Alright, well it looks like we seem to have as much to the OU bombing story as there is.  

Here's my question: In times of crisis, how cooperative is the news media at pulling stories if the gov't asks them to?  And this can be at any level, local state or federal.  Do you think that this is a voluntary move or one that amounts to gov't censorship (if you report that, you lose your FCC license...)?  

I still remember a year or two ago when Fox News was reporting from "Out side the President's Ranch" in texas about this huge Thanksgiving dinner he was haivng there, while the whole time he was in Iraq having dinner with the troops (which I thought was pretty cool).  Fox reported the whole thing later but it definately made me think that if they were cooperative with that would the be cooperative in squashing other stories?

Any LEOs have any idea if a call to the local news station will keep something off the air under the right circumstances?

Im sure blackouts exist they did in WW2 and they do today. Simply trying to keep the sheeple from mass panic.

Quoted: Im sure blackouts exist they did in WW2 and they do today. Simply trying to keep the sheeple from mass panic.

And then when little stories pop up, they try to inflate them to cause the sheeple mass panic.  Yellow journalism.  

If some media talking head tells me that the grass is green, I'll go out and check just to be sure.

Quoted: Im sure blackouts exist they did in WW2 and they do today. Simply trying to keep the sheeple from mass panic.

Is it really as simple as mass panic?  

My theory on the OU bomb was that they didn't want to compromise an investigation to the guys that were being investigated.  

Quoted: Quoted: Im sure blackouts exist they did in WW2 and they do today. Simply trying to keep the sheeple from mass panic. Is it really as simple as mass panic?   My theory on the OU bomb was that they didn't want to compromise an investigation to the guys that were being investigated.

I am sure many more attempted attacks have occured. I mean come on these are the same guys who hijacked 4 jets in a single day. We simply do not hear about them.

Quoted: I am sure many more attempted attacks have occured. I mean come on these are the same guys who hijacked 4 jets in a single day. We simply do not hear about them.

That's a good point.

But...wouldn't the .gov want us to know how effective they are somehow?  Maybe publishing a statistic that said...oh, I dunno...'x' number of attacks were thwarted by [agency] in [time period]?

Then again, maybe that would be pretty lame, and would people believe it anyway?

Quoted: Quoted: I am sure many more attempted attacks have occured. I mean come on these are the same guys who hijacked 4 jets in a single day. We simply do not hear about them. That's a good point. But...wouldn't the .gov want us to know how effective they are somehow?  Maybe publishing a statistic that said...oh, I dunno...'x' number of attacks were thwarted by [agency] in [time period]? Then again, maybe that would be pretty lame, and would people believe it anyway?

I think it looks better when they make us look as if we couldn't be hit with another attack no matter how hard they try. I mean that is the train they have been riding. With the new gov agecnys in all.

To say even one got in and tried something would screw that all up. Look at the anthrax scare and how fast the goverment was working to calm it down.

The media wouldn't get into bed with the government.

The media wouldn't try to change the way people think.

The media wouldn't try to push their own agenda.

The government wouldn't try to keep things from the American public.

The government wouldn't try to control real freedom would it?

We the people really is real isn't it?

I'm positively sure that the government and the media would never and has never kept anything from the public, nor would they lie, cheat, steal or force their agenda on anyone here. After all, we are all free and knowledge, information and reality wouldn't be kept from us right?


Anyone that doesn't think that we are controlled like sheep...I've got some land in OZ to sell. Want to buy it?

Quoted: I'm positively sure that the government and the media would never and has never kept anything from the public, nor would they lie, cheat, steal or force their agenda on anyone here. After all, we are all free and knowledge, information and reality wouldn't be kept from us right?

Right!  When the board is done with this post I'm sure it will go right down the cyber-memory hole!

I have no doubt that the media has an agenda.  But it seems that a bombing at an OU stadium would work FOR that agenda--namely:

"Bush is such a bad president, with his failed War on Terror that let a bomber get through at OU!  It was the sheer luck of Kerry that the bomber detonated in a safe area only killing [him/her]self."

See what I mean?  

The only way to cause a news blackout is to LITERALLY cause a blackout.

Its the only way to take the internet down.

Although they are busily fighting to regain control neither the mainstream media nor the goverment are in control.   And surprisingly it seems this current President likes it that way.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005 The Wood Between the Worlds One of the questions outfits like Pajamas Media are trying to answer in action is what the future of information gathering will look like in a few year's time. Brian Micklethwait at Samizdata provides an interesting glimpse into where things might be headed by focusing on a small news event he stumbled on. An activist belonging to Fathers4Justice, which advocates more custody rights for dads, had scaled Parliament house in London when Micklethwait was walking by. (See Samizdata for the photos) The protester was talking to ... his lawyer? ... a radio interviewer? ... someone at least, on his cell phone. Regular journalists were positioned down below taking continuous footage of the protester, while hard by, a literal crowd of regular citizens had whipped out their digital cameras (with an optical 10x zoon and autostabilized in the case of Samidata's Micklethwait) and were covering the protester and the press coverage itself. The protester might have been on radio talk-show, while being snapped by photojournalists, who were in turn memorialized by citizens, one at least of whom was a blogger. The issue that interests Micklethwait is what happens in a communications-dense environment where everyone is potentially wired to everyone else, where everyone is a node on a graph. He has come to one conclusion: at the very least a wired society makes it harder for government to simply make things go away. One of the features of modern government, or maybe that should be recent government, is that modern/recent government often likes simply to blot stories off the airwaves. I am not saying that they wanted to squash this one. But I am saying that if they had entertained any such censorious thoughts, although they might have got away with this ten years ago, now, they would have far less chance. Other questions come to mind. If Moms4Justice had scaled Nelson's plinth and Kids4Justice had swarmed Buckingham palace at the same time, how would meme collision get arbitrated on the nervous system of a digitally wired society? Is there any way of assigning headers to memes such that they get where they should? Is there any way for memes to rearrange themselves in a logical order upon arrival at a destination to form an even more complex idea? What is to prevent the whole digital nervous sytem from suffering a breakdown from an overload? And encapsulating all these questions implicitly is the most important question of all: how does one make a buck out of it? Maybe no one knows, but folks sure are interested in getting control even though they don't know where it will all lead. U.S. to U.N.: Keep Away from Internet: The U.S. has made it clear that it will fight any attempt to put the United Nations or another international body in charge of the Internet. ... Several nations with tightly controlled media, such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, plus a number of industrialized countries including Switzerland and Russia, would like to see the U.S. relinquish its control of the Internet. BTW, who does control the Internet? posted by wretchard at 5:56 PM | 62 comments

When the internet was opened to the public way back in what 1989? The number of nodes was small, and goverment funded and therefore could be locked down.

But today there are so many private servers, not just by large companies but by small independents, scattered in storefronts and stripmalls across the country.

Only by cutting electrical power or phone service through a large area of the country could this be stopped in a hurry.  Some degradation though could be made for a brief time by .gov hiring a buch of hackers and letting them loose.  But eventually other geeks would counter them.

Quoted: Alright, well it looks like we seem to have as much to the OU bombing story as there is.   Here's my question: In times of crisis, how cooperative is the news media at pulling stories if the gov't asks them to?  And this can be at any level, local state or federal.  Do you think that this is a voluntary move or one that amounts to gov't censorship (if you report that, you lose your FCC license...)?   I still remember a year or two ago when Fox News was reporting from "Out side the President's Ranch" in texas about this huge Thanksgiving dinner he was haivng there, while the whole time he was in Iraq having dinner with the troops (which I thought was pretty cool).  Fox reported the whole thing later but it definately made me think that if they were cooperative with that would the be cooperative in squashing other stories? Any LEOs have any idea if a call to the local news station will keep something off the air under the right circumstances?

It depends, I think.  I think the media would be offended by the government asking them to do what they wanted or made a request they remained silent about something.

The Lewinsky thing showed us the media is more than willling to cover for a government they like.  They'll do it voluntarily.  Fuck, their editors and reports will become advocates and go after the critics. We saw that happen in 1998.

Asking them would just piss them off and only ensure the story getting aired, just to prove a point.

No one's keeping them in hiding - you just have to look around you for commie turds -

http://peacecommies.com/videos/walterreedassault.wmv          

Totally assinine peaceniks have nothing better to do

It was probably not a white-christian-male, so it's not newsworthy.  If he was a member of the ROP, we will never know from the media.

Quoted: The media wouldn't get into bed with the government. The media wouldn't try to change the way people think. The media wouldn't try to push their own agenda. The government wouldn't try to keep things from the American public. The government wouldn't try to control real freedom would it? We the people really is real isn't it? I'm positively sure that the government and the media would never and has never kept anything from the public, nor would they lie, cheat, steal or force their agenda on anyone here. After all, we are all free and knowledge, information and reality wouldn't be kept from us right? Anyone that doesn't think that we are controlled like sheep...I've got some land in OZ to sell. Want to buy it?

Amen to that. Look at main stream media they report what they consider is news and ignore everything else. Look at how they have tried to ALWAYS portray gun ownership in a negative light. Read Arrogance by Bernard Goldberg if you have any doubts. He asked several big shot newsmen why certain aspects of a school shooting was left out. Mainly that one teacher ran to his PU grabbed a 45ACP 1911 ran back into the school and got the drop on the shooter. The shooter immediately dropped his weapon. When asked why this wasnt reported big shot newsman said well this would of portrayed guns in a positive light. We cannt do that. There news is a F-IN joke.