» New York Times Independencde Day

The visitors are already here so prepare to fight back

Posts tagged “New York Times

Mainstream Media’s accusation of Russian/Trump collaboration is “fake news” even by their own standards.

Claire Bernish, February 15, 2017

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.”

Liar, Liar, newsroom on fire.

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.


Wolf Blitzer, a German-born American journalist who is a senior anchor for CNN’s “Situation Room” program. If you study his method of “interrogation’ he does his very best to make what he considers to be politically incorrect politicians and advocates look like buffoons. Professional? No. Objective? No. Paid off? Yes.

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 (guess who makes money here?), 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.

Sources: Buzzfeed, NYT, CNN
Related Articles: Even if Trump’s team coordinated with Russia, it’s still not treason

Emails Reveal CNN Debate Question Scandal Deeper Than Originally Reported

DNC staffers wrote questions for CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer when he interviewed  Trump, new batch of 8,000 WikiLeaks emails reveals

Newspapers like the New York Times are increasingly becoming the instruments of corporate and government corruption and influence

There was a time that alluding to the New York Times was a sign of intellectual acuity. If the New York Times said it was true (or not true) then no further investigation or thought was required. Paying over $2.00 per issue was an acceptable price to pay to be part of the “intelligentsia” of modern journalism. But a “funny thing happened on the way to the forum,” the New York Times became a radical left wing mouthpiece, no longer able to present two sides of a story or issue, just their advertiser’s side.

Objective and factual reporting became a game full of intrigue and lies. This once venerable newspaper became an instrument of corporate greed and corruption that had invaded the United States government and with that ended an era of journalistic integrity and public service. Democracy was no longer protected. What is worse is that the policies of war mongering administrations like the Bushes and Obama were supported time and time again – Irag, Libya, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen. The New York Times and the Washington Post have blood on their hands as well. Hitler is in good company.

There are two principles in play when it comes to the print media. The first is sales and the second is distribution. The truth takes a back seat to both these realities. I know because I used to be a small town newspaper editor and publisher and a district sales manager for a major newspaper in Southern California.

Without full or half page advertisements you are fighting an uphill battle to hire the talented staff and necessary equipment to produce a quality newspaper that gets bundled every day for distribution to its readership. The second principle is distribution. How and where should your stories be distributed?

We have all dropped our quarters into vending machines at restaurants and gas stations, paid for monthly subscriptions, but the “big bucks” come from selling half and full page ads from major retailers and personal/business classified ads, not to mention legal public notices required by law.

With the maturation of online news (alternative news sources and social media) came the beginning of the end for mainstream media (MSM) sources. Not only newspapers and magazines but major television networks and radio began to feel the pressure and loss of revenues to which they were accustomed. The combination of text, video and images on the Internet was a powerful competitor, especially since it was free. In fact, it became an even more attractive format than the ink blotched wood pulp paper that is difficult to handle and read. The same thing happened to the film industry when movies moved from silent films to sound and color.

With this advantage along with the now questionable integrity of the mainstream media, it is no surprise that there is now a battle over the issue of “false news” surrounding the current election of Donald Trump. It was to Donald Trump’s credit that he recognized early that the public was beginning to see through the lies that came forth from CNN, ABC, NBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times and other MSM. These outlets were really the false news distributors, all behind a candidate that was obviously dishonest and corrupt, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. It would be wise for them not to continue their charade of attempting to enhance the image of both Hillary and the Obama Administration. Voters are mad.

The mainstream media is so scared, it has collaborated with the Obama Administration to evaluate and “license” alternative news outlets like Infowars and the Drudge Report. In effect, prohibiting them from telling the real truth.

Glenn Thrush, former reporter for Politico now a New York Times writer was exposed by WikiLeaks for working with the Hilary campaign manager, John Podesta in providing pro-Hillary stories.

A recent article published by Breitbart.com, entitled “New York Times Hires Glenn Thrush After Wikileaks Humiliation” by Ezra Dulis, 12 Dec 2016 shows the infiltration of Washington power brokers into the likes of major mainstream media icons like the New York Times.

In this piece, Thrush is the subject of a revealed email via WikiLeaks in which he sends a draft of an article on Hillary Clinton to Hillary’s Campaign Manager, John Podesta for approval. In it, he basically calls himself a “hack” or someone who lies in exchange for money.  He closes the email with, “Tell me if I fucked up anything.”   JS-Jorge Salazar Martinez, Editor




“The New York Times has hired Politico‘s chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush, after Wikileaks outed chummy and even subservient emails from Thrush to Democratic operatives in the 2016 election cycle.

Thrush became the face of Democratic collusion with journalists during the 2016 campaign, after emails revealed by Wikileaks showed him asking Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta for approval on language before publishing a story about the campaign’s fundraising strategy. Breitbart News reported at the time:

The exchange between Thrush and Podesta was revealed by Wikileaks (Podesta Email 12681). In the email, Thrush sends several paragraphs about Hillary’s fundraising operation and leads into the article by admitting, “Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u.” After asking Podesta not to “share or tell anyone I did this,” Thrush seeks Podesta’s approval on the article by saying, “Tell me if I fucked up anything.” – Breitbart.com

Related Article/Video: Glenn Thrush on leaving Politico for the NYT: ‘You can’t be an eighth-year senior in high school’ By Erik Wemple December 12, The Washington Post.

The Agenda of Corporate Media Is Regime Change in Syria – UN Press Conf Goes off Script

Russian gang that hacked 1.2 billion IDs and passwords may be just an ad to get people to purchase a computer security service

The following post is from http://www.whatdoesitmean.com regarding a recent New York Times article that claims a group of Russian hackers stole consumer IDs and corresponding passwords may be nothing more than a devious marketing technique to get readers to purchase a $120.00 service fee that would determine if you were a victim or not.

Before you read it, let me share that this whatdoesitmean website has been accused of providing “disinformation,” by whom and for what purpose is unknown. But it seems that the Department of Homeland Secur0000ity monitors this website, so maybe the disinformation is coming from Examiner.com’s Timothy Barello who accuses the whatdoesitmean site of being a “disinfo” site. Added to the mix is an arcticle that appeared in PC World magazine yesterday that questions how and how much was answered by the company that initially broke the news, Hold Security, so read at your own risk.

The article in PC World is “5 unansered questions about the 1.2 billion passwords stolen by Russian hackers.” Whatever you do, don’t buy this $120.00 service until you get more information. If true, the New York Times, which broke the story, may be further losing some of its shrinking credibility.

What follows is the WhatDoesItMean post:

Cyber intelligence analysts working in the Federal Security Services (FSB) are reporting today that the New York Times (NYT) has made an estimated US$1 million off of a “fake article” designed to look like news blaming a Russian hacking group for stealing over a billion passwords to Internet sites and personal computers causing fright among tens-of-millions of users the world over.

According to this report, on 5 August, the NY Times published a story titled “Russian Hackers Amass Over a Billion Internet Passwords” which was, in fact, a “Native Advertising” venture between this once respected newspaper and a relatively new computer company identified as Hold Security founded last year in Wisconsin by Alex Holden.

“Native Advertising”, this report continues, is an online advertising method in which the advertiser attempts to gain attention by providing content in the context of the user’s experience. Native ad formats match both the form and function of the user experience in which they are placed.

The advertiser’s intent is to make the paid advertising feel less intrusive and thus increase the likelihood users will click on it. The word “native” is used to refer to the formatting of the advertising materials to make them appear more consistent with other media in the recipient’s universe.

The New York Times began their “Native Advertising” programme this past January, this report says, when Dell became the first advertiser to buy into this highly deceptive program, and which was “a three-month campaign costing six-figures”.

The FSB’s estimate of The New York Times making “at least” US$1 million off of their “Native Advertising” article for Hold Security, this report says, is based upon the Hold Security fee of US$120.00 for anyone seeking to find if their passwords were hacked by these “non-existent” Russian hackers as they are the only ones who, supposedly, know who they are.

In their “fake” news story about these Russian hackers, the FSB reports, The New York Times says that Hold Security (the only cyber security firm mentioned in this story) told them: “The hacking ring is based in a small city in south central Russia, the region flanked by Kazakhstan and Mongolia. The group includes fewer than a dozen men in their 20s who know one another personally — not just virtually. Their computer servers are thought to be in Russia.”

A more accurate description of this “cyber gang”, however, this report says, can be found in the article by the American technology news and media network The Verge who writes about them stating:

“The biggest red flag of all, though, is that CyberVor isn’t trying to sell the data or use it to steal actual money. They’re using it for Twitter spam, the dark web equivalent of boiling the bones for stock. If there were anything else they could do with these passwords, it would be more lucrative and more sustainable than spamming. The fact that the crew is reduced to jacking Twitter accounts suggests the data is more about quantity than quality.

What you’re left with is something of a mess. Clearly CyberVor has been busy, and they seem to have done real damage. Spammers are bad, and cracking small sites is just as bad as cracking big ones. But the most impressive aspects of the hack (the 1.2 billion accounts, the 420,000 sites) all have more to do with how the hack was framed than how it was carried out, and it’s easy to see why. No one was going to pay $120 a year just to find out if their Twitter might get hacked.”

Not just The Verge noticed this New York Times “Native Advertising” story for being the “fake” news it was pretending to be either, this report continues, but also The Wall Street Journal and Forbes caught it too, and as we can read:

From Forbes in their article titled “Firm That Exposed Breach Of ‘Billion Passwords’ Quickly Offered $120 Service To Find Out If You’re Affected”:

“The story provides few details beyond hyperbolic numbers: “ 1.2 billion username and password combinations” and “more than 500 million email addresses” are in the hands of a group of 20-something hackers in Russia, according to the report. No specifics about the state of those passwords: whether they’re in clear-text — the worst case scenario — or in encrypted form. The Internet predictably panicked as the story of yet another massive password breach went viral.”

And from the Wall Street Journal:

“The firm, founded last year in Milwaukee, isn’t naming the hackers, any of the victims or how it obtained the data. For a fee, the company said it offers “breach notification services” for website operators that they can use to see if they’re affected and monitor for ongoing threats, according to its website. In an email, Alex Holden, the founder and chief information security officer of Hold Security, said he wanted to “avoid discussing details about the hackers whereabouts and names in case law enforcement has an ongoing investigation.”

Also critical to note about this “fake” New York Times story, FSB intelligence analysts in this report say, was it being written by Nicole Perlroth and David Gellesaug, both of whom were recently found to belong to a highly secretive cabal called the “Gamechanger Salon” which consist of over 1,000 reporters working, in essence, for the Obama regime.

Founded by leftwing activist Billy Wimsatt, the EAG News Service reports, this group is a secretive digital gathering of writers, opinion leaders, activists and political hands who share information, ideas and strategy via a closed Google group. The group’s existence was discovered by Media Trackers through an open records request filed with a University of Wisconsin professor who happened to be a member of the network.

August 7, 2014 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

Just a thought – Is this accusal of “Russian gangs” part of the U.S. battle over the Ukraine controversy. We know that U.S. mainstream media is store-bought. Hey, anything that makes the Russians look bad is good, right, John Kerry?


US Drone Strike Kills US-Backed Afghan Soldiers

Published on Thursday, March 6, 2014 by Common Dreams – Jon Queally, staff writer. At least five reported killed and many injured as “precision” weapon obliterates allies on the ground


Drone strike: One of the US Air Force Predator unmanned aircraft. (Photo: Reuters)

At least five Afghan National Army soldiers in Logar Province are dead and many others injured on Thursday after a U.S. drone bombed a former NATO-run military outpost in Afghanistan. The latest incident of mistaken targeting by a U.S. drone—which the military and Obama administration call a “precision” weapon—is sure to further outrage ordinary Afghans as well as President Hamid Karzai who has repeatedly, and with increasing anger, criticized both NATO and U.S. forces for their disregard of Afghan lives while operating within the country.

“We believe the strike was the result of poor coordination between the people on the ground and the operators of the drone,” said Din Mohammad Darwish, a spokesman for the governor of Logar Province, which is in the east of Afghanistan.

“The area is frequented by insurgents both foreign and local, and drone strikes are carried out quite often in that part of Charkh,” Darwish continued. “The A.N.A. outpost was part of the security belt in the province.”

According to Agence France-Presse:

Khalilullah Kamal, the Charkh district governor, told AFP he had visited the site of the attack, which he said was from a US drone.

“The post is totally destroyed,” he said.

“The Americans used to be in that post but since they left, the ANA [Afghan national army] took over. The post is on a hilltop. The attack was conducted by drones.”

NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) issued a statement following the bombing which confirmed that at least five Afghan soldiers had been killed.

“An investigation is being conducted at this time to determine the circumstances that led to this unfortunate incident,’’ read the statement. ‘‘Our condolences go out to the families of the ANA soldiers who lost their lives and were wounded … we will determine what actions will be taken to ensure incidents like this do not happen again.”

The New York Times adds: “While no hard data is available, the American military has apparently been using drones in Afghanistan with increasing frequency after strict controls were imposed on airstrikes to prevent civilian casualties, as well as complaints by the Afghan military that they were not getting adequate air support for their operations.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.


Translate »
Scroll Up