There really is no excuse to be so willfully uninformed.

Operation Mockingbird

After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence Agency. 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. These networks were run by people with well-known liberal but pro-American big business and anti-Soviet views such as William Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time and Life Magazine), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of the Washington Post), Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal), James Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison[disambiguation needed] (Christian Science Monitor).[9]

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning of funds intended for the Marshall Plan. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers. Frank Wisner was constantly looking for ways to help convince the public of the dangers of Soviet communism. In 1954, Wisner arranged for the funding of the Hollywood production of Animal Farm, the animated allegory based on the book written by George Orwell.[11]

According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA), in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts". Wisner was also able to restrict newspapers from reporting about certain events. For example, the CIA plots to overthrow the governments of Iran (see: Operation Ajax) and Guatemala (see: Operation PBSUCCESS).[12]

Thomas Braden, head of the International Organizations Division (IOD), played an important role in Operation Mockingbird. Many years later he revealed his role in these events:

"If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe—a Labour leader—suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war—the secret war.... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first. Journalists were a target, labor unions a particular target—that was one of the activities in which the communists spent the most money."[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

yep,those Bahamian Orange Groves are luscious!

And this silliness demonstrated that you've never done any media studies have you? Why is it you're always an expert on subjects you have no idea about?

Thanks for proving my point. Have you something a little more academic in nature?

There really is no excuse for being so illogical.

This is an isolated example of attempted media controls during one of your nations more paranoid periods. Now, take the time to think. If the government controlled the media as you and other uneducated people believe, you would never hear of any scandal, or read any article showing the government in a negative light. That of course, is not the case.

Now I haven't the time, nor the inclination to lecture you on media studies, but it is worth a little study on your behalf. There are many nations that have, or have had tight governmental media controls and reading, or viewing this material will demonstrate the gulf between the reality of real media control and this current hysteria.

"and reading, or viewing this material will demonstrate the gulf between the reality of real media control and this current hysteria."

Did you mean..."If one were to "choose" to take a rational approach, reading and viewing this material could/would demonstrate the gulf between the reality of real media and the current hysteria.".....?

Yes, thanks for clarifying my clumsy prose. Comparing and contrasting examples of articles produced by nations with governmental media control, and those of the USA and Australia (for example), one can clearly see that freedom of the press still exists in our countries. There are, of course, influences in editorial content, but to confuse that with outright control by governments or other interest groups is erroneous.

Absolutely!...One should always evaluate external "influences" with respect to editorial content and context in order to make an intelligent distinction between what is spin and propaganda and what is honest reporting...

Sickem Torgo!

Well I don't object to the occasional conspiracy theory posts.

Serves to educate the public. The difference between real
conspiracies (such as Bernie Madoff's crimes) and fake
conspiracies (like Rothschilds or Illuminati or Jews taking
over the world) is that there is actual proof of Madoff's crimes
while there actually is no proof of these other world domination
conspiracy theories.

Sure wealthy people try to protect their interests. Sure they
talk to each other and are friends...sometimes. Sometimes they
can't stand each other and their interests conflict.

I just point people to the Wiki page on conspiracy theories which
does a pretty good job at debunking most of it.

Now let us return to our program already in progress:

News flash,

Bohemian Grove and the rest of the Criminal Cabal are going down soon!!

(That includes Pinky and the Brain and anyone else who thinks they can rule the world. )

What about the Reptilians?

Yep, them too.

So did Operation Mockingbird exist and if so what was its purpose?

Again one does not need to have every journalist on the payroll one only needs to control the choke points of information.

We have the illusion of a free and independent media for sure.

Censorship by omission is still censorship.


Do you suppose if a group of star athletes gathered and had secret discussions it would make the news? Why the near media silence when the movers and shakers of the world gather be it at bohemian grove or bilderberg?

Your kidding yourself if you think we have an independent media.

nsorship in the media

There are many examples of media censorship, yet few so clear and blatant as the Fox News censorship of investigative journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson in their series on the dangers of artificial hormones in our milk. In the below 10-minute video clip, Jane and Steve explain how their work was at first championed by their local Fox news station, only to then be attacked.

These two investigative reporters were eventually offered a significant bribe by their station managers to cancel their highly revealing series and promise never to speak of what happened. After refusing they were fired.

One of the key quotes during this astounding example of media censorship came from the Fox station manager, who said "We paid $3 billion dollars for these television stations. We’ll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is!" If you care about your personal health and the health of our media, watch this fascinating clip and learn more at the links below.
http://www.examiner.com/article/media-censorship

That is why I depend on the Internet and alternative news for information.

People make fun of youtube but it is free Press and free speech.

And you're unable to prove otherwise with any credibility, therefore, your argument is worthless. Moreover, you confuse censorship with media control. They are not the same.

...alternative to what? Reality?

yep,they even wrote a Book about it and made a Motion-Picture!
To Kill A Mockingbird!

I'll get used to this archaic forum engine one day.