This is partly from another thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=304458&page=6
That was p. 6.
Below includes excerpts from p. 7. of same thread.
(I had mentioned to Nick Terry)
I think it reasonable to say the fourth estate downplayed or ignored or failed to report the significance of years of secretive meetings of world leaders and powerbrokers, in that period before Bilderberg was outed online.
IMO they were outed from their relative obscurity, perhaps prior to Alex Jones getting in on it. Who was first, Daniel Estulin maybe?
Nonetheless, rather than using the term 'outed', a calendar marker will suffice. I will use the early part of the calendar period in your search results. Say 1954-1969 for discussion. There it is obvious that major media owners/directors were well aware that current /former heads of state, govt officials in and out of office, CEOs, other leaders and powerbrokers etc were secretively meeting annually for years.
Thank you.
Apparently so. I am sure all will appreciate your providing those facts.
Did your search (thank you) results turn up any media owners/directors reporting other than that, such as journalistic curiosity 1954-1969, regarding years of annual secretive meetings of heads of state, govt officials in and out of office, CEOs and other powerbrokers etc?
Hilited results seem to indicate the media directors published seventeen mentions in 15 yrs, during 1954-1969.
That is roughly one mention by media directors/owners per year reporting on secretive meetings during the era of McCarthy, Philbin, red scares, cold war reports, and media directors winking at womanizing by JFK and who knows whatever else they did not question or report or investigate.
IIRC correctly that was the period my google searches found only about 4, articles on Bilderberg Group. They were all silly hush-hush fluff pieces.
The tenor of the fluff indicated the writers knew there was some reason not to ask serious questions about world leaders holding annual secret discussions. IMO that indicates the writers knew media directors were not printing serious questions for some reason. Then the fluff pieces stopped appearing, in mid 60s, IIRC. Otherwise we presumably have only the 17 items Nick Terry found.
Doesnt seem like much real journalism happened there.
So....no media owners printed inquisitive editorials in that period 1954-1969, such as;
* to inform public re world leaders in industry, govt, media etc in annual secretive meetings?
* due journalistic curiosity, investigative journalism?
* fourth estate owners/directors, doing their watchdog job since world leaders meeting discussions are secret?
It seems surprising to me that some people apparently do not see anything questionable in the apparent absence of media owners/directors journalistic curiosity in that period 1954-1965 where media owners obviously knew world leaders were conducting secret discussions.
How much serious media directors journalistic inquiry into Bilderberg's annual secretive discussions actually appeared, 1954-1969 ?
(other than the hush hush pieces of course).
If I were a secretive Bilderberger, I would have been grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have all along been very well aware of our secretive meetings and apparently did not print many or any questions about our secret talks during those 15 years.
.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=304458&page=6
That was p. 6.
Below includes excerpts from p. 7. of same thread.
(I had mentioned to Nick Terry)
I think it reasonable to say the fourth estate downplayed or ignored or failed to report the significance of years of secretive meetings of world leaders and powerbrokers, in that period before Bilderberg was outed online.
Quote:
|
by N Terry: The assertion is meaningless because Bilderberg was never 'outed' online. Decades before Alex Jones and other retards started caterwauling about Bilderberg, . |
IMO they were outed from their relative obscurity, perhaps prior to Alex Jones getting in on it. Who was first, Daniel Estulin maybe?
Nonetheless, rather than using the term 'outed', a calendar marker will suffice. I will use the early part of the calendar period in your search results. Say 1954-1969 for discussion. There it is obvious that major media owners/directors were well aware that current /former heads of state, govt officials in and out of office, CEOs, other leaders and powerbrokers etc were secretively meeting annually for years.
Quote:
|
...the press has noted that Bilderberg conferences took place, and were able to identify participants |
Thank you.
Quote:
|
...We are agreed: the media does not spend much time covering Bilderberg. But it has mentioned that the conferences are taking place and identified attendees. |
Apparently so. I am sure all will appreciate your providing those facts.
Did your search (thank you) results turn up any media owners/directors reporting other than that, such as journalistic curiosity 1954-1969, regarding years of annual secretive meetings of heads of state, govt officials in and out of office, CEOs and other powerbrokers etc?
Quote:
|
by N Terrry: Moreover, a quick search of ProQuest newspapers available via my university library including the New York Times, Guardian/Observer, Irish Times shows the following pattern of reports mentioning Bilderberg 1950s - 5 1960s - 12 1970s - 30 1980s - 46 1990s - 33 2000s - 45 (this will be incomplete for some papers) 2010s - 23 (again, incomplete) |
Hilited results seem to indicate the media directors published seventeen mentions in 15 yrs, during 1954-1969.
That is roughly one mention by media directors/owners per year reporting on secretive meetings during the era of McCarthy, Philbin, red scares, cold war reports, and media directors winking at womanizing by JFK and who knows whatever else they did not question or report or investigate.
IIRC correctly that was the period my google searches found only about 4, articles on Bilderberg Group. They were all silly hush-hush fluff pieces.
The tenor of the fluff indicated the writers knew there was some reason not to ask serious questions about world leaders holding annual secret discussions. IMO that indicates the writers knew media directors were not printing serious questions for some reason. Then the fluff pieces stopped appearing, in mid 60s, IIRC. Otherwise we presumably have only the 17 items Nick Terry found.
Doesnt seem like much real journalism happened there.
Quote:
|
The NYT shows a dip of coverage in the 1980s but ran evidently an annual in-brief notice in the 1970s and again in the 1990s. Yet other papers clearly took up the same pattern of running a brief annual notice saying who might be attending. Since the meetings are closed that is all a newspaper can do; papers report news first and foremost, speculation is worthless without a source on at least 'background'. |
So....no media owners printed inquisitive editorials in that period 1954-1969, such as;
* to inform public re world leaders in industry, govt, media etc in annual secretive meetings?
* due journalistic curiosity, investigative journalism?
* fourth estate owners/directors, doing their watchdog job since world leaders meeting discussions are secret?
It seems surprising to me that some people apparently do not see anything questionable in the apparent absence of media owners/directors journalistic curiosity in that period 1954-1965 where media owners obviously knew world leaders were conducting secret discussions.
How much serious media directors journalistic inquiry into Bilderberg's annual secretive discussions actually appeared, 1954-1969 ?
(other than the hush hush pieces of course).
If I were a secretive Bilderberger, I would have been grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have all along been very well aware of our secretive meetings and apparently did not print many or any questions about our secret talks during those 15 years.
.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1RZNdeO
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire