BlueCollarCritic
Member
In a prior posting about the secretive Bilderberg Groups annual meeting, Mick (Metabunk.org admin/owner) and possibly a few others said that there has never been a cover up of the meeting by the media and Mick provided some examples of older newspaper articles mentioning the groups meeting as proof that the media was not trying to deny the meetings existence. At the time I did not know how to properly debunk that explanation, to detail how that was not evidences that there was no organized effort in the media to deny the Bilderberger meeting. Today I found an excellent rebuttal to Micks debunking in the form of a comment made by the recently departed Aaaron Schwartz whom I believe most here have heard of.
In a January 2008 email to Brett Bonfield, Aaron made the following statement regarding Watergate.
“But I tend to disagree with the if-only-they-knew-the-truth school of thought. Watergate happened not because the story came out -- COINTELPRO started in 1956; stories like this came out all the time in the independent press -- it was because Nixon went after someone powerful (the DNC) who could fight back. Had it been Nixon burglarizing the Socialist Worker's Party offices again, the Post never would given the story such attention and Woodward and Bernstein would have been stayed on the cub beat. So airing the stories is good, but it's nowhere near enough. We need an alternate system for making them interesting and getting them to people. And that's much harder.”
In this statement Aaron explains that news about some event can be found within publicly distributed media and there still not be reporting of the event and or passive denial of said event by not giving it the level of reporting attention it would otherwise for whatever reason and because of COINTELPRO (BS info put out by the CIA/Feds as disinformation in an attempt to muddy the information over all and make it difficult to determine what is real and what is not) . In the case of Micks news paper references, the Bilderberger Meeting and group has been dismissed in the general media for many years up until the last 2-4 years. Once news of the group’s annual gathering found its way on the front page of the DRUDGE REPORT it was then no longer something that could be reported and still denied through the lack of reporting it properly.
Think of a retraction that the newspaper has to print when it gets something wrong or when the video news media has to do the same for incorrectly reporting some event. In both cases the retraction is reported in a way so as to give it as little attention as possible while still being able to say “we reported it”. The mainstream news papers over the last 3-5 decades would passively deny the Bilderberg’s existence and its annual meeting by not allowing mention of it on the front page of a major paper or by reporting it at the same time as some other major event is occurring which provides cover so that the readership does not take note of the Bilderberger meeting.
Just this week several pieces of legislation have been pushed thru Congress in an attempt to get them passed while the nations news focus is on the Boston Massacre. Since the media has the Boston event to report on over and over they can either skip over mention of what Congress doing or at least burry that news amongst all the Boston related reporting.
At this point the debunking of the Bilderbergers has gone from denial of its existence to denial of its being something troubling, worrisome or even potentially illegal and or alarming. To that I say this, if the NFL Team owners gathered together annually for 2-3 days to meet in a place where no one from the media was allowed except for those willing to agree to not talk about what was said at the meeting, and after which when the meeting was over all who attended said “we cannot comment on what was discussed” there would be cries of outrage and price fixing across the country. However you let the same happen with leaders in finance, business and sciences and government along with the worlds wealthy elite and anyone who says this is concerning is called a conspiracy theorists. That’s not right and it’s a shame that the debunking community actively defends the groups meeting as being “Nothing to be concerned with”.
In a January 2008 email to Brett Bonfield, Aaron made the following statement regarding Watergate.
“But I tend to disagree with the if-only-they-knew-the-truth school of thought. Watergate happened not because the story came out -- COINTELPRO started in 1956; stories like this came out all the time in the independent press -- it was because Nixon went after someone powerful (the DNC) who could fight back. Had it been Nixon burglarizing the Socialist Worker's Party offices again, the Post never would given the story such attention and Woodward and Bernstein would have been stayed on the cub beat. So airing the stories is good, but it's nowhere near enough. We need an alternate system for making them interesting and getting them to people. And that's much harder.”
In this statement Aaron explains that news about some event can be found within publicly distributed media and there still not be reporting of the event and or passive denial of said event by not giving it the level of reporting attention it would otherwise for whatever reason and because of COINTELPRO (BS info put out by the CIA/Feds as disinformation in an attempt to muddy the information over all and make it difficult to determine what is real and what is not) . In the case of Micks news paper references, the Bilderberger Meeting and group has been dismissed in the general media for many years up until the last 2-4 years. Once news of the group’s annual gathering found its way on the front page of the DRUDGE REPORT it was then no longer something that could be reported and still denied through the lack of reporting it properly.
Think of a retraction that the newspaper has to print when it gets something wrong or when the video news media has to do the same for incorrectly reporting some event. In both cases the retraction is reported in a way so as to give it as little attention as possible while still being able to say “we reported it”. The mainstream news papers over the last 3-5 decades would passively deny the Bilderberg’s existence and its annual meeting by not allowing mention of it on the front page of a major paper or by reporting it at the same time as some other major event is occurring which provides cover so that the readership does not take note of the Bilderberger meeting.
Just this week several pieces of legislation have been pushed thru Congress in an attempt to get them passed while the nations news focus is on the Boston Massacre. Since the media has the Boston event to report on over and over they can either skip over mention of what Congress doing or at least burry that news amongst all the Boston related reporting.
At this point the debunking of the Bilderbergers has gone from denial of its existence to denial of its being something troubling, worrisome or even potentially illegal and or alarming. To that I say this, if the NFL Team owners gathered together annually for 2-3 days to meet in a place where no one from the media was allowed except for those willing to agree to not talk about what was said at the meeting, and after which when the meeting was over all who attended said “we cannot comment on what was discussed” there would be cries of outrage and price fixing across the country. However you let the same happen with leaders in finance, business and sciences and government along with the worlds wealthy elite and anyone who says this is concerning is called a conspiracy theorists. That’s not right and it’s a shame that the debunking community actively defends the groups meeting as being “Nothing to be concerned with”.