facebook to continue
curbing the spread of false news.”
* Wat betreft de soldaten die in ‘oorlogssituaties’ vielen, ‘situaties als de Politionele Acties (smerige koloniale oorlog), de illegale oorlog tegen Joegoslavië, Afghanistan en Irak: hen kan je misschien herdenken, daar zij niet de beslissing hebben genomen op oorlogspad te gaan….. Lullig genoeg hebben de militaire-missies, waar zij deel van uitmaakten, elders ook veel slachtoffers gemaakt, vooral veel burgerslachtoffers (vaak vrouwen en kinderen) en dat in landen waar wij niets te zoeken hadden of hebben…… Zoals nazi-Duitsland in 1940 niets te zoeken had in Nederland, of welk ander land dan ook.
** Waar de VS uiteraard al sinds het einde van WOII verreweg de grootste terreurentiteit op aarde is!
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dat geldt niet voor de labels: C. Brown en A. Hardiman. Zie ook de berichten onder de labels: New York Times, CNN en NBC.
Hoorde gistermorgen, dat de Nederlandse uitgave van de Turkse krant Zaman (Zaman Hollanda, de Turkse versie en Zaman Vandaag, de Nederlandse-), zich losmaakt van de Gülenbeweging. Met andere woorden: deze krant was een spreekbuis van de Gülenbeweging……..
Leuk ook voor de collega’s in Turkije, die door de Nederlandse redactie hiermee zijn weggezet als Gülen-aanhang, waarmee de verdachtmaking van de Turkse overheid is bevestigd……. Kon op het net niets vinden, over de verbintenis van de krant nu of in het verleden met de Gülenbeweging. Het is dan ook niet ondenkbaar, dat de Nederlandse tak zelf werd bekostigd door deze beweging., in tegenstelling tot de Turkse uitgave……
Dezelfde redactie gaat door met de krant, maar dan onder de naam ‘De Kanttekening’ en in het vervolg onafhankelijk aldus een woordvoerder……..
Neem me niet kwalijk, maar ik kan deze stap niet anders zien dan een toegeven aan de persbreidel van de kalief van Ankara, de zwaar corrupte reli-fascist Erdogan. Zaman in Turkije is geheel in handen van Erdogan getrouwen en als ik me niet vergis zitten er een aantal journalisten van de krant, van voor de Erdogan (AK partij) overname, vast in Turkije…….
Ben dan ook zeer benieuwd hoe kritisch ‘De Kanttekening’ zal zijn, op het autocratische beleid van Erdogan….. Het ziet er wat dat betreft slecht uit, daar de woordvoerder verklaarde, dat de krant zich vanaf nu op Nederland zal richten en veel minder op Turkije……
‘Je zou bijna zeggen, dat de blijvende redactie een stel verraders van formaat is………’
Onder andere in het duffe Mediaforum (Radio1) werd gisteren gesproken over deze zaak. Aanwezig de zwaar over een keeshondendrol getilde hufter Frenk van der Linden, die stelde dat wat betreft de behandeling van de pers in Turkije, het nog veel slechter kan…………. Ja hè van der Linden, ‘t kan altijd slechter…… Met andere woorden, waar zou je je druk om maken als ‘onafhankelijk’ journalist…??!!!
Jezus op een mank paard!!
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels die u hieronder terug kan vinden, dit geldt (nog) niet voor het label ‘De Kanttekening’.
Gistermiddag op BNR het bericht, dat Facebook NU.nl heeft aangewezen als ‘feitenchecker’, ofwel censuurorgaan voor nieuws op alternatieve media, ofwel ‘sociale media….’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
NU.nl, u weet wel het medium dat alle leugens uit de reguliere pers, zonder fatsoenlijke controle voor waar aanneemt en zelf ook publiceert, zie de berichtgeving over de bevrijding van Oost-Aleppo….. Of wat dacht u van wat men daar noemt ‘de annexatie van De Krim’, terwijl iedere imbeciel kan weten, dat de bevolking van De Krim, zich na een door internationale waarnemers goedgekeurd referendum, aansloot bij Rusland…….
Onder die bevolking was ook verreweg het grootste deel van de oorspronkelijke bevolking van De Krim voor aansluiting bij Rusland! Logisch, de bevolking van De Krim had voor het overgrote deel gekozen voor de democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj……. Deze werd afgezet middels een door de VS opgezette opstand, die vooropgezet leidde tot de staatsgreep in Oekraïne. De VS bekostigde het geheel met 4 miljard dollar en regisseerde de boel……. Net als de bevolking van Oost-Oekraïne, was de bevolking van De Krim tegen de neonazi-junta van de door de VS geparachuteerde corrupte grofgraaier Porosjenko…….
‘Nee echt een geweldig idee’, NU.nl feiten laten controleren’. laat dit medium eerst de eigen berichtgeving maar eens controleren!!
Trouwens wat is er eigenlijk zo betrouwbaar en sociaal, als het om Facebook gaat???
