Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War

See video
James Corbett
January 2, 2012
14:18

Description

Faking It: How the Media Manipulates the World into War
by grtv

As the US and Iranian governments escalate tensions in the already volatile Straits of Hormuz, and China and Russia begin openly questioning Washington's interference in their internal politics, the world remains on a knife-edge of military tension. Far from being a dispassionate observer of these developments, however, the media has in fact been central to increasing those tensions and preparing the public to expect a military confrontation. But as the online media rises to displace the traditional forms by which the public forms its understanding of the world, many are now beginning to see first hand how the media lies the public into war.

Learn more about the media manipulations behind the beginning of war in this week's GRTV backgrounder.

SOURCES AND TRANSCRIPT: http://www.globalresearch.ca/faking-it-how-the-media-manipulates-the-wor...

As the drums of war begin to beat once again in Iran, Syria, the South China Sea, and other potential hotspots and flashpoints around the globe, concerned citizens are asking how a world so sick of bloodshed and a population so tired of conflict could be led to this spot once again.

To understand this seeming paradox, we must first understand the centuries-long history of how media has been used to whip the nation into wartime frenzy, dehumanize the supposed enemies, and even to manipulate the public into believing in causes for war that, decades later, were admitted to be completely fictitious.

The term “yellow journalism” was coined to describe the type of sensationalistic, scandal-driven, and often erroneous style of reporting popularized by newspapers like William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. In one of the most egregious examples of this phenomenon, Hearst’s papers widely trumpeted the sinking of the Maine as the work of the Spanish. Whipped into an anti-Spanish frenzy by a daily torrent of stories depicting Spanish forces’ alleged torture and rape of Cubans, and pushed over the edge by the Maine incident, the public welcomed the beginning of the US-Spanish war. Although it is now widely believed that the explosion on the Maine was due to a fire in one of its coal bunkers, the initial lurid reports of Spanish involvement stuck and the nation was led into war.

In many ways, the phrase infamously attributed to Hearst in reply to his illustrator “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war,” apocryphal as the story may be, nevertheless perfectly encodes the method by which the public would be led to war time and again through the decades.

The US was drawn into World War I by the sinking of the Lusitania, a British ocean liner carrying American passengers that was torpedoed by German U-boats off the coast of Ireland, killing over 1,000 of its passengers. What the public was not informed about at the time, of course, was that just one week before the incident, then-First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill had written to the President of the Board of Trade that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” Nor did reports of the attack announce that the ship was carrying rifle ammunition and other military supplies. Instead, reports once again emphasized that the attack was an out-of-the-blue strike by a maniacal enemy, and the public was led into the war.

The US involvement in World War II was likewise the result of deliberate disinformation. Although the Honolulu Advertiser had even predicted the attack on Pearl Harbor days in advance, the Japanese Naval codes had already been deciphered by that time, and that even Henry Stimson, the US Secretary of War, had noted in his diary the week before that he had discussed in a meeting with Roosevelt “how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves,” the public were still led to believe that the Pearl Harbor attack had been completely unforeseen. Just last month, a newly-declassified memo emerged showing that FDR had been warned of an impending Japanese attack on Hawaii just three days before the events at Pearl Harbor, yet the history books still portray Pearl Harbor as an example of a surprise attack.

In August 1964, the public was told that the North Vietnamese had attacked a US Destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin on two separate occasions. The attacks were portrayed as a clear example of “communist aggression” and a resolution was soon passed in Congress authorizing President Johnson to begin deploying US forces in Vietnam. In 2005, an internal NSA study was released concluding that the second attack in fact never took place. In effect, 60000 American servicemen and as many as three million Vietnamese, let alone as many as 500,000 Cambodians and Laotians, lost their lives because of an incident that did not occur anywhere but in the imagination of the Johnson administration and the pages of the American media.

In 1991, the world was introduced to the emotional story of Nayirah, a Kuwaiti girl who testified about the atrocities committed by Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

What the world was never told was that the incident had in fact been the work of a public relations firm, Hill and Knowltown, and the girl had actually been the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. Once again, the public was whipped into a frenzy of hatred for the Hussein regime, not for the documented atrocities that it had actually committed on segments of its own population with weapons supplied to them by the United States itself, but on the basis of an imaginary story told to the public via their televisions, orchestrated by a pr firm.

In the lead-up to the war on Iraq, the American media infamously took the lead in framing the debate about the Iraqi government’s weapons of mass destruction NOT as a question of whether or not they even existed, but as a question of where they had been hidden and what should be done to disarm them. The New York Times led the way with Judith Miller‘s now infamous reporting on the Iraqi WMD story, now known to have been based on false information from untrustworthy sources, but the rest of the media fell into line with the NBC Nightly News asking “what precise threat Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction pose to America”, and Time debating whether Hussein was “making a good-faith effort to disarm Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” Reports about chemical weapons stashes were reported on before they were confirmed, although headlines boldly asserted their existence as indisputable fact. We now know that in fact the stockpiles did not exist, and the administration premeditatedly lied the country into yet another war, but the most intense opposition the Bush administration ever received over this documented war crime was some polite correction on the Sunday political talk show circuit.

Remarkably, the public at large has seemingly learned nothing from all of these documented historical manipulations. If anything, the media has become even bolder in its attempts to manipulate the public’s perceptions, perhaps emboldened by the fact that so few in the audience seem willing to question the picture that is being painted for them on the evening news.

Later that year, CNN aired footage of a bombed out Tskhinvali in South Ossetia, falsely labeling it as footage of Gori, which they said had been attacked by the Russians.

In 2009, the BBC showed a cropped image of a rally in Iran which they claimed was a crowd of protesters who assembled to show their opposition to the Iranian government. An uncropped version of the same photograph displayed on the LA Times’ website, however, revealed that the photo in fact came from a rally in support of Ahmedinejad.

In August of 2011, the BBC ran footage of what they claimed was a celebration in Tripoli’s Green Square. When sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the flags in the footage were in fact Indian flags, the BBC was forced to admit that they had “accidentally” broadcast footage from India instead of Tripoli.

Also that month, CNN reported on a story from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claiming that eight infants in incubators had died in a hospital in Hama when Syrian authorities cut off power in the area. Some news sites even carried pictures of the infants. The images were later admitted to have been taken in Egypt and no evidence has ever emerged to back up the accusations.

As breathtaking as all of these lies, manipulations and so-called “mistakes” are, they in and of themselves don’t represent the only functions of the media for the war machine. Now, the US government is taking the lead in becoming more and more directly involved with the shaping of the media message on war propaganda, and the general public is becoming even more ensnared in a false picture of the world through the Pentagon’s own lens.

In 2005, the Bush White House admitted to producing videos that were designed to look like news reports from legitimate independent journalists, and then feeding those reports to media outlets as prepackaged material ready to air on the evening news. When the Government Accountability Office ruled that these fake news reports in fact constituted illegal covert propaganda, the White House simply issued a memo declaring the practice to be legal.

In April 2008, the New York Times revealed a secret US Department of Defense program that was launched in 2002 and involved using retired military officers to implant Pentagon talking points in the media. The officers were presented as “independent analysts” on talk shows and news programs, although they had been specially briefed beforehand by the Pentagon. In December of 2011, the DoD’s own Inspector General released a report concluding that the program was in perfect compliance with government policies and regulations.

Earlier this year, it was revealed the the US government had contracted with HBGary Federal to develop software that create fake social media accounts in order to steer public opinion and promote propaganda on popular websites. The federal contract for the software sourced back to the MacDill Air Force Base in Florida.

As the vehicle through which information from the outside world is captured, sorted, edited and transmitted into our homes, the mass media has the huge responsibility of shaping and informing our understanding of events to which we don’t have first-hand access. This is an awesome responsibility in even the most ideal conditions, with diligent reporters guided by trustworthy editors doing their level best to report the most important news in the most straightforward way.

But in a media landscape where a handful of companies own virtually all of the print, radio and television media in each nation, the only recourse the public has is to turn away from the mainstream media altogether. And that is precisely what is happening.

As study after study and report after report has shown, the death of the old media has accelerated in recent years, with more and more people abandoning newspapers and now even television as their main source of news. Instead, the public is increasingly turning toward online sources for their news and information, something that is necessarily worrying for the war machine itself, a system that can only truly flourish when the propaganda arm is held under monopolistic control.

But as citizens turn away from the New York Times and toward independent websites, many run and maintained by citizen journalists and amateur editors, the system that has consolidated its control over the minds of the public for generations seems to finally be showing signs that it may not be invincible.

Surely this is not to say that online media is impervious to the defects that have made the traditional media so unreliable. Quite the contrary. But the difference is that online, there is still for the time being relative freedom of choice at the individual level. While internet freedom exists, individual readers and viewers don’t have to take the word of any website or pundit or commentator on any issue. They can check the source documentation themselves, except, perhaps not coincidentally, on the websites of the traditional media bastions, which tend not to link source material and documentation in their articles.

Hence the SOPA Act, Protect IP, the US government’s attempts to seize websites at the domain name level, and all of the other concerted attacks we have seen on internet freedoms in recent years.

Because ultimately, an informed and engaged public is far less likely to go along with wars waged for power and profit. And as the public becomes better informed about the very issues that the media has tried to lie to them about for so long, they realize that the answer to all of the mainstream media’s war cheerleading and blatant manipulation is perhaps simpler than we ever suspected: All we have to do is turn them off.

Comments

 
2012 / 01 / 02
avatar singh says:

look no further than england which is the source of all this evil in usa-because england is the one which plots agasint other countries and wage wars on back of america arms. iraq war propaganda was created in london and not washington
“In the aftermath of President Abraham Lincoln's defeat of the London-backed slave-holders' Confederate insurrection, the London-linked New York faction of U.S. finance unleashed a predatory looting of the physical assets of the territory formerly ruled by the defeated Confederacy. That operation, which was described then as "carpet bagging," is a term that pointed to the style of the personal baggage, in which the travelling, locust-like predators carried their personal effects.”

A very famous news mogul-Mr. William Randolph Hearst (Jewish proprietor of he the Hearst newspaper chain ))- had been stopped from running for American presidency in 1916 because he was suspected by the English that
might not have been inclined to rescue england in the 1st world war. Anyway, the southern so called Baptist and confederacy (= racists) constituency was pressing hard for america to come to rescue england who was staring defeat and thus loosing the prospect of enslaved nations who would have been feed from defeat of england. America did come to aid of england and it was called end of isolationalism.
But this end of isolationalism would be tolerated only when it suits english interest against others and not in case of others like freedom for Irish people in northern Ireland (an occupied part of Ireland).and that British agent Wilson intervened on side of Britain in name of spreading democracy at point of gun! Woodrow Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on a promise to stay out of the Great War.
Think of that-Britain was looting two third of the world at the time and killing starving millions of people-and this Wilson comes to Britain rescue in name of protecting democracy! And that is exactly what these bastards mean when they utter democracy-that is a code word for them to attack other countries for furtherance of british interest. Then if two millions Iraqi are killed -starved -it is price worth paying. Somebody can legitimately ask than what to do with 60 millions English people and then it would be worth the price to save the world from English rapacity.
“The First World War was by far the bloodiest conflict in human history up to that time. Schwartz and Skinner noted, “Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a war for democracy against ‘Prussian dictatorship,’ but that was propaganda. Germany had civil rights, an elected parliament, competing parties, universal male suffrage, and an unparalleled system of social democracy.” Germany was far more democratic than either the British or French empire.”

2012 / 01 / 03
Vicki says:

Mr singh

Why not try a few facts by those that witnessed events?

Douglas Reeds "The Controversy of Zion" now on the internet!
Commensing in 1951, as Britains foremost World War II correspondent, he spent more than three years writing "The Controversy of Zion" - all 300.000 words of it.

http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/index.htm

This book will leave you in no doubts what today is going on in the Middle East!

Then this book.

The Iron Curtain Over America

Lt. Gen, George E. Stratemeyer, USAF (ret.), says:

"I congratulate you on your book and the service you have performed for our country. If my health would permit it I would go on a continuous lecture tour gratis and preach your book and recommendations. My "Iron Curtain Over America" will be on loan continuously and I intend to recommend its reading in every letter I write.

John Beaty

The author of The Iron Curtain Over America has written, or collaborated on, a dozen books. His texts have been used in more than seven hundred colleges and universities, and his historical novel, Swords in the Dawn, published originally in New York, had London and Australian editions, and was adopted for state-wide use in the public schools of Texas. His education (M.A., University of Virginia; Ph.D., Columbia University; post-graduate study, University of Montpellier, France), his travel in Europe and Asia, and his five years with the Military Intelligence Service in World War II rounded out the background for the reading and research (1946-1951) which resulted in The Iron Curtain Over America.

http://iamthewitness.com/books/John.Beaty/Iron.Curtain.Over.America.htm

The media lies, rely on the dupes that swallow all the untruths then spread them around akin to poison!

Good Luck, the truth hits you smack bang in the face!

Actually Germany was far more Democratic than America and Britain, Germany was at that time free of zionism the other two were not!!

1916/1917 both countries were under the control of zionism.

Place any blame where it belongs!

2012 / 01 / 03
Zaratustra says:

Great story and I assume that the list would be endless. Surprised that the author missed the most recent war on European soil, braking of former Yugoslavia, especially war in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/lm-f97/LM97_Bosnia.html
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gowans1.html

2012 / 01 / 03
obagasra says:

It is interesting that the article mentioned all the fake news except the biggest fake news of all time-911.

2012 / 01 / 04
Norm says:

Well I am English: and sad to say your right, its a scumbag country witha bunch of scum bag leaders in it too. the True English, have been screwed over and brain washed just as much as the USA. As normal its those faceless leaders who are behind it all. We have all been scamed and lied to by the 1 % English, USA, or what ever country it makes no difference these types are countryless, they are globalists!!!!!

2012 / 01 / 04
Dentyl Records says:
2012 / 01 / 04
Ronnie says:

Would it be too early to suggest that the only real democracy is the kind where the voters can vote on the issues instead of voting on the politicians?
Not to put to fine a point on it, anyone who is elected to a job which pays very well, and has marvelous pension and health care benefits, is going to look at the rest of us working stiffs and say, 'There but for the Grace of God go I'. Who among us wouldn't vote for corporate policy against the interests of their constituents when to do so means they can continue their wonderful life style? Ensure their comfortable retirement, get a high paying job after leaving politics, offer government positions to friends and relatives.

One might go so far as to say that the idea of democracy; as it is sold to us by the media, is yet another disinformation campaign. How much better might the economy and future of the whole world be if the people themselves actually had a vote on the major issues which concern them? Lot less wars for sure.

2012 / 01 / 06
Mike Corbeil says:

Excellent video report. I viewed it earlier this week with a corbettreport Youtube posting of this, and that was Jan. 1st, I believe. James is an excellent contributor for GR.

2012 / 01 / 06
patrick anderson says:

wicked video! i'll make sure to pass it around.

2012 / 01 / 07
Anthony says:

Excellent ! good work, keep it up. God bless you and your family

2012 / 01 / 08
Simon says:

Great video, thanks. Perhaps now we should look at who is manipulating the media?

Here is an example of BBC been taken for a ride in May 2009.
http://tinyurl.com/6conqu5

After correcting their mistake they used the same fake photo again in September 2011!
http://tinyurl.com/6xm2smb

2012 / 01 / 10
Digby Scorgie says:

I would certainly never accept at face value any report of any event or situation put out by anybody, whether government official, representative of established media, or on-line commentator, until I had seen multiple corroborating reports by observers on all sides. One might go so far as to say that this is a social application of the scientific method.

I would most certainly never accept at face value anything your organization has to say without corroborating evidence. The matter of Pearl Harbor is a case in point. Your hints of prior knowledge by Roosevelt prompted me to read again John Toland's exquisitely detailed exposition of these events. Your thesis simply does not fit, newly declassified memo notwithstanding. I therefore take everything else you say with a pinch of salt.

The fact remains that one should withhold judgement on any pronouncement until all have had their say. Eventually, perhaps decades later, the truth will out. After all, most people relish the thought of established wisdom being debunked when new evidence -- accurate, verifiable evidence -- comes to light.

As for those who like to comment on website articles, be aware that the worse your standard of English the less credence your opinions will receive. Comments in broken English imply thought processes that are equally broken.

2012 / 01 / 15
George says:

"Comments in broken English imply thought processes that are equally broken."

Or it could be non-English background speakers trying to communicate as best as they can my patronising elitist "friend".

2012 / 02 / 21
anon says:

a belief system that comes to realize that there is only love or insanity cannot come about until one begins to wonder how an avoidance of the search for truth equates to sanity

2013 / 02 / 01
Wash says:

9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

Does anybody know what has come of this? Or is this why we went to war on 9/11?

2013 / 05 / 13
wjc3 says:

To Wash: i haven't followed 9/11 truth movement much in detail lately, but i highly suggest you read "Collateral Damage", check out A&E for 9/11 truth website, and this websites 9/11 page. There seem to be multiple reasons- ramping up war on terror footer geo-politics of US hegemony, money, eliminating civil rights and constitutional protections in US, killing investigations by the US Navy ONI, and making people forget about that $2 trillion missing/unaccounted for, stealing gold from wtc 7 (? I think bldg7), and clearing $200B in securities that's covered in the piece i mentioned, which apparently came from stolen $ Nazi gold, used for black ops, "black eagle trustfund" or something like that. Info is out there. Cheers.

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Related videos

Our newsletter