MSNBC Just Admitted: “Our Job” Is To “Control Exactly What People Think”

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski just erased any lingering doubts the corporate press serves almost wholly to vomit propaganda in order to control public perception, in a rather stupefying statement during an exchange with Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough about President Trump possibly “trying to undermine the media.”

“Exactly. That is exactly what I hear,” Scarborough stated. “What Yamiche said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talk to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, ‘Yeah you guys are going crazy. He’s doing — what are you so surprised about? He is doing exactly what he said he is going to do.’”

“Well, I think that the dangerous, you know,” Brzezinski replied, “edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”

Pause and consider what Brzezinski actually said — whether or not the latter sentence constituted a Freudian slip.

A corporate media presstitute — whose game of career musical chairs saw her leaving mainstream, right-wing Fox News for mainstream, left-wing MSNBC — just told the American public it’s the media’s job to “control exactly what people think.”

That statement comprises the most blatant — if perhaps tacit — evidence pro-U.S. government propaganda measures passed with the 2017 NDAA have already begun.

Mass media has for decades entrenched itself surreptitiously on the side of the ruling political establishment, using the tool of feigned neutrality to manipulate the public into thinking its reports aren’t thoroughly infused with whatever the current agenda might be.

Apparently Brzezinski and her corporate press ilk finally feel the same looming threat of censorship burdening alternative and independent outlets, which have experienced as much throughout the last election cycle. What they conveniently forget, however, is Trump salivating over media control differs negligibly from calls by the same mainstream outlets during that election season not to give credence to information revealed by Wikileaks — nor to disseminate the (accurate) reports based on those documents proffered by alternative media.

Indeed, this dissonant, hypocritical indignation over Trump’s unmistakable effort to tailor information to suit his agenda, however justified the observation is, handily demarcates a battle between the old guard of corporate media turned government mouthpiece and the new guard of an authoritarian administration testing limits of information control.

Two arms of the same arrogant censor.

But censorship of the free press has been a grave concern of independent media for months, as corporate outlets scampered to deem any reporting on multiple scandals involving the DNC and candidate Hillary Clinton ‘fake news’ — or even Russian propaganda — no matter the proven validity of the information.

That soft censorship might have suited the interests of the previous political establishment’s favored narrative — and provided a comfortable impunity for mainstream press to sanctimoniously skewer independent reporting — but the lack of foresight the oppression would eventually come full circle to apply across the board is laughable.

Perhaps MSNBC and other behemoth organizations underestimated the extreme executive powers former President Obama bequeathed to Trump — as well as Trump’s leeway in implementing more.

MSNBC’s offense at the manipulation of facts and fictions rings hollow when it and other mainstream outlets evince an established pattern of the same. That’s at least fairly close to — if not exactly — the pot calling the kettle black.

However, pointing out astonishing hypocrisy in demands for soft and hard censorship could these days be a new sport, the examples happen with such frequency. Instead, both sides — the corporate press and the political establishment, including Trump — have ramped up the measures necessary to guarantee freedom of the press will decline in coming years without hypervigilance.

And hypervigilance is an absolute necessity, now that there is no room to deny the sordid and unseemly marriage of censorship and propaganda — facilitating control of the public mind — championed openly by corporate America’s loyal lapdogs: media and government.

Assange Exposes the Truth About Corporate Media: ‘You Are Reading Weaponized Text’

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange called “very, very, very inaccurate” corporate presstitutes “opportunistic snipers” in an interview over the weekend, accusing newspapers of printing “weaponized text.”

And the outspoken publisher isn’t at all dissatisfied with the current propaganda of “fake news” — because, as Assange explained to Australian comedian Chas Licciardello, according to CNET,

“WikiLeaks is very happy that there is a narrative about fake news out there because we have a perfect record of having never got it wrong in terms of authentications.”

While the corporate press continues misrepresenting information, quoting unnamed and thus unverifiable sources, and even printing flagrant fabrications, Wikileaks indeed maintains an unparalleled streak of publishing authentic and undoctored data — despite excoriation from the establishment — thus eliminating all bias or unintended insertion of opinion.

“When the narrative of fake news came out and was then taken off effectively by the neo-liberal press and pushed around,” Assange elaborated. “I could see exactly where that was going. I was rather happy about it.”

But the outspoken publisher’s opinion on so-called fake news emphasizes the disastrous failings of a mainstream media hell bent on propping up its own establishment agenda — regardless of which political affiliation a given outlet claims.

“What is special about WikiLeaks is that it’s not just another damn story,” noted Assange, “it’s not just another damn journalist putting their damn byline, advertising themselves and their position on another damn story.”

Further, he said, discussing Wikileaks’ searchable database, “You’re not reading pre-weaponised knowledge. When you read a newspaper article, you are reading weaponised text that is designed to affect a person just like you.”

READ MORE:  After the WaPost"s Latest Shot, It"s Time to Call "Fake News" By Its Real Name "Weaponized Journalism"

Assange’s description of weaponized text characterizes the corporate press’ penchant for propaganda — a political establishment-friendly slant that has once-illustrious media institutions like the Washington Post and New York Times frivolously abandoning journalistic integrity whenever it’s deemed necessary.

In fact, after the Post published a slew of articles without any basis in fact, The Free Thought Project noted in January,

“This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.

“We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.”

That assessment has proven true, as what appears to be recklessness in corporate journalism generally gains editorial approval if the article appeals to emotion and will manipulate readers into a specific thought pattern — like both anti-Russia and anti-Iran reports so frequently topping mainstream headlines.

Of course, no coincidence exists in the corporate press’ continued stark criticism of Wikileaks as a politically-motivated organization — an allegation oft repeated during the last presidential election cycle.

Such accusations only act to divert attention to the corrupt ugliness displayed by politicians and insiders who never imagined their words behind curtains would be unveiled to public scrutiny.

Outlets loyal to the Democratic establishment thus accused Wikileaks and its founder of publishing damning documents from the DNC, John Podesta, and candidate Hillary Clinton as part of a political vendetta — particularly due to the lack of documents the outlet received on rival Donald Trump.

READ MORE:  George Soros was Hacked! -- Thousands of Files Expose Election Manipulation & More

“We had lots of critics in the Democratic Party, liars in the Democratic Party … saying that what we published was not accurate — trying to imitate it, sometimes saying it directly. And of course, we could mathematically prove that they were liars. And it’s not every day that you can mathematically prove that your critics are full of it.”

Assange has emphatically repeated that Wikileaks cannot publish what it doesn’t have in its possession — and no whistleblower or leaker has yet come forward with a cache of information on Trump or the RNC.

Beyond content, Wikileaks came under fire for the timing of document dumps during election season — a matter of such concern to the former Obama administration, U.S. officials attempted to dam the flood of documents by persuading the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which Assange has called home since 2011, to cut his connection to the Internet.

But timing is everything for the clients who hand over information to WikiLeaks, and striking the greatest blow with truth isn’t something Assange avoids. As he told Licciardello on the decision of when to publish the Podesta Files,

“We try and maximize the value of the information to readers. So that’s publishing it at the moment when they most want to read it, when they most want to know what it contains. And that’s definitely before an election rather than after election.”

“Sources don’t give you stuff unless it’s going to have impact,” he explained.

Wikileaks, unlike a traditional media outlet, publishes and catalogs data for anyone to search — and doesn’t remove documents after maximum impact has been achieved:

“The real value in WikiLeaks is it is a wonderful library that you can trust … But the library has to be marketed. And so the scandal-generation business, which we’re also in — I view that as a kind of marketing effort for what is much more substantial, which is our archive […]

“I think that is the real beauty of WikiLeaks … it is that sea of information, that treasure, that intellectual treasure, that rebel library of Alexandria you can go into.”

Critics from both sides of the political duopoly claim Wikileaks’ policy of printing everything in a leak — without editing content — presents a danger to government officials acting surreptitiously in the field. But Assange disputes this, and has said Wikileaks carefully vets every document to ensure no lives would be jeopardized before it publishes.

“Nothing that we’ve published has ever hurt anyone, physically,” Assange asserted. “Information very, very rarely, is dangerous. And not compared to what government does.”

Mainstream Media’s Russian/Aide Story is Fake News by Their Own Definition

Corporate media pulled off the previously impossible yet again in reports from the New York Times and CNN claiming aides and associates of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign maintained close contact with Russia throughout his campaign — but the accusatory tone of the report simply isn’t backed by evidence.

“Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials,” the Times reported Tuesday, adding, “it is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society.”

And, even further to the point, “It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself.”

CNN adds, “Both the frequency of the communications during early summer and the proximity to Trump of those involved ‘raised a red flag’ with US intelligence and law enforcement, according to these officials. The communications were intercepted during routine intelligence collection targeting Russian officials and other Russian nationals known to US intelligence.”

Incidentally, CNN notes, “The communications were gathered as part of routine US intelligence collection and not because people close to Trump were being targeted.”

Notice the stultifying ambiguity — so typical of similar mainstream media reports on other topics without basis — where unnamed officials cite alleged reports unavailable for the public and press to vet; and bluster replaces solid evidence.

Each outlet casts sufficient doubt on their reports as to make one wonder how editors at the New York Times and CNN gave their publication the green light — that is, until further examination reveals the actual motivation for doing so.

After all, this is not journalism. This is propaganda. Fake news at its most manipulative — reigniting Americans’ fears from the last Cold War to ensure a constant state of suspicion, bolster the case for continued stockpiling of military weapons, and a solid enemy beyond our own government to whom we can point the finger of blame.

“All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified,” the Times declared.

Of course, it conveniently is.

Also typical for mainstream media’s recent spate of unsubstantiated reports, contradictory information buried in plain sight belies that the outlets know the information covered is of a highly dubious nature — yet, without hesitation, the accusations make their way through editors to publishing.

“Officials emphasized that communications between campaign staff and representatives of foreign governments are not unusual,” CNN reported, defusing altogether the explosiveness of its claims. “However, these communications stood out to investigators due to the frequency and the level of the Trump advisers involved. Investigators have not reached a judgment on the intent of those conversations. […]

“These officials cautioned the Russians could have been exaggerating their access.”

READ MORE:  Amid False Fears Stoked by Fake News, Obama Quietly Deployed Special Forces Along Russian Border

Similarly, the Times noted, “The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.”

Officials in the Trump administration vociferously denied the allegations of collusion with Russia. Paul Manafort, who worked on Trump’s campaign and as a political consultant in Ukraine — and the only aide named in the reports — called the accusations “absurd,” and told the Times by phone,

“I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today.

“It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

In fact, the reports were so feeble, the leading notorious purveyor of fake news, itself — the Washington Post — sardonically excoriated both media organizations for lacking any on-the-record evidence.

These were the "smoking gun" reports that Very Serious people just spent the last 24 hours screaming about https://t.co/8K8QVa8Tnh pic.twitter.com/AHwXeMnrg8

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) February 15, 2017

“There’s very little good news for President Trump these days,” the Post’s Callum Borchers wrote Wednesday. “His White House is dealing with not one but two (!) explosive reports that his aides and associates were in contact with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign. But there is one bright spot for Trump: Both of the stories use zero on-the-record sources to back up their claims.”

As Borchers also points out, reports like these — in a situation amid ongoing investigation — could legitimately still be too classified to make public. And while that’s a perfectly legitimate argument for officials to remain anonymous, it equally allows the unhindered dissemination of politically-motivated information — whether or not proof backs up the claims.

Panic and fear our national security has somehow been thwarted by a big, evil State is the business of foreign policy and the military-industrial machine — and if the new president won’t play the game, the players in charge must game the system to manipulate the public.

An unfettered anti-Russia propaganda campaign has gripped corporate media for months, ratcheting up when Hillary Clinton lost in a supposed shocker of an election.

But Trump’s promises to mend diplomatic relations with Moscow provided the fuel for the Democratic, neoliberal establishment to conflate his warmth with actual collusion to rig the election — again, without a shred of proof.

We haven’t heard the last of the Trump-Russia tripe — which is how reports like the Times’ and CNN’s must be categorized until actual proof replaces what constitutes so much fiction — because Red Scaremongering has not worn out its use.

CBS Caught Twisting Reality in Fake News Broadcast to Stoke Racial Tensions

In the midst of the ongoing war on dissent disguised as a battle against Fake News, corporate media’s already notorious reputation for publishing false and misleading information has begun spiraling to a new nadir — and, although the Washington Post leads this wretched race to the bottom, CBS News just reported one of the most deceptive whoppers in recent memory.

In fact, it’s an open question whether the CBS News radio report sought to stoke the ever-deepening chasm splitting the nation.

“The viral video of a beating and knife attack in Chicago suggests the assault had racial overtones,” the announcer states. “CBS’ Dean Reynolds tells us the victim is described as a mentally challenged teenager.”

At that point, the broadcast replays audio from footage of the attack, before Reynolds reports,

“In the video, he is choked and repeatedly called the ‘n’ word,” Reynolds says of the victim. “His clothes are slashed and he is terrorized with a knife. His alleged captors repeatedly reference Donald Trump.”

Had listeners not already viewed the video or seen truthful reports of the horrific torture, it would easily be inferred the four attackers were white — and the victim, African American.

But that isn’t the case — indeed, the opposite is true.

Three 18-year-olds, Tesfaye Cooper, Brittany Covington, Jordan Hill, and 24-year-old Tanishia Covington, who are black, have now been charged with hate crimes by Cook County Circuit Judge Maria Kuriakos Ciesil for the malicious assault — during which the young people repeatedly yelled, “Fuck white people” and “Fuck Donald Trump.”

While the attackers did, indeed, scream ‘n****r’ while torturing, brutalizing, and abusing their victim, they are indeed African Americans.

Put simply, CBS mangled the truth — eschewing integrity in favor of Fake News — the same Fake News the organization and the rest of the corporate press falsely accuse independent media of of producing. How ironic.

As media critic Mark Dice notes, “So far CBS hasn’t issued a correction. They haven’t named the editor — haven’t fired the editor — just completely ignored this unbelievably deceptive story.”

What would be CBS’ motive to atrociously relay the assault as the polar opposite of reality remains unclear.

Police weren’t immediately certain of the attackers’ motivations; however, the blatant ‘racial overtones’ CBS suggested — altogether inaccurately — led to the hate crime charges on Friday.

Amid a spate of Fake News published haplessly or intentionally by corporate presstitutes — and the offshoot war on dissent undertaken by the U.S. government over wholly unproven allegations Russia meddled in the election — denouncing errant reporting when it occurs is of the utmost imperative.

Indeed it would seem mainstream media has relinquished all journalistic integrity to manipulate the public mind to fit the narrative deemed acceptable by the U.S. government.

Although the majority of the corporate press’ Fake News has centered around theoretical Russian hackers — aligning with a recent CIA report devoid of any evidence backing the claim — CBS News’ embarrassingly disingenuous characterization of this race-motivated attack still fits a crucial, unstated governmental agenda.

If the American populace is divided along racial lines — and refuses to converse honestly about issues of race — we’re too distracted blaming one another to pay attention to rampant government corruption and rife collusion by the mainstream press.

It is this exact divisive tactic — deft manipulation of the blame game — which has brought us the war on Fake News, the Fake News Russia somehow hacked Democratic Party systems, and Fake News Russians hacked into the electrical grid.

If we’re all pointing fingers at truthful reports as being Fake News, rather than at actual Fake News reported as truth, a general atmosphere of suspicion takes hold, and — as is currently the case — those who deserve blame in this mess escape notice.

CBS’ foray into Fake News with this unethically deceitful report — and the outlet’s failure to retract and clarify — is thus nothing short of inexcusable.

When Good People Share Bad Things — Here’s Why You Need to Fact Check Before You Click Share

Disinformation. Misinformation. Propaganda. Outright lies. Purposeful distractions. Misleading bias. All tools of the government and close ally, corporate media, to keep the public unwise to the depth and breadth of imperialistic actions taking place around the world — and ever-encroaching surveillance and police states inside the borders of the United States.

Perhaps you have been fortunate enough to begin pulling back the curtain on the inner workings of the government — the tandem dealings by politicians, regardless of party affiliation — to exploit the public in as many ways possible for the profits of elite politicians, corporations, industries, and banks.

And what frequently starts as a trickle of paradigm-shifting new information, quickly forces open the floodgates — as the realization things aren’t at all as they hammered into your psyche for years through State-sponsored indoctrination of public education. It can be overwhelming — and you likely want to ‘wake up’ others to this reality — but there are pitfalls in doing so, marked by the same tactics the State employed to fool you in the first place.

Disinformation. Misinformation. Propaganda. Outright lies. Purposeful distractions. Misleading bias.

Sound familiar?

With the sheer amplitude and magnitude of corruption exposed on a daily basis in the lead-up to the November 8th presidential election, alerting friends and family could seem more imperative than ever — but the aforementioned traps should and must be avoided at all costs — even when it comes from outlets posing as an answer to the mainstream. Let it be noted, that is not to decry credible, consistent independent and alternative media outlets — but it’s crucial to employ critical thinking and a bit of research to separate those with integrity from the mendacious and misleading.

Spreading misinformation, false reports, and surreptitious propaganda does nothing to further the cause of truth — and, in fact, serves more to harm the credibility of legitimate reports in opposition to the dominant State narrative. Social media, however, has provided plenty of dry tinder for faulty info to spread like wildfire — either by the haplessly unaware, or by those with motives to ensure it quickly disseminates to cast doubt in the public mind.

But there are a number of ways to divine authentic, genuine information from that meant to distract, divide, discredit, and delegitimize.

Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines ‘disinformation’ as “false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth.”

So common is disinformation, those familiar with it will destroy said item with facts before it gains traction in public forums — but rumors being rumors, sometimes take on a life of their own. Checking whether or not a new report has any basis is usually as easy as a web search for secondary reports from known credible sources parroting the same claim — indeed, one surefire clue a report might be false, or even satire, is a lack of hyperlinks to other sources.

Misinformation, on the other hand, can present a trickier issue in that it can have at least a kernel of truth at its core — but the packaging, which can include blatant lies or opinion misconstrued as fact, intends to mislead.

Political and elections polls tilt public opinion, and — when convincing — can even dissuade people from voting on candidates and issues they might otherwise deem critical. In fact, selectively cherry-picking a sampling pool — or crafting targeted questions — will dramatically and sometimes ridiculously fit results to glean a desired answer. Zero Hedge, for example, caught ABC News and the Washington Post in the act over the weekend, after their joint poll showed Hillary Clinton with a double-digit lead over Donald Trump — despite increasingly heated controversy from John Podesta’s leaked emails.

Every government on the planet employs propaganda to garner favor for policy and legislation — and more subtly to inculcate the citizenry into hollow feelings of nationalism, which serves little purpose other than fueling separation and pride based on the arbitrary geopolitical happenstance of one’s birth. Although the most cunning propaganda is virtually imperceptible, this year’s narrative of Russian aggression couldn’t be more patently obvious if it tried.

However, that’s not to say the same idea of a Russian threat hasn’t also crept into reports from supposed ‘analysts,’ as well. A number of generally credible outlets, rather than presenting analysis with open-ended outcomes, have taken the government’s cue to warn of impending nuclear war at Pres. Vladimir Putin’s behest — despite a lack of evidence to back the claim. Fearmongering, it should be noted, is a common tool of propagandists worldwide.

Outright lies and deliberate distractions go hand-in-hand when it comes to parsing truth from fiction — and an unfortunately growing number of tabloid-esque outlets peddle absurd lies as truth in the interest of getting clicks. Notably, differentiating tabloid sites from credible alternative sources can be the most difficult to the newly ‘awakening’ truth-seeker.

A fine line exists between attention-grabbing headlines topping truthful articles and head-turning captions screaming wholescale lies. Indeed, considering the populace-at-large now champions an attention span less than that of a goldfish, convincing readers to venture past the first two sentences of a legitimate article can be the most frustrating facet of the job of independent media journalist. Scammers and profit-seekers capitalize on the fact most will share a link without ever bothering to view its contents — no matter if the work constitutes so much garbage.

Although it isn’t an absolute guarantee, a wise axiom to follow stands the test of time: If it sounds too good or too absurd to be true, it probably is. If you’re still uncertain, ask someone you trust, seek a second and third and fourth source, and, above all, do a little digging — after all, the Internet puts the world at everyone’s fingertips.

Journalism is not meant to be devoid of bias — on the contrary, good journalism persuades. However, bias can be employed in the extreme, easily bordering on misinformation. A topic proffered by FOX News and MSNBC will never be reported the same way — each has clear political bias and an agenda to push. Bias doesn’t have to be quite so flagrant to be effective.

So-called political pundits are a common tool used by corporate media to subtly infuse bias by appealing to the public trust of a putative ‘expert’ in the particular topic of discussion — and pundits are usually just political or party insiders, ex-government employees, and others with a vested interest in ensuring public opinion sways in a certain direction. Also, pundits and experts nearly always receive compensation for their input.

A stellar recent example of a biased opinion presented as expert assessment came from former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom — a known devotee of presidential candidate Donald Trump — who castigated the Clintons for being a “crime family.” While that point is debatable, the fact Kallstrom appeared as a former official of the government connoted insider knowledge — an appeal to his ostensible authority — and his diatribe went viral nearly immediately for its incendiary nature. It isn’t so much that his opinion didn’t deserve to be shared, but that it needed to be considered in light of his political desires — his characterization of the Clintons directly feeds Kallstrom’s desire for Trump to win the White House.

While each of these topics could and have filled tomes, hopefully this provides a gentle reminder to be wary of believing everything you read. As any journalist worth their salt will say, if you don’t believe what’s written, research it on your own. Follow links provided. Seek new information. Open your mind to new ideas and be willing to part with indoctrinated thoughts that no longer serve you.

But don’t be fooled — and it behooves all of us not to spread the sort of faulty information that discredits the general movement to expose the government’s innumerable lies.