9/11: Still Killing

[dgridley]

I found these pics and stories from a Reddit link (the story is apparently from 2006) that details the lives of workers and survivors of 9/11 and how they are coping psychologically and health-wise after 9/11. Most are on multiple medications for breathing related problems and multiple exposures to chemicals. These are kind of the forgotten victims of 9/11..

http://www.sohoblues.com/9-11-Still-Killing.html

[Lyte]

So sad. I wonder why the cable news networks aren't talking about this more. Hmm...

Lyte

[dgridley]

I've often wondered about priorities when it comes to news.

[racknrail]

Originally Posted by dgridley

I've often wondered about priorities when it comes to news.

News or propaganda? Often these so called news rooms are fueled by political bodies, which tell people what they want to hear or what they want you to hear. In this computer age we live it is now easier to find out the truth, if we care to dig for it. Lets face it, CNN is one of the worst there is. People believe what they hear, sadly.

Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?



In the U.S. media, so far only Alexander Cockburn, columnist for The Nation and co-editor of the newsletter CounterPunch, has picked up on the story. Cockburn's column on the subject is available at www.counterpunch.org.

The story is disturbing. In the 1980s, officers from the 4th Army PSYOPS group staffed the National Security Council's Office of Public Diplomacy (OPD), a shadowy government propaganda agency that planted stories in the U.S. media supporting the Reagan Administration's Central America policies.

A senior US official described OPD as a "vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory." (Miami Herald, 7/19/87) An investigation by the congressional General Accounting Office found that OPD had engaged in "prohibited, covert propaganda activities," and the office was soon shut down as a result of the Iran-Contra investigations. But the 4th PSYOPS group still operates.

CNN has always maintained a close relationship with the Pentagon. Getting access to top military officials is a necessity for a network that stakes its reputation on being first on the ground during wars and other military operations.

What makes the CNN story especially troubling is the fact that the network allowed the Army's covert propagandists to work in its headquarters, where they learned the ins and outs of CNN's operations. Even if the PSYOPS officers working in the newsroom did not influence news reporting, did the network allow the military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against CNN itself?

For instance, one PSYOPS officer worked in CNN's satellite division. According to Intelligence Newsletter, rear admiral Thomas Steffens, a psychological warfare expert in the Special Operations Command, recently told a PSYOPS conference that the military needed to find ways to "gain control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an "informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were taking place.

An unofficial strategy paper published by the U.S. Naval War College in 1996 and written by an Army officer ("Military Operations in the CNN World: Using the Media as a Force Multiplier") urged military commanders to find ways to "leverage the vast resources of the fourth estate" for the purposes of "communicating the [mission's] objective and endstate, boosting friendly morale, executing more effective psychological operations, playing a major role in deception of the enemy, and enhancing intelligence collection."

Taken from: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748

I prefer reading on sites like: http://www.commondreams.org/

[Lyte]

I'm not sure I'd use the word "often" to describe the use of media to influence views. It's definitely done but not so much as those "conspiracy minded" would like to think.

All the major news orgs were used (for example) in this way when we invaded Kuwait for the first time. The military used the media to further the idea that they were going to invade by sea when in fact, they were going to go for a little end-around over land.

Shrug... ya know, even when we see things with our own eyes there's the possibility for error. They say perception is reality when in fact it's still plain ol' perception. Reality is often something completely different.

Lyte

[racknrail]

Originally Posted by Lyte

I'm not sure I'd use the word "often" to describe the use of media to influence views. It's definitely done but not so much as those "conspiracy minded" would like to think.

All the major news orgs were used (for example) in this way when we invaded Kuwait for the first time. The military used the media to further the idea that they were going to invade by sea when in fact, they were going to go for a little end-around over land.

Shrug... ya know, even when we see things with our own eyes there's the possibility for error. They say perception is reality when in fact it's still plain ol' perception. Reality is often something completely different.

Lyte

"Often" depends on what they're reporting. Myself, I am just very leery as to what our governments and media sources feed us. Even 911 itself has major conspiracies surrounding it, which apparently over one third of Americans truly believe. No matter what conspiracies, true or false, it was a terrible tragedy. That I am sure we all agree on.

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

Or is it, "Believe half of what you hear and none of what you see?"

[Lyte]

Originally Posted by racknrail

Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. Or is it, "Believe half of what you hear and none of what you see?"

I think it's C: All of the above!

Lyte