Skip to comments.CNN Exposed – Emmy Winning Former CNN Journalist, Amber Lyon, Blows The Whistle
Posted on 10/10/2012 3:50:36 AM PDT by BulletBobCo
click here to read article
Just think what’s going on over at MSNBC.
No wait, they’re so inept they can’t even hide the lying.
Amber Lyon = Winston Smith
Hopefully a happier ending.
MSNBC doesn’t ask to be paid.....
What to do you think the quid pro quo was when Comcast bought NBC/U from GE? That sale did have to get FCC approval, after all.
I heard this woman interviewed by Alex Jones last week and she sounded extremely credible, but didn’t link the accompanying article at the time since FR treats anything originating from Jones’ websites as fringe conspiracy theory stuff.
And the Left calls Fox News “Faux News,” another classic case of projection as ordered by Saul Alinsky in “Rules for Radicals.”
CNN is the Leftists’ “Controlled News Network.” It should be deleted from everyone’s cable and satellite access lists, and its sponsors should be notified that their money is being used to further propaganda from the Left.
This is really beyond belief...Nic Robertson about to report on the facts in Cairo and the report was squelched by CNN.
MSNBC doesnt ask to be paid..... that’s because Machdaddy is candy to their eyes....
Doesn’t anyone remember this?
Only it was Saddam directing CNN on what to report back then.
At my own personal risk can I ask the question - Is there any mention in reports from this source that the previous administration did the same thing or is it just the Obama adminsitration who are paying CNN for favorable comment?
Lara Logan is also speaking out about this as well. All of the reports I have seen on this is during the last two years. Though the religion of peace (pieces) crap spewed by the Bush Administration lays that as suspect as well as defined by “The Project”, a documentary produced by Beck.
From Amber’s interview, her ax to be ground is more of a journalistic ethics one, but Lara definitely is now feeling the hate from her awful experience, and rightfully so. Seems she was told to suck it up and take one for the team. She is pissed and I’m sure Beck’s people are reaching out to both of them.
Thanks for posting this.
Absolutely. Why pay MSNBC to do what its already doing. I would be like paying a dog to bark.
Answer the who, what, when, why, and how of this statement and you've got something. I imagine weekly meetings between WH staffers and CNN execs, a money trail between the WH and CNN, and the unraveling of the biggest scandal in government second only to the election of Obama. This subject is too hot for anyone in the LSM to go after. Time for the National Enquirer to go to work.
There are a couple of things to consider:
Having an Emmy means almost nothing. It certainly does not equate with honesty. So feel free to dismiss that.
Second, if payments were being made someone at the reporter level would never know about that. The business side of any media organization if far, far, removed from anyone on air. There is an inherent mistrust between the air folks and the “suits.”
Third: the on air folks have NO say about the stories that are aired.
While I want to believe this story...I have too much experience with being around the news business to believe this.
MSNBC was paid directly by the administration. Was a story a month or two back they were paid to run ObamaCare ads.
There’s also a post election plan to dump millions on Hollywood to run episodes of popular tv series to promote ObamaCare.
...”From Ambers interview, her ax to be ground is more of a journalistic ethics one, but Lara definitely is now feeling the hate from her awful experience, and rightfully so. Seems she was told to suck it up and take one for the team. She is pissed and Im sure Becks people are reaching out to both of them.”...
I am thinking we have come to a place where honest journalists are
beginning to take a stand. Their moral principles will not allow them to “look the other way” anymore. I imagine they have also been educated to recognize the patterns which precede dictatorship and war.
Ms Lyon says...
“CNN International is earning money from them, producing what might as well be called infomercials-for-dictators...”
If your business is that people pay to advertise on your media outlet, it becomes a fairly trivial matter to make all manner of payoffs and kickbacks appear perfectly legit. Lyndon Johnson had this figured out half a century ago with KLBJ.
Not to mention the more often talked about, “access in return for favorable treatment” quid pro quo.
This is a BIG DEAL!
This suppression is CRIMINAL!
Copy the Link and send it to KEY members of your e-mail list.
Make it clear that it is IMPORTANT and not spam!
Let them know that they only need watch the first 3 minutes of each of the 3 critical videos, to understand the depth of this manipulation.
I heard this woman interviewed by Alex Jones
—She was and check out her Facebook. She was also interviewed by RT and the Ahlul Bayt News Agency. She’s pretty pro-Iran and she also made some comments on her Facebook that make her appear anti-Semitic. She also made her own news and I think that is part of the reason CNN let her go—she is more activist than reporter.
I think all the CNN, FOX, ALL of them do some curbing of the news to suit this that and the other person/institution but this woman has an ax to grind. Investigate her before jumping all in with her story...
YOU.. ^@%@!%^#!&... and ..^%$@^$#&$@!!.... How could you.. %@@^#^.. not to mention..^@%^@!%^... because... &%#^@@^.. :)
Kind of like Fast and Furious.
F and F intended to attack 2nd amendment.
Youtube videos intended to attack 1st amendment.
The two rights most dangerous to a wanna be dictator.
Meanwhile, Obama congralulates Hugo Chavez.
I am reminded of that CNN reporter years ago that was reporting on the start of the Iraq War from Saddam Hussein’s headquarters. He did something outrageous but can’t remember now the particulars or the man’s name. He doesn’t work there anymore but he was hanging out with the human shields or something and gave away troop movements or something(not Geraldo and his stupidity). I will see if I can find it.
More than likely S. Hussein was paying CNN way back then too.
It was Peter Arnett:
Interview in Iraq
On assignment for NBC and National Geographic, Arnett went to Iraq in 2003 to cover the U.S. invasion. After a press meeting there he granted an interview to state-run Iraq TV on March 31, 2003, in which he stated:
Now America is reappraising the battlefield, delaying the war against Iraq, maybe a week and rewriting the war plan. The first plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another plan So our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments.
Peter Arnett 
When Arnett’s remarks sparked a “firestorm of protest”, NBC initially defended him, saying he had given the interview as a professional courtesy and that his remarks were “analytical in nature”. A day later, though, NBC, MSNBC and National Geographic all severed their relationships with Arnett.
In response to Arnett’s statement on Iraqi TV, the corporation stated:
It was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview with state-controlled Iraqi TV, especially at a time of war and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions.
My stupid misjudgment was to spend fifteen minutes in an impromptu interview with Iraqi television. I said in that interview essentially what we all know about the war, that there have been delays in implementing policy, there have been surprises.
Later that day, Arnett was hired by the British tabloid, The Daily Mirror, which had opposed the war. A couple of days later he was also assigned to Greek television channel NET television, and Belgian VTM.
Hope she’s armed and/or has someone protecting her.
It pays big money.
This young lady needs to be testifying today before congress. Any one know a direct contact information to send them the video should do so ASAP.
Posted Fri Aug 11, 2006 at 9:24 am PDT Views: 5,168
An LGF reader who worked for Associated Press TV News sent me the following article explaining how APTN works, and suggesting a reason why their coverage of the Middle East is so overwhelmingly biased against Israel:
How Much Does It Cost to Buy Global TV News?
The vast majority of the TV news pictures you see are produced by two TV news companies. Presented here is a case for how a large amount of money has been used to inject a clear bias into the heart of the global TV news gathering system. That this happens is not at question, whether it is by accident or design is harder to tell.
You may not realize it, but if you watch any TV news broadcast on any station anywhere in the world, there is a better than even chance you will view pictures from APTN. BBC, Fox, Sky, CNN and every major broadcaster subscribes to and uses APTN pictures. While the method by which they operate is interesting, it is the extra service this US owned and UK based company offers to Arab states that is really interesting.
About the Associated Press
The Associated Press (AP) is a not-for-profit news gathering and dissemination service based in the US.Formed in 1848, the AP grew up from an agreement between the six major New York newspapers of the day. They wanted to defray the large telegraphy costs that they were all independently incurring for sending the same news coast to coast. Despite being highly competitive, they formed the Associated Press as a collection agency and agreed to share the material. Today, that six-newspaper cooperative is an organization serving more than 1,500 newspapers and 5,000 broadcast outlets in the United States. Abroad, AP services are printed and broadcast in 112 countries.
Associated Press Television News
Associated Press Television News (APTN) is a wholly owned subsidiary of AP. It was formally set up as a separate entity in 1994. It is run as a commercial entity and aims to make a profit. Any profit it does make is fed back to AP (which is non-profit making: APTN profits reduce the newsgathering costs incurred by the 1500 US newspapers that collectively own the AP). APTN is the largest television news gathering player (larger than Reuters, its only true competitor in this field). While AP is based in the US, APTN operates out of large premises in Camden, London. They have news teams, offices and broadcast facilities in just about every important place in the world.
APTN uses news crews and broadcast facilities all over the world to record video of newsworthy events (in News, Sport and Entertainment). These pictures are either sent unedited or very partially edited back to London. Most news is fed back within hours but they also cover and feed certain events live (news conferences in Iraq, press conferences after a sporting event etc.). Most of these stories are sent in with natural sound: there is no journalist providing a voice over, but the choice of what to shoot is in the hands of the local producer and camera crew. Local crews are sometimes employed directly by APTN, or more often stringers are hired for a particular event or paid for the footage they have already captured.
Once the stories have been fed back to the UK they are edited. This is a round the clock operation. The goal is to produce a 30 minute news bulletin comprising 6 or 7 stories every few hours. These stories are made by editing down the raw rushes that come in from all over the world. This is done by a team of producers who work for the news editor. They dont supply a voice over but they do edit, discard and sequence pictures dictating the emphasis and direction of the story. They will accompany each story with a written description of each shot and the general reason this was a story. This is repeated for News, Sport & Entertainment with a geographical emphasis that shifts around the world as different markets wake and sleep. The output of this is called the Global News Wire (GNW).
The Business of TV News
This is how APTN makes its money: news organizations (mostly TV but not all) subscribe to APTN and pay an annual amount to both watch and then re-use the stories that are fed over the GNW. The stories are supplied with sound, but no journalist to do a voice over. Most commercial news stations (like the BBC, SKY, Fox or CNN) would take this feed, decide which pictures to use then re-edit it and supply an appropriate voice over for the story. The video comes with a written description of the shots and the events that occur in them.
The fee for this feed depends on the size of the receiving organization, their audience size and a negotiation with APTNs sales force. It is pretty much impossible, however, to operate a TV news organization without taking feeds from either APTN or Reuters or usually both. The agreement with APTN usually allows the receiving news channel unlimited use of the video for two weeks. If they want to re-show those pictures after that they have to separately license the pictures (which can cost anything from $100 to $10,000 per 30 seconds depending on the content).
A Separate Service for Arab States
However, there is another significant part of their business model that affects the rest of the business. While most of the world takes news pictures with minimal interpretation beyond editing, the Arab Gulf States have asked for and receive a different and far more expensive service. These states pay for a complete news report service including full editing and voice overs from known journalists. The news organizations in the Arab countries dont do anything (beyond verify that they are appropriate for local tastes) before broadcast.
What this means is that while there are around 50 people producing news pictures for the whole world working in Camden at any time, there are a further 50 Arabic speaking staff producing finished stories exclusively for the Arab states of the gulf. This has a tremendous effect on the whole feel of the building as these two teams feed pictures and people back and forth and sit in adjacent work areas. The slant of the stories required by the Gulf States has a definite effect on which footage is used and discarded. This affects both the Gulf newsroom and the main global newsroom.
This full service feed is much more expensive for the customers than the usual service, but it is also much higher margin for APTN. This is partly because there is great commonality in what they can send to most of the Gulf States taking this service: stories are made once and used in a number of countries.
Disproportionately Negative Coverage of Israel
Anything involving Israel is a favorite with Gulf Arab states for showing to their viewers. Could this be the reason why Israel receives such a disproportionate amount of particularly negative coverage especially and increasingly ever since the early 1970s? HonestReporting is usually unable to decide which is most biased: AP or BBC. As the BBC is often using APTN footage, the difference is minor. A significant twist to what is seen, concerns what is not seen. Footage such as the Palestinian mob joyfully lynching two Israeli reservists in Ramallah in October 2000 is held by APTNs library: any attempt to license this film for reshow is carefully vetted. Requests for the use of sensitive clips are referred directly to the Library director. This is not the case with clips that paint Israel in a bad light. Likewise, the re-showing of Palestinian celebrations on 9/11 is considered sensitive.
The way in which raw footage such as APTNs is compiled into a news report and sent round the world has also been analyzed. The Second Draft gives a comprehensive view of how editing can make all the difference. APTN is the gatekeeper that sits between you and the actual event. You will never see what the editors at APTN see before they compile your evening news. What do you think is cut out?
Was this organization set up with this in-built bias on purpose? Is there some way that the expensive payments made by Gulf state governments form part of a deliberate attempt to skew the media?
In Islam and Dhimmitude (2002) by Bat Yeor on p294-296 she recounts how decisions were taken in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 to try to put across an anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist message. Successive conferences resolved to contribute vast sums to universities, centers for Islamic studies, international communications agencies, and private and governmental organizations in order to win over world opinion. (p296).
The messages from these conferences stressed an addition to the more familiar violent jihad: they also emphasized the importance of jihad by the written and spoken wordwhat we would recognize as classic propaganda. Without question APTNs interesting business model represents a concrete example of an ongoing financial contribution to an important communication agency promoting a pro-Arab bias.
This has to be sent to Drudge, Hannity, Levin, Rush, Malkin et al. This is huge and must be exposed.