Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Oct 24, 2019 11:17 am


Any of the 'news items' cited by overcoming hope in the 'We Are All Russian Assets' thread -- as well as most MSM news articles of late -- can qualify for inclusion in this thread.

The below is a bit of a departure from the 'Russian Agent' hysteria, but no less loathsome, and in keeping with a repeating over-arching agenda. ... index.html

Edward Snowden searched the CIA's networks for proof that aliens exist. Here's what he found

(CNN) PSA for all the Area 51 stormers, chemtrail believers and climate change deniers: Edward Snowden has searched the depths of the US intelligence networks and can report the conspiracy theories are not true.

As a former employee of the CIA and contractor for the National Security Agency, Snowden had access to some of the nation's most closely held secrets.

And, like any curious mind with access to the CIA's version of Google might do, he went in search of answers to some of society's most pressing questions.

As it turns out, the US government is not aware of any intelligent, extraterrestrial life, he says.

"For the record, as far as I could tell, aliens have never contacted Earth, or at least they haven't contacted US intelligence," Snowden writes in his recent memoir, "Permanent Record."

Also, the moon landing did indeed occur.

"In case you were wondering: Yes, man really did land on the moon. Climate change is real. Chemtrails are not a thing," he adds.

More at link.

This tripe is to be expected from CNN, but Snowden's reported quips lends added credence to my earlier suspicions/speculations Re: Showden as part of a 'limited hangout' op.

Snowden has the answers for us, folks. No need to ruminate any longer. How convenient. An inside man with inside intel on 'conspiracy theories' (both meritless and/or plausible -- no matter. Anything outside of State-sponsored and approved events are to be tossed into the Conspiracy Theory bin and consigned to debunked/'kook' status).

Whatever one may think of Snowden, the question is: why would he even agree to participate in this? Outside of the actual words spoken/typed, the overall theme serves to reinforce establishment cultural narratives.

And that makes him suspect.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
Posts: 2820
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:10 am


"Freedom of the Press". "Democracy". "Fair and balanced". Fanciful notions.

Harvey referenced this in the Assange thread. A scenario for those that don't tow the status quo line. ... -violence/

Grayzone Editor Max Blumenthal Arrested Months After Reporting on Venezuelan Opposition Violence

Blumenthal has been arrested on false charges after reporting on Venezuelan opposition violence outside the D.C. embassy. He describes the manufactured case as part of a wider campaign of political persecution, reports Ben Norton.

Max Blumenthal, the editor of the news site The Grayzone, was arrested on the morning of Oct. 25 on a fabricated charge related to the siege of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, D.C., that took place between April and May.

A team of D.C. police officers appeared at Blumenthal’s door at just after 9 AM, demanding entry and threatening to break his door down. A number of officers had taken positions on the side of his home as though they were prepared for a SWAT-style raid.

Blumenthal was hauled into a police van and ultimately taken to D.C. central jail, where he was held for two days in various cells and cages. He was shackled by his hands and ankles for over five hours in one such cage along with other inmates. His request for a phone call was denied by D.C. police and corrections officers, effectively denying him access to the outside world.

Blumenthal was informed that he was accused of simple assault by a Venezuelan opposition member. He declared the charge completely baseless.

“This charge is a 100 percent false, fabricated, bogus, untrue, and malicious lie,” Blumenthal declared. “It is clearly part of a campaign of political persecution designed to silence me and the The Grayzone for our factual journalism exposing the deceptions, corruption and violence of the far-right Venezuelan opposition.”

The arrest warrant was 5 months old. According to an individual familiar with the case, the warrant for Blumenthal’s arrest was initially rejected. Strangely, this false charge was revived months later without the defendant’s knowledge.

“If the government had at least told me I had a warrant I could have voluntarily surrendered and appeared at my own arraignment. I have nothing to fear because I’m completely innocent of this bogus charge,” Blumenthal stated. “Instead, the federal government essentially enlisted the D.C. police to SWAT me, ensuring that I would be subjected to an early morning raid and then languish in prison for days without even the ability to call an attorney.”

The Embassy Siege

In April and May, Washington-backed Venezuelan coup leaders began taking over properties in the United States that belong to the internationally recognized government of Venezuela’s democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro, in violation of international law.

A group of activists responded by keeping a vigil inside the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, D.C., in order to protect it from an illegal seizure by the U.S.-supported coup leaders. The activists formed what they called the Embassy Protection Collective. The internationally recognized Venezuelan government gave them permission to stay in its embassy, which is its own sovereign territory under international law.

In response, hordes of violent right-wing activists who support the Venezuelan opposition launched a de facto 24/7 siege of the embassy, preventing people, food, and supplies from entering the building.

The Grayzone reporter Anya Parampil and Alex Rubinstein, a contributor to The Grayzone, were embedded in the embassy with several peace activists.

Parampil and journalists including Blumenthal documented the right-wing mobs lashing out with racist and sexist invective as well as violence at Venezuelan solidarity activists who gathered outside the embassy to show support for the protectors.

False Charge

Court documents indicate the false charge of simple assault stems from Blumenthal’s participation in a delivery of food and sanitary supplies to peace activists and journalists inside the Venezuelan embassy on May 8, 2019.

The charge was manufactured by a Venezuelan opposition member who was among those laying siege to the embassy in a sustained bid to starve out the activists inside.

More at link.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
Posts: 2820
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby coffin_dodger » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:22 am

Harvey's right - a super rubicon - it is so plain to see who they are and how they operate that they are having to clamp down, now. Sadly, they can inflict a lot of terror/horror between here and the end-state.
User avatar
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby alloneword » Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:32 pm

Cross-posting this for the sake of tidiness:

alloneword » Sat Nov 02, 2019 11:27 pm wrote:Speaking of which... Here's something that might be of interest so some:

Propaganda in the Information Age is a collaborative volume which updates Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model for the twenty-first-century media landscape and makes the case for the continuing relevance of their original ideas.

Introduction: Propaganda in the information age
Alan MacLeod

1 Still manufacturing consent: an interview with Noam Chomsky
Alan MacLeod and Noam Chomsky

2 A propaganda model for the TWENTY-FIRST century: structure-agency dynamics and the intersection of class, gender and race
Florian Zollmann

3 Assessing the strength of the five filters today
Alan MacLeod

4 Fake news, Russian bots and Putin’s puppets
Alan MacLeod

5 Deflective source propaganda: a Syrian case study
Oliver Boyd-Barrett

6 Expanding the propaganda model to the entertainment industry: an interview with Matthew Alford
Alan MacLeod and Matthew Alford

7 Still compromising news: obfuscation and evasion as dominant filters in Indian media’s coverage of the IL&FS financial scandal
Tabassum Ruhi Khan

8 International public relations and the propaganda model: a critical analysis of Bollywood blockbusters
Azmat Rasul

9 Still manufacturing consent in the digital era: disinformation, “fake news” and propaganda in the 2017 elections in Kenya
Jacinta Mwende Maweu

10 Working inside the racket: an insider’s perspective to the elite media
Matt Kennard

Conclusion: New media, same old rules
Alan MacLeod



Also worth a watch: Dr. Piers Robinson - Co-Director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies, one of the conveners (along with Prof. Tim Hayward) of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media speaking at a 'Media on Trial' event (Leeds, May 2018)...

And more recently here, joined by Dr Tara McCormack (University of Leicester) on RT's 'Renegade Inc' with Ross Ashcroft:

User avatar
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Harvey » Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:40 pm

Disturbingly, I believe Piers was fired from his post at Sheffield University a few months back, probably in relation to his excellent work on Syria, though he took a public stand on 9/11 truth. Largely achieved through a campaign of smears and accussations levelled against him by the usual crowd of academics and 'journalists.'
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"

Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby chump » Mon Nov 04, 2019 8:04 pm

They live, we sleep: Beware the growing evil in our midst

By John W. Whitehead
Posted on November 4, 2019

“You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You’re wrong. Dead wrong.”—They Live

We’re living in two worlds, you and I.

There’s the world we see (or are made to see) and then there’s the one we sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.

Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged, progressive and free—is a far cry from reality, where economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power are buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate obfuscation, and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.

All is not as it seems.

This is the premise of John Carpenter’s film They Live, which was released more than 30 years ago, and remains unnervingly, chillingly appropriate for our modern age.

Best known for his horror film Halloween, which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be killed, Carpenter’s larger body of work is infused with a strong anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society, particularly our government.

Time and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own citizens, a populace out of touch with reality, technology run amok, and a future more horrific than any horror film.

In Escape from New York, Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America.

In The Thing, a remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.

In Christine, the film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel about a demon-possessed car, technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes on a murderous rampage.

In the Mouth of Madness, Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose “the ability to know the difference between reality and fantasy.”

And then there is Carpenter’s They Live, in which two migrant workers discover that the world is not as it seems. In fact, the population is actually being controlled and exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite. All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency, indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and various electronic devices, billboards and the like.

It is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by the late Roddy Piper) discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and bondage.

When viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.

Likewise, billboards blare out hidden, authoritative messages: a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.” A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR GOD.”

When viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.

This indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in They Live is painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American culture.

A citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question, is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry that can be easily controlled.

In this way, the subtle message of They Live provides an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to as dictatorship in democracy, “the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”

We’re being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no resemblance to reality.

The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers).

They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being.

They want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.

Most of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their dictates.

Tune out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: the moneyed elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused and discarded.

In fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.

In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.

Not only do you have to be rich—or beholden to the rich—to get elected these days, but getting elected is also a surefire way to get rich. As CBS News reports, “Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave office, their connections allow them to profit even further.”

In denouncing this blatant corruption of America’s political system, former president Jimmy Carter blasted the process of getting elected—to the White House, governor’s mansion, Congress or state legislatures—as “unlimited political bribery… a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over.”

Rest assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be friendly. The legislators will be in session. There will be elections, and the news media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia. Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling the government behind the scenes.

Sound familiar?

Clearly, we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate interests.

We have moved into “corporatism” (favored by Benito Mussolini), which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.

Corporatism is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or a republican form of government, which is what the American government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.

For the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s not only expedient but necessary.

But why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?

The answer is the same in every age: fear.

Fear makes people stupid.

Fear is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the police, fear of our neighbors and so on.

The propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.

Despite the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a terrorist attack, and 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist , we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.

As the Bearded Man in They Live warns, “They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.”

In this regard, we’re not so different from the oppressed citizens in They Live.

From the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is far different.

Despite the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.

We live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful reality of the American police state by wall-to-wall entertainment news and screen devices.

Most everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street. Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them. Young people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn the thing off and walk away.

Indeed, there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who watch screens—that is, television, lap tops, personal computers, cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen study reports that American screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the average American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month.

The question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have on one’s mind?

Psychologically it is similar to drug addiction. Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the TV, subjects reported feeling more relaxed, and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV viewing with a lack of tension.” Research also shows that regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.

Historically, television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent and pacify disruptive people. “Faced with severe overcrowding and limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, more and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet,” according to Newsweek.

Given that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided through channels controlled by six mega corporations, what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers, it can do so on a large scale.

If we’re watching, we’re not doing.

The powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R. Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:

”We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.”

This brings me back to They Live, in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but the populace who are content to remain controlled.

When all is said and done, the world of They Live is not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out, “The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain.”

We, too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our poor and underclasses are also growing. Racial injustice is growing. Human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a trance, indifferent to others.

Oblivious to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out. But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.

So where does that leave us?

The characters who populate Carpenter’s films provide some insight.

Underneath their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.

When, for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in They Live, he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.

That’s the key right there: we need to wake up.

Stop allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the country.

The real battle for control of this nation is not being waged between Republicans and Democrats in the ballot box.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides, in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and cities across this country.

The real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in front of our eyes, if we would only open them.

All the trappings of the American police state are now in plain sight.

Wake up, America.

If they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords), it is only because “we the people” sleep.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People is available online at Whitehead can be contacted at Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at

(links in original above)

User avatar
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Elvis » Wed Nov 06, 2019 1:50 am

Under news videos, YouTube displays a sentence about the nature of the news organization — so helpfully giving the viewer some idea of what kind of outfit is posting the video.

Two examples:

BBC is a British public broadcast service. :|

RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government. :shock2:

The descriptions are interchangable but with a different effect...

RT is a Russian public broadcast service. :|

BBC is funded in whole or in part by the British government. :|

The sentences are culled from and credited to Wikipedia. You don't suppose they're cherry-picked?
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6816
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Elvis » Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:21 pm

Some media suppression is desirable! In this case I stand by YouTube. :partyhat

YouTube Bans Gorka Because He Won’t Stop Playing Imagine Dragons

The notoriously combative Trump ally has regularly played Imagine Dragons songs on his radio show, “America First.”

Will Sommer
Updated 11.04.19 9:38PM ET / Published 11.04.19 9:31PM ET


Gorka’s channel was deleted from YouTube on Monday afternoon, with a YouTube spokesperson confirming to The Daily Beast that Gorka’s channel “was terminated due to multiple copyright strikes.”

The YouTube spokesperson declined to say what song had prompted the copyright takedown notices. But the complaints were filed by Universal Music Publishing Group—the same company Reynolds had said was attempting to stop Gorka from uploading the song.

Gorka, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, didn’t appear to realize on Monday afternoon that his channel had been deleted. After one Twitter user complained that Gorka’s links were going to his now-deleted channel, Gorka mocked the poster, tweeting “you really should try harder” and ending the message with a laughing-crying emoji. ... ne-dragons

A few times spinning the radio dial, I heard this fake-suave voice on the local, mostly right-wing talk station. Around the third time I figured it was Gorka. Dunno why I mention it, just that I had no idea he had a national radio show.

Also caught him on "The 1A" NPR show, where he charmed the pants off Joshua Johnson, who basically gave Gorka a huge pass and kissed his butt on the way out. Of course this was at CPAC, so JJ probably didn't want to get beaten up in the parking lot.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6816
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby RocketMan » Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:38 pm

A few times spinning the radio dial, I heard this fake-suave voice on the local, mostly right-wing talk station. Around the third time I figured it was Gorka. Dunno why I mention it, just that I had no idea he had a national radio show.

He sounds INCREDIBLY MUCH like some cartoon character I can't get into my head right now. Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons, maybe?
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
Posts: 2771
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby alloneword » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:22 pm

Yep, RM, you nailed it... Sideshow Bob! :D


Does anyone recall the 'Philip Cross' affair, about 18 months back? I'm sure it was discussed here, but can't find it now.

Briefly, it concerned a 'wikipedia editor' who was obsessively editing the entries of many anti-war individuals and organisations at an alarming rate... As Craig Murray wrote at the time:

Craig Murray wrote:"Philip Cross” has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. “He” has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That’s 1,721 consecutive days of editing.

133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing is astonishing if it is one individual:


The operation runs like clockwork, seven days a week, every waking hour, without significant variation. If Philip Cross genuinely is an individual, there is no denying he is morbidly obsessed. I am no psychiatrist, but to my entirely inexpert eyes this looks like the behaviour of a deranged psychotic with no regular social activities outside the home, no job (or an incredibly tolerant boss), living his life through a screen. I run what is arguably the most widely read single person political blog in the UK, and I do not spend nearly as much time on the internet as “Philip Cross”. My “timecard” would show where I watch football on Saturdays, go drinking on Fridays, go to the supermarket and for a walk or out with the family on Sundays, and generally relax much more and read books in the evenings. Cross does not have the patterns of activity of a normal and properly rounded human being.

There are three options here. “Philip Cross” is either a very strange person indeed, or is a false persona disguising a paid operation to control wikipedia content, or is a real front person for such an operation in his name.

Why does this – to take the official explanation – sad obsessive no friends nutter, matter?

Because the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel.

This matters because, an ordinary reader who comes across an article questioning (say) the official narrative on the Skripals, is very likely to turn to Wikipedia to get information on the author of the article. Simply put, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is to make certain that if that reader looks up an anti-war person such as John Pilger, they will conclude they are thoroughly unreliable and untrustworthy, whereas if they look up a right wing MSM journalist, they will conclude they are a paragon of virtue and entirely to be trusted.

It was covered elsewhere at the time, for instance by The Canary, as well as some more mainstream outlets.

Well, so anyway... The reason I brought it up is that one of the victims of this character's obsessional editing actually went and physically tracked him down... (well, almost).

Neil Clark wrote:On our second visit, in February, my wife and I were lucky enough to see Cross' father working in the garden. We introduced ourselves and explained why we wanted to talk with him - we assured him we wished his son no harm and he kindly agreed to sit down and talk to us. We asked if it would be possible to see his son Andrew- who we knew lived elsewhere in Chesterfield. "In a word, 'No', he replied. I went to see him the other day. He doesn't want to see you".

He told us that his son had actually printed out a photograph of us to warn him what we looked like.

Mr Cross said his son had shown him "some regret about a court case" and that he had "stopped" trying to harm us via wikipedia. "He was upset about a court case (which I had brought against someone else), and thought he was involved".

We asked Mr Cross if he knew why his son carried out his activities and his response was "If I knew that! I can't make sense of it".

My wife and I stressed that if his son really had stopped, then it would be the end of the matter. We would guarantee not to involve Andrew in any legal proceedings. It was a very charitable offer seeing the despicable way Cross had behaved towards us over the previous decade, but we liked Mr Cross who came across a decent elderly gentleman (81-years-old), who wanted to do the best thing for his son - and for us - and we wanted to reassure him- in return for his offer of help. Mr Cross told us that his son had Asperger's.

"He's not well. He doesn't work. He spends all his time editing wikipedia".

Asperger's is a form of autism marked by very obsessional, repetitive behaviour which certainly fits with the repetitive, almost robotic pattern of Cross' online activities. One of the few periods, when Cross wasn't editing Wikipedia, was after his mother Brenda's death in September 2010.

Mr Cross said his son had lived alone in a flat for twenty years, but he "daren't" take us to where he lived as he'd "lose a son". Of course, being decent people we didn't insist. "Bless you, I appreciate that", Mr Cross said to us.

We asked Mr Cross if he thought it possible that someone else was paying his son to attack people via Wikipedia. He dismissed the idea that money could be involved as his son wouldn't need any as he never went out, couldn't walk and just spent all day on the computer. "Strange as it may seem, he doesn't realise he's doing it. He's doing it but he doesn't realise he's doing it".

Could Andrew Cross be unduly influenced and exploited by another, more malevolent force who "suggests" to him through DMs or other means what pages to edit? Mr Cross said that pressure could only be exerted on his son "through the Internet" as his son didn't go out.

"He is intelligent, though it's not come from me or my wife!" As to being malicious he said his son was "not the type to do anything against anybody. Quite the contrary. He wouldn't tell a lie for example".

While Cross could physically be doing all the edits, a detailed stylometric analysis which I have in my possession and which would be produced in any future court action suggests that he is not the sole user of the account. Mr Cross also said his son - 56 years old in 2019 - was in poor physical health. "He's grossly overweight and he can't walk". Mr Cross was worried his son might have a stroke.

We also learnt that Cross had white hair.

So we have a physical - and mental picture of the man whose online activities - or at least online activities carried out in his name - have caused so much harm. My wife and I kept our word to Mr Cross and refrained from legal action. Here is a video we shot in Chesterfield shortly after the interview in which I expressed my hope that the matter had been resolved.

However, I regret to report that on Thursday afternoon, the Cross Wikipedia account resumed hostilities. ... ch-longer/

Illuminating stuff.
User avatar
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby Elvis » Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:54 pm

Asperger's! That explains a great deal about Philip Cross, on the surface anyway. Not at all what I expected, but more needs to be known.

Outside actors seem rather likely with Cross. If a bad state actor or some entrenched faction was looking for tools, human machines as it were, to do such drudge work, people with Asperger's might be a place to start. However with Asperger's the subject of obsessive focus is usually fixed; not sure how easily it could be substituted with something else.

Or would it be easy? My mind goes to the "Radio Man" described by Sirhan: a mysterious man who "happens" to meet Sirhan and give him a radio, on which Sirhan would receive mesmerizing messages, often Morse code, which Sirhan would automatically transcribe by hand, and which is said to be the source of Sirhan's strange (and incriminating) diary entries such as "RFK must die" repeated, and so on.

That was 1968. Imagine what they could have done over the Internet.

P.S. I wonder if "Bellingcat" would be so kind as to look into it? :lol:
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Posts: 6816
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:16 pm

Surely you mean you wonder if this discovery, assuming it's all true, also explains Bellingcat?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
Posts: 15334
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby PufPuf93 » Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:25 pm

Philip Cross reminds of what could be the end stage of an obsessed poster.

Could there be an RI poster that needs an intervention as is unaware because of a lack of self-reflection of their own actions and motives? :twisted:
User avatar
Posts: 1691
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby alloneword » Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:59 am

I was also reminded of the Japanese term: 'hikikomori, when reading about Cross.


Medialens ran an alert yesterday:

Unfree Media – State Stenography And Shameful Silence

Last Updated on 07 November 2019

A recent viral clip of Jeremy Corbyn featured vital truths about the corporate media that ought to be at the forefront of public consciousness in the approach to the UK General Election on December 12. The clip began:

'A free press is essential to our democracy. But much of our press isn't very free at all.'

Corbyn continued:
'Just three companies control 71 per cent of national newspaper circulation and five companies control 81 per cent of local newspaper circulation.

'This unhealthy sway of a few corporations and billionaires shapes and skews the priorities and worldview of powerful sections of the media.

'And it doesn't stop with the newspapers, on and offline. Print too often sets the broadcast agenda, even though it is wedded so firmly to the Tories politically and to corporate interests more generally.'

Corbyn's words were not from a recent speech. They were actually delivered as part of his Alternative Mactaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival in August 2018. But they remain as relevant as ever; hence being picked up anew by 'Tory Fibs', a grassroots socialist Twitter account.

Corbyn shone on a spotlight on the BBC:

'the BBC should be freed of government control, democratised and made representative of the country it serves to help it do that.

'The BBC is meant to be independent, but its charter grants governments the power to appoint the chair and four directors of the board and set the level of the licence fee.'

As regular readers will be well aware, Media Lens has long highlighted the BBC's lack of independence and, more particularly, the insidious role of BBC News in protecting the establishment, promoting deference to the royal family and class system, as well as deflecting scrutiny of state and corporate crimes.

Corbyn concluded on the state of the media today:

'We need to set journalists and citizens free to hold power to account, by breaking the grip of tech giants and billionaires on our media.'

All this is arguably never more evident than when a General Election is looming. Right now, established power is fighting tooth and nail to maintain its control on society. Corporate media, including gatekeepers like the BBC and the Guardian - 'thus far and no farther', in the words of Noam Chomsky - play a central role in maintaining the destructive status quo.

Continues... ... lence.html
User avatar
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Suppression/Propaganda in Media

Postby alloneword » Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:16 am

Continuing that theme, Craig Murray writes:

Mainstream Media Pro-Johnson Propaganda Gets Into Full Swing

7 Nov, 2019 in Uncategorized by craig

We are now under election broadcasting rules.

Ian Austin left the Labour Party nine months ago. He was then appointed by the Tories as Prime Ministerial Trade Envoy to Israel. As of yesterday, he is neither a MP nor a candidate for election. He is a minor politician who achieved only the most junior ministerial rank, PUSS, and for only seven months. He is best known for heckling Jeremy Corbyn while Jeremy Corbyn was delivering the official Labour response to the Chilcot Report on the illegal invasion of Iraq, shouting “Sit down and shut up” and “You stupid disgrace” at Corbyn for criticising the war.



We are now under election broadcasting rules. How and why was Ian Austin invited onto the BBC Radio 4 Today programme today? He left the Labour Party six months ago, and has been a huge critic of Corbyn. It is hardly a surprise that the Tory’s Trade Envoy to Israel advises people to vote Tory. So who initiated Ian Austin’s appearance on the BBC Today programme, and why? It is obvious that the BBC knew he was going to urge people to vote Tory – or why invite a non-MP and non-candidate, to say exactly the same things he has been saying since Corbyn became leader?

That the Today programme at the BBC is produced by a Tory, under a Tory BBC Head of News, and hosted by a Tory is established fact and beyond dispute. The facts we need to know are these. Did Austin first contact the BBC or did the BBC first contact Austin? Who took the editorial decision to include this item in the programme? Was any organisation involved at any stage in any of the discussions, or did Austin at all times represent himself purely as an individual?

Following Austin’s vitriolic attack on Corbyn as a racist and anti-semite on BBC Today, he was given eleven full minutes unanswered on BBC Breakfast from 8.56 to 9.07. The presenter stated that they had no official response from the Labour Party.

Yet we are in an election, and under election broadcast rules. The BBC must have known what Austin was going to say – otherwise why invite him on? Why was not another guest invited at the same time Austin was invited, to give balance?

Austin’s appointment as Trade Envoy to Israel is not a Civil Service appointment, it is a political appointment. He is a Tory appointee urging people to vote Tory. Under election broadcasting rules, the massive broadcasting time he is being given must count as Tory time, and be balanced out by broadcast time given to the Labour, SNP, Brexit, Lib Dem and Green parties. I strongly suspect that the BBC is intending to avoid this and claim Austin is Independent so the barrage of “Vote for Boris Johnson” time he is being given does not, they will claim, count as Tory time.

That the state broadcaster connives actively to launch a fierce character assassination of the opposition leader as a racist, and urge everyone to vote for the Government, is a disgrace. That they have not mentioned he is Tory Trade Envoy to Israel is a disgrace. This is not how media behaves in a real democracy. It shows the ferocity with which the UK Establishment will resist the current real threats to its continuing hegemony.

This is very dirty. It is going to get worse. ... ull-swing/
User avatar
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests