Past Editorials Al Colombo

Personal Thoughts

Editorial Section

A Controlled Media?

Hi Folks!

For some time I've pondered why it is that the majority of U.S. Newspapers, Radio and Television news media carry the same content, even the same printed articles, from one end of the country to the other. At first I reasoned that it was because the major portion of them buy these stories from the Associated Press and other news organizations. I have no doubt that this is a large part of it. However, whenever I established the Off The Shortwave section on The Giant Killers website and began listening to foreign radio broadcasts, I soon discovered that they, too, carried the same content that was broadcast here in the United States, with the exception of certain countries, such as Cuba.

The question is, could our media be under the control or direction (what's the difference?) of a central agency, governmental or Elitist body of some kind? The evidence seems to point to this. Where I could buy the arguement that all the newspapers, radio stations, and television stations get their news from certain news organizations, it's very hard to believe that this would also apply to foreign radio stations (I did not scan foreign television).

The issue of a controlled media is not at all new. Politicians faced the same question back in the mid 80s by way of the United Nations. At the time communist nations proposed that UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) be given the task of controlling international news. At the time it was referred to as a new world information order. In protest, the United States and Great Britain withdrew from UNESCO in 1983 and 1984 respectively:

"Many Third World governments contend that Western journalists present distorted views of their countries and, with Soviet bloc support, secured (1980) a UNESCO resolution calling for a new world information order that would, while affirming the principle of freedom of the press, give UNESCO the right to regulate news organizations. The proposal provoked strong protest from Western nations, including the withdrawal from UNESCO of the United States (1983) and Britain (1984) at least in part over the issue of the proposed "new world information order" (David K. Berninghausen, Freedom of the Press, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Release 6).

Those who doubt that a controlled media is possible, there are several issues to consider that I believe point to this possibility.

  1. If you examine the status of the economy, you will find that it is linked with that of other countries in a manner that has forced each country to be interdependent on the other.
  2. If you look at the status of our military, we are slowly being integrated with the military components of other countries. Some time ago when I examined the website of the United States Air Force, it said that by some future date, I believe it said 2010, there would not be a United States Air Force, but a world airforce. My question is, united against who?
  3. Many of the uniforms and the military equipment now being used do not bare any country designation, thus making it difficult to tell the difference between one nation's military and another.
  4. If you look at our military bases across the United States, you will see an assortment of fighting men and women from all corners of the earth, training, working, and living together. In fact, you will find foreign soldiers working for the United States government under the U.N. joint training mandates. U.S. soldiers are, likewise, serving in other militaries around the globe in the same manner I am told.
  5. One father who formerly served in the U.S. Armed Forces told of his son who said he would not remain in the U.S. Military because he had seen foreign soldiers standing guard over our minuteman missile silos. No, I didn't go out and confirm this. I've heard such talk from others. I've heard enough to know that a good part of this has got to be true.

A controlled media ... is it possible? If such a high degree of integration is taking place in all of the above areas, why not the global media pool?

John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, New York Times, gave a toaste in 1953 at the New York Press Club, saying:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

"If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to filify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes" (Operation Vampire Killer 2000, published by Police Against The New World Order, Phoenix, Arizona, Copyright 1992).

This was in 1953!

Failure To Report
Key News Items

Another sign is that our media is not publishing key news items. For example, a few years ago, 1997 I believe, someone happened to catch a notice on either the White House Virtual Library Executive Orders section or the Federal Register website that posted the President's renewal of an Executive Order that declared a state of national emergency. That renewal was in reference to an Executive Order that he had penned in 1994 (This will open up a new window. Simply close out the window when you're done reading to return).

I went to the Chief Editor of a local, daily newspaper and asked if he intended to reveal it to his readers. His reply was not acceptable to me. He said, "No." When I asked why, he told me that he did not see any difference between before and after the 1994 decree; and, besides, he's more interested in local news--which is not exactly true if you look at the newspaper. Having worked for this newspaper in the past, I knew that the paper's emphasis was on National and International news, primarily off the AP and other newswires.

So, if there isn't an effort afoot to subvert the news, then why did he blow smoke? Good question.

The U.N. Connection

A good example of the U.N.'s effort to control the media was seen not long ago in Bosnia when NATO troops (U.S. soldiers under NATO command) surrounded radio and television stations in Sarajevo and removed their operators, replacing them with U.N. operatives. Read about it by clicking HERE (This will open up a new window. Simply close out the window when you're done reading to return).

The destruction of media assets in Yugoslavia was also one of NATO's key efforts during their grossly lopsided aggression. Without a doubt it was designed to suppress expression--to censor the press so the people of Yugoslavia would not rally around their leadership. I don't care how noble it may appear on it's face, and I don't care that it is a common military tactic, it was censorship of the worst kind.

Frankly, any leadership that would resort to such a tactic in a foreign land will think nothing of performing censorship here within the United States. Perhaps this is already taking place under our noses and we just don't know it.

Another possible instance is the formation of a media police by the United Nations to track and jam hate messages within sovereign countries. To read more about this, click HERE (This will open up a new window. Simply close out the window when you're done reading to return).

Some say that there is no conspiracy. Others say that there are media payoffs negotiated by the CIA. Still others say that it's purely a matter of dollars and cents, and media organizations strive to give people what they want, no matter what it is. There are those who maintain that it's simlpy a matter of deflection. Perhaps the answer resides somewhere in between all of these possibles.

Case in Point

Take for example the event where two military pathologists went public saying that their examination of Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown's body revealed what appeared to be a .45 cal. bullet hole in the top of his head. Brown allegedly died in a plane crash in Bosnia while traveling with ligh-level executives.

Just as the media began to follow it closely, just as medical experts came forward to defend this allegation, news of the President's affair with a young intern displaced it. According to further, unconfirmed reports, these two military pathologists were censored and threatened with court-martial if they further discussed this matter with anyone. Isn't this news event more or at least of equal importantance to the Clinton--Lowinsky situation?

I no longer entirely trust what I see and hear on television or what I read in the Newspaper. Where else can we turn for real news? Well, perhaps in part we can turn to the Internet. Although this media offers a source of uncensored information, it also contains misinformation. At one time we could rely on word of mouth, but the media has demonized those who speak out against this administration so the masses react by doing the same. We the People have become as sheep, being led... where?

Perhaps we should use the Internet to view what the White House and Congress are doing for ourselves. There is little doubt that the news media only tells us a fraction of what we should know.

Redefining The Mission
Of The Journalist

A couple of years ago, while watching a CSPAN program, I witnessed an international conference on journalism where a prominent publisher/owner reminded the attendees, journalists, that the day of simply reporting the news was done and over with. Now, today, in this new age, it is the job of journalists to make and shape the attitudes and beliefs of the citizens!!

Read into this exactly what it says. Frankly, no longer is the brunt of the network "news" based upon sole fact. No longer is the brunt of the network "news" balanced and trustworthy! Read into this exactly what the conveyor meant it to say, for this is what we are now seeing before us, as the following letter more than proves.

From: spiker
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
Subject: NBC and Lisa Myers falsify poll on guns
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 22:09:23 -0600

  • Crime/Corruption Miscellaneous
    Source: Letters to Drudge
    Published: June 28, 1999 Author: Nancy Shack-exec. producer--Howie Carr Show
    Posted on 07/03/1999 13:30:17 PDT by Joe Montana
    Yellow Journalism at NBC

    Dear Mr. Drudge,

    Howie Carr and The Howie Carr Show had an interesting experience with NBC's Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on Tuesday.

    NBC called us and asked if we would discuss the topic of the effect of the Littleton shootings on our listener's attitudes towards gun ownership. Lisa Myers had a piece scheduled for that night's news broadcast and she wanted popular reaction footage to complete her piece. We agreed. In the first hour of the show Howie asked the listeners how they were effected if at all while the NBC cameras rolled. We took 33 calls.

    30 of those calls said the effect of the shootings was to make them want to own a gun for protection and not tighten up the laws.

    When the story aired on NBC that night Lisa Myers said that according to polls (which ones she never identified) and popular reactions on talk shows most people were in favor of stricter gun laws and were against gun ownership. She went on to play one of the 3 anti-gun phone calls from our show completely ignoring the 30 calls which did not agree with her premise.

    This manipulation and skewing of the actual poll results from our show has caused quite a stir among our listeners who [had] heard the gun hour and then witnessed the blatant misrepresentation of what the majority response was on NBC news. It has left much of our audience feeling mistrustful and angry with network news in general and NBC specifically. (By the way, this gun control feature led the news while China and the Cox report was buried 11 minutes into the broadcast.)

    Thanks for letting us vent.
    Nancy Shack---Executive Producer
    The Howie Carr Show

    Send Al Colombo MailSend me your comments please

    Past Editorials
    Return to the Main Menu

    Alicia Colombo, 1995The Beginning or End
    By Alicia Colombo

    || MAIN MENU || CAMPS || AL'S VIEWS || E-MAIL ||

    Copyright©1999 Allan B. Colombo