Before joining their battalions, the embedded journalists had to sign a contract restricting when and what they can report. To be embedded with an army unit was to be embedded in its language in its message.
Thus any illusions of retaining independence was entirely dispensed with. These journalists were stitched onto the military machine to sell its war. Kenneth Bacon, a former Pentagon spokesman, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that: "You couldn't hire actors to do as good a job as the press has done" from the Pentagon's point of view. Similarl views were expressed by Jerry Broeckert, Lt. Col., public affairs officer in the US Marines Corps: Just as weapons have gotten "smarter," so too has the military gotten more sophisticated about how to use the media to meet military objectives.
The concept of embedded journalists killed two birds with one stone: the news networks, such as CNN, FOX, MSBC, raised their ratings by showing "live" frontline footage and the military acquired an effective propaganda tool.
It will not be a harsh judgment that opinions in our society are carefully shaped and molded within certain careful boundaries: those who transgress those boundaries are libel to wind up "extremists," "ideologues," "fanatics," or "agitators." Many will agree with the veteran journalist Daniel Schorr when he says: "Good journalism is being criminalized or otherwise rendered perilous to its best practitioners. Attack a government agency like the CIA, or a Fortune 500 member ..., or the conduct of the military in Southeast Asia and you find yourself in deep trouble, naked and often alone."
Not surprisingly, people are looking for independent sources of information to counter the ubiquitous corporate narrative of the media giants. They are trying to bypass the corporate communications system and to fight its propaganda by distributing the truth through decentralized networks. To a large extent, this has been achieved via the internet which in many ways has proved a perfect democratic model for information-distribution. The public is free to seek their information from a wide range of options and try to find out sites providing news that is consistent with their own world view.
The Internet is revolutionary because it is the most democratic of media. All you need to join the revolution is a computer and a connection. We don't just watch; we participate, collaborate and create. Unlike television, radio and cable, whose hirelings create content aimed at us for their own reasons, with the Internet every citizen is potentially a producer. The conversation of democracy belongs to the people.
Interestingly, one of the most useful tools for political campaigns today is the use of the internet. We can see how this has been used during the 2008 presidential campaign by Congressmen Paul, as well as other candidates. They used the internet to spread their messages and appeal to new voters.
A wide-open access is the founding principle of the Internet, but it may be slipping through our fingers. How ironic if it should pass irretrievably into history here, at the very dawn of the Internet Age.
Alarmed by the vital role played by internet in unhindered dissemination of information, efforts are now underway to control this media. In October last, the so-called "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" was approved by the House of Representatives. The Act specifically aims at the unregulated nature of the Internet:"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
With this piece of legislation in congress, people will no longer be able to use the internet in a peaceful manner. All activity will certainly be logged, and every letter typed will be scrutinized by the state.
In November, the Homeland Security Subcommittee held a hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet" that was chaired by California democrat Jane Harman, sponsor of the infamous "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" and ranking Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert.
The hearing featured presentations from several groups, including the Rand Corporation, and Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. This event generated quite an uproar in the 9/11 Truth and civil liberties communities because of testimony by the panelists conflating two very distinct and unconnected groups -- the 9/11 truth movement with "jihadi terrorists." What generated the most buzz was a PowerPoint presentation - titled "Internet: Incubator of 9/11 Conspiracies and Disinformation" - from Mark Weitzman of the Simon Weisenthal Center.
Later on in the hearing, former RAND corporation director Bruce Hoffman re-iterated Weitzman's presentation, stating "These falsehoods and conspiracy theories have now become so ubiquitous and so pervasive that they are believed, so you have almost a parallel truth, and it has become a very effective tool for recruiting people."
The so-called "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" is no more than a desperate attempt to maintain the firm hold of the corporate media which has mastered the art of deception and spin in reporting the national and international issues. Otherwise, how the Pentagon's hiring of Media Generals for selling the Iraq war can be explained.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
