New York Times: The News Is Censored By Government Officials

In one of the most shocking articles that the New York Times has ever put out, a New York Times reporter has openly admitted that virtually every major mainstream news organization allows government bureaucrats and campaign officials to censor their stories. For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for “quote approval” before they will be published. If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign. The goal is to keep the campaigns as “on message” as possible and to avoid gaffes at all cost.

But this kind of thing is not just happening with political campaigns. According to the New York Times, “quote approval” has become “commonplace throughout Washington”. In other words, if you see a quote in the newspaper from someone in the federal government then it is safe to say that a gatekeeper has almost certainly reviewed that quote and has approved it. This is another sign that “the free and independent media” in this country is a joke. What we get from the mainstream media is a very highly filtered form of propaganda, and that is one reason why Americans are turning away from the mainstream media in droves. People want the truth, and more Americans than ever realize that they are not getting it from the mainstream media.

Read more:

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/new-york-times-the-news-is-censored-by-government-officials_072012

A sheeple caught on film!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDPLe0SHeWE

URGENT: West Spreads Syrian WMDs Lies For Foreign Intervention


uly 24, 2012 – Hysterical propaganda has increasingly amplified since early Monday when the Syrian government’s Foreign Minister Jihad Makdissi insisted that if Syria had any unconventional weapons, they would be under strict security and only used against foreign aggression. Makdissi went on to clarify further his statement by insisting that his comments in no way implied Syria even has such weapons.

Despite this, the Western media has begun the all too familiar WMD-mantra, heard in the lead up to Iraq, where bold-faced lies and fabrications based on knowingly dubious intelligence sources, were picked specifically to tell the narrative the West sought to sell the public,.

The culmination of this propaganda campaign verses the government and people of Iraq, of whom over 2 million died between sanctions leading up to the war and the West’s invasion and occupation, was the West’s primary intelligence source, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed “Curveball,” admitting that ” I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime.” In other words, as the Guardian puts it in the title of their article, “Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war.”


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/urgent-west-spreads-syrian-wmds-lies-for-foreign-intervention_072012

Let's ignore the hysteria of 'The Daily Sheeple' and go to the original source:


Latest Word on the Trail? I Take It Back


By JEREMY W. PETERS

Published: July 15, 2012

The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.

Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.

The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.

The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.

Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.

The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position. Those officials who dare to speak out of school, but fearful of making the slightest off-message remark, shroud even the most innocuous and anodyne quotations in anonymity by insisting they be referred to as a “top Democrat” or a “Republican strategist.”

It is a double-edged sword for journalists, who are getting the on-the-record quotes they have long asked for, but losing much of the spontaneity and authenticity in their interviews.

Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, can be foul-mouthed. But readers would not know it because he deletes the curse words before approving his quotes. Brevity is not a strong suit of David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser. So he tightens up his sentences before giving them the O.K.

Stuart Stevens, the senior Romney strategist, is fond of disparaging political opponents by quoting authors like Walt Whitman and referring to historical figures like H. R. Haldeman, Richard Nixon’s chief of staff. But such clever lines later rarely make it past Mr. Stevens.

Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them. No one said the editing altered the meaning of a quote. The changes were almost always small and seemingly unnecessary, they said.

Those who did speak on the record said the restrictions seem only to be growing. “It’s not something I’m particularly proud of because there’s a part of me that says, ‘Don’t do it, don’t agree to their terms,’ ” said Major Garrett, a correspondent for The National Journal. “There are times when this feels like I’m dealing with some of my editors. It’s like, ‘You just changed this because you could!’ ”

It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.

“We don’t like the practice,” said Dean Baquet, managing editor for news at The New York Times. “We encourage our reporters to push back. Unfortunately this practice is becoming increasingly common, and maybe we have to push back harder.”

The Obama campaign declined to make Mr. Plouffe or Mr. Messina available to explain their media practices. “We are not putting anyone on the record for this story,” said Katie Hogan, an Obama spokeswoman, without a hint of irony. She pointed to the many unrestricted interviews with campaign officials every day on television and when the press corps travels with the president.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said the White House has made a concerted effort to make more officials available to the news media. “We have a lot more people talking a lot more often now,” he said.

Both presidential campaigns are keenly aware of what can happen when they speak too freely. Damaging sound bites can live on in the news cycle for days. Mr. Obama’s remark last month during a televised news conference that “the private sector is doing fine” landed almost immediately in attack ads. And Eric Fehrnstrom’s “Etch A Sketch” comment on CNN, about softening some of the harder positions Mr. Romney took during the primaries, continues to haunt the Romney campaign five months later.

Reporters who have covered the Obama presidency say the quote-approval process fits a pattern by this White House of finding new ways to limit its exposure in the news media.

“We realize there’s a caution and a wariness about stray comments driving the news cycle,” said Caren Bohan of Reuters, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. “The argument we make is that if a president or a candidate is out there more, I think these things are less likely to be as glaring.”

Modern White Houses have long had “background briefings,” gatherings of top officials who speak to reporters under the condition that they are quoted anonymously. With time, the restrictions have become broader, often bordering on the absurd.

In 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney outed himself in a briefing the White House intended to be anonymous during an overseas trip. “I’ve seen some press reporting says, ‘Cheney went in to beat up on them,’ ” the vice president told reporters, according to the official transcript, adding, “That’s not the way I work.”

Though reporters with him protested, the vice president’s office refused to allow them to identify Mr. Cheney by name — even though it was clear who was speaking.

Under President Obama, the insistence on blanket anonymity has grown to new levels.

The White House’s latest innovation is a variation of the background briefing called the “deep-background briefing,” which it holds for groups of reporters, sometimes several dozen at a time. Reporters may paraphrase what senior administration officials say, but they are forbidden to put anything in quotation marks or identify the speakers.

The White House held such a briefing after the Supreme Court’s health care ruling last month with officials including Mr. Plouffe, Mr. Carney and Dan Pfeiffer, the communications director. But when reporters asked to quote part of the conversation, even anonymously, they were told no. Even the spokesmen were off limits.


Well, nothing new there. Nor anything worthy of CT hysteria.

I'll bet this turns Goatman on.

It's not beastiality!!!!

but it's still baaaad.

She's a lovely thing, and answers to the name of Baa-aa-aabara.

I read it in 'The Daily Goatle', honest.

we are boring jeany

Oh well, the thread is dead anyway.

Exclusive: Prosecutors, regulators close to making Libor arrests

(Reuters UK) – U.S. prosecutors and European regulators are close to arresting individual traders and charging them with colluding to manipulate global benchmark interest rates, according to people familiar with a sweeping investigation into the rigging scandal.

Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., have recently contacted lawyers representing some of the suspects to notify them that criminal charges and arrests could be imminent, said two of those sources, who asked not to be identified because the investigation is ongoing.

Defence lawyers, some of whom represent suspects, said prosecutors have indicated they plan to begin making arrests and filing criminal charges in the next few weeks. In long-running financial investigations it is not uncommon for prosecutors to contact defence lawyers before filing charges to offer suspects a chance to cooperate or take a plea, these lawyers said.

The prospect of charges and arrests means prosecutors are getting a fuller picture of how traders at major banks allegedly sought to influence the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, and other global rates that underpin hundreds of trillions of dollars in assets. The criminal charges would come alongside efforts by regulators to fine major banks, and could show that the alleged activity was not rampant at the lenders.


The individual criminal charges have no impact on the regulatory moves against the banks," said a European source familiar with the matter. "But banks are hoping that at least regulators will see that the scandal was mainly due to individual misbehaviour of a gang of traders."

In Europe, financial regulators are focusing on a ring of traders from several European banks who allegedly sought to rig benchmark interest rates such as Libor, said the European source familiar with the investigation in Europe.

The source, who did not want to be identified because the investigation is ongoing, said regulators are checking emails among a group of traders and believe they are close to piecing together a picture of how the suspects allegedly conspired to make money by manipulating rates. The rates are set daily based on an average of estimates supplied by a panel of banks.

"More than a handful of traders at different banks are involved," said the source familiar with the investigation by European regulators.

There are also probes in Europe concerning Euribor, the Euro Interbank Offered Rate.

It is not clear on which individuals and banks federal prosecutors are most focused. A top U.S. Department of Justice lawyer overseeing the investigation did not respond to a request for comment.

Reuters previously reported that more than a dozen current and former employees of several large banks are under investigation, including Barclays Plc, UBS and Citigroup, and have hired defence lawyers over the past year as a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., continues to gather evidence.

Activity in the Libor investigation, which has been going on for three years, has quickened since Barclays agreed last month to pay $453 million in fines and penalties to settle allegations with regulators and prosecutors that some of its employees tried to manipulate key interest rates from 2005 through 2009.

Barclays, which signed a non-prosecution agreement with U.S. prosecutors, is the first major bank to reach a settlement in the investigation, which also is looking at the activities of employees at HSBC, Deutsche Bank and other major lenders.

HSBC declined to comment. Officials at Citigroup and UBS were not available for comment.

The Barclays settlement sparked outrage and a series of public hearings in Britain, after which Barclays Chief Executive Bob Diamond announced his resignation from the UK bank.

The revelations have raised questions about the integrity of Libor, which is used as a benchmark in setting prices for loans, mortgages and derivative contracts.

Adding to concerns are documents released by the New York Federal Reserve Bank this month that show regulators in the United States and England had some knowledge that bankers were submitting misleading Libor bids during the 2008 financial crisis to make their financial institutions appear stronger than they really were.

...and blah blah blah blah more here about how the banksters are picking out the people they plan to blame for their crimes.....



http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/22/uk-banking-libor-criminal-idUKBRE86L0CE20120722

Assad Threatens Use of Chemicals Weapons if Invaded

The Syrian regime threatened Monday to use its chemical and biological weapons in case of a foreign attack, in its first ever acknowledgement that it possesses weapons of mass destruction.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi vowed, however, that Damascus would not use its unconventional arms against its own citizens. The announcement comes as Syria faces international isolation, a tenacious rebellion that has left at least 19,000 people dead and threats by Israel to invade to prevent such weapons from falling into rebel hands.

(Good for him.)


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/23/syria-says-will-use-chemical-weapons-if-attacked/#ixzz21a7w1JqG







http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/07/23/syria-says-will-use-chemical-weapons-if-attacked/#ixzz21SebRljY

This could be their sentiment towards any military intervention:

But aren't chemical and biological weapons (unconventional) WMD's? Therefore, they don't exist.

As Assad's regime is about to fall, Israel is concerned with these weapons falling into the hands of Hezbollah, not necessarily the rebels. The US is also worried that Al-Quaeda may get hold of them. These are very real concerns and not some CT game.

Now THAT classic sheeple news.

The so-called endless war on terror is a ridiculous scam.

Hezbollah and Al-quaeda ??

This forum is for Current Affairs and Politics, it is not Disney Channel. Let's stay in the real world for a moment and leave the Satan Worshipping Lizards of the Banker's Cabal for the comic books where they belong.

Well I don't know about who exactly the "lizards" are for sure, but I do know that the Elite Rockefellers, Rothschilds, an the other elite banking family cabal don't care about ANYONE ELSE but their own families and their own little club, and that they have been stealing the wealth of this world for a very very long time.

And they are the terrorists.

The masses of the people on this earth (who are actually paying attention)know this. (Just look at all the banking scandals going on.)

They have NO compassion for the people of this earth... (including you.)

I realize that YOU don't agree with my view of the world, and that is very fine. I know there will be a lot of people who will stick to their guns and cling to their own personal world views no matter what. I know that I have no chance in hell of opening your eyes to the reality of what is going on, you have just decided I am nuts or what ever.

I don't care about that. I'm not here for you.

Well, that opinion may, or may not be true. Why should they not look out for their own interests? Everyone else does.



A baseless accusation.



Again, your ad hominem is of no consequence. I don't agree therefore I'm not paying attention-laughable. So, scandals within banks denotes Rothschild culpibility? That's is a leap of logic.



They don't even know I exist so why should they care? Moreover, I don't care what they do within their family.



Of course, why should I? My studies demonstrate otherwise. Furthermore, argument by numbers is a logical fallacy.



To YOUR reality, not THE reality. Note the difference. As to what I've decided is based merely on the evidence put before me.



I'm glad to hear that.