Bullies in the Newsroom Manipulating the News

“Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

Today’s state-run media give us knowledge of what is going on in America and around the world … or do they?

Although the media have a damaging 21 percent approval rating according to a recent Gallup poll (I am surprised it is that high), it still seems as though the locomotive of socialism runs full steam ahead, because, for the most part, the American people do not know we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. America is supposed to be ruled by Law; not by popular opinion or the media’s false polling.

With their socialist-communist agenda behind their reports, they are attempting to bully anyone who stands against their propaganda into submission.

Let’s pull the curtain back on the media so you can see who is doing the reporting.

In 1917 Congressman Oscar Callaway entered a disturbing statement into the congressional record:

“J.P. Morgan, a banker and a steel tycoon, hired 12 high-ranking news managers and editors, and asked them to determine the most influential newspapers in America. He wanted to control the policy of the daily press of the United States (that policy being whatever they wanted it to be). The twelve found that it was only necessary to purchase 25 of the greatest newspapers. An agreement was reached, the policy of the papers was bought, and an editor of their choice was placed at each paper to ensure that all published information was in keeping of the new policy. (Again, keep in mind it was their policy.)”

Now you know why ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etc. are reporting the same content. It is all derived from the same source.

In a nutshell, those who are attempting to rearrange reality to become the reality they want you to believe in control the news media.

Mark Twain rightly stated, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.”

Let me explain…

Richard Salant, former president of CBS news, said: “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.” That’s pretty arrogant, isn’t it?

Walter Cronkite, former CBS news anchor said, “News reporters are certainly liberal and left of center.”

Herman Dismore, foreign editor of the New York Times, said, “The New York Times is deliberately pitched to the liberal point of view.”

Richard Cohen, senior producer for CBS, said, “We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with.”

America, it is time to turn off the controlled media sources. You have two options: stand for truth and demand justice, or become the victims of your own undoing and be trodden under the foot of media oppression.

Let’s take the next step and show you the twisted ideology of those who report the news:

Comments

comments

About Bradlee Dean
Bradlee Dean is an ordained preacher, heavy metal drummer, talk-show host of the Sons of Liberty Radio, and speaks on college and high school campuses with his ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International. Contact info for Bradlee Dean: Twitter@BradleeDean1 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/bradlee.dean.7?ref=ts&fref=ts Email: [email protected]
  • ICOYAR

    If you want to see the fullest extent in the corruption in the media, simply go to ANY MSM news site right now and you'll see nothing but mourning for Hugo Chavez.

    Liberals keep on drinking the Kool-Aid.

    • patriotusa2

      Truer words were never spoken! You'd think this man was some saint instead of a cruel dictator who led a socialist revolution and was a great friend to Iran, Castro and other communist leaders. He hated this country with a passion and spewed his hatred for America everywhere he went, which is probably why these lefties love him.

      • NotYourPatriot

        "He hated this country with a passion and spewed his hatred for America everywhere he went, which is probably why these lefties love him."

        Great example of a "patriot" here on godfather's politics. Well done.

        • patriotusa2

          Thank you, although, I'm sure that wasn't meant as a compliment considering your other responses.

        • NotYourPatriot

          Indeed it was not, only meant to highlight an instance of what my username refers to. I hope you'll consider it only fair that a response containing an insult, ostensibly directed at half the country, deserved to be noted as a particular kind of "patriotism."

        • patriotusa2

          I took your moniker into consideration regarding your comment to me, However, an insult which you consider to be deservingly directed at "half the country," is questionable. What one considers patriotism, another may not, hence your post to me. What prompted your response could either be my candid remark about Chavez, or my statement about the lefties loving him. In any case, most liberals do not love this country and have no qualms willingly expressing their disgust - so for the most part - that remark holds true. In regards to Chavez, the liberal praise of this man since his death has been plastered all over the net and television with little or no mention of his long lasting dictatorship and his physical force to keep himself in power. If I'm not a patriot by your standards, along with half the country - so be it! We are all entitled to our opinions whether we agree or not. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

        • NotYourPatrlot

          Well as long as we're simply considering any position we disagree with as opinion, then I'll just consider your opinion on how liberals feel about this country as opinion as well. I must agree, most everything "discussed" here is no more than an individuals opinion, and rarely has any significant relation to facts or objective reality.

        • patriotusa2

          My "opinion" about how liberals feel about this country is based on the fact that many whether it be private citizens, politicians, liberal journalists, et al, have openly discussed their hatred of this country. Michael Moore, and Bill Maher are only a drop in the bucket compared to the liberal masses swarming over this country like locusts who have managed to help their "savior" to transform this nation. To even insinuate that my "opinion" has nothing to do with "significant relation to facts or objective reality" is a denial of reality in itself. These "are" facts, not figments of my imagination nor just an opinion which you consider inconsequential. You have responded to many posters on this site criticising everything they had to say which is an indication that in your mind only what you regard as facts and reality is actual truth, as you continue to challenge all other posters who disagree with what you consider their lack of logic, understanding of the facts, and general knowledge. It's not at all difficult to see where you are coming from and why.

        • DeMarTheTroll

          The world isn't as one-sided as many here like to present, which is why I criticize so many people here. The vast majority of you are hyper-polarized hyper-ideologues whose view of reality is incredibly narrow-minded. It's not that you don't have facts. It's that you are incredibly biased in terms of which facts you present, which you omit, and how you criticize them.

          This place is like alternet for conservatives. A bunch of loony ideologues in an echo chamber pretending anyone who doesn't agree with them is the problem. Ready to believe any negative thing about any liberal anywhere.

        • patriotusa2

          Judging from your "narrow minded, hyper-polarized," etc., etc., opinions of all conservatives - I think it's fair to say that you are a carbon copy of all those you just described. Yes, this is a place for conservatives and obviously you are not one of them which is why you came here in the first place to voice your opinion of all those who obviously offend you by their audacity to opine in matters that conflict with your own. "A bunch of loony ideologues in an echo chamber pretending anyone who doesn't agree with them is the problem." It's pretty difficult to understand how anyone you just described with such vivid definitions could actually "pretend" that those who disagree with them are the problem. This one-sided world you speak about isn't the reason why you, in your own words, "criticize so many people here." It's safe to say you are just contemptuous of all those whose opinions differ from your own, which is exactly what you accuse others of doing as well.

  • Screeminmeeme

    The mass media are all those media technologies that are intended to reach a large audience by mass communication. It takes in the highly profitable industries of newspapers, magazines, books, radio, movies, television, the internet, outdoor media (billboards, blimps, signs on buses, etc) and even video games which are used to repetitively teach an ideology.

    Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations. These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day.

    Those corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal. Together, the "big six" absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States. When you control what Americans watch, hear and read you gain a great deal of control over what they think.

    They don't call it "programming" for nothing.

    • NotYourPatriot

      Do you think those companies make a concerted effort to promote "leftism"?

      • Screeminmeeme

        YUP.

        • NotYourPatriot

          Let me see if I can follow your logic. Are the companies doing that because they can fool people into believing that the government is a good thing, while in fact controlling the government? Effectively playing the public to support a "public system" which they in fact control?

          Because it seems to me that such a ploy could backfire, as leftism would lead to an increased desire for socialism, which could lead to the loss of private control of those same companies.

          So how are they hedging that bet, if it is indeed one they're making? Or how are they ensuring it doesn't go that way?

        • Screeminmeeme

          NotYourPatriot........You haven't been paying attention. The media practically anointed the Marxist Liar for the presidency. It's hard to get more left than that.

        • NotYourPatrlot

          So there is no logic. It's just your opinion, based on the fact that most media coverage didn't disparage him, which you would have preferred.

          Well, what actually true, actually significant thing did they not cover? I've been to plenty of websites like this one, I've scoured information sources. There's plenty not to like. But this idea that he's some crazy socialist future Hitler doesn't hold much water.

          So is there any logic or any real evidence to this? Or do you just hate the guy?

        • DeMarTheTroll

          " Or do you just hate the guy?" Clearly this one.

        • mogul264

          When you're behind the scenes, you can control things without being identified as the 'source', and be targeted. Behind the scenes, you can also ensure YOU get the biggest slice of the 'cake', by cutting yours first, and evenly dividing the rest!

    • mogul264

      I've found there's less slant in the BBC news channel!

  • http://www.facebook.com/lorna.doone.319 Lorna Doone

    Times Square Billboards: It's Time the Liberal Media Stop Censoring the News

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/times-square-billboards-it-s-time-liberal-media-stop-censoring-news

  • freedomringsforall

    Aha
    So, could it be that the major media are in league with the international elite to bring chaos and disorder to our country and world.

    Our country and this world are spinning into insanity on purpose.

    The Internationalist have their plan, the Islamists have their plan, and the commie/socialists have their plan.

    For the moment they all align with intent so they are all using each other to create absolute worldwide chaos and each leader propped up by these groups is out for what they want and obama is good at that game.

    The purpose for chaos and death is to justify clamp down, arms confiscation, and in general steps toward dictatorial powers for these groups.

    These groups just like the axis powers in World War 2 will work together on a worldwide basis to make these realities come to fruition.

    Just as the axis powers in world war two believed that they could rule the world in sync after dominating it they each all also secretly believed that they could overcome the other in the end and become the one true leader of the entire world, so do these new axis powers believe the same.

    I believe the internationalists believe as Hitler did that with an overwhelming political power, economic power, and military power of a united Europe and the Americas in their pocket and with deep inroads (politically and economically) into the African continent and the mid asia, and asia proper continents that they will eventually come out on top as the unified world leaders and thus enforce the one world governance that they have been developing onto the world.

    We are one step away from a total dictatorship.

    The 2nd amendment.

    • AntiSeuss

      "We are one step away from a total dictatorship.

      The 2nd amendment."

      Absolutely hilarious.

      Yeah.

      The 2nd amendment.

      And the millions and millions of guns we have in this country will have, what, nothing to do with it?

      You loons get loonier every day.

      • freedomringsforall

        I have absolutely no idea what the totality your comment could possibly mean.

        I do know one thing about your comment though;

        the 2nd amendment is not something that is as you put it "Absolutely hilarious".

        Your hilarity must be from a perspective of derangement if you think there is anything at all hilarious about the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution.

        You are the ignorant and foolish loon if you believe the 2nd amendment is "absolutely hilarious" and if you do not understand the great significance of the 2nd amendment to this nation and to all of world history.

        May God bless you and may he help you some day see what is right and wrong and what is freedom and tyranny.

        • DeMarTheTroll

          Try and read it again. I didn't say the 2nd amendment was hilarious. I said that saying

          "We are one step away from a total dictatorship.

          The 2nd amendment."

          was hilarious.

          Try again.

        • freedomringsforall

          I still have no idea what point you are trying to make other than you have no idea of the significance of the second amendment.

          Your statement under any standard or common grammatical reading in response to my statement is that you think it is hilarious that I state that we are one step away from a total dictatorship if we lose the rights and freedoms of the second amendment.

          That can only mean that you have no concept, what so ever, of the import of the second amendment to the U.S. or to world history.

          You may think it would be hilarious to lose the rights and freedoms of the second amendment now but if we did you would not be laughing for long; trust me you would not like the dictatorship that that would usher in upon you and the rest of the U.S. citizenry.

          As I stated previously:
          May God bless you and may he help you some day see what is right and wrong and what is freedom and tyranny.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rocky.vnvmc Rocky Vnvmc

    I wish we could get folks to remove the Blinders, that they voluntarily wear, and open their eyes to the Truth, before it's too late !

  • RedMeatState

    you lost me at Jane.

  • Jude O'Connor

    Everything we see on TV news is edited by the media and the closest we came to unedited TV were the debates that were immediately followed by the liberal left telling us what was really said, what the code words were, etc., etc,. The media destroyed Mitt and continue to ravage Sara Palin and I've yet to hear facts on what she was supposed to have committed. You can quickly go broke defending yourself from lies.

    • AntiSeuss

      Sarah Palin was ravaged for being an ignorant hick. The media that destroyed Mitt Romney was that of him calling half the country moochers, and suggesting that he'd win if only he were Hispanic.

      • freedomringsforall

        Wow you certainly are a vicious little person aren't you.

        If you think Sarah Palin was an ignorant hick after running the largest, richest, and one of the most powerful states in the union; I would hate to hear the vial, nasty, vulgar things you have to say about Obama who's biggest claim to fame before his short sprint to the white house was simply that of a community organizer.

        • DeMarTheTroll

          His biggest claim to fame at that point actually would have been the fact that he was a US senator who was previously the first black man to head the Harvard Law Review.

          Or we could live in la-la land with you where he was just a community organizer. What a joke community service is amirite?

        • freedomringsforall

          Actually it does not seem that you have a very good understanding of Obama's life.

          Actually his short stint in the U.S. senate was just a part of the campaign for president.

          He did virtually no work as an actual Senator but campaigned for president and any of them would tell you so; thus his great voting record (not).

          Sarah Palin actually administratively ran the largest State in the United States and anyone involved in State Government in Alaska would tell you so.

          So, there is no comparison in the two jobs and what the two did in those positions.

          Sarah Palin's job was 10 times the job that Obama had as a U.S. Senator especially considering how he used it.

          Many people who were at Harvard and involved have come out in interviews etc. stating that Obama didn't do jack as the figure head of "Head of the Harvard Law Review".

          Also, you probably do not know that Obama's ascendance to that figurehead position was unique. Until the 70's it was the top freshman (grades) then it was split top freshman (grades) then top in writing contest back and forth. But for Obama it was a unique night long meeting of the top 80 at the Harvard Law Review that anointed obama.

          Certainly it would be ridiculous to even consider any comparison of that to running one of the most powerful and the largest State in the union.

          So, actually if you knew more about Obama's life and you understood more about what he did in those positions and if you understood more about what people say that were around him you would actually know that his stint as community organizer was the most significant job that he ever had. Everything else was mostly window dressing.

          At that job he did more actual work and was more significant in terms of helping to actually accomplish something in the world than in any other position he occupied up to the presidency.

          Also, in that position he developed most of the organizational network that supported and propelled him from that job nonstop all the way to the White House.

          If you would simply look at all the people around him since the job of community organizer all the way to the white house and while he has been president, to this very day, you will see that what I say here is absolutely accurate.

          I'll bet you that when you read his memoirs in a few years you will read, from his own handwriting, that his organizing job was what helped him to built the network that supported and propelled him from that job all the way into the white house.

          Which will eventually prove to you that my statements here are correct.

          Guess we will see which one of us is really living in lala land.

          Actually it is all history that if you look you can read and hear it too.

          P.S. obama himself states that he was a community organizer.
          That is usually very different than the terminology community service which is the terminology that you used.
          That is why people make a point of saying community organizing instead of community service when they mean community organizing.
          You are correct that the terminology community service, when properly used, is no joke; as a matter of fact that is what I have done much of my life.
          The terminology community organizer, when properly used, is usually a joke though.

        • Apolloone

          "Sarah Palin's job was 10 times the job that Obama had as a U.S Senator especially considering how he Used it" I have said much the same about him as you say I used the word Abused instead of Used and as far as comparing Sarah Palin's job or experience to Obama's job or experience, Sarah wins by that proverbial mile but the Marxist Media is not about to let the facts speak for themselves, but instead try and paint her as an idiot and paint their Marxist Son as God's gift to save America, who will transform her into that Utopian System that has worked so well in other countries around the planet. I wonder if he and his fellow Communists at the Harvard Law Review ever discussed one of the people he admired most and that person being Chairman Mao. It is very hard for me to grasp that we have a president that admires such a man. Keep posting Freedomringsforall I enjoy them, let us pray that God will prevent this government from squashing this Freedom-Bell from ringing.

  • melanie

    Logan. if you think
    Jesus`s story is shocking... last wednesday I got a great Citroën 2CV after
    having made $8862 this last four weeks and-a little over, $10,000 this past
    month. this is really my favourite-work Ive ever done. I actually started seven
    months/ago and immediately began to bring in more than $75 per-hour. I work
    through this link,, jump15.comCHECK IT OUT