Propaganda multiplier
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 21:46
VIEWED: 2991
PAGE 1 of 4
Quote:Always, no matter who the source(s). Especially when multiple sources are beating the same drumbeat.
The Propaganda Multiplier
A Study by Swiss Propaganda Research
Translated by Terje Maloy
2016 / 2019
“Therefore, you always have to ask yourself: Why do I get this specific information, in this specific form, at this specific moment? Ultimately, these are always questions about power.”
Dr. Konrad Hummler, Swiss banking and media executive
You alos need to check in mentally with what's NOT being reported. Whatever happened to topics that were hot news a week ago, or a month, a year? Venezuela? BLM? RUSSIA!RUSSIA!? Melting permafrost?
Did time suddenly stand still on those? Why were they dropped/never covered?
Quote:Even alternative "on the ground" sources aren't immune to selection bias. Knowing, as I did, that a significant portion of the Lybian population supported Kaddafi, I was dismayed to hear Democracy Now's reporters providing a breathless blow-by-blow, but always from the "rebels' side. If the rebels were so gorram popular, why did it take them over a month to defeat the Libyan government, even with heavy NATO air attacks on government forces?
It is one of the most important aspects of our media system, and yet hardly known to the public: most of the international news coverage in Western media is provided by only three global news agencies based in New York, London and Paris.
The key role played by these agencies means Western media often report on the same topics, even using the same wording. In addition, governments, military and intelligence services use these global news agencies as multipliers to spread their messages around the world.
A study of the Syria war coverage by nine leading European newspapers clearly illustrates these issues: 78% of all articles were based in whole or in part on agency reports, yet 0% on investigative research. Moreover, 82% of all opinion pieces and interviews were in favor of a US and NATO intervention, while propaganda was attributed exclusively to the opposite side.
Quote:
“How does the newspaper know what it knows?” The answer to this question is likely to surprise some newspaper readers: “The main source of information is stories from news agencies. The almost anonymously operating news agencies are in a way the key to world events. So what are the names of these agencies, how do they work and who finances them? To judge how well one is informed about events in East and West, one should know the answers to these questions.” (Höhne 1977, p. 11)
A Swiss media researcher points out: “The news agencies are the most important suppliers of material to mass media. No daily media outlet can manage without them. () So the news agencies influence our image of the world; above all, we get to know what they have selected.” (Blum 1995, p. 9)
Even the head of a news agency noted: “There is something strange about news agencies. They are little known to the public. Unlike a newspaper, their activity is not so much in the spotlight, yet they can always be found at the source of the story.” (Segbers 2007, p. 9)
In view of their essential importance, it is all the more astonishing that these agencies are hardly known to the public: “A large part of society is unaware that news agencies exist at all … In fact, they play an enormously important role in the media market. But despite this great importance, little attention has been paid to them in the past.” (Schulten-Jaspers 2013, p. 13)
So what are the names of these agencies that are “always at the source of the story”? There are now only three global news agencies left:
The American Associated Press (NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Image from previous article posted here to improve readability
I will add that "NGOs" and think tanks (theoretically non-governmental organizations, such as Bellingcat and Neational Endowment for Democracy, are often funded secretly by various government departments such as MI6 and the State Department) often feed into the AFP/Reuters/AP news agency networks which carry their stories uncritically for dissemination into the equally somnubalistic "media".
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We used to argue about whether the private sector corporations or the public sector govt agencies were helping people or becoming evil, and this was the cornerstone of left-right debates.
Now all of us are independently coming to a place where corporate-government alliances are becoming evil, and the only remain debate is between those who are aware and those who do not see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Wikipedia and a pint of gin
By Justus R. Hope, MD Jul 5, 2021 Updated Jul 6, 2021
I became a Wiki editor a couple of weeks ago. Anyone can edit Wikipedia provided they follow the rules. One should not use primary sources. Instead, secondary sources are preferred. Translated, this means do not use sources that have not been widely read and reported for a long time and DO NOT use recent sources if they are not in the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, this means that published peer-reviewed medical journal articles will sometimes NOT be allowed, which means you, the reader, will likely get inaccurate or ONLY politically correct information.
This also means that someone's Wikipedia page could contain unflattering and untrue information; in someone's opinion it could be downright defamatory, and there is not a darn thing that can be done to correct this.
Allow me to illustrate a case in point. Dr. Pierre Kory has served as the Chief of Critical Care Medicine at a University Medical Center. This fact is accurately reported on his Wikipedia page. In addition, he published a book on Ultrasound and won a British Award for this. Again, this is also accurately portrayed on his page.
He testified at the US Senate about Ivermectin, and this is where the incorrect information gets written. The Wikipedia page reports, “During his (Pierre Kory’s) testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a ‘wonder drug’ with ‘miraculous effectiveness’ against COVID-19.[1]”
In support, Wikipedia cites an AP Fact Check article by a journalist, Ms. Beatrice Dupuy, who is not a medical professional to my knowledge. She has never served as a medical director of Critical Care or Pulmonary Medicine. I believe she has written for StarTribune and TeenVogue Magazine in the past.
However, she is somehow sufficiently competent to call Dr. Kory's testimony “false.”
TrialSite News published an article debunking Beatrice Dupuy's "fact check," and this is what they wrote about her errors in the argument concerning Ivermectin and Dr. Kory: https://trialsitenews.com/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-the-case-of-
ivermectin-for-publicly-subsidized-research/
“The AP, via author Beatrice Dupuy, indulges in both a straw-man argument and bait-and-switch tactic in its key finding; the former by asking whether Ivermectin is ‘miraculous’ (while a doctor may have used such language, common sense dictates that an inquiry more relevant to the public health would be whether ivermectin is ‘effective’), and the later by offering an ‘Assessment’ that answers a different question than the one in the ‘Claim.’
Quoting AP, ‘CLAIM: The antiparasitic drug Ivermectin ‘has a miraculous effectiveness that obliterates’ the transmission of COVID-19 and will prevent people from getting sick — AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.’
The claim is about Ivermectin as a prophylactic to prevent getting COVID-19 illness, but the assessment’s language states that it is not an effective ‘treatment against COVID-19.’ Since prophylactic (prevention) is for the well, and treatment is for the sick, confusing these medical uses appears to be sloppy journalism or worse.”
What is truly troubling is that the Wikipedia editor considers this type of “fact check” by a non-physician a reliable source. What is even more troubling is that Wikipedia DOES NOT CONSIDER the American Journal of Therapeutics a reliable source. Their editors REFUSED to allow even the mention of Dr. Kory's recent publication or Dr. Tess Lawrie's recent publication in the same journal.
When I first saw Dr. Kory's Wiki page, it read as follows:
“During his (Pierre Kory’s) testimony in December 2020,NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wikipedia is full of a lot of nonsense, but also keeps a record of all changes, so if there's a decent group of editors managing the page, the pages accuracy is maintained okay. If there is a vested interest, political or profit, in putting misleading information on an entry, it would make sense that accuracy will suffer, as the editors for that topic become filled with interested parties.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:hmmmmm.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
We used to argue about whether the private sector corporations or the public sector govt agencies were helping people or becoming evil, and this was the cornerstone of left-right debates.
Now all of us are independently coming to a place where corporate-government alliances are becoming evil, and the only remain debate is between those who are aware and those who do not see.
I learned about all of this in the early 90s, or late 80s - from Rush. Maybe you are late to the game.
If you all keep learning and opening your eyes, you are going to eventually wake up centrist - or, as the MSM and other Libtards call it, conservative. There are many jokes on the subject, spanning decades.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Absolute fact.
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
Wikipedia is full of a lot of nonsense,
Quote:Horse manure. Don't know why you would believe such nonsense - or maybe you are just prevaricating.
but also keeps a record of all changes,
Quote:Just saw this now.
so if there's a decent group of editors managing the page, the pages accuracy is maintained okay. If there is a vested interest, political or profit, in putting misleading information on an entry, it would make sense that accuracy will suffer, as the editors for that topic become filled with interested parties.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I learned about all of this in the early 90s, or late 80s - from Rush. Maybe you are late to the game.
If you all keep learning and opening your eyes, you are going to eventually wake up centrist - or, as the MSM and other Libtards call it, conservative. There are many jokes on the subject, spanning decades.
I was a loyal liberal at the time who shut out Rush, not just because he was a brash conservative but because he was a fat ugly drug addict who yelled at people. I realize that's not sound political reasoning, but I suspect a lot of people filter on similar bases.
I figure that the right is a scam because I know the left is a scam, and I know how that scam is built, so why wouldn't they just build a right to match it?
So I opt for the no wing fairy princess dragon castle. let them eat cake. etc. full on animist caveman. whatever works. In a pinch christianity is okay. It's what I do now. Jews are too easily suckered into being loyal dupes of the devil. And the devil just doesn't have any allegiance at all. IDK what else to do. Hobo with a nuke? Except now it's a biowar, so we need a biodefense against the bioweapon, which of course it a bioweapon pretending to be a biodefense already.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My problem with Rush is that eerything I knew abut him was from RAPPY, and everything that he transmitted to the board (about Iraq and Saddam's apocryphal WMD) was nonsense. So I didn't have any incentive to learn more about him.
It's not that I reject rightwing people. I used to read Pat Buchanan's stuff and think
Yeah! YEAH!
Right.
OK!
NO!!!! Aaaaargh!
It was interesting to me that I could agree so wholeheartedly with SOME of his opinions and disagree just as strognly with others.
Even people like PN got a listen from me. But I used to use this board as my go-to source for what "the right" was promoting at the time, and since it was nonsense (I recall RAPPY posting that the economy was ON FIRE!! right before the 2008 implosion) it was so clearly wrong I never looked any further.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yeah! YEAH!
Right.
OK!
NO!!!! Aaaaargh!
I kind of agree on Buchanan. I think the problem was a little bit that the Brigade was like a cult, and they just kind of assumed they were right. I knew many of these people personally, including a lot of Brigade leaders, and they were fine as far as they went, but they had that same underlying culty self assuredness that the lefty cults have.
As far as posters here I didn't really have a problem with John other than JEWS! JEWS! JEWS! and I didn't have a problem with Auraptor at all, I thought he was kind of a normal person. I'm sure I disagreed with him on occasion about politics occasionally, his story posts were always pretty insightful. In John's posts, the fact and the fiction didn't seem to have a firm border between them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME