Showing posts with label corporate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Mainstream Media Reports People Imprisoned 35 Years for Waving Confederate Flag




(FAIRAs FAIR has noted before (4/1/15, 3/8/16), how a story is framed is as important — if not more so — than the content of an article. Sixty percent of Americans don’t read past the headline and 60 percent of Americans share articles on social media without reading them. How a story is teed up to the reader is an essential element in how our media shape our understanding of the news.


confederate flag







One recent string of headlines on the conviction of two Georgia white supremacists over their racist menacing with a shotgun of an eight-year-old child’s party highlighted the extreme degree to which the media can fail in this capacity:




We"re revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.




  • Pair Gets 35 Years for Terrorizing Party with Confederate Flags (New York Daily News, 2/27/17)

  • Two People Receive Huge Prison Sentences for Disrupting Child’s Birthday Party With Confederate Flag (Complex, 2/27/17)

  • Prison Sentences for Confederate Flag Wavers Who Terrorized Child’s Party (San Jose Mercury News, 2/27/17)

  • Confederate Flag Incident at Child’s Party Leads to Jail Time (US News, 2/27/17)

  • Man, Woman Sentenced for Terrorizing Partygoers With Confederate Flag (Fox News, 2/27/17)

confederate flag


The casual media observer is led to believe that a couple received lengthy prison sentences for simply showing up to a child’s birthday party waving flags. As Douglas County, Georgia, District Attorney Brian Fortner said in a statement:





“Many people tried to make the case about simply flying the Confederate battle flag. However, it wasn’t about that at all.


“I would never allow someone to be prosecuted for exercising his or her First Amendment right to fly whatever flag they choose regardless of anyone’s personal feelings about it.


‘Instead, this case was about a group of people riding around our community, drinking alcohol, harassing and intimidating our citizens because of the color of their skin. Many people from all over this area were so alarmed by this behavior and fearful that something bad was going to happen that they called 911 to report it. Their fear proved to be warranted as members of the group got into a confrontation with local citizens having a birthday party at their home.


“Members of the group pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at the victims. They used racial slurs and threatened to kill some of the party goers. They even threatened to kill children at the party…. All of the charges were based on threats to kill others and the pointing of the shotgun.”


The key element of the crime—that the white supremacists’ taunts and slurs were backed up with the threat of immediate violence via a loaded shotgun—was often missing from headlines, buried in the text of the articles. One egregious offender, the New York Daily News, mentioned the fact that the perpetrators had a gun only once in paragraph four. Contrast this framing with how that paper covered the mass arrests of alleged “gang members” in April of last year (FAIR.org, 5/2/16), many of whom were accused of crimes by association:



Here, before any trial—let alone a conviction or sentencing—these black arrestees are summarily and expressly labeled as murderers and drug dealers, with their faces indelibly plastered on the internet as dangerous criminals—the core feature of their alleged crimes made clear for all to read.


Several other outlets covering the Georgia incident mentioned that there was a threat, but failed to note it was backed up with a weapon and not simply verbal in nature:


  • Couple Sentenced for Disrupting Birthday Party With Confederate Flags, Making Threats (NBC4, 2/27/17)

  • Prison for 2 Who Threatened Violence at Black Child’s Party (ABC News, 2/27/17)

  • Georgia Couple Gets Prison for Racist Threats at Child’s Birthday Party (CNN, 2/27/17)

  • US Confederate Flag Pair Jailed Over Threats to Georgia Black Family (BBC, 2/27/17)

The Washington Post (2/28/17) and Mic (2/28/17) deserve credit for clearly mentioning the use of a gun in their headlines—the Post’s “They Waved the Confederate Flag and a Shotgun at a Black Child’s Party. Now They’re Headed to Prison on Terrorism Charges” and Mic’s “Couple Sent to Prison for Harassing Black Child’s Party With Confederate Flags, Guns.”


When the story first broke in October 2015, the headlines were even worse, with reports downplaying the threat aspect altogether and treating the suspects as just a bunch of misunderstood Southern flag-wavers:


  • Confederate Flag Supporters Indicted Under Georgia Terrorism Law (Fox News, 10/13/15)

  • Group That Waved Confederate Flags Indicted (CNN, 10/13/15)

  • Georgia Confederate Flag Supporters Face Terrorism Charges (Daily News, 10/12/15)

The rampage of the “flag supporters” happened only months after nine African-American churchgoers had been massacred in neighboring South Carolina. The perpetrator was a white supremacist who reportedly hoped to spark a race war—and who was repeatedly photographed waving a Confederate flag. The heavily covered story should have made it clear to journalists that the connection between Confederate flags and violent threats was very far from historical.


confederate flag


Mass murderer Dylann Roof posing with gun and Confederate flag.


The fact that the Georgia couple waved Confederate flags helps illustrate the racist nature of their threat, but omitting that this threat was backed up by a live weapon makes the combined 35-year prison sentence seem absurdly excessive. In stark contrast to their black counterparts, the crimes of white suspects are, once again, rounded down to the least incriminating frame.


By Adam Johnson / Creative Commons / FAIR.org / Report a typo

Friday, January 13, 2017

Corporate America Shaken by Trump World Order As Tweets Send Stocks Crashing

January 12, 2017   |   James Holbrooks




(ANTIMEDIA) The corporate world is scrambling to adjust to the impending Trump presidency, Reuters reported on Monday. The news agency spoke to bankers, executives, and employees of public relations firms who say the threat of being labeled “anti-American” by Trump must now be factored into all business decisions.


“Having seen some of America’s largest companies, including General Motors Co, Lockheed Martin Corp and United Technologies Corp, bluntly and publicly rebuked by Trump on Twitter,” Reuters writes, “many others are worried they may be his next target — especially if they have significant overseas manufacturing, have had U.S. job cuts or price increases for consumers.”



The news agency points out that Trump platformed on an “America First” ideology that focused heavily on job growth, and that because of the incoming president’s penchant for expressing his ire via social media, the corporate world is finding it has no choice but to adhere to a new rulebook. Reuters explains:


“That nationalistic rhetoric and Trump’s willingness to use his Twitter account as a cudgel has so rattled some companies that they are putting on hold mergers and acquisitions that may involve significant job cuts or moving production or tax domicile abroad, out of fear that such deals could be seen as ‘unpatriotic,’ several top Wall Street bankers said.”


Companies are starting to pay close attention to Trump’s tweets in order to develop what Reuters called “lines of attack” in case the president-elect should target them.


“Back in December the board was already asking questions,” said an unnamed executive at a large U.S. defense contractor. “What’s the plan in terms of what happens if he comes after us, are we ready? The board is asking us if we have a PR firm at the ready, if we have a person monitoring his Twitter.”



That executive said the plan is to “not get into a fight, and concede immediately” and that “the reality is that we’re trying to stay below the radar.”


Public relations advisors in both the government and private sectors are now being inundated by calls from concerned clients, says Kent Jarrell, a crisis and litigation expert at APCO Worldwide.



“The week after the election it was non-stop meetings and conference calls and analysis,” he said. “It’s almost like a whole new Trump practice is developing.”


It’s not merely about job creation in the U.S., however. Trump’s anti-China stance must be factored into corporate decisions as well, says James Park, chief executive of fitness device maker Fitbit Inc.


“Whether it’s taking higher costs into account or operationally preparing for moving manufacturing (out of China), companies are thinking about what to do,” said Park, who also stated businesses all over are developing Trump contingency plans.


One thing is certain. There’s a new order in the corporate world, and it’s coming about through no desire of the CEOs themselves — a sentiment aptly characterized by Reuters:


“Corporate leaders, say the advisors, can no longer focus only on maximizing shareholder value; they must now also weigh national interest.”



This article (Corporate America Shaken by Trump World Order As Tweets Send Stocks Crashing) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to James Holbrooks and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. Image credit: Gage Skidmore. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Times When the “Mainstream Media Created Fake News”… And People Died As a Result

corporate-media-mind-control


This article was written by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Free Thought Project.


Editor’s Comment: While the powers that be are determining the fate of alternative media voices that are now branded under the dubious label “fake news” and blacked out from online search results, it is worth keeping in mind all the disinformation and downright lies that have been perpetrated by the corporate news media – typically hand in hand with a political agenda.


Whether it is lies that took us to war, or the perception that a deadly attack was carried out by a certain group, the impressions they create play a significant role in determining world events. Often times, that role is one of deception, ensnaring people into supporting deadly and costly actions – in spite of the true facts.


These misleaders are the fake news, and the fake news problem has helped to ruin this country.


5 Times Corporate Media Got Caught Publishing Fake News Causing the Death & Suffering of Millions


by Claire Bernish


A now-notorious list of ostensibly “fake” news sites — created by a liberal professor, seemingly out of thin air — spread like wildfire online in the past two days and was eagerly reprinted by corporate media presstitutes hoping to vindicate their own failed reporting on the 2016 election.


But branding perfectly legitimate outlets with the same scarlet letter as those devoid of integrity deemed the professor’s list a spurious attempt to defame alternative and independent media — anyone dissenting from the left’s mainstream narrative — as a whole.


This is, in no uncertain terms, a hit list — or, at least, a laughable attempt — and it fits conveniently into the establishment’s burgeoning war on independent media disguised as a battle against fake news.


When corporate media outlets from the Independent and Business Insider, to the Los Angeles Times and NYMag scrambled over one another to reprint this irresponsibly contrived hit list, they proved yet again a lack of journalistic integrity — the same issue that originally caused regular subscribers to abandon them in the first place.


Indeed, in this otherwise unknown professor’s foray into the world of journalism, a glaring mistake was made — the only mainstream outlets making the list were those who had heralded Bernie Sanders as the best candidate for the White House.


Such an obvious attempt to control thought could only be conjured in a totalitarian regime.


In fact, failing to place the exact corporate media organizations on the list, who for nearly a year praised fealty only to Hillary Clinton — and for decades have foisted on the public countless mendacious whoppers — constitutes a comedic lack of honesty. So, to bring that irony front and center, it’s imperative to examine some mainstream lies — most of which had appalling consequences — including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the United States and around the world.


1. George W. Bush’s Weapons of Mass Destruction


President George W. Bush decided to unleash the full force of the U.S. military upon the world in a new policy of war writ large disguised as a war on terrorism following the attacks of September 11, 2001. First arbitrarily designating Afghanistan as its primary victim due to the supposed identities of the attackers, Bush then chose Iraq to feel the wrath, and set out to invade the country following dubious claims Saddam Hussein harbored destructive chemical and biological weapons and was actively seeking far stronger munitions.


“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” the president asserted in a public address on March 17, 2003.“This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.”


Bush’s assertions were questioned by not only human rights experts, but by U.N. weapons inspectors and countless others — so shortly after the U.S. invaded the sovereign nation, the New York Times took up the slack to fill in the appropriatecasus belli.


Judith Miller notoriously reported on a source she described only as an Iraqi scientist who had seen several extensive caches of such weapons stored somewhere in the country. American weapons experts, she claimed, “said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein’s government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990’s, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq’s giant weapons plants.”


In hindsight, Miller’s problematic report turned out to be horrendously flawed, and the Times spent months attempting tobacktrack, but the damage — fomenting widescale public support for a war no one wanted the military to undertake — had been done. Years later in 2014, the Times — after much internal strife — again took up Miller’s case, in a series reportingcatastrophic injuries U.S. military personnel suffered in handling chemical weapons in Iraq. But that report, and theparroting of it by multiple other mainstream mainstays, failed to fully disclose Hussein had been oblivious to the stockpiles presence — something the CIA had clearly stated in a report.


2. Gulf of Tonkin Incident


Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war.


On August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.”Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim.


But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world.


In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed.


Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and“reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’”


If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did.


3. Suppression of brutality perpetrated in Bahrain during the Arab Spring


CNN sent reporter Amber Lyon and a crew to U.S. ally Bahrain for a documentary about technology’s role in the 2011 people’s uprising known as the Arab Spring, ultimately titled “iRevolution: Online Warriors of the Arab Spring” — but what they encountered instead bore the hallmarks of a repressive and violent regime, and its attempt to filter and censor the truth. Lyon and the other CNN reporters went to great lengths to speak with sources participating in the massive uprising — one the Bahraini government wished to quash at all costs.


“By the time the CNN crew arrived,” the Guardian reported, “many of the sources who had agreed to speak to them were either in hiding or had disappeared. Regime opponents whom they interviewed suffered recriminations, as did ordinary citizens who worked with them as fixers. Leading human rights activist Nabeel Rajab was charged with crimes shortly after speaking to the CNN team. A doctor who gave the crew a tour of his village and arranged meetings with government opponents, Saeed Ayyad, had his house burned to the ground shortly after. Their local fixer was fired ten days after working with them.”


Even the CNN crew experienced the wrath of the regime, upon showing up to interview one source, the Guardiancontinued, “‘20 heavily-armed men’, whose faces were ‘covered with black ski masks’, ‘jumped from military vehicles’, and then ‘pointed machine guns at’ the journalists, forcing them to the ground. The regime’s security forces seized their cameras and deleted their photos and video footage, and then detained and interrogated them for the next six hours.”


After returning to the U.S., Lyon felt it her duty to expose the abuse being perpetrated by the government of an ally nation — but CNN International didn’t agree. CNN U.S. eventually aired the one-hour documentary. Once. CNN Internationalnever did — worse, the organization gave Lyon the cold shoulder, ignoring her repeated requests to return to Bahrain, which would have put CNN ahead of the game in reporting government brutality. Its failure to air the documentary and refusal to provide justification for doing so angered seasoned CNN and other mainstream established journalists across the board.


Lyon met with CNN International president Tony Maddox twice — he first promised to investigate why the documentary wasn’t aired, and then turned against her, warning the journalist not to discuss the matter publicly. Bahraini officials contacted CNN International repeatedly complaining about Lyon’s continued reporting on what she’d witnessed. Intimidation continued until she was eventually laid off, putatively for an unrelated matter.


Attempting to save face, CNN International rebuffed the Guardian’s account and interview with Lyon — but the effort was an impotent justification for the obvious failure of integrity.


But threats for Lyon to remain silent followed her off the job, and when she persisted in exposing the Bahraini regime, as well as the suppression by CNN, the outlet sent a stern warning to halt. Lyon, however, said she had never signed a non-disclosure agreement and would not be pressured into their lies — ultimately walking away reputation in hand — something that could not be said for CNN.


4. That time Fox News hired a CIA operative who wasn’t a CIA operative


Wayne Shelby Simmons made guest appearances on Fox News as a security expert with insider expertise from his work as a CIA operative — for over a decade. However, Simmons had never been employed by the agency — in fact, the imposter’s lies eventually caught up with him and he was arrested and sentenced to 33 months in prison.


“Instead of verifying whether Simmons had actually worked for the CIA, Fox News and the Agency allowed him to make fools out of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano, Neil Cavuto, and everyone at Fox & Friendsfor over the last twelve years. After building a false reputation as a CIA agent on Fox News, Simmons obtained an interim security clearance when an unnamed government contractor hired him in 2008. Simmons also falsely claimed on national security forms that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had previously held a top secret security clearance from 1973 to 2000,” The Free Thought Project’s Andrew Emett explained.


In other words, mainstream Fox News didn’t bother with journalism at all — proffering fake expertise as the real deal — because the outlet failed the most basic of tasks any hourly wage employer would perform.


Simmons’ commentaries weren’t harmless stabs in the dark, either — relentlessly parroting baseless Islamophobic rhetoric to drum up support for the government’s insidious war on terror likely poisoned the minds of thousands of viewers, furthering the already divisive atmosphere in the U.S.


5. Vapid anti-marijuana propaganda and the furtherance of the war on drugs


According to the Drug Policy Alliance, over $51 billion is spent fighting the war on drugs in the United States — each year. In 2015, a striking 38.6 percent of all arrests for drug possession were for cannabis — 643,121 people were arrested for marijuana-related offenses.


What those figures don’t show are the millions of lives ruined by criminal conviction for the government’s unjustifiable quest to eradicate, demonize, and vilify this beneficial plant. It would be an impossible task to tally the number of families whose homes have been destroyed by SWAT teams searching for marijuana — whether or not police bothered to verify anaddress. An untold number of others have been slain by police for the same reason.


But worst of all, the mainstream media propagates nonsensical, false propaganda about cannabis to convince the gullible and ignorant among us to equate it with heroin, cocaine, and other ‘illicit’ substances. And while a majority of the populace has seen through such lies, some outlets have obstinately continued the drug war — seemingly of their own volition.


One stunning example occurred in March last year, when Dr. David Samadi made a guest appearance on Fox News to fearmonger the horrors of marijuana and scare the bejeezus out of the viewing audience.


“It actually causes heart attacks. It increases your heart rate. And on and on,” Samadi claimed, fecklessly distorting statistics. “We’re seeing in Colorado that we had 13 kids that came to the emergency [room] and ended up in the ICU as a result of overdose from marijuana. Now we have crack babies coming in because pregnant women are smoking this whole marijuana business.”


Fortunately, the Internet has provided the public with alternatives to these corporate media lies — and as of two years ago, despite these and other claims about pot being a dangerous substance, Pew Research Center found fully 69 percent of the population felt alcohol was more harmful than cannabis.


* * *


While this list presents only a few of the bigger lies of the corporate press, there are innumerable examples of its proud history of actual fake news. Keep these in mind when the mainstream presstitutes rush to reprint a hit list targeting journalists and outlets whose narratives counter the establishment. Indeed, it would be the corporate media — with its vast captive audience — who most deserves to be listed as propagators of lies.


This article was written by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Free Thought Project.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Secret Corporate Government Merger — Known as the TPP — is Finally Dead


TPP_deathBy Claire Bernish


In perhaps the least ceremonious victory for U.S. and international activists, the decidedly abhorrent Trans-Pacific Partnership — a corporate giveaway of phenomenal proportions — effectively died yesterday.


Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle announced the much-maligned, so-called ‘free trade’ deal — which would have inextricably tied the U.S. to Asia and given corporations unprecedented powers over governments — would not be pursued in the lame duck session before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.


President Obama had hoped the massive, 12-nation agreement would come to fruition under a Hillary Clinton presidency, but with her defeat and Trump’s promise to roll back the previous, similarly-modeled North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), all prospects of passage melted away.



Further, the deal’s secreted negotiations and WikiLeaks’ publishing of enormously controversial sections — such as the Intellectual Property chapter — left the American public leery and increasingly contemptuous of what, in essence, constituted a gigantic corporate power-grab. Aware of growing skepticism among voters, Republicans previously supporting the TPP dialed back their enthusiasm in recent months.


As the Wall Street Journal reports,






Winning a majority of votes for the TPP in the House and Senate would have required both a last-minute deal to address Republican priorities and an election result that didn’t show such broad discontent.

Neither occurred. Since the election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) have said no to bringing the TPP to a vote in the lame duck session, despite the strong support of many senators in both parties for freer trade.



Despite going out with just a fizzle, the death of the TPP is no less a victory for the people. Although it will await Trump once he takes the White House in January, it’s doubtful the new president — who may, indeed, tone down previous radical ideas to better attune to the establishment — would revive the abominated deal.


In a statement cited by the WSJ, Rep. Kevin Brady said Wednesday “this important agreement is not ready to be considered during the lame duck and will remain on hold until President Trump decides the path forward.”


Clamoring but failing to be included in the deal in the months leading up to the U.S. election, China could now continue its current path spurning American involvement in its trade and economy. In fact, as nations in the Asia-Pacific region continue to foment an alliance both amongst themselves and with Russia, further tariff-eliminating trade deals aren’t likely to include the U.S. at all.


In the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping will reportedly seek trade arrangements with less strictures than had been included in the TPP, such as environmental restrictions, labor protections, and tightly-constrained rules about intellectual property.


Additionally, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) — which includes ten “members of the Association of South East Asian Nations plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand” — also presents direct competition for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Business Insider reports.


“China is always positively advancing work on its own regional free-trade strategy,” said deputy international trade representative, Zhang Xiangchen, quoted by Business Insider. “We, indeed, are continuously and positively advancing RCEP negotiations.”


Beijing feared U.S. protectionism under the TPP would cause economic isolation in the region, but the death of the agreement — and warming alliances with its neighbors — offers a chance for China to fully assert dominance it has been building financially and militarily.


Repercussions from the presidential election echo on the opposite side of the globe as well, as negotiations for the European-focused parallel trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), also came to a screeching halt.


Whether or not U.S. officials will begin to switch focus from the international to the domestic in the coming administration has yet to be seen, but the predicted death of the TPP certainly portends that possibility. Trump’s sometimes vitriolic rhetoric apparently did not spark sufficient malaise for voters soured on the TPP and other proposed trade deals once he denounced the plans as special interests attempting to “rape” the country, as the WSJ noted.


As with quickly heightening tensions and utter unpredictability trailing the election of a non-politician to arguably the seat of highest power on the planet, the killing of the TPP only occurred for the odd turn of events. Its abrupt and inelegant demise — however it came about — will undoubtedly be welcome news for many.


Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.