911 and the Propaganda Model

[Alt+F4]

a 47 story building can collapse and elicit essentially zero MSM coverage

The collapse of WTC7 was on the front page on The New York Times on September 12, 2001.

 

[mjd1982]

What about the media in other countries?

There is a slight problem there in that most such news will be sourced/based on what gets reported in the US. Nonetheless, it is, I believe, common currency in most Muslim countries, esp. those not affiliated with the US, that this was an inside job.

 

[Pardalis]

There is a slight problem there in that most such news will be sourced/based on what gets reported in the US.

Nope. The world outside the US does just fine on its own. There are plenty of non US journalists going about in the US.

Nonetheless, it is, I believe, common currency in most Muslim countries, esp. those not affiliated with the US, that this was an inside job.

And they wouldn't have a vested interest that it would be an inside job?

Please...

 

[mjd1982]

The collapse of WTC7 was on the front page on The New York Times on September 12, 2001.

Right. It was also documented with much gravity on the BBC, as we all know.
This is a perfect illustration of the pont that it was big enough news to be reported, unlike some say. However, as soon as it is realised that this story is a threat to power, it gets censored, automatically. There could not be a more astonishing, and Orwellian example of propaganda than this.

 

[mjd1982]

Nope. The world outside the US does just fine on its own. There are plenty of non US journalists going about in the US.

And they wouldn't have a vested interest that it would be an inside job?

Please...

1. Yes. This is what happens, to a significant degree. How many times will you read reports from a country which parrit what has been reported by "Le Monde", "The Australian", or the "New York Times". This is what occurs, though not all the time, to a significant degree.

2. Whether you think that is neither here nor there. It has been reported in these countries.

 

[Pardalis]

1. Yes. This is what happens, to a significant degree. How many times will you read reports from a country which parrit what has been reported by "Le Monde", "The Australian", or the "New York Times". This is what occurs, though not all the time, to a significant degree.

You're propaganda theory doesn't work outside of the US.

2. Whether you think that is neither here nor there. It has been reported in these countries.

Maybe it's their own propaganda?

 

[mjd1982]

Complete and utter tripe, and you know it mjd

What???

British media have a hard on for Bush and the reasons we went to Iraq

Have a hard on for him? Excuse me?!

The point about the PM is not that power will not be criticised, but that there will be limits to such criticism. These are the limits to public discourse. You will read in the BBC about how there were "blunders", but not about how the Bush admin had decided to go to war with Iraq before 911, as reported by many, including his biographer. Even when these matters slip in, they are not "news". They are not treated as the relevant facts.

Tony Boy blew his legacy on this mainly due to the UK media latching onto the Iraq thing

Again, there are strict limits on what can be discussed. Have you heard of the Downing Street memo? Ask yourself why this isnt brought up every time the war is discussed in teh MSM

I see reports everyday about car bombs killing Iraqis

Precisely. Those bastard Iraqi terrorists. But you wont read about Americans killing Iraqis- that is the point.

The BBC and the Dr David Kelly thing shows you that the media are not in the backpocket of any politician in this country. Also the cash for questions affair.

LOL, oh pleeeeease! The Gilligan thing I mentioned in the OP, there is no better example of the PM than that, go back and read. The Levy thing is irrelevant, who gives a toss if someone was maybe offered cash for a peerage? This does not matter.

As for US media I would not know because, in general, when I am in America I cannot bear to watch it, too many commercials breaks

It is possible worse than UK.

I am posting this now for the 7th time. If you would care to be the 1st viewer, you will automaticalyl be more informed about the world than the rest of the jref

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8jkJIya_0KE

 

[mjd1982]

You're propaganda theory doesn't work outside of the US.



Maybe it's their own propaganda?

1. The propaganda model entails the shielding of powerful interests due to those interests being being mass media. They will have the monopoly on mass distributed information in that country. The PM thus applies in whatever country you are looking at, just the controlling/protected interests will differ slightly, though this will depend on the country.

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

 

[johnny karate]

Right. It was also documented with much gravity on the BBC, as we all know.
This is a perfect illustration of the pont that it was big enough news to be reported, unlike some say. However, as soon as it is realised that this story is a threat to power, it gets censored, automatically. There could not be a more astonishing, and Orwellian example of propaganda than this.

I see. So it was both widely reported and censored. I'm not sure you know what "censored" means.

 

[Pardalis]

1. The propaganda model entails the shielding of powerful interests due to those interests being being mass media. They will have the monopoly on mass distributed information in that country. The PM thus applies in whatever country you are looking at, just the controlling/protected interests will differ slightly, though this will depend on the country.

But at some point, in some country somewhere, we should expect to see a media outlet to pick up on the story. So far... ZERO.

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

The US is not an islamic country, it's a democracy.

 

[The Big Dog]

I noted that you rely very heavily on a You Tube Interview with Jack Kelley. Is that the same Jack Kelley that was a longtime USA Today reporter and nominee for the Pulitzer Prize? But perhaps he is best known for his professional downfall in March 2004, when it came out that he had long been fabricating stories, going so far as to write up scripts so associates could pretend to be sources during an investigation of his actions by others at the newspaper.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

2. If this is so, which it may well be, then you have just illustrated how the PM would work in an Islamic country. Apply it to the US, and you are home and dry.

Al-Queada has released videos wherein they demand Americans submit to the will of Allah.

US authorities responded by seeking the death penalty against the man who appears in the videos.

Islamic propaganda models don't appears to work on Americans at all.

 

[mjd1982]

I see. So it was both widely reported and censored. I'm not sure you know what "censored" means.

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.

 

[mjd1982]

But at some point, in some country somewhere, we should expect to see a media outlet to pick up on the story. So far... ZERO.



The US is not an islamic country, it's a democracy.

1. How do you know that? (I know it's not true, but I am interested in why you woudl make such an assertion...)

2. Hence why I have illustrated how a democratic propaganda system would work. Please read the OP to find out more.

 

[mjd1982]

Al-Queada has released videos wherein they demand Americans submit to the will of Allah.

US authorities responded by seeking the death penalty against the man who appears in the videos.

Islamic propaganda models don't appears to work on Americans at all.

as above. There is a major difference betweem autocratic propaganda systems, and democratic ones. I have outlibed this at length in the OP

 

[mjd1982]

I noted that you rely very heavily on a You Tube Interview with Jack Kelley. Is that the same Jack Kelley that was a longtime USA Today reporter and nominee for the Pulitzer Prize? But perhaps he is best known for his professional downfall in March 2004, when it came out that he had long been fabricating stories, going so far as to write up scripts so associates could pretend to be sources during an investigation of his actions by others at the newspaper.

Who's Jack Kelley?

 

[Pardalis]

1. How do you know that? (I know it's not true, but I am interested in why you woudl make such an assertion...)

I haven't heard any report that indicated 9/11 was an inside job from any major news outlet in the Western world.

OK, let's take your beloved OP... (at least what's pertaining to 9/11, the rest I don't care for):

Due to the internet groundswell of awareness to the critical issue of WTC7,

First of all, wtc7 is not a critical issue, it is only a critical issue for Tuthers.

Most journalists around the world won't mention that collapse because, for one thing, nobody trully knows yet what happened to that building. The NIST hasn't released their findings yet. Journalists aren't there to speculate, their job is to communicate facts. They won't risk their professional integrity by reporting half-assed information and second grade testimonies. It's not censorship, it's plain and simple common sense.

this was indeed a dual attack- the plane hitting the building, and a bomb in the basement. You will not read a shred about this now, in any mainstream journal.

Again, that's your conclusion, based on flimsy evidence. Journalists won't report such rubbish.

This is the first time in a democratic society, that there has been testimony, multiple, independent and corroborating, of a bomb in an important and populous location, that has just been forgotten.

Every journalist knows that on the spot eye-witnesses accounts aren't 100% accurate. Only conspiracy theorists make them more important than they are and take them as gospel.

BTW, "explosions" does not necessarily mean "bomb". Again, that's your false conclusion.

 

[twinstead]

I would imagine that if there were ANYTHING to what would be earth-shattering evidence that you say you have, mjd, there would be journalists all over it.

This is Pulitzer Prize material. Journalists would, and in fact have, risked their very lives for a once-in-a-lifetime story. Are you suggesting that this censorship machine is SO strong as to squelch this in all the Western World?

 

[DGM]

You havent understood the point. The collapse of the building was reported initially- i.e. in the 1st few hours or so. This was unavoidable, and there was no reason not to report it. As soon as the evident suspicion about it appeared, it disappeared.

This should have been simple to understand.

Again with the "truther" propaganda. This is another one of your fantasies. The "testimonies" (noting your wording to gain credibility) are not backed up by the physical evidence. Why is that? Why do you not have a credible reason for this?

PEOPLE WERE THERE CLEANING UP! A DEMOLITION IS OBVIOUS! PEOPLE LOOKING AT VIDEOS ARE THE ONLY ONES DOUBTING THIS! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!

If I brought you to a demo site you could recognize it!(yes I'm in construction) And forget that some of the steel was removed quickly because the important pieces of a demolition are near the bottom of the pile (It's funny like that). So unless your ready to say everyone there was in on it, give it up.

You keep saying that we miss the real objectives of the "truth movement" but you continue to campaign these lies. Wake up! As long as the "truth movement" hangs on to CD it will go nowhere. No matter how many words you through at it you can't explain away the lack of physical evidence. Period end of story!

 

[The Big Dog]

Who's Jack Kelley?

C'mon, you are just trolling now, right?

Your OP contains a you tube video that quotes him as the source for your claim that the FBI asserted that there was a bomb in the basement of the WTC on 911.

So, I guess Jack Kelley is the disgraced reporter you are citing as your source?