Op. Mockingbird counterpropaganda tricks

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Classic meme-reversal counterpropaganda in the Operation Mockingbird media-

The day after we read that the Pentagon was running a huge propaganda system of media miltary advisors "doing too much" for the war...we read that the Defense Secretary says the Air Force "isn't doing enough" for the war.

Classic keyword hijacking counterpropaganda, too. "Business."

First, those media military advisors have business ties to military contracts.
Next, the Air Force is called "stuck in old ways of doing business."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html

The New York Times
20 April 2008

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand
.....
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
.....
Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080421/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates_air_force

Associated Press
April 21, 2008

Pentagon chief says Air Force should do more

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday the Air Force is not doing enough to help in the Iraq and Afghanistan war effort, complaining that some military leaders are "stuck in old ways of doing business."

[dickdecent]

Great spot again Hugh...

Jeezus I'm becoming a fan

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

:shock:

Great spot again Hugh...

Jeezus I'm becoming a fan

Yo, dd- Rocker across the water.

There really are very simple techniques used to keep the public contantly looking at the Magician's other hand so we don't run his lying ass out of town.

And they are mostly the same in news or movies-
Themes and keywords that pull your attention away from that thieving hand so you don't focus on it for too long. Mustn't let bad vibes build up and become outrage with clarity. Except on state-sanctioned enemies.

[brainpanhandler]

Google news search for the terms business and pentagon

Business as usual, eh Hugh?

Any predictions?

The Times story ought to be explosive. My prediction... it won't be. But not as a result of the tenuous sleight of hand you suggest. People suspect these things. They don't care.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Google news search for the terms business and pentagon

Business as usual, eh Hugh?

You are comparing a Google search of two keywords to major news stories within 24 hours of each other? C'mon. Be serious.
You're showing no sense of context or proportion whatsoever.

Any predictions?

Just that these stories go by not much noticed by the masses due to another Magician's Other Hand, the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

Did you notice that DNA testing of the families at the Texas cult compound was announced the same day as highly-controversial new Fed rules on DNA samples from all people arrested?
That's yet another news cycle Magician's Other Hand I pointed at in another thread but since your casting aspersions on the very idea.

The Times story ought to be explosive. My prediction... it won't be. But not as a result of the tenuous sleight of hand you suggest.

Don't mistake effectiveness with intent. That's not 'debunking' what I'm claiming, just judging it's effectiveness. Which is often a crap shoot for the people whose job it is to just do it.

Gates' nonsense story about asking the Air Force to do more because of being "stuck in old ways of doing business" was absolutely to counter the previous day's story indicting the Pentagon.

People suspect these things. They don't care.

That's vague. If you mean that there's no reason to do any psy-ops, that's absurd.
That (some) people (sometimes) suspect (some) things is all the more reason to spin mightily and craftily at all times.

[brainpanhandler]

Google news search for the terms business and pentagon

Business as usual, eh Hugh?

You are comparing a Google search of two keywords to major news stories within 24 hours of each other? C'mon. Be serious.
You're showing no sense of context or proportion whatsoever.

You could have taken this in any of three ways... affirmation, neutrality, or negation. You chose the latter which is the height of irony as my very purpose was to produce context. It seems there is some disconnect going on here. The google search for the terms business and pentagon together yields the result of the two stories you cite 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th on the first page. The Times article is the first result. The second, third and fourth results are coverage of Gates' speech. Following those links one can read many different versions of Gates' remarks and thereby test your theory. What this means I was leaving to the reader and you.

Any predictions?

Just that these stories go by not much noticed by the masses due to another Magician's Other Hand, the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.

Did you notice that DNA testing of the families at the Texas cult compound was announced the same day as highly-controversial new Fed rules on DNA samples from all people arrested?
That's yet another news cycle Magician's Other Hand I pointed at in another thread but since your casting aspersions on the very idea.

This seems more probable, but for criminy's sake Hugh, don't you suppose that a large part of the reason these stories go by unnoticed is simply because a lot of people just don't care? Isn't that most of it? And why is that? Maybe the magicians had a hand in that?

The Times story ought to be explosive. My prediction... it won't be. But not as a result of the tenuous sleight of hand you suggest.

Don't mistake effectiveness with intent. That's not 'debunking' what I'm claiming, just judging it's effectiveness. Which is often a crap shoot for the people whose job it is to just do it.

Gates' nonsense story about asking the Air Force to do more because of being "stuck in old ways of doing business" was absolutely to counter the previous day's story indicting the Pentagon.

I am specifically suggesting a different cause for my prediction that the Times story will go unnoticed. How can that be construed as judging the effectiveness of the techniques you claim are being used? Let's not mistake nonexistence with ineffectiveness.

I'll leave the "absolutely" bait untouched, except to say, I'll leave the "absolutely" bait untouched, twice.

People suspect these things. They don't care.

That's vague. If you mean that there's no reason to do any psy-ops, that's absurd.
That (some) people (sometimes) suspect (some) things is all the more reason to spin mightily and craftily at all times.

Glad you can find a use for the word if.

I'm wondering what portion of the population is targeted by the type of psyops you suggest here? Presumably the portion of the population that is very unlikely to read the NYT need not be targeted? Yes? What about the portion of the population that even if they read the Times article would not be in the least fazed by it? Imbeciles that still believe the war in Iraq was justifiable and Bush has been a good president? Cold hearted cynics who just wish they could find a place at the trough and figure anyone who does not realize that it's money that makes the world go 'round is a faggot commie? People who distrust the media already and are convinced it's all one big conspiracy by the military/industrial/corporate media/entertainment complex to enslave us all? You? Me?

Are these psy-ops tailored to an audience? Is it plausible that psy-ops are contrived in a way that focuses their effect on a portion of the population strategically significant and likely susceptible? Or are these unsophisticated dummies that use a scattershot approach? Or is that an unfair dichotomy?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
You could have taken this in any of three ways... affirmation, neutrality, or negation. You chose the latter which is the height of irony as my very purpose was to produce context. It seems there is some disconnect going on here. .....
......
I'm wondering what portion of the population is targeted by the type of psyops you suggest here? Presumably the portion of the population that is very unlikely to read the NYT need not be targeted? Yes? What about the portion of the population that even if they read the Times article would not be in the least fazed by it? Imbeciles that still believe the war in Iraq was justifiable and Bush has been a good president? Cold hearted cynics who just wish they could find a place at the trough and figure anyone who does not realize that it's money that makes the world go 'round is a faggot commie? People who distrust the media already and are convinced it's all one big conspiracy by the military/industrial/corporate media/entertainment complex to enslave us all? You? Me?

Are these psy-ops tailored to an audience? Is it plausible that psy-ops are contrived in a way that focuses their effect on a portion of the population strategically significant and likely susceptible? Or are these unsophisticated dummies that use a scattershot approach? Or is that an unfair dichotomy?

My apologies, brainpanhandler.
I think the late hour and posting fatigue did have me completely misundertaking your viewpoint as being more contrary than it was.

And, as usual, you asked really good questions that actually take the topic seriously.

Gonna take more coffee to dig in for answers...whew.

[MinM]

Classic meme-reversal counterpropaganda in the Operation Mockingbird media-

Classic counterpropaganda from Rupert Murdoch's London Times:

CIA documents show US never believed Gary Powers was shot down - Times Online

The Times
May 1, 2010

At 8.52 this morning a normally garrulous American is to observe a moment’s silence outside the Lubyanka, headquarters of what used to be the KGB in central Moscow.

He will be there to honour the good name of his father, Francis Gary Powers, whose reputation has suffered for half a century by association with one of the most enduring mysteries of the Cold War.

Fifty years ago today, in a full-body pressure suit and helmet, Powers was slammed forward against the canopy of his U2 spyplane 70,000ft above central Russia by a Soviet surface-to-air missile exploding close behind him. The blast wave dismembered the plane, tearing off first its tail section and then its wings, but leaving its pilot miraculously unhurt.

In an outer pocket of his suit Powers carried a suicide pin that he chose not to use. He hit the ground in shock but with hardly a scratch. By that evening he was in Moscow, in the Lubyanka. The shooting down and survival of Powers changed the course of history: it wrecked a superpower summit at which President Eisenhower and Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet Premier, had hoped to launch a new era of détente.

What was not known until the recent declassification of CIA documents seen by The Times, was that top US officials never believed Powers’ account of his fateful flight because it appeared to be directly contradicted by a report from the National Security Agency, the clandestine US network of codebreakers and listening posts.

The NSA report remains classified, possibly to spare the blushes of its authors. For it is now possible to piece together what really happened high over Sverdlovsk on May Day 1960 and to understand why America’s most secretive intelligence agency got it so wrong.

According to a summary presented this week by Matthew Aid, the world’s leading authority on the NSA, the agency’s report described Soviet military air traffic controllers as after an aircraft that — far from breaking up at close to 70,000ft as Powers later claimed — descended slowly from 65,000 to 34,000ft, changed course and disappeared from their radar screens.

If true, this would have meant that Powers was at best a liar and conceivably a traitor. According to one rumour circulated without discouragement from the CIA after the shooting down, he descended to a safe height, baled out and spent his first night as a defector in a Sverdlovsk nightclub.

Newly released documents from a secret inquiry into his conduct carried out in 1962, by which time the CIA had swapped him for a Soviet spy and exhaustively debriefed him, show that some in the agency still believed that the Russians might have hypnotised, drugged or brainwashed him to force him to change his story.

The truth was less bizarre but no less remarkable. Powers took off from Peshawar in northern Pakistan after three tense days spent waiting for the weather along his route to clear.

His mission was to fly for nine hours, on a breakfast of steak and eggs, directly over half a dozen of the Soviet Union’s most sensitive nuclear sites, photographing them and landing hundreds of miles north of the Arctic Circle on the Norwegian coast.

Within minutes the entire Soviet Air Defence system was being mobilised on an order from Mr Khrushchev to bring him down at any cost. Captain Mikhail Voronov, commander of a missile battalion south of Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg), was woken by an alarm at 7am.

“At first I thought it was a drill,” he said in an interview at his home on the Black Sea. “It was not a drill. I was planning to walk over from the barracks to give my soldiers their traditional May Day congratulations. Instead I ran. We all ran. We rushed to our positions and when we got there I told my commander that my battalion was ready to fire.” At about 8.45am Powers appeared as a dot on Captain Voronov’s radar screen. A single rocket was launched and minutes later the screen appeared to indicate a direct hit.

Yet Captain Voronov could not be sure. He did not report it until word reached his control cabin half an hour later that a pilot had fallen to earth nearby under a parachute.

It is now clear that in that half hour, with the U2 already strewn across the Russian countryside, two Soviet MiG pilots circling over Sverdlovsk were ordered to intercept and ram, if necessary. One of them, Lieutenant Sergei Safronov, was hit by a stray rocket from another battalion. He baled out, dying of his injuries on the way down, but the radar trace created by his plane closely matched the one described by NSA. The agency almost certainly mistook Lieutenant Safronov for Powers. Mr Aid said this week that the NSA misread its own vaunted signals intelligence. The agency has never conceded anything.

In the absence of hard evidence from independent witnesses about what happened to Powers’ U2, conspiracy theories have sprouted like weeds. According to one, crucial information on his flight was passed in advance to Soviet intelligence by Lee Harvey Oswald,


President Kennedy’s assassin and a former junior radar operator at a U2 base in Japan. In another, advanced by James Nathan of the University of Alabama, Powers was either a pawn or an accomplice in a US plot to derail détente.

Last month Professor Nathan said that he still believed the entire affair was cooked. Yesterday, in Moscow, Gary Powers Jr said that it had taken the US Government 40 years to set the record straight about his father. He was being generous. It has taken 50, and the record still has kinks in it.

Giles Whittell is Washington Correspondent and the author of Bridge of Spies, an account of the U2 affair and the spy swap that followed it, published later this year.

The man behind the story

• Francis Gary Powers, born in Jenkins, Kentucky in 1929, was a combat pilot in the 468th Strategic Fighter Squadron. He was a veteran of covert aerial reconnaissance missions

• After the U2 incident he served 18 months of a ten-year sentence handed down by a Soviet military tribunal in 1960 in a prison about 160 kilometres east of Moscow

• He was released in exchange for the Russian spy known as Colonel Rudolph Abel

• When he returned to the US, Powers worked initially as a test pilot before becoming a helicopter pilot for a Los Angeles television station. He died in August 1977 when his helicopter ran out of fuel

Source: Times archives

It posits some phony half-assed myth about what the USG believed to be the 'real story' to counter the true reason the story is crap. As exposed by Col L Fletcher Prouty years ago...

rigorousintuition.ca - View topic - THE SECRET TEAM

Gary Power's U-2 flight - prouty.org

[Simulist]

The guy in the upper-left of the YouTube photo (just above) looks amazingly like Timothy McVeigh, which would be impossible I suppose.

[nathan28]

I thought Oswald was a "lone nut," not a defector with enough connections to pass information to the Soviets. Bwaaagh. It's half a century later and they still can't get the story straight. This is power in its senile, genocidal phase.

[MinM]

New York Times: We Weren't Played On Afghanistan Mining Story

New York Times Defends $1 Trillion Afghan Minerals Scoop - The Daily Beast

***
Here's another recent example from the NYTimes that Jim DiEugenio caught...

Why the New York Times Deserves to Die

[Simulist]

The New York Times is a very useful publication. By reading it, it's easy to find out what the current direction of propaganda is in America.

Knowing where the truth isn't may not be as helpful as knowing where the truth is, but it ain't chopped liver either.

[MinM]

Classic meme-reversal counterpropaganda in the Operation Mockingbird media-

The day after we read that...

Group sues CIA to declassify Bay of Pigs history

That story, early this week, was followed up the next few days by...

Secret Memo shows JFK Demanded UFO documents 10 days before Assassination

and this. Rachel Maddow: CIA World War I Documents Are 'So Cool'

[Nordic]

The New York Times is a very useful publication. By reading it, it's easy to find out what the current direction of propaganda is in America.

Knowing where the truth isn't may not be as helpful as knowing where the truth is, but it ain't chopped liver either.

I use CNN for that now. It's incredibly accurate.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

If you watch those documentaries by Adam Curtis, you'lll learn that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK and might've been hypnoprogrammed to do it by the KGB.

But internet lefties just looove those Adam Curtis movies...made for MI6-run-BBC. Surprise!!