Posts Tagged CBS
By: Mike Krieger
October 29, 2014
Journalists should be dark, funny, mean people. It’s appropriate for their antagonistic, adversarial role.
– Matt Taibbi, in this New York Magazine article
Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.
Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.
– From the excellent New York Post article: Ex-CBS reporter’s book reveals how liberal media protects Obama
Earlier this week, I published a piece titled, Former CBS Reporter Accuses Government of Secretly Planting Classified Docs on Her Computer, which I thought was incredible in its own right, yet the information in that post seems almost trite compared to the flood of information Attkisson has revealed to the New York Post’s Kyle Smith.
The following excerpts from the piece will confirm all of your worst suspicions about mainstream media:
Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.
When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”
Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”
Interesting, because as Matt Taibbi notes in the quote at the top, investigative journalists are not supposed to be reasonable. I digress…
In nearly 20 years at CBS News, she has done many stories attacking Republicans and corporate America, and she points out that TV news, being reluctant to offend its advertisers, has become more and more skittish about, for instance, stories questioning pharmaceutical companies or car manufacturers.
Working on a piece that raised questions about the American Red Cross disaster response, she says a boss told her, “We must do nothing to upset our corporate partners . . . until the stock splits.” (Parent company Viacom and CBS split in 2006).
Thursday, June 21, 2012
By: S. D. Wells
[NaturalNews] How does the Media lie? How do the major networks mislead you into buying things you normally wouldn’t buy, or NOT buying things you would regularly buy? How does the media convince you so well, to change your mind and spend money supporting the wrong causes, the wrong “cures,” and worst of all, the wrong food and medicine?
Let it be told that the media in the United States has been suppressing natural cures, vitamins, herbs, and supplements for over 75 years, knowing there’s hardly any money to be made from healthy people, especially compared to diseased ones. Most people know that television and radio talk shows are full of crap when it comes to nutritional advice, or do they? The media monopolies are quickly becoming experts at deception, and finding helpful information via the networks, CNN, and talk shows is impossible; it’s just a labyrinth of misinformation and “close-by-choice” sales tactics, where the only options presented are all bad ones, and you’re supposed to still make a decision where and HOW to spend your hard earned dollars.
ABC lies about supplements
October 10, 2011: ABC covers supplements: Just 8 months ago, ABC presented the findings of a “collection of research” showing that people who take dietary supplements are getting “few health benefits in return.” The study’s lead author, Jaakko Mursu, pronounced the overall message, which is a bold faced lie: Here’s her overall message to the millions watching ABC and putting their faith in major network’s presentations and “informative” shows that influence mass consumption in America: Mursu said, “I would conclude that supplements are not protective against chronic diseases,” and “In some cases they may be harmful, especially if used for a long time.”
She went on to claim that, “News about the benefits and risks of dietary supplements seems to change by the week.” Maybe that’s because it’s hard to track all the lies the media spits out. The shows main goal was to crush the reality that antioxidants like beta carotene and vitamin E are major players in maintaining optimum health.
Then, Dr. Donald Hensrud, chair of preventive medicine at the Mayo Clinic stuck histwo cents in and said, “The conflicting evidence seems overwhelming, but the new study helps to clarify the overall message.” Notice how this “chairman and doctor” makes sure you’re thinking that the overall message is right to begin with. This is theABC network convincing you that supplements are dangerous. They conveniently slide in that “Mayo Clinic” opinion, which seems so objective and reassuring. Remember, lies are best perpetuated when the consumer is given two or three choices, neither of which is beneficial or based on truth, and then left to decide within the parameter of a SET OF LIES which road he or she will follow.
CBS lies about supplements
February 11th, 2009, CBS covers supplements: This network’s atrocity to humankind informs the masses that beta-carotene raises the risk of heart disease and cancer. They go on to “inform” the loyal fans that Vitamin C causes kidney stones and does not help prevent disease or the common cold. Finally, they add that Vitamin A causes liver damage, blindness and bone fractures. But only in very high doses can this occur, and just about every legitimate supplement warns you, so the story is completely misleading and full of fear tactics to get consumers to avoid supplements all together. Plus the headlines/titles of these shows warn the masses about the “danger of supplements” in general, and barely cover that it’s only specific cases that create any kind of health implications.
The Early Show’s Dr. Mallika Marshall misdirects the masses in a very slick way: She says, “It’s also generally recommended that women who are pre-menopausal, that is, entering the change of life
…take at least 1,200 mg of calcium to help prevent bone loss and osteoporosis.” But with the wrong calcium supplements, and especially with a massive dairy and meat diet, Americans are asking for kidney stones, gall stones, and brittle bones. The advice is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you need to know and it’s delivered wearing a clever mask, by your trusted network and the talk shows that “play doctor.”
Then she tries to trick you into believing you can only get vitamin B12 from meat: “Also, it’s not a bad idea for vegetarians, especially vegans, to take a daily multivitamin, since they could be deficient in certain vitamins, such as B-12, found primarily in meats.”
Unfortunately, most consumers are NOT well enough informed to understand that a few or occasional lapses in quality assurance can translate into nutrient deficiency and disease, including consumption of eggs, milk, meat, sugar and table salt. Jumping into the supplementing arena late in the game, after cancer, heart disease, diabetes or Alzheimer’s has set in and expecting miracle results is not the wise approach.
FOX lies about supplements
February 15, 2012: FoxNews.com, the so called “Fair and Balanced” news,delivered this pack of twisted, distorted lies to their naive, loyal masses: A survey was presented involving more than 2,500 people in France with a history of heart disease or stroke. The results contend that the consumers took either Vitamin B “or” omega 3 fatty acid supplements and their risk of developing cancer was not reduced. The survey went on to say that women taking fish oil supplements actually increased their cancer risk “threefold.”
The study did not reveal any of the participants’ diet, or whether or not they consume GMO foods, artificial sweeteners, fried foods, or other beneficial supplements. Then, in reading the whole study, which most people don’t, readers see that the group study admitted in the Archives of Internal Medicine that, “Early cancers and pre-cancerous growths might have been missed when participants were recruited.”
A more recent (August of 2011) and much larger study found that women who took fish oil pills were a THIRD LESS LIKELY to develop breast cancer than women who didn’t. The study also revealed better cognition and brain health for those taking fish oil supplements! (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110817120220.htm).
The NEWSPAPER lies about supplements
How many people in the world wake up and read the morning paper, front to back? How many people rely on their morning paper, be it The New York Times, The Washington Post, or their favorite printed version of their city or county news? How many innocent people who want to improve their health or their children’s make most of their informed decisions based on what they read in black and white print every morning or afternoon?
The BIGGEST LIE comes to you in the form of the general “multivitamin.” Centrum, Equate, and One-a-day are perfect examples of a counter-offensive move by Big Pharma to give you what you’re asking for, but in a harmful, hidden delivery of toxic, synthetic vitamins your body can’t use, and “other ingredients,” which often include artificial, cancer-causing sweeteners, gelatin which comes from abused GMO animals, and much more! Do people know that supplementing with CALCIUM can be detrimental to their health?
Get your supplement information from reliable sources, people who have degrees in NUTRITION, not medicine. No offense, but not a single Medical School in the United States teaches nutrition. They occasionally have “mini-lesson” lectures, but when you want real information about HOW to supplement and build your immunity and know the difference between organic, powerful supplements and dangerous toxins posing as supplements, ask a Naturopath or someone with an actual degree in Nutrition.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
By: Paul Fassa
[NaturalNews] The anti-depressant fraud toothpaste is out of the tube, at least partly. A Harvard Medical School psychologist, Irving Kirsch, who has been studying placebo effects for three decades, recently came up with the documented conclusion that pharmaceutical anti-depressants don’t work.
This is big news for many Natural News readers and writers. But this conclusion had the prescription-pad psychiatrists and FDA crying foul, loudly. Why? Kirsch’s conclusion was featured in a national CBS 60 Minutes television report.
Even more importantly, Kirsch’s conclusion was evidence based on documents from obtained using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Those documents were trial results from drug companies that were not published and presented to the FDA.
Drug companies pay the FDA for approving their drugs. But the FDA doesn’t do the trials or reports. They simply take them from the drug companies who all do their own trials and decide which reports to publish and submit.
Kirsch discovered that most anti-depressant trials showed no proof of efficacy. Those results were simply hidden from view. So if 12 tests were done, and only two showed any efficacy at all, those two would be submitted to the FDA, and the FDA would essentially say “pay your fee and go to market.”
After analyzing the results of all the tests he was able to procure via FOIA, Kirsch concluded that anti-depressant drugs had only a placebo effect on patients with mild to moderate depression. In other words, a sugar pill would suffice. He went public with this conclusion.
CBS did a limited hangout
A limited hangout is intelligence spook speak for letting out just enough information to appease investigations or grass roots suspicions. But only part of the picture is revealed, not the whole big picture.
CBS did not reveal the horrible side effects from anti-depressants and psychotropic drugs. They did interview a British medical official who was part of a UK commission that banned anti-depressant use on mild to moderately depressed patients.
He reasoned that since most moderately depressed patients can be handled by talk therapy and physical exercise, why expose them to the risk of adverse effects. Sixty Minutes didn’t follow up on that angle.
Here in the States, where pharmaceuticals are advertised in newspapers and magazines, radio, and especially TV, anyone seeing happy actors proclaiming how and an anti-depressant changed their lives can almost demand that drug from even a primary care physician, and usually get it.
Even Medscape lists these side effects from SSRI and SNRI anti-depressants: Abnormal bleeding, hepatitis, headache, hyponatrenia (potentially deadly low sodium), toxic epidermal necrolysis (potentially deadly skin death), impotence, abnormal sensations, mania and suicide.
These are not your normal mild nausea or mild rash side effects. While some quit those drugs in time, the last few side effects especially have led to a very high rate of suicides and homicides among anti-depressant pill poppers (http://www.naturalnews.com/022743.html).
As Heidi Stevenson of Gaia-Blog said, “Can we finally put to rest any claims from psychiatry that what they do is based on evidence, especially the so-called gold standard of placebo-controlled double blind studies … Please?”
The Intel Hub
February 27, 2012
An archived clip from 1950′s exposes the fact that the CIA directly plants stories in the media, both in the United States and the rest of the world.
Question: Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation journal?
Answer: We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.
Question: Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?
Answer: This I think gets into the details id like to get into in executive session. (so the public doesn’t hear how we control all the networks)
Considering that this was going on in the 1950s, it is highly likely that this is happening now and at a much larger extent. The CIA and other government agencies literally control the corporate controlled media.
Anytime you hear a story on the major networks that has any implication in US foreign or domestic policy rest assured that it was, at the very least, vetted by the CIA before being released.
In the early 90s CNN was also used to test Army psychological operations.