Fake News, Media Propaganda & ‘Managing’ Public Perceptions

Submitted by Pachamama

fakenewsRecently a list of more than 200 ‘alternative news sites’ were referenced by the Washington Post, as secondary source, as being the bearers of questionable information. These 200 websites covered a fairly wide range of opinion, from Russia’s RT to Alex Jones’ Prison Planet Radio.

We will argue that anything we see, hear or read, in any environment, could hardly be considered beyond question. Whether we are talking about politics, economy, technology, physical environment, social or legal we see nothing but official lies passing as truths. For it is the area between our ears which represents the most valuable real estate on earth, or mars, for the community of interests.

In between, many critical, alternative news sites, were tarred and feathered by forces which seem to have cleverly cloaked an intention to eliminate or stain fierce competition to the perennial lies of the mainstream. Our instincts suggest, that the targeting of some of the sites was to engender a certain level of confusion. In the intelligence business, such a project is best known as a ‘limited hang-out’.

And it has been previously disclosed that all the major, official, fake news networks, CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, Deutsche Welle, BBC, France 21, PBS, Public Radio, etc, are provided constant guidance by the intelligence agencies of the USA. They have their networks of people stationed within. How else would they be able to cover the same (selected) issues in generally the same ways, at the same time, by the same kinds of people, while always reaching the same kinds conclusions.

We were in Czechoslovakia about 30 years ago, to witness an amazing and ongoing propaganda coup. It was a country where the people watched the fake news to hear what was NOT being reported. To make judgements about what the regime did NOT say. In the West, we have come to need that kind of intelligence, especially when dealing with private media working as government propagandists.

Or the story about the Russians who came to the USA during the time of the USSR and wondered how all the media would cover all the stories in the same way. They were to marvel at such a feat and hoped to be able to implement same behind the ‘iron curtain’. What freedom! What fake news!

Or even ‘Democracy Now’, a programmed stolen from WBAI as developed by the late Samori Marksman, which continues to distribute fake news about some formation called LGBTQ. With an Amy Goodman telling the same kinds of officials lies about America’s illegal wars as does the mainstream, to appease her funders. Funders linked to the military-industrial-intelligence-complex. These are the so-called ‘progressives’ in media. They are no less infiltrated.

Our world is highly-propagandized state. The globalization of propaganda. Every major institution is infiltrated by intelligence agencies of one kind or the next. More and more electronically. And fake news is a strategic weapon for internal control.

Or the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) whose notion of evening fake news could be missed by viewers for 15 years without being any less mis-informed. This state-sponsored propaganda medium never seems to be able to find a way to be even critically supportive of the regime of the day.

We were surprised at the emergence of fake news, about fake news, at the height of fake news, in the time of Trump and his ‘fakery’. Just maybe, the emergence of fake news may have something to do with the rise of Trumpism. And while there may be some logic to that way of thinking, there is also an age-old problem of fake news which must be engaged.

We can’t but argue that fake news has become the normal way of the human. Even ‘good news’ is no less fake. Do we not know, with certainty, that the Bible is replete, from genesis to revelations, with fake news? Have we not been raised on Reddiffusion and the BBC with fake news, the news the British wanted us to hear? Is it not a truism that from the very beginnings of time fake information has been used to deceive most of us? Is it not fake information which has our world upside down?

In all this, there is a misguided presumption that the Washington Post, the Barbados Nation, The Advocate News, the New York Times, operate above the spectre of fake news. Are these not the leading lights of journalism, which gave us the illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Supported terrorists as proxy armies for empire. Promoted the ‘White Helmets’ as recipients for Nobel Prizes, Right Livelihood Awards – the alternative Nobel. And do not local papers carry international news from a very small circle of media.

While Obama is exiting and Trump, taking over, the nexus between the intelligence agencies and the role of propaganda or fake news is centered around Russia and its alleged interference in the US elections. How much more fake can ‘news’ be? None of the media who we are to tell the ‘real’ fake news can possibly address the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

That real news is the centuries’ old interference in other countries’ elections by American government agencies, particularly the CIA and NGOs in its pay. If we were from Mars we would be left to assume that this type of thing has never happened before, not on earth. Not when the media of the most powerful country is willing to spread the fake news of its president, in cahoots with untrustworthy secret agencies, based wholly on unproven statements.

If we were from Mars, we might even assume that earthlings were unintelligent beings. If the most powerful man, in the most powerful country, was the most stupid person on the planet, we would conclude that the humanoid was not very smart at all. We could not have known that the humanoid was so ill-informed, and purposely made to be, by fake news. Trumpism for you!

But the Martians will quickly come to realize how earthlings are made to operate within a tapestry of lies. And that for them to gain power on earth they must take control of the vast architecture of fake news which dominates the lives of earthlings.

At the center of the social sciences is the need to measure perceptions, determine gaps and finds ways to satisfy needs. In the hands of politicians, intelligence apparati and ‘fake news’ media networks, instead of managing perceptions, human perceptions are created by this vast propaganda ‘machines’.

We have lost control over notions of free will. Are firmly located within the post-1984 world of George Orwell. And way beyond the ‘manufacturing of consent’!

373 thoughts on “Fake News, Media Propaganda & ‘Managing’ Public Perceptions

  1. David, to be frank this US presidential comedian elect cannot be compared to the skits being played out in Bdos.

    Our ‘idiots’ strut and fret their tales on a very small stage affecting us Bajans and some Caribbean souls.

    This ‘idiot’ struts and affects the world stage, of course.

    And when did he ever need evidence to make his bold assertions.

    Obama selected as FBI Director this career prosecutor who was ostensibly a man of integrity with a non-political bias in his interpretations of the law – as it should be. Despite all that has happened since then Mr Comey is likely still best suited to his post rather than a Trump appointee.

    One hopes the internal investigation validates his actions as being untinged by any biases or blurry judgement and that he remains as FBI director.

    Trump has also accused the CIA Director , a political appointee but yet a career spook – of possibly being the source of the leaks too.

    He is an equal opportunity serial comedian.

  2. @David
    He didn’t blame Comey, he blamed the outgoing CIA Director Brennan. It is interesting to note that the initial research into his activities in Russia came at the behest of Jeb Bush’s campaign when he was contemplating a run for the Republican nomination. Perhaps Donald knew about it and it explains his over the top vitriol towards Bush during that campaign. When Bush faltered Steele was contracted by other parties to dig up dirt on Trump so the information could have been circulating for months but mainstream media wasn’t comfortable running with unverified information and it seemed too outlandish to be true while tabloids like the National Enquirer was solidly in Trump’s corner and were only interested in negative stories about Clinton.

    About Comey although he has a 10 year term if the President wants him out he will be gone, but Democrats are in a bind although they want to see the back of Comey they believe a Trump appointee could be worse.

    Interesting times ahead.

  3. @Sargeant, please clarify “About Comey although he has a 10 year term if the President wants him out he will be gone…”. How so??

    I have read that in general terms and even saw what I considered one quite erroneous report which said the FBI post was a political appointment in the same way as CIA Dir or the very new post of DNI.

    But the history of the position does not speak to that narrative.

    In the last whatever number of years no FBI Director has been fired by an incoming President on a political basis.

    There is NO WAY Trump can do that now despite the anger facing Comey from both Dems and Republicans…unless he is badly dinged by the internal investigation and then he will simply resign.

    A president has no real ability to get an FBI director out unless he concocts a case…which s possible of course.

  4. Trump is an iconoclast, not a comedian.

    He is upending a corrupt system. The fact that a criminal dunce like Hillary is seen by most of the BU crowd as not just preferable, but a ‘respectable’ option, is beneath contempt.

    • @chad99999

      Come on, use commonsense. Trump can’t say don’t blame Putin and on the next day blame the Intel heads for this or the other without ‘evidence ‘. What is iconoclastic about that?

  5. @DPD

    The FBI Director reports to the Atty. Gen. but is nominated/appointed by the President, if the Atty Gen tells the FBI Director he wants his/her resignation wouldn’t that request have the imprimatur of the President? How can an FBI Director serve effectively if his boss doesn’t want him?

  6. David, being frank again …Chad45 and blogging commonsense going together is like water and oil. Nuff said.

    But on the other hand I would accept that history’s pages will term Trump as an ‘iconoclast’: An iconoclastic perfidy of the post of President of the USA. Of that we can be assured.

    @Chad45, the campaign is OVER. Trump is the president elect. STOP comparing him to Clinton. He must now be compared to past Presidents at this stage of their tenures and moving forward. He fails BADLY there.

    Your candidate, regardless of whether one likes his proposals or not, is reckless and extremely comedic in his behaviour. His every action can cause lives to be upended and he seems to take great pride in doing that and having his ‘ring’ kissed.

    It was so absolutely pathetic to see a report (fake?) that Trump said he loves the monarchy as he grew up with a mum who adored the Queen.

    Pathetic because Trump clearly always had the ‘royal blue blood’ demeanor and like any great king he threw scraps to his fawning subjects who grabbed them up in gleeful ministrations before him….apparently never realizing they were mere minions to the majesty that is Trump.

    I can’t blame the man for that captivating King Arthur like personality. Kudos to him.

    But this is time to lead…stop the bluster and BS.

    Govern like a man of stature and substance he clams to be and not like the icon of fraud, lies and ego …

  7. @Sargeant at 9:56 AM ….yes that is all technical quite accurate.

    But as we both know the FBI is a law enforcement position that is outside the direct purview of President and to some extent even the AG.

    The quickest way to explain what is the reality of the position as history seems to validate is by examples.

    If the AG can ‘control’ the FBI Dir wouldn’t you consider it gross insubordination that Comey defied AG Lynch re the Clinton email probe announcement. He is still there.

    And let’s go back to the famous Nixon period. His AG ( a political appointment) refused to follow his lead. The President did basically as you said and demanded his resignation. We all know how that eventually played out.

    In that context do we really believe that firing an FBI director will not bring grave accusations of political interference with the law enforcement process.

    So yes the President can set his imprimatur and can certainly direct AG Sessions (when appointed) to request Comey’s resignation. But on what grounds? Comey can refuse and force Trump to fire him.

    Then we are back to your well made statement that “…Democrats [would be in a bind as] although they want to see the back of Comey they believe a Trump appointee could be worse”.

    One FBI Director was fired in recent times when he refused to resign. But then again only one waiver to have a recently retired flag-officer serve as SecDef was made prior to the Mathis waiver…so maybe Trump will pull off another major historical second without any blow-back!

    We shall see.

  8. Dribbler is hopelessly out of touch.

    Trump has never had a royal demeanor. He has been repeatedly described as a poor man’s idea of what a rich man is like. He himself is proud of his vulgar philistinism.

    The Trump family were upstart (relatively small-time) developers from Queens, NY. The Manhattan developers looked down on people like them, and Trump’s father plotted his moves to succeed in Manhattan and provide a foundation for his son to rise to the top there. Trump is acutely aware of the fact that he is not and will never be a blue-blood and likes to order the blue bloods around. Good for him.

  9. Given the current political circumstances, Trump would find it relatively easy to fire Comey. Or he can ask the Republicans in Congress to impeach Comey.

  10. Chad99999;

    You said “…Or he can ask the Republicans in Congress to impeach Comey.”

    Yuh serious! Ask the Republicans in Congress to impeach Comey for getting them totally unexpected power and also to risking serious exposure of Trump, Comey and the FBI?

    Good joke! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

  11. David re. your 12:09 pm post;

    Trump is a bull in a china shop iconoclast.

    He gives no thought to what is likely to happen when he does his icon breaking, as ordered by the voices within him, to create total unguided chaos of benefit to no human.

    He is the supreme iconoclast!

    Chad is partially right!

    • @AWTY

      Attacking the status quo does not mean the person doing so is correct to your point ‘bull in a china shop’. This is what an iconoclast is about.

  12. Are-We-There-Yet

    You are parroting the Democrat line. Comey did not get Trump elected. Hillary lost for a lot of reasons, but none of them have to do with Comey.

  13. Chad99999;

    Its not just the Democrat line.

    Its the line of the Democrats and any thinking non partisan person who has followed the numbers in the polls around that time. Comey gave waverers pause at a crucial time, 11 days before the election, when he made his controversial announcement of a new enquiry into the Clinton Email story, an announcement that was verboten under the tenets of past practice. He then proceeded to make a complicated convoluted announcement which appeared to be designed to obfuscate the fact that, properly read, he was now announcing that she was cleared just a couple days before the Election when peoples minds would have already been swayed by the earlier announcement. There is no doubt, except to Republican partisans, that Hillary Clinton would have won except for the intervention of Comey.

    What is slightly murky, given no-drama Obama’s publicly stated views on the matter, is whether or not Comey’s actions were intentionally designed to harm Clinton. I suspect that a statistical study of the daily polls at that stage of the elections, would make an indisputable case that Comey’s actions almost certainly caused Clinton to lose the elections and could only have been unintentional if Comey did not have the mental wherewithal to do his Job properly.

  14. You are wrong.

    Hillary lost many of the late-deciders in the final week of the November election. This is offered as proof of the “Comey effect”. It is not.

    In nearly every presidential election, the late-deciders are voters who are leaning against the party which holds the White House. They waver until the final week or the final weekend, or if they decide how to vote much earlier, they keep it secret until the end of the campaign. But they cannot bring themselves to vote for the party in control of the White House. Go back in history and see how Ronald Reagan won nearly all the late-deciders in the election against Jimmy Carter. Ditto the late swing to Obama in 2008 vs McCain.

    Hillary was going to lose most of the late-deciders regardless of what happened in the campaign. If you are the Establishment candidate, and you can’t close the deal with a voter, and there are only two weeks to go before the vote, you have lost that vote.

    Comey did Hillary a favour in “clearing” her before the vote. He should have indicted her in July, because she violated federal laws with her email server caper.

  15. If a voter is not going to vote for Clinton, but is slow to make the final decision for Trump, he can either wait until election day to decide, or he can use an excuse, like a statement from Comey, to come to an earlier decision. Either way, he is not going to vote for Clinton.

    It is also clear that most of these late deciders turned away from the entire slate of Democrat candidates, not just the corrupt presidential candidate investigated by Comey. The Democrats lost most of the state and local elections in November, not just the presidential elections. That tells you this goes beyond Clinton and the Comey effect.

  16. Trump is not abandoning NATO in favour of a Russian alliance. That is a grotesque distortion of his position.

    He is rebelling against the persistent habit of relentless hostility to Russia among US policymakers, and telling NATO members that the US cannot be expected to continue carrying a disproportionate share of the financial and military burdens of NATO operations.

  17. When Gorbachev was President of Russia there was rapprochement with the US and a softening of US positions which continued under Yeltsin. When Putin the ex KGB Colonel took over he reset the relationship and this hardening of positions continued under his stooge Medvedev. Now that Putin has maneuvered his way back to power the situation is almost back to Cold War status.

    To blame the US for “relentless hostility” to Russia is to ignore recent history.

  18. CIA director slams Trump for slamming CIA

    by Jon Rappoport

    “’The world is watching now what Trump says and listening very carefully. If he doesn’t have confidence in the [US] intelligence community, what signal does that send to our partners and allies as well as our adversaries?’ Brennan said.”


    Mr. Brennan, the signal was sent to our partners, allies, and adversaries decades ago:

    The CIA is a criminal agency.

    Is that clear enough?

    Long ago, the CIA criminally stepped outside its mandate, in order to shape world events it had no business participating in. Is that clear enough?

    In that regard, do these names and phrases mean anything to you, Mr. Brennan?

    The Gehlen Org. * Operation Gladio. * MKULTRA. * Operation CHAOS. * Nugan Hand Bank. * BCCI Bank. * Golden Triangle. Asian heroin.* Air America.* Central American cocaine. Mena.
    The Contras. * Henry Luce. William Paley. Arthur Sulzberger. Operation Mockingbird. * Overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh (Iran). * Overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz (Guatemala).* Murder of Patrice Lumumba (Congo). * Bay of Pigs.* JFK. * Diem assassination. * Rafael Trujillo assassination. * Sukarno. Suharto. * East Timor genocide. * Military coup—Greece. * Allende. * Gulf of Tonkin. * Operation Phoenix. * Laos bombing. * Sihanouk. * The Khmer Rouge. * El Salvador death squads.

    On and on it goes…

    See Mark Zepezauer’s book. The CIA’s Greatest Hits.


  19. Things would only get wirse for Trump . He has castigate insulted offended almost everyone so much to the point of alienating himself from the people who would help him the most.
    His bf Putin encouragement would not savpe Trump from the executive laws in the Constituion which would pave way for his impeachmeny
    Once again Trump would soon be order to give testimony on a legal directive being placed over his head against him in a case of sexual assualt

  20. Sargeant is wrong.

    US policymakers were exceedingly hostile to Russia throughout the 1990s, but because Gorbachev and especially Yeltsin were already bending over, the US could act on its hostility by actually interfering in Russian politics and changing their economic system without facing any organized resistance. Hundreds of American “advisors” mid-wived the transition from Communism to capitalism.

    Under Putin, such domination and control of Russia is no longer possible. So the US is back to its devious tricks and public slander of the Russians.

  21. What Chad99999 has going for him is that, when Trump takes over and the jobby starts bouncing off the big-ass fan, he can always do a ‘balancing’ act…. (like a BU blogger who used to go by the name ‘balance’)
    ….change his pseudonym on BU, adopt a different line of defence, and pretend that his old handle ‘Chad99999’ has resigned from the battle…..

    Possible new handle for Chad99999 will be;
    – Judas Iscariot2
    – Brutus33333
    – Aaron Burr22222

  22. Bush Tea January 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM #

    Possible new handle for Chad99999 will be;
    – Judas Iscariot2
    – Brutus33333
    – Aaron Burr22222

    @ Bushie

    Or Ahab 666

  23. Bush Tea, Artax,

    First of all, nothing is going to hit the fan.
    But if it does, I’m not going anywhere, and I’m not changing my handle. You guys are jokers.

  24. Great post on what is one of the most important issues in world poltics today. It has been many years since I last read an Orwell but the appearance of terms like post-truth, alternative facts and fake news prompted me to review the 1984 film adaptation. It holds up remarkably well for a 33 year old film. You are welcome to visit and see how the film stacks up in todays cinematic terms.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.