They know how to be on the right side of history. They got the interview.

Let me finish, Comcast!



Thinkifying while operatin' the mouth isn't easy work.

How did America let Bush get away with that obvious WIRE he was wearing in the Gore debate?

Gahhhhhh!!!

Like stealing elections, they've got lying down to a science.

The Emperor's New Hump

The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election—because it could have changed the election

By Dave Lindorff
FAIR.org, Jan. 1, 2005

In the weeks leading up to the November 2 election, the New York Times was abuzz with excitement. Besides the election itself, the paper’s reporters were hard at work on two hot investigative projects, each of which could have a major impact on the outcome of the tight presidential race.

One week before Election Day, the Times (10/25/04) ran a hard-hitting and controversial exposé of the Al-Qaqaa ammunition dump—identified by U.N. inspectors before the war as containing 400 tons of special high-density explosives useful for aircraft bombings and as triggers for nuclear devices, but left unguarded and available to insurgents by U.S. forces after the invasion.

On Thursday, just three days after that first exposé, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.



[font size="2"]It's clear even from unenhanced photos that George W. Bush has been wearing some kind of object under his clothing, both during the debates and at other public appearances. The enhancements done by NASA scientist Robert Nelson show a rectangular object with a long "tail"; in some shots a wire leading over Bush's shoulder is visible. This configuration closely resembles a PTT (Push To Talk) receiver with an induction earpiece, a device used by some actors, newscasters and politicians to allow for inaudible voice communication in a public setting. The particular model pictured here (which does not appear to be the exact type Bush wore) was manufactured by Resistance Technology, Inc. of Arden Hills, Minn.[/font size]

The so-called Bulgegate story had been getting tremendous attention on the Internet. Stories about it had also run in many mainstream papers, including the New York Times (10/9/04, 10/18/04) and Washington Post (10/9/04), but most of these had been light-hearted. Indeed, the issue had even made it into the comedy circuit, including the monologues of Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jon Stewart and a set of strips by cartoonist Garry Trudeau.

That the story hadn’t gotten more serious treatment in the mainstream press was largely thanks to a well-organized media effort by the Bush White House and the Bush/Cheney campaign to label those who attempted to investigate the bulge as "conspiracy buffs" (Washington Post, 10/9/04). In an era of pinched budgets and an equally pinched notion of the role of the Fourth Estate, the fact that the Kerry camp was offering no comment on the matter—perhaps for fear of earning a "conspiracy buff" label for the candidate himself—may also have made reporters skittish. Jeffrey Klein, a founding editor of Mother Jones magazine, told Mother Jones (online edition, 10/30/04) he had called a number of contacts at leading news organizations across the country, and was told that unless the Kerry campaign raised the issue, they couldn’t pursue it.

"Totally off base"

The Times’ effort to get to the bottom of the matter through a serious investigation seemed to be a striking exception. That investigation, however, despite extensive reporting over several weeks by three Times reporters, never ran. Now, like the mythic weapons of mass destruction that were the raison d’etre for the Iraq War, the Times is thus far claiming that the Bush Bulgegate story never existed in the first place.

Referring to a FAIR press release (11/5/04) about the spiked story, Village Voice press critic Jarrett Murphy wrote (11/16/04), "A Times reporter alleged to have worked on such a piece says FAIR was totally off base: The paper never pursued the story."

SOURCE: http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-emperors-new-hump/

It's not the only story they killed, eh?

And Karl Rove -- remember him? -- just put the onus back on the unfortunate tailor. Here's the exchange on Fox News:

"WALLACE: All right. Truth to tell, the campaign's over. What was under the president's jacket at the first debate?

"ROVE: You know, the poor -- I'm not going to mention his name, because I know him and he's a wonderful fellow, but the poor tailor has just got to be horrified. Nothing was under his jacket.

"WALLACE: Well, I've had a lot of jackets, you've had a lot of jackets. You've never had something like that under your jacket.

"ROVE: Well, the poor -- again, he's an awfully nice fellow, he's a rather flamboyant dude. And I'm not going to use his name, but he's just -- he's horrified. And, you know, it's -- there was nothing there.

"But it certainly got a lot of commentary on the Internet."

What does he think, the tailor misplaced a two foot piece of boning or a zipper in there when he lined the jacket, accidentally caught it in the shoulder seam so it didn't fall to the hem? Is he fuckjng kidding? Ridiculous.

Turdblossom.

I know tailors, and even the shittiest one could not make a mistake like that. A high end tailor? Nope.
It's just not plausible.

Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

I've never heard of news directors being so involved in a story that they feed the interviewer questions live...

Most interviewers would have been indignant at a boss's interference, but I did hear a rumor somewhere that for whatever reason Brian Williams knew jack shit about Snowden, Greenwald and the NSA issues other than purely casual knowledge...Even if that rumor is true, I have no idea why Williams couldn't have done his own research and educated himself...

I'd be VERY interested to know what kinds of questions the news director asked....

Granted they are all fiction but every dramatized TV/movie involving newscasters that I've seen had a director feeding questions to the interviewer.

from any of the broadcast people I ever knew...But maybe the rules are different for 'high-profile' guests...

Turness is a Brit much like the exec in the TV show "Newsroom." High energy, daredevil.

“You know, and this is a key question that the 9/11 Commission considered. And what they found, in the post-mortem, when they looked at all of the classified intelligence from all of the different intelligence agencies, they found that we had all of the information we needed as an intelligence community, as a classified sector, as the national defense of the United States to detect this plot,” Snowden said. “We actually had records of the phone calls from the United States and out. The CIA knew who these guys were. The problem was not that we weren’t collecting information, it wasn’t that we didn’t have enough dots, it wasn’t that we didn’t have a haystack, it was that we did not understand the haystack that we have.”

“The problem with mass surveillance is that we’re piling more hay on a haystack we already don’t understand, and this is the haystack of the human lives of every American citizen in our country,” Snowden continued. “If these programs aren’t keeping us safe, and they’re making us miss connections — vital connections — on information we already have, if we’re taking resources away from traditional methods of investigation, from law enforcement operations that we know work, if we’re missing things like the Boston Marathon bombings where all of these mass surveillance systems, every domestic dragnet in the world didn’t reveal guys that the Russian intelligence service told us about by name, is that really the best way to protect our country? Or are we — are we trying to throw money at a magic solution that’s actually not just costing us our safety, but our rights and our way of life?"

SOURCE: http://rt.com/usa/162576-nbc-snowden-september-attack/

so well, but I thought he was a bit cautious regarding how he phrased his response, more or less blaming it on the fact that the intel that was important sort of got lost in the huge 'haystack' of info they are wrongfully collecting.

I don't believe anything got lost, re the Boston Bombers or the 9/11 plotters. They knew who all these people were, they were on the radar, they had warnings but nothing happened to stop them. Agents were screaming their warnings before 9/11 eg, but were ignored.

However, perhaps from his pov where he saw the mountains of data, it is conceivable to him that aside from violating our rights, this vast collection of information IS a deterrent to sorting out the bad guys.

As I don't watch much television, other than the Encore Western channel, I believed what the headline said.

In fact it was annoying at times, but I did remember this part as I thought he was being too kind.

....of the whole interview?

And if you had the chance to interview Snowden, wouldn't you ask him about the big secrets of the last fifty years or so? Heh.

Don't know if anything's available through the databanks, though.

Then again, the scrubbers are good, but not perfect.

That the angle of the camera made Snowden look like he had his legs 5 feet apart? Very unflattering. But, if you looked at the chair, it looked like it was 3 to 4 feet wide? It appeared to be exaggerated to me? I think it was intentional.

Just as a lot of stories about Bradley Manning were unflattering, meant to discredit him in the public's eye. Did he really change his name to Chelsea? When was the last time you heard from him? Is that the same thing that will happen to Snowden if he "returns and face the music"?

He can't be too tiny: he was accepted into Rangers or some elite unite (then he broke his legs in training).

I thought Snowden looked calm and confident, though.

NBC news has been lying for decades, since before 9/11, filling TV with propaganda that is paid for by corrupted government and corporate criminals. Outing Brian Williams as a liar and a fake is like saying a bird can fly, it's obvious from its actions.

NBC news will stoop to any level, no matter how low, to sell whatever they fell like. It can be torture, nuclear weapon lies, terrorism lies, whatever...

Anyone who still believes a word of what NBC says is deluding themselves in the face of decades of lies.