or how news organisations - in this case principally the BBC - modify their output to fit government policy objectives here and abroad.
“I have never seen an official report greeted with such universal praise as that accorded the Warren Commission’s findings when they were made public on September 24, 1964,” recalls investigative reporter Fred Cook. “All the major television networks devoted special programs and analyses to the report; the next day the newspapers ran long columns detailing its findings, accompanied by special news analyses and editorials. The verdict was unanimous. The report answered all questions, left no room for doubt. Lee Harvey Oswald, alone and unaided, had assassinated the president of the United States.” Fred J. Cook, Maverick: Fifty Years of Investigative Reporting, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1984, 276."
Quote taken from this article by James F. Tracy on the 1 Dec. 2016 detailing how in the USA from its inception, the CIA sought to infiltrate and control the major news networks. It is clear that in the UK MI5/6 have followed similar objectives here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/5471956
I don't think we heard about this either? What are the Americans up to in Mosul? Apparently 90-plus crack Iraqi troops killed by USAF attack! http://katehon.com/news/us-air-forces-attack-iraqi-army-under-mosul
This piece is about two cities and how what is happening in them is treated differently by western media. It is a case study in how our supposedly free press is nothing of the sort but in fact acts as a conduit for the preferred policy of western government. It is practical proof of the subtle bias to which the British people are subject. It is done by describing essentially the same activity in a different light and even reporting as fact what is known to be false. By giving publicity to emotionally charged events and laying blame in one instance, whilst in the other failing to do either, depending on what forces are involved.
The two cities of Aleppo and Mosul - the former in Syria the latter in Iraq - are subject to major military operations to rid them of ISIS insurgents or terrorists. In other words in both the objective is ostensibly the same. However in Aleppo the forces are comprised of Russian and Syrian units; in Mosul it is units of the Iraq and Peshmerga forces, supported by American and British 'advisors' and specialists.
This means that in the former we are apparently 'against' the military action, whilst in the latter we are 'for' it, despite the enemy being one and the same!
Here is a very recent story publicised by the BBC and all major outlets. It concerns the death of a very attractive young man, Anas al-Basha, 24, who has devoted his life to bringing some light relief to a very desperate humanitarian catastrophe. If true, what could be more tragic or designed to evoke an emotional response from whoever reads it? The accompanying photograph hammers home the message. Sadly Mr Basha died in an air strike on Tuesday (27/11/16) in the Mashhad neighbourhood. How helpful then that within less than 48 hours, not only the story of his death but also the photogenic and colourful portrait should be generally published and given great prominence in western media as in the BBC (below).
Am I the only one who finds this a tad contrived and manipulative?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38167190 AHMAD AL-KHATIB/AP
Here is the actual article:
Syria conflict: Clown of Aleppo 'dies in air strike'
And this from the 1st December, 2016:
"So who is currently laying siege to whom in Aleppo?"
Then presumably to ensure animal lovers are not forgotten (a major public opinion cohort) there is this emotional story about a cat lover who has remained behind to look after them. It appears here on Facebook "via the BBC": https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/795546620585833/ A Jackie Northey responds thus:
"This man is a true hero. With everything happening in the world and the hatred overflowing it truly touches my heart to see him stay in a war zone to help the animals left behind. I for one would love to hug and thank this man for showing the world there is still hope for a better future if we love and embrace each other whatever our views. Any man that shows this care for animals is inspirational for all our youngsters."
It would appear the story has had its desired effect in at least one reader then?
The Victoria Derbyshire programme appears to have taken an interest in the plight of the people of Aleppo and particularly the doctors and medical staff as here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37047690
Again children are used to good effect. The headline image is of a frightened child and a video sits behind it of an air raid. The headline is:
"Aleppo medics tell of despair
Now compare their treatment of almost exactly similar circumstances - a large urban area under attack by heavy armaments and munitions-dropping aeroplanes to dislodge armed opposition fighters on the ground - in Mosul. Here is their report for the 2nd December, 2016:
"A long-awaited military offensive to reclaim the northern Iraqi city of Mosul from so-called Islamic State (IS) is under way, forcing tens of thousands of Iraqis to flee their homes.
It reports as follows: "The International Committee for the Red Cross has warned that the offensive to retake Mosul could take months, prompting more and more civilians to leave to avoid becoming trapped between front lines.
One of the most vaunted differences between democratic societies and totalitarian ones, is the concept of a "free press". It is defined by the Oxford dictionary as:
"A press having the freedom to operate without interference or censorship."
It is naive to think that during the 'Cold War' the press in the west was 'free', whilst that in the USSR was not. What we know now is neither were, although it may be agreed the West was better at concealing the fact.
Could it be that the west was merely more sophisticated in the way it carried it out? Effectively just a better illusion. It was channelled through state secret agencies such as the CIA. Recent articles such as that quoted above show what a misnomer a 'free press' actually was and the extract in respect of the Warren Commission Report illustrates how successful and pernicious it could be.
In all western countries the press was infiltrated and influenced to act as conduits for the western perspective of things and in the capitalist interest. It may be argued that certain blunders (such as Suez) or embarrassments (such as Profumo) may never have been revealed had it not been for the press, but they were managed and massaged to contain the damage, whilst much else never was allowed to see the light of day.
If the situation then was bad, it is probably much worse now, where local Independence has virtually disappeared and major news networks and outlets have been monopolised by a limited number of international corporations pursuing their own very similar agendas. Television news seems to be similarly affected, and no longer credible for independent, objective reporting.
If the press had done its job, would we have invaded Iraq or bombed Libya and Syria ? Would Jimmy Savile been allowed for so long to get away with his criminal activity? Would we have taken the same view of the bombing of Gaza or the events in the Ukraine or the American presidential elections? Would widespread and systematic company fraud based at a property in East Finchley Road have gone unreported or the institutionalised abuse of children?
Despite its manifold failings, government wants to limit the freedom of the press even more and has used a greatly inflated issue of bugging celebrity phones to pursue it, devoting huge police resources to its investigation, whilst other serious crime was given scant attention. (1)
Old-school investigative reporting appears to have become an extinct species - with a few notable exceptions such as C4 "Unreported World" - and all media outlets just act as channels for 'official sources' without examination or challenge. This is why the Internet has become such a problem for government and subject to its veiled threats and more direct pressure on outlets such as Facebook and You tube, the latest being its propaganda campaign against "fake news".
So we have the rather ironic situation, such as in this Guardian article (2) promoting yet again a thinly disguised government attempt to persuade the public that it is being deceived by these alternative news sources, as a prelude to controlling and banning them. You will note it makes the case that this is not just a little local matter, but affects many countries.
Indeed that this rather fits with a globalist agenda to clamp down on news sources that have somehow escaped the established outlets. At the same time it has increased its own powers of surveillance with the Investigatory Powers Act against which a huge petition has been organised. (5)
Unfortunately the charge of "fake news" may backfire on those who have come up with it (it stinks of CIA ad agency) as it might equally apply to elements of television and press itself. For example the reporting of the Ghouda Massacre and Aleppo attacks have both been shown to be fake in some aspect by Robert Stuart and others. (See above and 3 & 4)
So now I want to concentrate on the subject of how just three topics have been dealt with by the media and pose the question, does this give the lie to the western 'free press' or are we still being lied to, either by act or omission, to further a certain agenda formulated in those corridors of power, to which the public is denied access?
A classic and still relevant example of how the BBC and other outlets here and in America have intentionally deceived their audiences both by act and censorship, relates to the cataclysmic events of 9/11.
The truth has been systematically purloined, ridiculed and obstructed to ensure that it complies with the "official" but criminally fraudulent version of events. Clearly in its objective it has been successful as it is alleged around 70% of the population are still, despite fifteen years of revelations, still taken in by it.
If these organs of information cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about such an important event as this, nothing it purports to reveal can be any longer relied upon. The credibility of the BBC and other outlets by virtue of just this one 'stress test', is in tatters. Its word - and I am sad to say it - is not worth the paper it is written on!
"A search of the BBC for “Sabrosky” yields ZERO (0) reportage. Yet former US Marine and US Army War College Director Dr Alan Sabrosky says that “It is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation”. It should be noted that numerous science, engineering, architecture, aviation, military and intelligence experts say that the US did 9-11, with some (like Dr Alan Sabrosky) implicating Apartheid Israel in the atrocity"
http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/2015/08/28/part-1-4/ In an interview in December 2007 with Italy’s most respected newspaper, Corriere della Sera, ex-Italian President Francesco Cossiga stated (Italian to English translation), “While all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe….now know that the disastrous 9/11 attack had been planned and realised by the CIA and the Mossad with aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arab countries in order to induce Western Powers to take part…in Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” 
2. Fake news: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/02/fake-news-facebook-us-election-around-the-world
6. mosul https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20161201-iraq-us-general-says-mosul-op-will-last-another-2-months/?platform=hootsuite