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.
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)
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’.
Vorige week al gemeld, maar toch nog maar even aandacht voor het volgende beste lezer: Facebook gaat nieuws laten checken door een aantal grote dagbladen* en als volgens minstens twee van deze dagbladen wordt gesteld dat e.e.a. niet op feiten berust, wordt er een aantekening bij het bericht gezet, dat het bericht ‘niet op feiten berust……’ Ook zullen deze berichten heel laag, of helemaal niet in de zoekresultaten terug te vinden zijn……….
Facebook is nu bezig de boel voor Frankrijk op poten te zetten, waar o.a. Le Monde als ‘fact checker’ is aangewezen, in Duitsland schijnt deze censuur volgens BNR (gistermiddag rond 16.37 u.) al te ‘werken….’
In de VS gaan onder andere de Washington Post (WaPo) en de New York Times berichten op feiten controleren……… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Terwijl dit groot-leveranciers zijn van nepnieuws!!! Neem de berichten over Russische hacks en beïnvloeding van de verkiezingen, geen snipper bewijs en toch houdt men deze leugen overeind……
Een vergelijkbare situatie wat betreft alle leugens (middels nepnieuws) die tot de grootste terreurdaad van deze eeuw heeft geleid: de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, begonnen door de VS (ook met Nederlandse steun en voorbereiding) die tot nu toe al meer dan 1,5 miljoen Irakezen het leven heeft gekost, inclusief een groot aantal kinderen en vrouwen!!!
Overigens, BNR wist niet te melden, dat Google met hetzelfde bezig is*.
U begrijpt uiteraard dat alle nepnieuws, dat door de reguliere media wordt gebracht, niet gecensureerd zal worden……. RT (Russia Today) wordt keer op keer aangewezen als brenger van nepnieuws, terwijl men werkelijk niet één voorbeeld kan geven, dat dit bewijst………..
Gisteren op het blog van Stan van Houcke een artikel van the Canary, dat op 6 mei vorig jaar werd gepubliceerd. Het handelt hier over wie macht uitoefent via de BBC, de publieke Britse omroep, die intussen gerust een gezwel kan worden genoemd, als je alle aftakkingen in het buitenland ziet, zoals die in Canada.
Op dit blog heeft u al vaak kunnen lezen, over de propaganda die de BBC dag in dag uitstort over het Britse publiek, neem de Brexit of de enorme hoeveelheid leugens over de strijd in Aleppo (en het weglaten van feiten, zoals de terreur die de ‘gematigde rebellen’ uitoefende op de bevolking in Oost-Aleppo….)……..
Helaas voor diegenen die het Engels niet kunnen lezen is het een Engelstalig artikel (al kan je e.e.a. via het besturingssysteem van Microsoft laten ‘vertalen’), hier het volledige artikel:
The
sorry facts which show the BBC has moved beyond bias, into pure
propaganda
EDITORIAL
The
BBC and its political editor Laura Kuenssberg are under
fire this
week, following local election coverage which has been dismissed as
nothing short of propaganda by people across the country. But how did
we get here?
Who
runs the BBC?
Rona
Fairhead, Chair of the BBC Trust, and board member of HSBC (image
via BBC)
The
current abysmal state of BBC News and Politics makes much more sense
when you see who has been appointed to plot its editorial
course.
The BBC
Trust is
responsible for granting licenses to all BBC outlets and stations,
managing value for money on licence fee payments and ‘the
direction of BBC editorial and creative output’.
The Trust consists of 12 Trustees and is headed by Rona
Fairhead – who
also happens to have been a longtime board member of HSBC bank.
As The
Canary’s James
Wright reported earlier
this year:
Fairhead
has entrenched ties to the Tory government. In fact, she and Osborne are
old friends.
Fairhead worked
for the
Conservative government as a cabinet office member, until being
appointed by the previous Conservative culture secretary – Sajid
Javid – as the new head of the BBC Trust. She is
still business
ambassador for David Cameron.
Fairhead
has also sat on the board of HSBC directors for a long time. And what
is even more shocking than her other Conservative links are claims
that she was actually appointed chairwoman of the BBC Trust to keep a
lid on Cameron’s involvement in covering up a
£1bn fraudulent HSBC scam on British shoppers.
Whistle-blower Nicholas
Wilson made
various freedom of information requests that confirmed that
Fairhead’s appointment did not follow proper procedure. She was
rushed to the position after the application date closed, with no
mention of her on any contemporary media shortlist.
Her
appointment does not coincide with the normal process, and many
questioned why
a business tycoon was right for the job. What
it did coincide with was
a string of interconnected visits from the BBC, HSBC, the Houses of
Parliament and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to Wilson’s
website where he details the scam and the FCA and Cameron’s
involvement in covering it up.
But
the conflicts of interest do not stop at Fairhead.
This
is the calibre of the figures responsible for hiring the news teams,
presenters and journalists who will report on matters of hacking,
privacy, and the Middle East.
These
are not trivial conflicts of interests. The two individuals primarily
responsible for driving the News and Politics agenda for the BBC, are
instead driving forward their personal and professional causes –
and the licence fee payer is footing the bill.
What
is the impact on reporting?
These
conflicts of interest affect the reporting of News and Politics at
the BBC in a very real way. In 2013, researchers at Cardiff
University undertook a major
content analysis of
BBC coverage – funded in part by the BBC Trust. They studied the
impartiality of BBC reporting across several areas,
including the Israel-Palestine conflict, the EU, business and
economics, and politics.
Whichever
party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time.
On
BBC News at Six, business representatives outnumbered trade union
spokespersons by more than five to one (11 vs 2) in 2007 and by 19
to one in 2012.
When
it comes to the Financial Crisis, BBC coverage was almost
completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund
managers and other City voices. Civil
society voices or commentators who
questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were
almost completely absent from coverage.
On
top of this, BBC reporting of Israel-Palestine has been woefully
partisan – and in 2013, we found out one reason why.
In
2013, a devastating report by Electronic
Intifada,
revealed that Raffi
Berg,
online editor for BBC News, was instructing journalists to skew
reports on Israel-Palestine in favour of Israel. While hundreds of
Palestinians were losing their lives during Israel’s eight day
assault on the Gaza strip in 2012, Berg was emailing
journalists with ‘guidance’ to maintain a pro-Israel tone in
their reports.
This from the report:
In
one, he asked BBC colleagues to word their stories in a way which
does not blame or “put undue emphasis” on Israel for starting the
prolonged attacks. Instead, he encouraged journalists to promote the
Israeli government line that the “offensive” was “aimed at
ending rocket fire from Gaza.”
This
was despite the fact that Israel broke a ceasefire when it attacked
Gaza on 14 November, a ceasefire which the Palestinians had been
observing — firing no rockets into Israel.
In
a second email, sent during the same period, Berg told BBC
journalists:
“Please
remember, Israel doesn’t maintain a blockade around Gaza. Egypt
controls the southern border.”
He
omitted to mention that the United Nations views Israel as the
occupying power in Gaza and has called on Israel to end its siege of
the Strip. Israel’s refusal to do so is a violation of UN Security
Council Resolution 1860.”
Berg
is still in his role.
All
that’s left is propaganda
Recently,
these two vested interests – pro-neoliberalism and pro-Israel –
converged on an area of common interest: opposition to Jeremy Corbyn.
This
united bitter Blairites, Conservatives and pro-Israel groups – who
ran perhaps the most
toxic smear campaign against
the Labour party and its leader in living memory. In the run up to
the local elections on May 5, the headlines across the BBC and wider
media’s flagship television and radio programs was not the 1
million people in
the UK reliant on food banks to eat, but the intrigue of the smear
campaign.
Prior
to the elections, the reporting by Kuenssberg was dominated almost
exclusively by claims of crisis within Labour, providing a platform
to a minority of bitter Blairites, and applying pressure on Corbyn to
stand aside – or at the very least prepare to.
On
Friday morning – when Corbyn’s vote had not collapsed, but
increased, compared to Miliband’s general election performance of
2015 – there was no apology for the wrongful prediction.
Instead, the narrative wheeled on regardless. While the SNP lost
their majority in Scotland, and Labour advanced in England and Wales
– this was the BBC website’s response.
The
situation brings to mind the moment when the BBC’s Andrew Marr
interviewed Noam Chomsky about the role of the mainstream media as a
propaganda service. Chomsky was discussing the role of
self-censorship by journalists, and Marr repudiated the claim,
asking:
“How
can you know if I am self-censoring?” Arguing he had never been
censored, or told what to think.
Chomsky
calmly responds, as if he were explaining the non-existence of Santa
Claus to a child:
“I’m
sure you believe everything you’re saying, but what I’m saying is
that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting
where you’re sitting.”
And
therein lies the rub with the role of the BBC, and the wider
mainstream media, as a vehicle by which to advance the causes of
those who own and run them. There is a monopoly of wealth and power
in our society which translates directly into a monopoly of the
media. The result is a staggering lack of diversity and pluralism of
voices and opinions in the mainstream space. The media has
become little more than a monotonous, relentless monologue – when
as a country, and a world, we need to be having a conversation.
Read
more in our recommended book:
Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media Paperback– 20
Apr 1995
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht aantreft, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Fairhead, Harding, HSBC, Javid, Kuenssberg, N. Wilson en R. Berg.
Nog toegevoegd: link naar originele bericht, dit vanwege onduidelijkheid getoonde statistieken (al is het daar niet veel duidelijker).
De over een beschimmelde boterham getilde zwetskont Frenk van der Linden, zat vanmorgen in Standpunt.NL. Het zou deze week de week van de krant zijn, hoewel Plag, de presentator, terecht opmerkte dat er al een paar weken reclame wordt gemaakt, onder die noemer.
Kortom, men sprak over kranten. Van der Linden stelde, dat hij het elke dag weer fantastisch vindt, dat hij een krant voor € 2,50 kan kopen, ‘€ 2,50 voor de hele wereld……’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Toevallig hoorde ik onlangs, dat hij het AD een kwaliteitskrant vindt en ben dan ook benieuwd hoe ‘die hele wereld’ van van der Linden eruit ziet……’
Voorts stelde van der Linden, dat de overheid kranten moet ondersteunen, natuurlijk mag de overheid zich niet met de inhoud bemoeien, maar subsidie voor een commercieel dagblad is noodzaak voor van der Linden, zo liet hij weten………. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
Van der Linden is onderdeel van de hedendaagse afhankelijke media, die wat betreft de kranten, in handen zijn van een paar steenrijke figuren….. Precies als de rest van de reguliere media, brengen die nieuws dat neoliberaal verantwoord is en dat over het algemeen braaf het waardeloze regeringsbeleid van Rutte 2 ophemelt…….. Als dat niet het geval is, gaat het dan ook altijd om zaken, die zelfs voor iemand die ‘het nieuws’ niet volgt zo klaar als een klontje zijn…..
Deze mediaorganen doen bijvoorbeeld mee, aan het angst- en haatzaaien tegen Rusland, middels consequent volgehouden leugens………. Met andere woorden, die overheid hoeft zich niet met de inhoud te bemoeien, de ‘zelfcensuur’ door de leiding voldoet prima!
Van der Linden stelde dat de overheid ook subsidie geeft aan regionale omroepen, daar kan ik wel in meegaan, maar niet door de kranten, in handen van rijke miljonairs, met belastinggeld te steunen…..
De reden voor een lachstuip van een dik kwartier, was de uitlating van van der Linden, dat ‘Linda’ een geweldig blad is met uitstekende reportages……….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Van der Linden hoopt op een opdracht van Linda, of heeft die al binnen, al zou het me niet verbazen als hij hoopt, dat Linda hem wil interviewen, dat streelt nu eenmaal z’n ‘kleine ego’
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor het label ‘Linda’.
Afgelopen week besloot de EU, de censuur task force ‘strategische communicatie’, ingesteld door de niet democratisch gekozen ‘Europese’ Commissie, een aanzienlijk groter budget uit de door ons opgebrachte belasting toe te bedelen. Het is natuurlijk niet de bedoeling dat u de waarheid hoort over Oekraïne of Syrië en dat is een lieve cent waard, ‘zoals u begrijpt….’
Ofwel Rusland moet en zal zwartgemaakt worden, zoals gezegd, zelfs met uw belastinggeld……. Een verdere vervolmaking van 1984 (Orwell)…….
Vanmorgen ontving ik het volgende artikel van Information Clearing House (onder het artikel kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch’ vertaling, dit neemt wel wat tijd in beslag):
EU
Votes For Citizens To Fund Their Own Brainwashing
“RT“* – A fledgling group set up by the European Commission to
allegedly counteract “Russian propaganda” is to be expanded with
more public cash and resources. European citizens will be funding
mechanisms inducing their own ignorance and misinformation.
This
week, the European Parliament in Strasbourg voted by
a dubious majority for a cash injection to expand the work of a media
watchdog aimed at “debunking
Russian propaganda.”
The
little-known media group, reportedly comprising 11 “diplomats,” was
established a year ago by the all-powerful, but unelected European
Commission. The media unit has, therefore, no electoral mandate. It
is potentially holding sway over how 500 million EU citizens will be
able in the future to access news and public information.
In
particular, it is evident the said EU media program is motivated by
an extreme Russophobia bias. Working in tandem with this media
watchdog is another coterie of seven parliamentarians headed by
the rabidly anti-Russian Polish MEP Anna Fotyga. The
57-year-old member of
the right-wing Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe
within the EU Parliament has been regularly accusing Russia
of “aggression” in
Ukraine and toward Europe generally.
Fotyga’s
self-appointed media group, dominated by eastern European
anti-Russian interests, produced a report earlier
this year entitled “EU
strategic communications with a view to counteracting propaganda.” It
makes for hysterical reading accusing Russian news networks RT and
Sputnik of being Kremlin propaganda tools for sowing division and
discord among EU member states.
The
report states: “The
Russian government is employing a wide range of tools and
instruments, such as think-tanks […], multilingual TV stations
(e.g. Russia Today), pseudo-news agencies and multimedia services
(e.g. Sputnik) […], social media and internet trolls, to challenge
democratic values, divide Europe, gather domestic support and create
the perception of failed states in the EU’s eastern neighborhood.”
It
was largely this tendentious “study” that
formed the basis for the European Parliament’s resolution this week
to expand funding for the media program to “debunk
Russian propaganda.”
How
much new money is being disbursed to the media watchdog is not clear.
But ultimately it will be funded by EU citizens whose taxes
underwrite member governments’ financial contributions to the
Brussels-based 28-nation bloc.
Notably,
the EU Parliament vote this week was far from convincing. Some 304
MEPs voted for extra funding to the“anti-Russian
propaganda” group,
while 179 MEPs voted against. A further 208 parliamentarians
abstained. That suggests widespread apprehension among lawmakers
about the function and credibility of “debunking
Russian propaganda.”
So,
here we have an outcome whereby a minuscule group of unelected
faceless bureaucrats and ideologically driven politicians, who
evidently have an ax to grind against Russia, are able to shape a
vital area of foreign policy for the entire EU bloc and furthermore
to significantly impinge on the public’s right to access
information freely.
The
charges of “Russian
state-sponsored propaganda” have
been inflamed with recent claims by
Western leaders like US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor
Angela Merkel that “fake news” is undermining Western democracy.
These claims have in turn followed months of reports from various
NATO-linked think-tanks which have allege that
Russian news services are fronts for Kremlin-inspired disinformation.
Political
pressure is now being brought to bear on internet and social media
providers, such as Google and Facebook, to ban “fake
news” from
their networks. Germany’s Merkel has even declared this
week that she intends introducing legislation that will force
internet service companies to “regulate
fake news.”
Europe
enters new Dark Age with crackdown on Russia media (Op-Edge by Robert
Bridge)https://t.co/NoZHsBgCfy
It
is not clear how far this development will go. Western-based internet
companies may yield and impose blanket censorship. Another question
is what are the limits on designating which information and sources
are considered “fake”?
The
political atmosphere of Russophobia being whipped up by Western
leaders, NATO-connected think-tanks and now EU parliamentarians –
and the actual fingering of Russian news services like RT and Sputnik
as “illegitimate
sources” –
is all setting the stage for the banning of Russian media.
In
reports this week, the EU media watchdog that is being expanded
to “counter
Russian propaganda”said that
it would be employing ways of “alerting
internet users to false information.” Presumably,
that involves hiring online commentators (trolls) who will add
disparaging comments to news articles deemed to be Kremlin
propaganda. Apparently, there are no moves yet to demand that
internet providers actually delete content. But that full-blown
censorship would seem to be only a short step away, given the
relentless anti-Russian atmosphere and claims by Western leaders
of “fake
news” eroding
democracy.
The
insidious nature of what is unfolding is illustrated by the alleged
incident of Belgian NATO fighter jets bombing Syria last month. On
October 18, the village of Hassadjek in Aleppo was reportedly hit by
air strikes that killed six civilians, according to local sources.
Several
news services, including Reuters, subsequently carried reports in
which Russia’s Ministry of Defense accused Belgium of carrying out
the strikes as part of the US-led coalition purportedly bombing Syria
to combat jihadi terror groups.
The
Russian information appeared to be substantive, providing flight and
radar data that reportedly identified the Belgian warplanes.
Belgium’s ambassador was summoned in Moscow to explain why the
Belgian government appeared to be stonewalling with denials that its
air force was involved in the deadly attack.
Disturbingly,
the news reports of the alleged Belgian air strike on the Aleppo
countryside last month are described as
an example of “fake
news” by
the EU media watchdog during this week’s parliamentary vote to
endorse more funding for the unit.
This
has huge sinister implications. Any news report or analysis – no
matter how substantive or factual – that happens to offend the
political sensibilities and reputation of EU governments are thus
liable to be labeled “fake.” And
therefore subject to censorship.
What
about reports on Western governments supplying jihadi terror groups
with weapons? Or reports on how Western media are colluding with
terrorist propaganda fronts like the White Helmets to fabricate
allegations of Russian violations in the liberation of besieged
Syrian city Aleppo?
All
such reports can be verified and documented. But because they happen
to offend official Western claims about their involvement in Syria,
then such “offending” reports
can be merely dismissed as “Russian
propaganda.”
This
marks an audacious license by European and American authorities to
grant themselves immunity from media criticism and scrutiny –
simply by invoking a subjective, politicized claim that Russian news
is “fake” and“propagandistic.”
Meanwhile,
this week Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was being hosted in
Brussels by EU leaders during which he warned: “The
European Union is under very severe attack from Russia.”
There
is no hint of awareness among European media outlets and the EU’s
own media watchdogs that Poroshenko’s tedious tirades constitute a
glaring case of “fake
news.”
Dystopian
future beckons in which EU citizens are obligated to fund unelected
media controllers who will deprive them of critical news and
information, while at the same time sluicing citizens with the most
gratuitous anti-Russia propaganda.
No
wonder a growing number of citizens are becoming alienated from the
EU’s oligarchic rule. It is acting like a tyranny that needs to be
torn asunder.
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Fotyga, RT (= Russia Today) en Sputnik.
Gistermorgen in het BBC World Service radionieuws een ongecensureerd bericht over IS. ‘Foutje’ waarschijnlijk……
IS leden die in Irak worden gepakt, zowel in en rond Mosul als elders, beschikken over de modernste wapens uit de VS, wapens waaronder ‘grond-grond’ raketten die één of twee personen kunnen afschieten…….
Deze wapens blijken zonder uitzondering door de VS via Saoedi-Arabië te worden geleverd aan deze psychopathische moordenaars………..
Geen nieuws hoor, dit is al een paar jaar aan de gang, met één groot verschil: dit bericht op de BBC radio…… De censuur heeft niet opgelet, moet je maar denken………..
Nog maar eens: Groot-Brittannië levert zelf ook wapens en munitie aan S-A. Munitie waaronder clusterbommen, die deze inhumane, reli-fascistische dictatuur o.a. gebruikt tegen de burgers van Jemen. Een smerige oorlog, waar de BBC amper of geen berichten aan wijdt……..
U waarschijnlijk bekend, maar toch nog maar eens opgemerkt: ook via Turkije werden terreurgroepen als IS en Al Qaida (en de andere ‘gematigde’ terreurgroepen) in Syrië voorzien van de modernste wapens uit de VS…….
Bovendien controleert Saoedi-Arabië de geldstromen voor de ‘gematigde’ terreurgroepen in Syrië……… S-A heeft deze terreurgroepen meermaals gemaand, zich niet te houden aan gesloten wapenstilstanden, die dan ook keer op keer werden geschonden door deze terreurgroepen…….
Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden.
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português