"The presence of a mainstream or corporate media is a necessary prerequisite for any terrorist attack that is intended to have national or international impact. This holds especially true when the terrorist attack is in fact a false flag operation."

Updated [30-03-07]

Terrorism and the MSM

Article written by Gatecreepers.

The presence of a mainstream or corporate media is a necessary prerequisite for any terrorist attack that is intended to have national or international impact. This holds especially true when the terrorist attack is in fact a false flag operation.

A basic false flag operation is a staged event which is carried out by one party who are disguised as another party. This other party is intended to take the blame. Regardless of whether an attack is false flag or not, the attackers are terrorists.

The mainstream media is the terrorist's medium of choice for spreading fear and panic, and it is unlikely that terrorists would launch their attacks if this medium did not exist, nor if the news reports were formatted in a way that removed the emotional impact the terrorists desired.

However this brings up another issue: censorship. Opponents of censorship worry that if the mainstream media can censor or modify a story 'for the greater good', then that precedent can be used to justify other cover ups.

The proponents of censorship say that the terrorists will learn quickly that their attacks will not be broadcast, and so the mainstream media will not be their tool - thus reducing the chance of future attacks significantly.

An interesting topic for debate is whether terrorists intend for their attacks to alter the behaviour of an entire population, including it's government, or solely to affect the workings of the government, because the general population is not easily manipulated by intimidation. The latter choice indicates that that government behaves noticably differently to it's people, possibly in an opportunistic or corrupt fashion, and that the terrorists wish to manipulate this. In these cases the government is doubly to blame, firstly for attracting terrorism and secondly for attacking the freedoms of the people they supposedly serve.

The mainstream media is also often at fault when discussing the motives of terrorists. Terrorists in recent years have been depicted in the mainstream media as envious of the freedoms supposedly enjoyed in the western world, and that they wished to attack the west in order to destroy this way of life.

This motive indicates that the terrorists wished to manipulate the governments into attacking their own people's freedoms - suggesting that the governments' attitudes and responses were predictable and desirable to the terrorists. The media does not follow this thread of inquiry.

The mainstream media also discusses far less the idea that foreign policy, and the activities of certain industries were the true source of aggravation. Indeed, foreign policy and it's related industries are rarely if ever available for public scrutiny, which is hardly surprising given that these same industries can exert heavy influence upon the corporate media.

If we take the view that the media is less than honest, and under industry and government influence, then it is clear these attacks can be exploited politically and economically, with the mainstream media functioning as a propaganda outlet which magnifies the threat from terrorists, in order to justify expensive war, or security measures. Here, the media aids the terrorists, the industries and the government - which may really be one entity.

The idea that terrorist attacks may in fact have been false flag operations is given fleeting coverage, and usually only when it is to be sneered at. This is more likely to be calculated avoidance of debate, rather than ignorance, as this idea in particular threatens the status quo.

Most curious of all, the mainstream media avoids any discussion of their own role in the spread of information that benefits terrorists or oppressive governments, and yet they air stories which accuse various other parties of minor acts that 'aid' terrorism, such as anti-war protests.

The October Crisis, as explained in an essay dedicated to the topic, illustrates how the media plays a crucial role in hyping crises. Marc Chatelle wrote during the crisis that the media creates the events, and that if television, radio and the print media had remained silent during the Crisis, the FLQ would not have been such a urgent problem as far as the population was concerned. Pierre Vallières, a former member of the FLQ, accused the media of helping the agenda of the authorities by escalating the crisis with sensationalism and public agitation.

The October Crisis showed that media propaganda could turn even the smallest groups into national threats to justify state repression. For example, The Gazette compared the FLQ to Algerian resistance group OAS, which at one point carried out 100 bombimgs per day, killed hundreds of people, had thousands of members, and a clear chain of command. By contrast, the FLQ turned out to have had a total of only 35 members, lacked a chain of command, and its actions resulted in the death of only one person, Minister of Labour Pierre Laporte.

Copyright Gatecreepers.com. This material may be reproduced and distributed as long as a link to the original article is included.