Addis Ethiopia Weblog

Ethiopia's World / የኢትዮጵያ ዓለም

Posts Tagged ‘WikiLeaks’

Clinton Sycophants Blinded By The Light

Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on November 3, 2016

blindedAfter all these many pre-election months of watching news programs; panel discussions; and Sunday news shows on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox News, as well as talk radio, the burning question is, as more and more is revealed about the Clintons unscrupulous ways of being by WikiLeaks, Project Veritas, and the FBI, why do the people around the Clintons stay? With each passing day, the breadth and depth of their duplicity, their venality is made provably clearer, and yet the same people show up day after day, night after night defending them: Bill Burton, Julie Roginsky, Lanny Davis, Robert Zimmerman, Dana Bash, Gloria Borger, James Carville, Andrea Mitchell, Jessica Tarlov, Don Lemon, Coco Soodek, Donna Brazile, Maryanne Walsh, Richard Fowler, Geraldo Rivera, Austan Goolsbee, and others. The list is long and mystifying. It is not possible that all these people are as shamelessly corrupt as the Clintons are, and yet they go on national television and support them.

How do all these people continue to maintain their allegiance to and defend Hillary Clinton and the criminal enterprise that is the Clinton Foundation? The Clintons have violated so many laws, state and federal, and yet they continue to assume they are above the law because they have gotten away with breaking it for over thirty years. As proof of the lying, the cheating, the selling of the State Department, and all the underhanded dirty tricks seeps out, how do their on-screen acolytes rationalize supporting a woman who is so obviously morally and ethically challenged?

Since the narcissist suffers from a severe deficit of conscience, their morals and ethics are mobile and adaptive; their rules for living are based strictly on the end game, the bottom line. The question is not whether they will cross the legal, ethical, or moral line but when.” –Linda Martinez-Lewi, Ph.D.

It is said of toxic narcissists that they manipulate two kinds of people: those who do not see the abuse and those who purposefully ignore the abuse. Who among all those telegenic defenders cannot see the truth of who these people are? Podesta’s emails are a virtual road map, as Thomas Frank wrote in an already famous Guardian article that lays out how this country is being run by a small cadre of wealthy, inter-connected elites whose mission in life is only to preserve their own power and wealth. This crowd helps each other, each other’s kids and families. They cover for each other, lie for each other, defend each other when legal problems arise because so many of them are lawyers.

What is stunning in the Podesta emails is that there is absolutely nothing in any of them that mentions any concern about the country, its citizens, its productivity, economy, or culture. The emails are only about winning, by any means necessary. They discuss “dumping emails” an hour after the news of Hillary’s private server broke. They speak about how to get more money out of donors, how to deceive and manipulate the media, and which of them is in their pocket, and how to take out their opposition. The videos show them planning violence against Trump supporters in order to blame them for it. The people represented in those email chains are pretty much as vile as the Clintons themselves, self-serving narcissists all. So how do we explain their TV proponents’ commitment to the lawless Clintons? They are not officially part of the Clinton campaign team, but still they prostrate themselves on the altar of Clintonism, no matter how much evidence proves that it is deeply corrupt.

Continue reading…

__

Posted in Conspiracies, Infos, Media & Journalism | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

WikiLeaks: Buying Silence: How The Saudi Foreign Ministry Controls Arab Media

Posted by addisethiopia / አዲስ ኢትዮጵያ on June 22, 2015

MediaManipulation2

On Monday, Saudi Arabia celebrated the beheading of its 100th prisoner this year. The story was nowhere to be seen on Arab media despite the story’s circulation on wire services. Even international media was relatively mute about this milestone compared to what it might have been if it had concerned a different country. How does a story like this go unnoticed? 

Today’s release of the WikiLeaks “Saudi Cables” from the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs show how it’s done.

The oil-rich Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its ruling family take a systematic approach to maintaining the country’s positive image on the international stage. Most world governments engage in PR campaigns to fend off criticism and build relations in influential places. Saudi Arabia controls its image by monitoring media and buying loyalties from Australia to Canada and everywhere in between.

Documents reveal the extensive efforts to monitor and co-opt Arab media, making sure to correct any deviations in regional coverage of Saudi Arabia and Saudi-related matters. Saudi Arabia’s strategy for co-opting Arab media takes two forms, corresponding to the “carrot and stick” approach, referred to in the documents as “neutralisation” and “containment”. The approach is customised depending on the market and the media in question.

“Contain” and “Neutralise”

The initial reaction to any negative coverage in the regional media is to “neutralise” it. The term is used frequently in the cables and it pertains to individual journalists and media institutions whose silence and co-operation has been bought. “Neutralised” journalists and media institutions are not expected to praise and defend the Kingdom, only to refrain from publishing news that reflects negatively on the Kingdom, or any criticism of its policies. The “containment” approach is used when a more active propaganda effort is required. Journalists and media institutions relied upon for “containment” are expected not only to sing the Kingdom’s praises, but to lead attacks on any party that dares to air criticisms of the powerful Gulf state.

One of the ways “neutralisation” and “containment” are ensured is by purchasing hundreds or thousands of subscriptions in targeted publications. These publications are then expected to return the favour by becoming an “asset” in the Kingdom’s propaganda strategy. A document listing the subscriptions that needed renewal by 1 January 2010 details a series of contributory sums meant for two dozen publications in Damascus, Abu Dhabi, Beirut, Kuwait, Amman and Nouakchott. The sums range from $500 to 9,750 Kuwaiti Dinars ($33,000). The Kingdom effectively buys reverse “shares” in the media outlets, where the cash “dividends” flow the opposite way, from the shareholder to the media outlet. In return Saudi Arabia gets political “dividends” – an obliging press.

An example of these co-optive practices in action can be seen in an exchange between the Saudi Foreign Ministry and its Embassy in Cairo. On 24 November 2011 Egypt’s Arabic-language broadcast station ONTV hosted the Saudi opposition figure Saad al-Faqih, which prompted the Foreign Ministry to task the embassy with inquiring into the channel. The Ministry asked the embassy to find out how “to co-opt it or else we must consider it standing in the line opposed to the Kingdom’s policies”.

The document reports that the billionaire owner of the station, Naguib Sawiris, did not want to be “opposed to the Kingdom’s policies” and that he scolded the channel director, asking him “never to host al-Faqih again”. He also asked the Ambassador if he’d like to be “a guest on the show”.

The Saudi Cables are rife with similar examples, some detailing the figures and the methods of payment. These range from small but vital sums of around $2000/year to developing country media outlets – a figure the Guinean News Agency “urgently needs” as “it would solve many problems that the agency is facing” – to millions of dollars, as in the case of Lebanese right-wing television station MTV.

Confrontation

The “neutralisation” and “containment” approaches are not the only techniques the Saudi Ministry is willing to employ. In cases where “containment” fails to produce the desired effect, the Kingdom moves on to confrontation. In one example, the Foreign Minister was following a Royal Decree dated 20 January 2010 to remove Iran’s new Arabic-language news network, Al-Alam, from the main Riyadh-based regional communications satellite operator, Arabsat. After the plan failed, Saud Al Faisal sought to “weaken its broadcast signal”.

The documents show concerns within the Saudi administration over the social upheavals of 2011, which became known in the international media as the “Arab Spring”. The cables note with concern that after the fall of Mubarak, coverage of the upheavals in Egyptian media was “being driven by public opinion instead of driving public opinion”. The Ministry resolved “to give financial support to influential media institutions in Tunisia”, the birthplace of the “Arab Spring”.

The cables reveal that the government employs a different approach for its own domestic media. There, a wave of the Royal hand is all that is required to adjust the output of state-controlled media. A complaint from former Lebanese Prime Minister and Saudi citizen Saad Hariri concerning articles critical of him in the Saudi-owned Al-Hayat and Asharq Al-Awsat newspapers prompted a directive to “stop these type of articles” from the Foreign Ministry.

This is a general overview of the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s strategy in dealing with the media. WikiLeaks’ Saudi Cables contain numerous other examples that form an indictment of both the Kingdom and the state of the media globally.

Source

WikiLeaks Begins Releasing Leaked Saudi Arabia Cables

Was the following BBC program influenced by the Saudis? Pay attention to the results of the vote on the motion after the debate:

Should the West get out of bed with the House of Saud?

Another curiosity…

Why did “YouTube” decide to remove the following video I uploaded ( Saudi Arabian Family Hang an Ethiopian Woman From Hook) about the Saudi atrocities against Ethiopians? My upload was done on November 26, 2013, but YouTube decided to remove it two years later, after 7.000 views. The real reason? Mind you, extremely violent videos (including barbaric beheading) are all over the YouTube platform.

__

Posted in Curiosity, Infos, Media & Journalism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: