Mogul is likely to lose big on blood testing startup that has been plagued by scandals exposed by the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch’s own newspaperRupert Murdoch is likely to lose nearly all of the $100m he invested in Theranos, the blood testing startup beset by scandals exposed by the Wall Street Journal, his flagship business newspaper.Murdoch is reported to have invested $100m in Theranos between 2014 and 2015, when its valuation was soaring thanks to the promise of being able to revolutionize blood testing by replacing needles with low-cost finger pricks. Continue reading...
На старте в Theranos вкладывали деньги инвесторы из Кремниевой долины. Но большую часть средств глава Theranos Элизабет Холмс получила от крупных инвесторов, не связанных напрямую с медицинским бизнесом, сообщает издание со ссылкой на свои источники. В их числе оказался и Руперт Мердок, владелец СМИ, кинокомпаний и издательств в США, Австралии, Европе, Латинской Америке и Азии. Руперт Мердок отказался от комментариев. Тем временем Роберт Колман, инвестор из Кремниевой долины подал иск против Theranos, за "ложные и вводящие в заблуждение заявления о своих технологиях и вымогательство денег у инвесторов". Как сообщалось ранее, крупнейшая американская аптечная сеть Walgreens в начале ноября также обратилась с судебным иском против Theranos. По утверждению биотехнологической компании Theranos, она разработала технологию, позволяющую делать анализы на основе нескольких капель крови. Сомнения в эффективности метода начались после публикации статьи в The Wall Street Journal в октябре 2015 года. Со ссылкой на нескольких бывших работников компании Wall Street Journal утверждала, что метод не отличается достоверностью.
In its attempt to redirect the public's attention from its historic failure to deliver unbiased, objective, factual reporting in the context of the presidential election in which virtually every single mainstream media outlet was revealed (courtesy of the hacked Podesta emails) and acted as a Public Relations arm for the Clinton campaign, said media has opened a new can of worms by ushering in the topic of "fake news" - a purposefully vague, undefined term meant to deflect and scapegoat by "exposing" propaganda websites, which in the latest incarnation of the narrative, are now allegedly serving to further Russian propaganda in the US. As we reported earlier, none other than the Washington Post - a company owned by Jeff Bezos, who for the past year has been involved in a famous media spat with president-elect Donald Trump - pounced on a list created by a website that was created (according to its whois profile) on August 21 using godaddy.com as registrar and had its first tweet on November 2, and which among others, lists Drudge Report and Zero Hedge as representatives of "Russian propaganda." This is how the "scientists" at the Goebbels-esque "PropOrNot" describe their qualifications in determining and recommending which websites are fit to be burned (starting with a plea for investigations by the Obama administration) in a post "fake news" world: PropOrNot is an independent team of computer scientists, statisticians, national security professionals, journalists, and political activists dedicated to identifying propaganda - particularly Russian propaganda targeting a US audience. We collect public-record information connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find, act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts to oppose it. We work to shine a light on propaganda in order to prevent it from distorting political and policy discussions, to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence, and to improve public discourse generally. Many of our contributors wish to stay anonymous, in light of possible Russian retaliation, as has happened in Finland and elsewhere. In other words, while attacking the anonymity of so-called "Russian propaganda" websites (websites which chose to remain anonymous knowing this kind of retaliation was inevitable), the public servants and experts devoted to rooting out Russian propaganda in the US opt, themselves, to remain anonymous. To be sure, we have no interest in uncovering who may be behind this particular organization (which conveniently stepped in after a similar list was floated last week by a discredited liberal professor, who likewise defined Zero Hedge as "fake news"). We do, want, however to warn readers about who the real source of documented fake news in the US traditionally has been. The US government itself, through its vast espionage and counterespionage apparatus. But please don't take our word for it. Back in 1975, the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities found in 1975 that the CIA submitted stories to the American press, and that as part of the CIA's playbook was the usage of disinformation tactics against America's own population: Question: "Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation — American journal?"Answer: "We do have people who submit pieces to American journals." Question: "Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?"Answer: "This I think gets into the kind of uh, getting into the details Mr. Chairman that I'd like to get into in executive session." (later) Question: "Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services — AP and UPI?"Answer: "Well again, I think we're getting into the kind of detail Mr. Chairman that I'd prefer to handle at executive session." One can imagine what was said later during the "executive session." Then-CBS President Sig Mickelson goes on to say that the relationships at CBS with the CIA were long established before he ever became president, and that "entirely in order for correspondents to make use of CIA station chiefs and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information." "I thought that it was a matter of real concern that planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad came home and were circulated here and believed here because this would mean that the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through some foreign country," Democratic Idaho Senator Frank Church said at a press conference surrounding the hearing. Church chaired the Church Committee, a precursor to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was responsible for investigating illegal intelligence gathering by the NSA, CIA and FBI. This exact tactic — planting disinformation in foreign media outlets so the disinfo would knowingly surface in the United States as a way of circumventing the rules on domestic operations — was specifically argued for as being legal simply because it did not originate on U.S. soil by none other than CIA Director William Casey in 1981. Former President Harry S. Truman, who oversaw the creation of the CIA in 1947 when he signed the National Security Act, later wrote that he never intended the CIA for more than intelligence gathering. "I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations," Truman penned in 1963 a year after the disastrous CIA Bay of Pigs operation. Of course, there was also the whole "Operation Mockingbird" fiasco: "After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services. The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan [i.e. the rebuilding of Europe by the U.S. after WWII]. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers." As contributor "George Washington" adds, In 2008, the New York Times wrote: During the early years of the cold war, [prominent writers and artists, from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Jackson Pollock] were supported, sometimes lavishly, always secretly, by the C.I.A. as part of its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was perhaps the most successful use of “soft power” in American history. A CIA operative told then-Washington Post owner - yes, ironic - Philip Graham the following, in a conversation about the willingness of journalists to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories: You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month. Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein wrote in 1977: More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty?five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. *** In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations. *** Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were [the heads of CBS, Time, the New York Times, the Louisville Courier?Journal, and Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include [ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters], Hearst Newspapers, Scripps?Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald?Tribune. *** In November 1973, after [the CIA claimed to have ended the program], Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general?circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high?level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy?five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976. *** Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side …. “There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared” …. How ironic that in the end it was the Washington Post itself which would get smeared. * * * An expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA now employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations. Whether or not his estimate is accurate, it is clear that many prominent reporters still report to the CIA. A 4-part BBC documentary called the “Century of the Self” shows that an American – Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays – created the modern field of manipulation of public perceptions, and the U.S. government has extensively used his techniques. Former Newsweek and Associated Press reporter Robert Parry notes that Ronald Reagan and the CIA unleashed a propaganda campaign in the 1980’s to sell the American public on supporting the Contra rebels, utilizing private players such as Rupert Murdoch to spread disinformation. Parry notes that many of the same people that led Reagan’s domestic propaganda effort in the 1980’s are in power today: While the older generation that pioneered these domestic propaganda techniques has passed from the scene, many of their protégés are still around along with some of the same organizations. The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond’s NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year. * * * Perhaps the most damning evidence, as highlighted by @pierpont_morgan, can be found inside the Final report of the abovementioned Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, published in Aptil, 1976, in which several sections stand out. One admits explicitly how the press had been extensively captured by the CIA and how dozens of American journalists collaborated with the CIA to fabricate, create and distribute dake news: The Committee has also found a small number of past relationships that fit this category. In some cases the cover arrangement consisted of reimbursing the U.S. newspaper for any articles by the CIA agent which the paper used. In at least one case the journalistic functions assumed by a CIA staff officer for cover purposes grew to a point where the officer concluded that he could not satisfactorily serve the requirements of both his (unwitting) U.S. media employers and the CIA, and therefore resigned from the CIA. He maintained contact, however, with the CIA and continued, very occasionally, to report to the CIA from the countries in which he worked. (2) Of the less than ten relationships with writers for small, or limited circulation, U.S. publications, such as trade journals or newsletters, most are for cover purposes. (3) The third, and largest, category of CIA relationships with the U.S. media includes free-lance journalists; "stringers" for newspapers, news magazines and news services; itinerant authors; propaganda writers; and agents working under cover as employees of U.S. publishing houses abroad. With the exception of the last group, the majority of the individuals in this category are bona fide writers or journalists or photographers. Most are paid by the CIA, and virtually all are witting; few, however, of the news organizations to which they contribute are aware of their CIA relationships. (4) The fourth category of covert relationships resembles the kind of contact that journalists have with any other department of the U.S. Government in the routine performance of their journalistic duties. No money changes hands. The relationships are usually limited to occasional lunches, interviews, or telephone conversations during which information would be exchanged or verified. The difference, of course, is that the relationships are covert. The journalist either volunteers or is requested by the CIA to provide some sort of information about people with whom he is in contact. In several cases, the relationship began when the journalist approached a U.S. embassy officer to report that he was approached by a foreign intelligence officer ; in others, the CIA initiated the relationship. Another section of the report focuses on how the CIA co-opted academics, reporting that "the Central Intelligence Agency is now using several hundred American academics who in addition to providing leads and, on occasion, making introductions for intelligence purposes, occasionally write books and other material to be used for propaganda purposes abroad. Beyond these, an additional few score are used in an unwitting manner for minor activities. These academics are located in over 100 American colleges, universities, and related institutes. At the majority of institutions, no one other than the individual concerned is aware of the CIA link. At the others, at least one university official is aware of the operational use made of academics on his campus. In addition, there are several American academics abroad who serve operational purposes, primarily the collection of intelligence. There is also the admission that the CIA used books explicitly for propaganda purposes: The Committee has found that the Central Intelligence Agency attaches a particular importance to book publishing activities as a form of covert propaganda. A former officer in the Clandestine Service stated that books are "the most important weapon of strategic (long-range) propaganda." Prior to 1967, the Central Intelligence Agency sponsored, subsidized, or produced over 1,000 books; approximately 25 percent of them in English.... The Committee found that an important number of the books actually produced by the Central Intelligence Agency were reviewed and marketed in the United States. Oh, the CIA particularly enjoyed using the NYT and Washington Post for "repeat propaganda" (from page 200 of the report): CIA records for the September-October 1970 propaganda effort in Chile indicate that "replay" of propaganda in the U.S. was not unexpected. A cable summary for September 25, 1970 reports: Sao Paulo, Tegucigalpa, Buenos Aires, Lima, Montevideo, Bogota, Mexico City report continued replay of Chile theme materials. Items also carried in New York Times, Washington Post. Propaganda activities continue to generate good coverage of Chile developments along our theme guidance. . . And so on, and on, for over 670 pages of details how it was the CIA - not Russia, not Putin - that has been the primary creator and distributor of misleading, propaganda material in the US, also known as "fake news." * * * Of course, all of the above remains largely under the radar; it will never be branded "fake" news in a polite setting. Meanwhile, anyone who dares to challenges the status quo - as we have seen in recent days - is immediately labeled a purveyor of “fake news", or worse - a servant of the Kremlin. Contributor "George Washington" has some topical thoughts on this particular issue, noting that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of the press from censorship by government. Indeed, the entire reason that it’s unlawful for the government to stop stories from being printed is because that would punish those who criticize those in power. Why? Because the Founding Father knew that governments (like the British monarchy) will always crack down on those who point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the freedom of the press is under massive attack in America today. For example, the powers-that-be argue that only highly-paid corporate media shills who will act as stenographers for the fatcats should have the constitutional protections guaranteeing freedom of the press. A Harvard law school professor argues that the First Amendment is outdated and should be abandoned. When financially-savvy bloggers challenged the Federal Reserve’s policy, a Fed official called all bloggers stupid and unqualified to comment. And the government is treating the real investigative reporters like criminals … or even terrorists: Obama has gone after top reporters. His Department of Justice labeled chief Fox News Washington correspondent James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” in a leak case, and for many years threatened to prosecute Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times journalist James Risen The Obama administration also spied on Risen, Rosen, the Associated Press, CBS reporter Cheryl Atkinson and other media In fact, top NSA whistleblowers tell Washington’s Blog that the NSA has spied on reporters for well over a decade … to make sure they don’t reveal illegal government programs The Pentagon smeared USA Today reporters because they investigated illegal Pentagon propaganda Reporters covering the Occupy protests were targeted for arrest The government admits that journalists could be targeted with counter-terrorism laws (and here). For example, after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of the bank’s wrongdoing, the Department of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this) The NSA and its British counterpart treated Wikileaks like a terrorist organization, going so far as to target its employees politically, and to spy on visitors to its website * * * With the (failing) mainstream media now desperate to focus the public's attention to the fake "fake media" to divert attention from the real "fake media", those Washington Posts and New York Times who have traditionally served as vessels for the government apparatus to brainwash the public, expect an even greater backlash as the American population realizes that none of this is actually new, and that it has always been the US government that was directly responsible for the blanket propaganda that has covered the US for decades: something which the government itself has confirmed on countless occasions in the past - one just needs to do the effort of stepping away from the information they are spoon-fed, and do their own research and analysis. Which, incidentally, is what this latest round in the eternal war for information and influence, is all about. Source
Everyone’s Talking About “Fake News” Everyone’s talking about “fake news” … Google Trends shows that – starting in late October – that phrase absolutely exploded in terms of internet searches: In the last month, Obama, Merkel, CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post and many other mainstream media have warned about the dangers of fake news. There certainly is a lot of fake news. And some of it is by anti-establishment types trying to discredit American institutions with false reports. But – as we document below – the government and mainstream media are by far the biggest purveyors of fake news. The Government’s Been Deploying Propaganda On U.S. Soil for Many Years The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities found in 1975 that the CIA submitted stories to the American press: Wikipedia adds details: After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services. The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan [i.e. the rebuilding of Europe by the U.S. after WWII]. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers. In 2008, the New York Times wrote: During the early years of the cold war, [prominent writers and artists, from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Jackson Pollock] were supported, sometimes lavishly, always secretly, by the C.I.A. as part of its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was perhaps the most successful use of “soft power” in American history. A CIA operative told Washington Post owner Philip Graham … in a conversation about the willingness of journalists to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories: You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month. Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein wrote in 1977: More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty?five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. *** In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations. *** Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were [the heads of CBS, Time, the New York Times, the Louisville Courier?Journal, and Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include [ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters], Hearst Newspapers, Scripps?Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald?Tribune. *** There is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements. *** The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. *** Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings. *** Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience. *** In the 1950s and early 1960s, Time magazine’s foreign correspondents attended CIA “briefing” dinners similar to those the CIA held for CBS. *** When Newsweek was purchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. “It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from,” said a former deputy director of the Agency. “Frank Wisner dealt with him.” Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency’s premier orchestrator of “black” operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his “mighty Wurlitzer,” a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) *** In November 1973, after [the CIA claimed to have ended the program], Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general?circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high?level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy?five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976. *** Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side …. “There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared” …. An expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA now employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations. Whether or not his estimate is accurate, it is clear that many prominent reporters still report to the CIA. A 4-part BBC documentary called the “Century of the Self” shows that an American – Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays – created the modern field of manipulation of public perceptions, and the U.S. government has extensively used his techniques. John Pilger is a highly-regarded journalist (the BBC’s world affairs editor John Simpson remarked, “A country that does not have a John Pilger in its journalism is a very feeble place indeed”). Pilger said in 2007: We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by the British secret intelligence service MI-6. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI-6 agents planted stories about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake. *** One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. “I have to tell you,” said the spokesman, “that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don’t have to do any of that. What is the secret?” Nick Davies wrote in the Independent in 2008: For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it. The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news. I’ve spent the last two years researching a book about falsehood, distortion and propaganda in the global media. The “Zarqawi letter” which made it on to the front page of The New York Times in February 2004 was one of a sequence of highly suspect documents which were said to have been written either by or to Zarqawi and which were fed into news media. This material is being generated, in part, by intelligence agencies who continue to work without effective oversight; and also by a new and essentially benign structure of “strategic communications” which was originally designed by doves in the Pentagon and Nato who wanted to use subtle and non-violent tactics to deal with Islamist terrorism but whose efforts are poorly regulated and badly supervised with the result that some of its practitioners are breaking loose and engaging in the black arts of propaganda. *** The Pentagon has now designated “information operations” as its fifth “core competency” alongside land, sea, air and special forces. Since October 2006, every brigade, division and corps in the US military has had its own “psyop” element producing output for local media. This military activity is linked to the State Department’s campaign of “public diplomacy” which includes funding radio stations and news websites. In Britain, the Directorate of Targeting and Information Operations in the Ministry of Defence works with specialists from 15 UK psyops, based at the Defence Intelligence and Security School at Chicksands in Bedfordshire. In the case of British intelligence, you can see this combination of reckless propaganda and failure of oversight at work in the case of Operation Mass Appeal. This was exposed by the former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, who describes in his book, Iraq Confidential, how, in London in June 1998, he was introduced to two “black propaganda specialists” from MI6 who wanted him to give them material which they could spread through “editors and writers who work with us from time to time”. The government is still paying off reporters to spread disinformation. And the corporate media are acting like virtual “escort services” for the moneyed elites, selling access – for a price – to powerful government officials, instead of actually investigating and reporting on what those officials are doing. One of the ways that the U.S. government spreads propaganda is by making sure that it gets its version out first. For example, the head of the U.S. Information Agency’s television and film division – Alvin A. Snyder – wrote in his book Warriors of Disinformation: How Lies, Videotape, and the USIA Won the Cold War: All governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The key is to lie first. *** Another casualty, always war’s first, was the truth. The story of [the accidental Russian shootdown of a Korean airliner] will be remembered pretty much the way we told it in 1983, not the way it really happened. In 2013, the American Congress repealed the formal ban against the deployment of propaganda against U.S. citizens living on American soil. So there’s even less to constrain propaganda than before. One of the most common uses of propaganda is to sell unnecessary and counter-productive wars. Given that the American media is always pro-war, mainstream publishers, producers, editors, and reporters are willing participants. It’s not just lying about Saddam’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction … the corporate media is still selling lies to promote war. (Unknown artist) Former Newsweek and Associated Press reporter Robert Parry notes that Ronald Reagan and the CIA unleashed a propaganda campaign in the 1980’s to sell the American public on supporting the Contra rebels, utilizing private players such as Rupert Murdoch to spread disinformation. Parry notes that many of the same people that led Reagan’s domestic propaganda effort in the 1980’s are in power today: While the older generation that pioneered these domestic propaganda techniques has passed from the scene, many of their protégés are still around along with some of the same organizations. The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond’s NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year. Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “A Shadow Foreign Policy.”] Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan’s article for The New Republic, entitled “Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire,” touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan’s criticism of Obama’s hesitancy to use military force. *** Rupert Murdoch’s media empire is bigger than ever …. Another key to American propaganda is the constant repetition of propaganda. As Business Insider reported in 2013: Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, a highly-respected officer who released a critical report regarding the distortion of truth by senior military officials in Iraq and Afghanistan …. From Lt. Col. Davis: In context, Colonel Leap is implying we ought to change the law to enable Public Affairs officers to influence American public opinion when they deem it necessary to “protect a key friendly center of gravity, to wit US national will.” The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 appears to serve this purpose by allowing for the American public to be a target audience of U.S. government-funded information campaigns. Davis also quotes Brigadier General Ralph O. Baker — the Pentagon officer responsible for the Department of Defense’s Joint Force Development — who defines Information Operations (IO) as activities undertaken to “shape the essential narrative of a conflict or situation and thus affect the attitudes and behaviors of the targeted audience.” Brig. Gen. Baker goes on to equate descriptions of combat operations with the standard marketing strategy of repeating something until it is accepted: For years, commercial advertisers have based their advertisement strategies on the premise that there is a positive correlation between the number of times a consumer is exposed to product advertisement and that consumer’s inclination to sample the new product. The very same principle applies to how we influence our target audiences when we conduct COIN. And those “thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs” appear to serve Baker’s strategy, which states: “Repetition is a key tenet of IO execution, and the failure to constantly drive home a consistent message dilutes the impact on the target audiences.” Government Massively Manipulates the Web, Social Media and Other Forms of Communication Of course, the Web and social media have become a huge media platform, and the Pentagon and other government agencies are massively manipulating both. Documents released by Snowden show that spies manipulate polls, website popularity and pageview counts, censor videos they don’t like and amplify messages they do. The CIA and other government agencies also put enormous energy into pushing propaganda through movies, television and video games. Cross-Border Propaganda Propaganda isn’t limited to our own borders … Sometimes, the government plants disinformation in American media in order to mislead foreigners. For example, an official government summary of America’s overthrow of the democratically-elected president of Iran in the 1950′s states, “In cooperation with the Department of State, CIA had several articles planted in major American newspapers and magazines which, when reproduced in Iran, had the desired psychological effect in Iran and contributed to the war of nerves against Mossadeq” (page x). The CIA has also bribed leading foreign journalists. And CNN accepted money from the brutal Bahrani dictatorship to run pro-monarchy propaganda. Everyone Who Challenges the Status Quo Is Labeled As a Purveyor of “Fake News” … Or Worse The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of the press from censorship by government. Indeed, the entire reason that it’s unlawful for the government to stop stories from being printed is because that would punish those who criticize those in power. Why? Because the Founding Father knew that governments (like the British monarchy) will always crack down on those who point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the freedom of the press is under massive attack in America today … For example, the powers-that-be argue that only highly-paid corporate media shills who will act as stenographers for the fatcats should have the constitutional protections guaranteeing freedom of the press. A Harvard law school professor argues that the First Amendment is outdated and should be abandoned. When financially-savvy bloggers challenged the Federal Reserve’s policy, a Fed official called all bloggers stupid and unqualified to comment. And the government is treating the real investigative reporters like criminals … or even terrorists: Obama has gone after top reporters. His Department of Justice labeled chief Fox News Washington correspondent James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” in a leak case, and for many years threatened to prosecute Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times journalist James Risen The Obama administration also spied on Risen, Rosen, the Associated Press, CBS reporter Cheryl Atkinson and other media In fact, top NSA whistleblowers tell Washington’s Blog that the NSA has spied on reporters for well over a decade … to make sure they don’t reveal illegal government programs The Pentagon smeared USA Today reporters because they investigated illegal Pentagon propaganda Reporters covering the Occupy protests were targeted for arrest The government admits that journalists could be targeted with counter-terrorism laws (and here). For example, after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing about bad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of the bank’s wrongdoing, the Department of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this) The NSA and its British counterpart treated Wikileaks like a terrorist organization, going so far as to target its employees politically, and to spy on visitors to its website If - after reading this - you still think that the U.S. mainstream media is anything but objective and spontaneous, then watch this. Postscript: See this and this.
Бывший премьер-министр Великобритании 63-летний Тони Блэр опроверг информацию о том, что избранный президент США Дональд Трамп может назначить его своим советником. Как сообщает Daily Telegraph, такие слухи появились после того, как Блэр был замечен в компании зятя Трампа Джареда Кушнера в одном из ресторанов Нью-Йорка. Пресс-секретарь экс-премьера назвал эту информацию "полностью раздутой". — Тони Блэр и Джаред Кушнер знакомы несколько лет. Господин Блэр просто проходил мимо столика, за которым сидел Джаред и несколько людей, которых он знал. Они пригласили его к себе. Он не обсуждал никаких ролей в команде Трампа. Это полностью раздутая информация, — сказал представитель Блэра. На вопрос о том, согласится ли бывший премьер стать советником Трампа по Ближнему Востоку, если такое предложение поступит, пресс-секретарь заявил, что подобные предположения не заслуживают и внимания. — Это уже такие домыслы, что для них даже нет определения, — сказал он. — По данным издания, Блэра и Кушнера мог познакомить медиамагнат Руперт Мердок. Известно также, что бывшая жена Мердока Уэнди Денг повлияла на восстановление отношений Кушнера и Иванки Трамп, когда в их семье наметился разлад. Кроме того, Тони Блэр является крёстным отцом дочери Мердока и Денг. Рейнса Прибаса на пост главы аппарата сотрудников Белого дома, как пишет Daily Telegraph, Трампа убедил назначить Джаред, которого ряд СМИ окрестил "создателем королей" в команде Трампа. Кушнер также повлиял на то, чтобы в качестве вице-президента была предложена кандидатура Майка Пенса.
This is by David Warsh: The Other Infrastructure, Economic Principals: Bridges, roads, airports, the electricity grid, pipelines, food and fuel and water systems: all of these are underfunded to some degree. So are the myriad new arrangements, from satellites and...
Rupert Murdoch-controlled News Corporation (NWSA) started fiscal 2017 on a dismal note, slipping into loss in the first quarter.
Like what you read below? Sign up for HUFFPOST HILL and get a cheeky dose of political news every evening! The Unskewed Polls founder thinks Hillary Clinton will win, which makes us wonder whether the girl who carved a B on her face is also with her. Neo-Nazis say they’re planning to “observe” polling places, because, hey, they’re simply people committed to overturning democracy concerned about preserving it. And prospective cabinet members are already lobbying Hillary’s transition team, while reporters are already readying puff pieces titled, “Hillary’s Go-To TK.” This is HUFFPOST HILL for Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016: TRUMP ‘VOTER MONITORING’ GROUP GAINING STEAM - Christina Wilkie: “More than 2,700 people have registered so far to serve as volunteer poll watchers for Stop the Steal, a pro-Donald Trump group run by noted dirty trickster Roger Stone. The longtime Trump ally said last month that those volunteers would be sent to polling places in nine cities with high minority populations on Election Day. And that constitutes illegal voter intimidation, according to at least four federal lawsuits against the Trump campaign, Stop the Steal, Stone and state Republican parties. Stone told HuffPost via email that the lawsuits are ‘without merit’ and that his group would conduct only ‘neutral, scientifically based EXIT POLL [sic] in order to compare the actual machine results with the exit poll results in 7,000 key precincts.’ But as of Wednesday, that ‘scientific’ exit poll was just a webpage with an icon for each of the four presidential candidates, ostensibly designed for the volunteer exit pollers to click on when they get an answer from a voter.” [HuffPost] Also this: “Neo-Nazi leader Andrew Anglin plans to muster thousands of poll watchers across all 50 states. His partners at the alt-right website ‘the Right Stuff’ are touting plans to set up hidden cameras at polling places in Philadelphia and hand out liquor and marijuana in the city’s ‘ghetto’ on Election Day to induce residents to stay home. The National Socialist Movement, various factions of the Ku Klux Klan and the white nationalist American Freedom Party all are deploying members to watch polls, either ‘informally’ or, they say, through the Trump campaign.” [Politico’s Ben Schreckinger] OBAMA TURNS SOUR ON FBI - The audacity of nope. Ryan J. Reilly: “President Barack Obama has weighed in on the controversy surrounding FBI Director James Comey’s decision to insert the bureau into the presidential campaign just days before the election. Obama, in an interview published Wednesday with Versha Sharma of NowThis, said he’s made a ‘very deliberate effort’ to make sure that it doesn’t look like he’s ‘meddling’ in the process at the FBI. ‘Setting aside the particulars of this case, I know that [Hillary Clinton] is somebody who has always looked out for the interests of America and the American people first, and I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations, we don’t operate on innuendo, we don’t operate on incomplete information, we don’t operate on leaks, we operate based on concrete decisions that are made,’ Obama said.” [HuffPost] ‘UNSKEW POLLS’ GUY THINKS HILLARY WILL WIN - Eliot Nelson: “Dean Chambers, who made a name for himself ‘unskewing’ the polls in 2012 to give Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney more favorable results, has come to view political polling with a bit less suspicion and believes that Hillary Clinton is the favorite to win the White House. ‘I would look at the RealClearPolitics no tossups map, they’re saying 273 [electoral votes] for Hillary,” Chambers, who founded the now defunct UnSkewPolls.com, told The Huffington Post in an interview. ‘My best guess is that’s probably pretty close.’ In that scenario, predicted by RealClearPolitics’ polling aggregator, Clinton ekes out a narrow win by carrying Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia and New Hampshire.” [HuffPost] Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s new book, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to [email protected] Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill NEVER MIND! TRUMP RESTARTING JOINT FUNDRAISING EFFORT - It is going to be so interesting to read the post-election FEC reports from Trump’s campaign operation. Drew Doggett: “In a surprising move, Trump’s national finance chairman, Steve Mnuchin, announced Oct. 25 that Trump Victory, a joint fundraising committee that can raise huge sums of money, will cease formal fundraising operations. While the campaign will continue to take in individual donations, Mnuchin claimed they stopped hosting official fundraisers and soliciting big donors. But today, the Trump National Doral Hotel in Miami hosted a fundraiser for the Victory Fund with Donald Trump in attendance, according to an invitation obtained by the Miami Herald. When we reached out to Trump National Doral, an employee confirmed that the event did, in fact, benefit Trump Victory.... According to Political Party Time’s database, the Trump Victory fundraising apparatus benefitted from only 66 official events this cycle, compared to the Hillary Victory Fund’s 410.” [Sunlight Foundation] CONSERVATIVES RAISING $$$ TO KEEP COURT UNDERSTAFFED - In 18 years, Siri will be our High Court. Cristian Farias: “Now that Republican strategy on Supreme Court vacancies is shifting to a permanent blockade of future nominations, at least one conservative powerhouse is raising money to help make that a reality.… [The Heritage Foundation]’s overture to donors includes a number of common talking points among conservative court watchers, including an appeal to stop the liberal push ― presumably by a President Hillary Clinton ― ‘to pack the courts with activist judges’ that might ‘create laws rather than interpret them.’ But tucked in this plea for funds, which The New Yorker noted in a recent column, was a game plan of sorts that builds on what many Republican senators have been signaling of late: that it would be perfectly acceptable to leave the Supreme Court and other courts short-handed for as long as needed.” [HuffPost] NEO-NAZIS HAD THE BEST WEEK IN WASHINGTON - Dana Liebelson and Matt Ferner: “Last month, several American white nationalists traveled to an anti-immigration conference in Wismar, Germany, and told attendants that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign represents a win for the movement—even if he loses the election.... There’s no doubt that Trump’s run for the nation’s highest office has energized white nationalists. In recent weeks, the KKK’s official newspaper has endorsed Trump, white supremacists have announced plans to monitor polling places, and Johnson launched a robo-call claiming that Evan McMullin, an independent presidential candidate who is competitive with Trump in Utah, is gay. (On Wednesday, he stopped the campaign and apologized.) But white nationalists aren’t just gearing up for Election Day. As the German conference shows, they’re also eagerly planning their next moves.” [HuffPost] HOUSE RACIAL CAUCUSES LOBBYING CLINTON FOR CABINET POSITIONS - Though they have regretfully not included Cherokee-American Elizabeth Warren in their deliberations. Scott Wong, Rafael Bernal and Mike Lillis: “If she’s elected president next week, Hillary Clinton has pledged that 50 percent of her Cabinet will be female — but she’s under enormous pressure to ensure racial diversity as well. The congressional Hispanic, Asian and black caucuses recently held separate meetings with Clinton’s transition team to put forward names of minority candidates for Cabinet and high-ranking administration posts, The Hill has learned. Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who is heading the transition team, attended some of those meetings.” [The Hill] OREGON GOVERNOR IS THE LEFT’S NEW DARLING - Jennifer Bendery: “If [Kate] Brown was thrown by her abrupt ascent to the governorship, it didn’t show. In the 20 months since, she’s pushed through the kind of agenda that most progressives can only dream about. She oversaw the state’s historic minimum wage increase. She enacted one of the nation’s strongest mandatory paid sick leave laws. She signed bills requiring background checks on private gun sales, phasing out coal-fired power plants and instating a first-in-the-nation law that automatically registers residents to vote when they get or renew a driver’s license. She also signed a ‘ban the box’ law, barring employers from asking job applicants about criminal records, and helped create a first-of-its-kind LGBT veterans coordinator. Already a Democratic stronghold, Oregon has exploded into a progressive’s paradise on Brown’s watch.” [HuffPost] LOOK AT WHAT YOU’VE DONE, JAMES COMEY - Actually, we’re curious to know what the risotto John Podesta cooks with thinks of the whole affair. David Mack: “The teenage girl who allegedly received indecent messages from Anthony Weiner said she is ‘upset’ with FBI Director James Comey after she found out via the media that her case had been tied to the use of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, BuzzFeed News can exclusively reveal. Comey has been criticized for going public with the latest investigation into Clinton’s emails so close to the election and despite a lack of clear evidence, but the 15-year-old told BuzzFeed News she feels aggrieved that the Bureau gave her no warning that her case would be thrust into the national spotlight and tainted with electoral politics. ‘The FBI asked for me to speak to the media as little as possible. I have tried to stay quiet, but Comey has upset me,’ the teenager told BuzzFeed News. ‘The last thing that I wanted was to have this become political propaganda.’” [BuzzFeed] About those Donald Trump child rape allegations you’ve likely read about on social media. TRUMP CAN’T EVEN EARN THE OBSERVER’S ENDORSEMENT - Guess Trump will have to revive Trump magazine for an extra endorsement. Michael Calderone: “The New York Observer, a weekly newspaper and website owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, will not be backing a presidential candidate ahead of Election Day. Editor-in-chief Ken Kurson told The Huffington Post Wednesday that the ‘Observer is not going to make an endorsement in the general.’ The Observer was one of four publications to endorse Trump during the Republican primary, along with the Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, the Santa Barbara News-Press and The National Enquirer. The Santa Barbara News-Press is also among the handful of newspapers to endorse Trump in the general election. The New York Post, which backed Romney nearly two weeks before the 2012 election, has not yet weighed in for the general even as its tabloid rival, The Daily News, doubled down Monday on its support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.” [HuffPost] BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR - Here are some disruptive pandas. FULFILLING MLK’S DREAM - Mark Joseph Stern: “Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, a Republican...declared that [expanded voting access] ‘cheapen[s] the work’ of civil rights heroes and that ‘just because you turned 18 doesn’t give you the right’ to vote. Merrill explained his thoughts in an interview with a progressive voting rights initiative called Answering the Call. Asked about automatic registration for people who turn 18, Merrill responded, ‘I don’t think that just because your birthday comes around, that you ought to be registered to vote.’ He then listed a litany of voting rights advocates—including John Lewis, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks…” [Slate] COMFORT FOOD - Is this what quantum mechanics looks like? - Russians discovered a secret Nazi Arctic base ― no Nazis were found. - Dog reacts to a meme. TWITTERAMA @kibblesmith: [Ken Bone shivering in the rain at bus stop][car pulls up, window rolls down]Joe The Plumber: Hey kid ― hop in. @dceiver: WIlliam Shatner: (raising his skinny fists to heaven) KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANfirmation bias @HayesBrown: HRC: I don’t know...OBAMA: It’ll workHRC: Really?OBAMA: Hillary, if I say “NORF CAROLINA C’MON AND RAISE UP” you WILL win the state Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson ([email protected]) or Arthur Delaney ([email protected]). -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
NEW YORK ― The New York Observer, a weekly newspaper and website owned by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, will not be backing a presidential candidate ahead of Election Day. Editor-in-chief Ken Kurson told The Huffington Post Wednesday that the “Observer is not going to make an endorsement in the general.” The Observer was one of four publications to endorse Trump during the Republican primary, along with the Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, the Santa Barbara News-Press and The National Enquirer. The Santa Barbara News-Press is also among the handful of newspapers to endorse Trump in the general election. The New York Post, which backed Romney nearly two weeks before the 2012 election, has not yet weighed in for the general even as its tabloid rival, The Daily News, doubled down Monday on its support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Clinton has racked up dozens of newspaper endorsements throughout the country, including from conservative editorial boards that hadn’t picked a Democrat in decades ― or, in some cases, more than a century. No major magazine has backed Trump. Some have endorsed for the first time or in recent memory; the Atlantic’s endorsement of Clinton was only its third in a 160-year-history. The Observer has struggled at times with covering Trump given Kushner’s familial, political and business ties. Kushner, who bought the paper in 2006 and married Ivanka Trump three years later, has been a top adviser throughout the election cycle ― even described as the de facto campaign manager. He’s also reportedly been inquiring about launching a Trump-related media venture after the election. The Observer faced criticism in 2014 for publishing an unflattering article on New York attorney Eric Schneiderman after his office brought a fraud case against Trump University. As the presidential race was under way in July 2015, Kurson told HuffPost “there’s no good way to cover Trump’s candidacy from an opinion perspective” given that any take, pro or con, could be viewed through the prism of Kushner’s ownership. In April, New York magazine reported that Kurson ― who worked as a former speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani in addition to journalism roles ― provided input for a speech Trump gave at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, a role that raised conflict of interest concerns. Kurson was unapologetic, telling HuffPost that he and Kushner have long discussed politics and he simply looked at a draft in the course of their discussions. A family friend, Kurson landed the Observer’s top job after Kushner cycled through five editors in seven years. While Kurson didn’t regret his involvement, a former senior politics editor put out a statement shortly afterward that no editorial staffers should assist campaigns. The paper’s national political reporter quit just over a week later in response to the primary endorsement and other Trump coverage concerns. To its credit, the paper has allowed for some debate over Trump, and his influence, in its pages. In July, arts and culture writer Dana Schwartz wrote an open letter to Kushner asking him to respond to the anti-Semitic attacks leveled at her and other journalists by Trump supporters. Kushner, who is orthodox Jewish, and whose wife, Ivanka, converted to the faith, responded that his father-in-law is not anti-Semitic or racist. Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Fox News has reportedly offered anchor Megyn Kelly a compensation package worth over $20 million, according to Vanity Fair. The magazine cited multiple anonymous sources who confirmed the figure. Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Kelly’s contract expires in July. Her show, “The Kelly File,” had the second-highest ratings among cable news shows last year, with an average of 2.3 million viewers. Fox News star Bill O’Reilly’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” which brought in an average of 2.8 million viewers, snagged the top spot. A salary over $20 million would bring Kelly up to O’Reilly’s level, according to the Wall Street Journal. O’Reilly’s contract also ends next year. Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch told the paper last week that he hoped they would come to an agreement “very soon,” but that it’s up to Kelly. Kelly’s national profile has grown during the presidential campaign. While moderating a Republican primary debate in August, she asked Donald Trump to explain his misogynistic comments, prompting him to exclaim “she had blood coming out of her ... wherever.” In the past few months, Kelly’s repeatedly pressed the Republican nominee and his surrogates on the conservative network. Earlier this month, she called out Jason Miller, Trump’s senior communications adviser, when he questioned why the multiple women who have accused Trump of sexual assault didn’t speak out sooner. “They came forward after he said he likes to grab them by the crotch and then denied he’d ever done it,” Kelly responded. She also reportedly played a role in the ouster of Roger Ailes, former chairman and CEO of Fox News, following his sexual harassment scandal. Kelly told investigators that Ailes made unwanted advances toward her earlier in her career, New York magazine reported. In April, Kelly told Variety she wasn’t sure if she would stay at Fox after her contract expired. “I really like my show, and I love my team,” she said. “But you know, there’s a lot of brain damage that comes from the job. There was probably less brain damage when I worked in the afternoon. I was less well known. I had far less conflict in my life.” For more details on Kelly’s contract negotiations, read the Vanity Fair article here. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Известный российский тележурналист Владимир Познер прокомментировал скандал вокруг своего интервью с Хиллари Клинтон, которое состоялось в 2010 году, но с подачи журналиста Fox News вызвало переполох сегодня, в 2016-м. Он пояснил, что обещание "способствовать укреплению России" прозвучало от Госсекретаря США в разговоре о перезагрузке — изменении вектора двусторонней политики России и Америки. В этом смысле, по мнению Познера, заявление Клинтон было весьма ожидаемо, но полностью доверять её словам он бы не стал. — Я всегда сомневаюсь в искренности любых политических деятелей, потому что они демонстрируют не искренность, а свою политику, — отметил журналист в разговоре с Лайфом. — Она приехала в Россию в качестве Госсекретаря США, она встречалась с Путиным и Медведевым, который на тот момент был президентом. И когда речь зашла о перезагрузке отношений, изменении отношений России и США к лучшему, она эту линию, естественно, проводила как политик. По мнению Познера, изменение взгляда на российскую политику в глазах Клинтон и большей части американского общества вызвано целым рядом причин. Среди них и Крым, и украинский вопрос, и тот факт, что Запад не готов видеть сильного лидера у руля нашей страны. — Возвращение в кресло президента Владимира Владимировича Путина сыграло свою роль, потому что он более жёстко ставит вопросы роли России на мировой арене, — пояснил он. Тем не менее Владимир Познер не считает возросший интерес к политическим взглядам Хиллари Клинтон семилетней давности хоть в какой-то мере показательным. Обращение к своему интервью на фоне заключительной части предвыборной президентской кампании в США он называет игрой со стороны владельцев Fox News. — Всё-таки нужно понимать, что Fox News — это телевизионная организация, которая принципиально против демократов, не важно, Обама ли это, Клинтон или кто-то другой. Они давно занимаются не журналистикой, а сведением счётов и продвижением своих интересов. Это такая мелкая журналистская игра, которая отражает интерес хозяина этого СМИ Руперта Мёрдока, — считает Познер. — Выражаясь американской поговоркой, я доверяю Fox News ровно так же, как далеко могу бросить слона. Напомним, обозреватель телеканала Fox News Ричард Гренелл проанализировал, насколько изменилось отношение Хиллари Клинтон к России во время президентской кампании в США. Журналисты вспомнили, что во время интервью 2010 года нынешний кандидат от демократов пыталась заверить публику в своей поддержке российских властей, а сегодня кандидат от демократов нападает на Трампа только за то, что тот назвал Путина сильным лидером.
Read full story for latest details.
Contract negotiations between Megyn Kelly and Fox News Channel have spilled into the media, with Fox News interim CEO Rupert Murdoch talking on the record to The Wall Street Journal (which he also owns via his other company, News Corp.) about the matter.According to the Journal's Joe Flint, "Mr. Murdoch said in an interview that she is important to the network and he hopes to get a contract signed 'very soon,' but noted, 'it’s up to her.'" Adding: “We have a deep bench of talent, many of whom would give their right arm for her spot.”Flint reports that Kelly, who will make around $15 million this year, is aiming to get north of $20 million per year with her new contract. He also said he wants to keep Bill O'Reilly on as the channel's 8 PM host. O'Reilly's contract is also up next year.As for reports that Murdoch may change the editorial direction of the channel, perhaps de-emphasizing conservative talk hosts in favor of newsier programming, Murdoch was unequivocal: "We’re not changing direction…that would be business suicide."
Submitted by Antonius Aquinas, The US Presidential campaign has demonstrated once again that the mainstream mass media is still the dominant force and arbitrator of political events and if it is successful in pushing the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua past the finish line this November, it may have achieved its greatest triumph. During the campaign’s stretch run, the mainstream media has used every form and variety of spin, distortion, half truth, calumny, and lies in its diabolical effort to make Killary Rotten Clinton President of the USSA. The mass media – television, newspapers, movies, the Entertainment industry, book publishing, advertising, and now sports – is part of society’s opinion molding movers and shakers which form part of what Noble Prize winning economist F.A. Hayek called “intellectuals.” This all important group are not simply nerdy academic professors with patches on their sleeves, but are those who have the ability to shape public opinion, as Hayek describes: It is the intellectuals in this sense who decide what views and opinions are to reach us, which facts are important enough to be told us, and in what form and from what angle they are to be presented. Whether we shall ever learn of the results of the work of the expert and the original thinker depends mainly on their decision. * Since at least the 1960s, the dominant opinion-molding sector of the mass media has been the electronic media, which has far outpaced newsprint and academia in influence. While its power may be on the wane in the Internet Age, it is still the most powerful and important tool in the political elites arsenal for imparting their agenda. The electronic media, through its use of pictures and images, has been able to manipulate political outcomes and shape public policy discussions at almost every turn. As every media realist has long understood, the mainstream media has long been controlled by the Left which has used this power to counter any opposition to its narrative. The major media outlets are controlled by five corporate giants – Time Warner, Disney, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom – the largest purveyors of crony capitalism and cultural Marxism the world has ever witnessed. No dissent is allowed to be heard on these outlets nor is there any hope of career advancement for journalists or writers if the Leftist paradigm is not trumpeted. A free society does not exist because of a free press. In fact, every society which has naively allowed a free press to exist, invariably finds that the press will seek to undermine it, especially its most innovative and successful individuals. The reason, as Hayek so brilliantly explains, is that the press, and in this age the electronic media, is part of the intelligentsia which by its nature is envy ridden since it has little to offer the world in the production of actual goods and services. Its members, therefore, are constantly denigrating their betters. Such a mindset and sociological disposition will naturally lead members of the mass media to support politicians who will regulate, tax, and control the productive members of society. This explains, in part, their vile and hysterical opposition to Donald Trump. For Trump, unlike his crazed and corrupt opponent, has largely gained his wealth and position through his own intelligence, foresight, and hard work. Offsetting media bias is a Herculean task and can only be done by one who is savvy and financially independent enough. This is why Donald Trump has gotten as far has he has and has used his leverage to heroically call out the manipulations of the mainstream media. It is surprising, therefore, that Trump agreed to the Presidential “debates” in a forum orchestrated by the media with “moderators” who would be gunning to undermine him at every turn. Better to have chosen a neutral environment with an honest third party participant such as Brian Lamb of C-Span. Agreeing to the same rigged debate format was a tactical mistake. For anyone to seriously challenge the American Leviathan, it must be understood that the mainstream media is a part of that despotic structure and it too must be neutered. Donald Trump has done more than any Presidential candidate to expose the treachery of the mainstream media, now others must take up the cause.
Европейский парламент готовится к обсуждению странного вопроса: "стоит ли разделить компанию Google на несколько отдельных сервисов?" У американских коллег сама идея вызывает все возможные негативные эмоции - от недоумения до негодования. Показать "Кузькину мать" Европарламент не способен разрушить Google. В конце концов, штаб-квартира компании находится в США, и кроме американских властей структуру ее бизнеса никто не может изменить. Но в Европе продолжается антимонопольное расследование деятельности Google, в рамках которого политики и чиновники придумывают новые способы ограничения экспансии американцев на своей территории. На таком фоне действия Европарламента являются скорее намеком на продолжение преследования зарубежного интернет-гиганта. Законотворцы могут поддержать идею отделения поисковика Google от других фирменных сервисов. Если это произойдет, американцы должны получить четкий сигнал, отражающий позицию властей Евросоюза. До сих пор центральное место в расследовании занимали именно антимонопольщики из Еврокомиссии. В Америке на выпад со стороны европейцев уже отреагировали сразу два правительственных комитета. Их представители, сенаторы Рон Уайден и Оррин Хэтч заявили: "Это предложение и другие подобные ему идеи способствуют строительству стен, а не мостов. При этом не учитываются в полной мере те негативные эффекты, которые могут навредить торговым отношениям США и ЕС". В США считают, что Европа нарушает принцип открытых рынков. Говорится также о "политизации" процесса. Действующие лица Интересно, что против разделения Google выступает Гюнтер Эттингер. Да, тот самый Гюнтер Эттингер, который раньше отвечал за энергетику и присутствовал на переговорах между Украиной и Россией по газу. Теперь он еврокомиссар по вопросам цифровых технологий. Эттингер уверен, что бить Google на части никто не будет. Кто же тогда решил голосовать? Это Андреас Шваб, представитель консервативного крыла Европарламента и испанец Рамон Тремоза, представляющий интересы Каталонии. Эти политики утверждают, что усилия Еврокомиссии пока не оправдали себя, а поведение Google на рынке Старого Света напоминает монополизм. "До сих пор Google отказывалась придумать какие-либо идеи, способные изменить ситуацию и снять претензии со стороны Еврокомиссии. Вместо этого компания продолжала вести дела как ей заблагорассудится. Таким образом она давит на конкурентную среду, что вредит европейским потребителям и бизнесу", - считают Шваб и Тремоза. Ссылки по теме Мердок: "Google – шайка пиратов" Европа забывает, Google хочет вспомнить все Google наконец договорилась с европейскими властями В самой Еврокомиссии произошли перестановки. Хоакин Альмуния отправился в отставку, и его место заняла Маргрете Вестегер. Интересно, какую позицию займет она и как далеко готова будет пойти ради обеспечения свободной конкуренции на интернет-рынке в том виде, в каком эту конкуренцию видят консерваторы из Европарламента. Битва за правду или зависть? В данный момент 90% поисковых запросов в Европе приходится на Google. В 2010г. конкуренты подали жалобу на американского игрока, объявив, что он мешает им развиваться. Речь идет в частности о рекламе и выгодном положении партнеров в поисковых результатах. Напомним, что ранее медиа-магнат Руперт Мердок сделал громкое заявление по поводу Google. С помощью исполнительного директора News Corp Роберта Томсона он попытался донести до антимонопольных органов мысль о том, что Google отдает предпочтение своим сайтам-партнерам. Если пользователь вбивает запрос в поисковик, то якобы получает именно те результаты, которые принесут Google максимальное количество денег. Подобные претензии озвучивались и раньше, но News Corp сформулировала их, пожалуй, максимально жестко. Отметим, что Google все-таки пытается найти мирное решение. Так в начале этого года компания согласилась выводить в результатах поиска рекламные объявления, предоставляемые конкурентами.
Они добились успеха в бизнесе и инвестициях, и теперь пытаются протолкнуть свои и чужие политические идеи в политической системе США. В нашем списке самые влиятельные миллиардеры-политики Америки. 20.Элис Уолтон Элис Уолтон - наследница богатства крупнейшей в мире розничной сети Wal-Mart, пусть и не единственная. Уолтон вполне открыто поддерживает Хиллари Клинтон и вложилась в так называемый "PAC" (Комитет политических действий) под названием "Ready for Hillary". 19.Дональд Трамп Владелец конгломерата The Trump Organization и король американского сектора недвижимости Дональд Трамп, как и многие представители большого бизнеса, придерживается республиканских взглядов. Напомним, что Республиканская партия поддерживает наиболее мягкую налоговую политику в отношении богачей. 18.Марк Андрессен Инвестор-миллиардер Марк Андрессен уверен, что будущее за Республиканской партией США. Он поддерживал кандидата от республиканцев Митта Ромни на президентских выборах 2012г. В данный момент Андрессен инвестриует в широкий спектр активов, многие из которых будут влиять и на политический фон. Стоит вспомнить хотя бы о криптовалюте bitcoin. 17.Питер Дж. Питерсон Питерсон был министром торговли при Ричарде Никсоне, а теперь управляет мощным фондом. Миллиардер ратует за уменьшение государственного долга, и с помощью Peter G. Peterson Foundation основал такие организации, направленные на борьбу с долгами США как Fix the Debt и Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 16.Поль Зингер Поль Зингер - бизнесмен с партийным билетом. Он консервативный республиканец, но выступает за однополые браки. Именно эта идея стала для него центральной в политической деятельности. С помощью организации American Unity он вложил $2 млн в поддержку республиканцев, которые также выступают за однополые браки. Главный актив Зингера - Elliott Management Corporation. 15.Арт Поуп Бывший председатель бюджетного комитета Северной Каролины и преуспевающий бизнесмен Арт Поуп вложил миллионы долларов в продвижение своих политических идей. В первую очередь, речь идет о свободном рынке, который Поуп считает основной составляющей успешной экономики. Арт Поуп также республиканец. 14.Пьер и Памела Омидьяр Семья иранского происхождения, которая добилась успеха в США, вкладывает существенные средства в продвижение идеи прозрачности и открытости. Пьер и Памела интересуются также вопросами прав на собственность и экономического развития. 13.Джефф и Макинзи Безос Кто бы мог подумать, что руководство Amazon.com может интересоваться политикой. Однако Джефф Безос недавно приобрел издание Washington Post и вложил $2,5 млн в поддержку однополых браков. Напомним, что этот вопрос в США остается одним из наиболее острых в области внутренней политики. 12.Марк Цукерберг И снова миллиардер из высокотехнологического сектора, который интересуется политикой. Марк Цукерберг совместно с организацией FWD.us работает над иммиграционной реформой, а в Нью-Джерси проталкивает реформу начального образования. Напомним, что самому владельцу Facebook в настоящий момент всего 30 лет. 11.Питер Тиль Питерь Тиль, известный инвестор, владелец хэдж-фондов и сооснователь PayPal, вложил $2,6 млн в предвыборную кампанию в 2012г., деньги получил Рон Пол, который вылетел из гонки во время праймериз. В последнее время Тиль активно выступает в пользу увеличения минимального размера оплаты труда. 10.Уоррен Баффет Миллиардер Баффет, владелец знаменитого Berkshire Hathaway, сыграл важную роль в политике США после избрания Барака Обамы на пост президента. Уоррен Баффет выступает за ограничение власти богачей, увеличение налогов для них, и собирается расстаться с большей частью своего богатства в рамках The Giving Pledge ("Клятва дарения"). 9.Пенни Прицкер Пенни Прицкер была министром торговли и одним из главных лоббистов идей Барака Обамы. Кроме того, Прицкер является сооснователем PSP Capital Partners, Pritzker Realty Group и еще ряда крупных фирм, что придает ее голосу значимость, когда речь заходит о внутренней политике. 8.Джон и Лора Арнольд Джон Арнольд управлял крупным хэдж-фондом, и фокусировался на инвестициях в газовые активы а потом стал филантропом. Правда, не каждый найдет желание помочь людям в его стремлении добиться сокращения пенсий и добиться роста финансовой нагрузки для работников предприятий. 7.Билл и Мелинда Гейтс The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - один из самых авторитетных благотворительных фондов, инвестирующих в борьбу с болезнями и бедностью в развивающихся странах, в частности, в Африканских. Также основатель Microsoft и его супруга сражаются за реформирование американской системы образования и легализацию однополых браков. 6.Руперт Мердок Руперт Мердок контролирует Wall Street Journal и Fox News - это важнейшие поставщики политических и экономических новостей. Таким образом, Мердок сосредоточил в своих руках активы, способные задавать новостной тон и влиять на настроения в обществе. Кроме того, Руперт Мердок сотрудничает с Bloomberg по вопросу иммиграционной реформы. 5.Джордж Сорос Джордж Сорос открыто лоббирует идеи демократов. Он потратил $1 млн в 2012г. на поддержку Барака Обамы на выборах. Кроме того, Сорос в данный момент является сопредседателем комитета политических действий "Ready for Hillary". 4.Шелдон Эделсон Наша жизнь - игра, и один из королей игорного бизнеса Шелдон Эделсон активно вкладывает средства в политику. Он потратил $93 млн, чтобы "победить Барака Обаму". Речь, конечно, не о том, что бизнесмен надеялся участвовать в выборах, а о поддержке республиканцев, которые "выполняют свои обещания". На следующих выборах Эделсон инвестирует в кампанию вдвое больше. 3.Том Стейер Стейер - сооснователь и один из руководителей фонда Farallon Capital Management. Он также основал несколько банков. Помимо бизнеса Тома Стейера интересуют вопросы охраны окружающей среды, и он активно лоббирует соответствующие идеи в политической среде. 2.Майкл Блумберг Бывший мэр Нью-Йорка и основатель агентства Bloomberg Майкл Блумберг активно борется с бесконтрольным распространением оружия. Он инвестировал $50 млн в противодействие организации NRA, которая как раз пытается добиться свободной торговли оружием на всей территории США, делая отсылку ко Второй поправке к Конституции. 1.Чарльз и Дэвид Кох Братья Кох инвестировали $30 млн в программу, которая выявляет слабые стороны демократов. Это специальная рекламная кампания, навредившая тем политикам, которым есть что скрывать. К следующим выборам общий объем инвестиций в эту программу семья Кох собирается довести до $290 млн. Еще одной жертвой стала программа здравоохранения "Obamacare".