Dissecting the US Mainstream Media

Those of you who’ve been following my case, and those familiar with my previous writings and speeches, surely have a pretty good idea as to how I view the MSM. As a reminder here are a few excerpts from my latest piece:

But the story is almost dead - ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media’s insistence on burying ‘real’ issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation’s continuous downward slide.

The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media are known universally and seem to have been accepted as a fact of life.

For me, the importance and impact of the current state of our mainstream media go beyond my own personal take or direct experience. This happens to be a central issue for our organization, NSWBC, and its 150+ whistleblower members. We have yet to announce it (call it a dreaded un-pleasantry if you will), but our organization has suspended all its congressional activities. We did so in spring 2007, a few months after the new majority took over. So what have we been doing, advocating? In a nutshell, we’ve been advising those who may be in the process of disclosure, to do so, if they can, anonymously, and directly, by making the criminal and or wrongdoing cases and the supporting documents/sources public. As many of you already know, case after case, filing with IG offices, and briefing the appropriate congressional committees, has proven to be futile. In fact, considering all the latest on the true-workings of our ‘real’ congress, approaching them with whistleblower cases involving law enforcement and intelligence agencies would be a true mockery…

Okay, back to the media. How does the media fit into this? Well, we, the NSWBC, are in the position where we are asked to provide guidance to potential and current whistleblowers on ‘who’ or ‘where’ to go to disclose. Based on my experience and knowledge of ‘who-is-who’ in the MSM sector, based on cumulative direct experiences of our current members, and based on advice by a few trusted experts in this sector, to say we have a very short list would be an understatement. Let me put it this way: we provide them with a fairly extensive list of ‘No-No’ people in the MSM 😉

I know many of you want to stop me right here and say, ‘but there’s the internet! There are these fairly visible alternative news sources and forums on the net they should go and offer the info to…’ I will get to that and address the pros and cons of it later. But the majority of whistleblowers or those in the process of decision making on disclosure are weary and skeptical of the blogosphere landscape. Again, let’s keep that thought, since we’ll be discussing it soon.

In the next few days I’ll be posting a series of either 4 or 5 pieces on the MSM, examining brief important historical facts and cases, current relevant cases, and of course adding my own un-bashful comments. Most importantly, I am hoping to get your input via your comments, whether by additional links to relevant information, or your own view and theories - I would love to hear them all.

It’s impossible to pinpoint the current sorry state of the MSM to one or two factors, since, at least to me, it seems to be caused by several factors, but here are the usual theories we hear out there on the mainstream media’s current state:

1. Government Agents: CIA-Media reporting as seen in Operation Mockingbird, or embedded Pentagon pawns like Judith Miller, or Hoover style censorship of the MSM.

2. Lazy Journalism on the Cheap: The publications no longer pay for, budget for, real ‘investigative journalism,’ thus, you get your typical stenographers who make their one or two calls to their ‘usual sources’ right from their desks, and write as dictated.

3. Government Pressure, Harassment, and even Blackmail: Cases like James Risen (NY Times) and Bill Conroy (an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal) are good examples.

4. Self-Censorship: Based on this theory, with just a little massaging patriotism kicks in with many of these so-called journalists (whether it’s the Cold War, or, the Post 9/11 war on terror), and that does the job for the government propagandists.

5. Americans Want Entertainment not Real News: Some suggest that after commute-work-commute-kids & household chores, basically, exhausted with day-to-day work, hassles, stress, and pressure, people don’t want serious and grim realities. They want to tune in to Brittney’s latest panties, or Brangelina’s latest baby conquest.

6. Corporate Owned Media: Powerful Corporations are becoming a major influence, and ownership concentrated as a result of mega mergers…

7. Combination of some or all of the above

8. None of the Above

I am sure I have missed some other equally important theories/hypothesis, so at this point I am turning this discussion over to you. Which explanation, or call it a theory if you like, do you subscribe to? Why? Here is what I’d like us to do. I will be covering the theories in the 4 or 5 part upcoming series, but before the detailed coverage, on this post I’d like to ask for your preliminary input: Please take a look at them, give each some thought, and let me know which one(s) you subscribe to, and why? If your stand is #8, then provide us with your own view not listed and enlighten us as to why.
It will be interesting to have this done again, after the upcoming series, after we discuss and debate each theory/angle, and see whether we have narrowed or expanded our diagnosis of this diseased fourth branch.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. Love you Sibel.

  2. arealjeffersonian says:

    I agree with all the theories, with different degrees of importance, and can think of others:
    a)That we seem to want our news ‘for free’ – so it is becoming increasingly difficult for organizations to fund real investigative reporting. And the internet just makes this worse. Are we ready to pay a reasonable subscription to some organization that will invest in true investigative reporting? Unless and until we are, I don’t see how its going to happen.

    b) That we do not and have not taught our children (by example – what we watch, what we read) the value of independent, honest news reporting.

    I could come up with more, but I don’t want to hog your blog.

  3. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Jeffersonian: Good points. For a- I think I have that under 'Journalism on the Cheap.' I will definitely cover it in the series. But you are right, that's also one of the major obs.for some solid independent journalists. Who's going to pay for their travel & expanses to thoroughly cover a case?

    b- That's right. The % of real news readers in our nation-very very low.

    Finally, don't worry about the space; keep them coming;-)

    Jon, Welcome to my new world.

  4. Palo Verde says:

    Hi Sibel
    I am overjoyed you started this blog
    How timely
    The right thing at the right time
    I am glad you started with our corrupt MSM
    It is unimaginable the patience and fortitude it takes to put up with them, without seeing red all the time
    I have been lied to my face by them for past 11 years
    Plus they ignored all your earth-shaking revelations
    They are not a free press, they are a special interest group serving special interests
    During this past election period, they ignored Ron Paul’s candidacy totally
    And Sarah Palin, a whistle-blower, and honest courageous servant of the people, not server of special interests
    they went all out to destroy
    The MSM is determined to keep truth from citizens (witness their black-out on your revelations)
    and prevent honest people from being in our government
    (ignored Ron Paul, ridiculed Dennis Kucinich, campaign of destruction against Sarah Palin)
    But truth cannot be destroyed, it cannot even be totally hidden
    Those who want to see it, will
    Thank you Sibel for your faithful, consistent, persistent, passion for truth
    You have been a light in the darkness
    Love, Palo

  5. Palo Verde says:

    (Jon) Love you Sibel.Hi Jon
    What a perfect first post on Sibel’s blog
    She has done so much for us, she has earned our love and trust
    I am delighted to be here with you
    Love, Palo

  6. Palo Verde says:

    Hi Sibel
    I have spent the morning disseminating the news of your blog on forums, etc
    Plus copying your latest piece on forums for posters to read
    You ask for thoughtful reading of today’s blog by you, and thoughtful response
    I want to do exactly that, it will be my joy and privilege
    There is nothing I love more than putting heads together to arrive at truth
    But I will have to come back to it, when my mind and energy is fresh
    i am looking forward to it
    Love, Palo

  7. Anonymous says:

    The answer is 7, because everything you list is indeed going on and having a deleterious effect on the ability of the public to become informed.

    We must not make the mistake, however, of looking for answers under the assumption that the mainstream and other media simply make up reality–the truth is more dynamic. To begin with, “the media” include news, movies, comic books, elementary school textbooks, and any other vehicle for knowledge or information (true or untrue as it may be.) These particular examples can be said to be among those that are strongly “top-down” when compared with, say, the blogosphere (which can also be influenced from the top down but not quite as effectively.)

    Aside from the structural constraints that define the reach and role of various media, we must also take into account the nature of the actual content that these media transmit, and how much control any given top-down media mechanism has over the nature of that content.

    Even top-down media have to take into account public attitudes that they cannot fully control, so that feedback (in the form of opinion polling, for example) can act as a (very mild) check on what top down media can get away with.

    By making such feedback not only nearly instantaneous but also increasingly public, the internet has proven to be to some extent corrosive to the effectiveness of top-down media in regulating public opinion, but not entirely. A new problem of this age for example is “astroturf” or the masquerading by top-down opinion makers as members of a decentralized grassroots.

    What I mean to say by distinguishing between the structure and the content of media is that those who would reform the media structure itself can only do so by also beginning to seed and fertilize the otherwise intellectually and creatively barren content with memes that will, by becoming a part of the public consciousness that the top-down media must take into account to remain credible, help to accelrate the structural changes that are desired.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Great to see you in the blogosphere, Sibel. The next best place to see you would be on TV in front of a Congressional committee spilling the beans about 9/11. For now, the blogosphere must do.

    You called Judith Miller an “embedded Pentagon pawn.” Using the word “pawn” suggests to me that you think she was used by the Pentagon. Care to elaborate?

    I don’t think she was used. I think she did exactly what the neocon faction wanted her to do, and what she was aware she was doing.

  9. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Palo Verde: Welcome, and thank you for your kind words, and your faith in me.

    The next Anonymous who voted #7: That’s exactly where I stand. I will elaborate on this in my next few posts on this same topic. Also, thank you for very nicely articulated in depth analysis. You are absolutely correct: many try to simplify this problem: it is the corporate, it is this, it is that…

    Next Anonymous on Judith Miller: Absolutely. She was NOT used. My next piece will expand upon this, and make certain parallels with cases like ‘Operation Mockingbird.’ More on that very very soon. And,thank you:-)

  10. David Jenkins says:

    Glad to hear from you and see that you’re blogging. I’ve been out of the loop for a time and look forward to catching up on things here and I can’t think of a finer target than the MSM.

  11. Palo Verde says:

    OK Sibel I have now had a chance to read your article/blog entry
    I go with this explanation you give:
    6. Corporate Owned Media: Powerful Corporations are becoming a major influence, and ownership concentrated as a result of mega mergers…

    The media is now owned by major corporations, they do not want to rock the boat.

    The original function of a free press was to report on abuses of power by those in power. But the owners of the media corporations now may very well be in bed with those in power. They will not report abuse of power, in fact will cover it up.

    Also the true function of a journalist is to penetrate to the truth. Either our present crop of journalists are corrupt and lazy, stupid, or afraid to expose the truth. But there again, it’s possible they are doing what their employers want.

    I sent all your articles to Matt Drudge and he never once linked to any of it. At one time it seemed like Matt Drudge began off as a courageous muckraker, but that time is past.

    I don’t think it is sensible at this point to count on the MSM for anything. We have internet now, they are no longer the gatekeeper to information.

    Love, Palo

  12. Palo Verde says:

    Hi Sibel
    I posted the news about your new blog, plus this blog entry of yours Dissecting the US Mainstream Media on Liberty Post, a news and political site.
    To my delight one of the posters on that forum just posted this under your blog entry there:

    Sibel Edmonds rocks!If more people were as gutsy, informed, and willing to do the right thing, there would be little wrong with our government today.

    I pray that this fine lady will remain safe from harm and wrong doing. She has surely picked a big fight.

    GingisK posted on 2009-05-12 16:12:12 ET

  13. Palo Verde says:

    Hi Sibel
    You asked for suggestions on blogging.
    My suggestion is you choose font and size which is larger than the one you are using to write your blogs.
    Your blogs are written from clear thought, you want them to be easy to read.
    Love, Palo

  14. Sibel Edmonds says:

    David: Thank you. The next 4-5 pieces on MSM will keep us all busy;-)

    Palo: Good Point on font size, thank you. I just changed it (from ‘small’ to ‘Normal.’

  15. arealjeffersonian says:

    To Anonymous who picked answer 7:
    I’m not sure I fully understand the point you are making. First, I believe Sibel is addressing issues in the “mainstream media” here, not the other media venues you list. Then, I’m confused by your closing paragraph – are you making a case for the Blogoshpere to replace the tradional MSM (TV, Newspapers, Radio)?

  16. Mizgîn says:

    Well, it’s about time, Sibel 😉

    I think more and more people are becoming aware that there is a serious problem with the media. I came across this today and thought that one paragraph in particular fits with what you have written in this post. Here it is:

    Memo to my remaining daily print colleagues and their nostalgia club: Get over it and get over yourselves. It’s not that the Internet is Mr. Wonderful. Much of it mimics the same bad qualities that drove the public away from daily newspapers. You lost the public to us because – there’s no nice or sugar-coated way to say it – you guys really suck at what you do. In your arrogance, you established calcified “rules” of “journalism” and false “objectivity” that neutered and spayed all of your reporters, domesticated so they would never again afflict the comfortable or comfort the afflicted. When you took the honest advocacy out of reporting you emptied it of all passion and reason to exist. It was a nice ride on your profit ledger sheet during the recent decades when you turned your rags into propaganda arms for the wealthy and powerful, but a funny thing happened on the way to the ATM machine: You lost the trust of your readers, half of whom have already given you the finger and pursued alternate routes to inform themselves of current events. And the rest are on the way through the same EXIT sign.All that business about not afflicting the comfortable and not comforting the afflicted, and becoming propaganda arms for the wealthy and powerful, pretty much hits the nail right on the head and fits with a number of the points you bring up.

  17. Chad Slack says:

    Hi Sibel. I think the most important factor is media ownership. Ed Schultz is a bit of a hawk on this particular issue on his radio show and now that he’s at MSNBC, maybe you should consider contacting him.

  18. Thanks for your consistent action for disclosure, truth and justice, and for starting a blog, Sibel- will be following this as I’ve been following your case for a few years.

    I agree with 7, as all of it; and I’d add to “self-censorship” Palo Verde’s point; “The media is now owned by major corporations, they do not want to rock the boat.” This is the mentality many reporters and journalists have as well. Many honest journalists have commented on this; it’s not just Dan Rather’s “flaming tire of lack of patriotism” analogy; it’s understood, even without saying, if they want to advance in the corporate media-ruled world, they better not rock the established order too much, and some corruption is too big and deep to acknowledge existing. The information you’ve made public over the years is a classic example; according to US history books and corporate media- no matter how well-documented the evidence, no matter how many reliable sources it’s corroborated by- our public officials and the powerful people behind them simply are not involved in terrorist attacks, trafficking in drugs, arms and nuclear secrets, and laundering money for same; that’s a “conspiracy theory”, and anyone pursuing lines of questioning related to uncovering evidence is a “conspiracy theorist”, i.e. not credible.

    In your case, Grassley already went on 60 Minutes in 2002, called you “very credible” and said the FBI “needs to be turned upside down”. Ashcroft was so disturbed by what you knew and were doing that he even classified your date of birth. The DOJ IG confirmed many of your allegations and said further investigation should be done. Waxman promised hearings. The SCOTUS refused to hear your case, despite the major free speech implications and the numerous mainstream media and public interest institutions signing Amicus Briefs. Isn’t Walton still sitting on your termination case? And in 2008, no broadcaster would take you up on your offer of a tell-all exclusive. All this is a story in itself. That you first pursued all avenues according to the way truth and justice are supposed to be established (in our society) adds to your credibility, and has helped document the abject failure of the system to establish these things.

    Where to next? How to reform the system? #5 is a significant part of the equation, but polling for decades has shown that a supermajority of Americans would like an alternative to the fake 2 party system- but no viable one has yet presented itself, and the People are kept divided, distracted and occupied by entertainment and the pressures of the rat race. Still, Americans want change, turned out for Obama in massive numbers, and many more are waking up due to Obama repeatedly serving corporate/establishment elite interests at the expense of the public interest, in his first 100 days.

    So what about the internet? I’m looking forward to your comments on this; I’m sure you’ve considered releasing a video to the web of what you would’ve said, had the networks taken you up on your offer. Would TV ultimately make the impact greater, than if you released it on the web? It would be instantly reposted all over the world, and the People have the potential to make into one of those issues the corpse media can’t ignore. Certainly, foreign media will report it. And would Obama’s DOJ dare prosecute you for revealing “state secrets”, which are actually monstrous crimes, including treason?

    Polls show that, while TV is still the info source for the vast majority, this is declining and use of the internet for getting info on political issues is increasing rapidly- and distrust of the corporate media increases in proportion to internet use. Two promises I think Obama is likely to keep, are keeping Net Neutrality, and expanding broadband access.

    PS. You’ve done an amazing job of getting info out, without violating your gag order; naming names in pictures was priceless. I wonder, how much more is there to the story, that you haven’t already managed to make public? Names and details, certainly. But any career-sinking, Establishment-destroying bombshells? What has already come out seems enough to justify a revolution at the polls, and criminal investigations or a truth and reconciliation commission- but independents and third parties had one of the worst showings in 2008- I suppose shell-shock of 8 years of Bush, and an increasing awareness that election results in both his elections were not reliable or credible, had something to do with massive numbers of people voting for the ‘lesser evil’ of ‘change’, instead of voting their conscience. Anyway, I want to hear the whole story, and the world needs to hear it, it needs to be part of the public record for this and future generations.

    PPS- this is an article I gave as an informative speech for a college class, then adapted for posting online:

    Sibel Edmonds vs. the Nuclear Terrorists

  19. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Mizgin: I really liked the piece. Thank you for the link. I am forwarding it to everyone I know.

    Erik: We’ll cover that issue is well (My list of ‘to-cover’ items is growing fast!! But also think about this: so many horrible facts/scandals have come out in the last few years: torture, extraordinary rendition, NSA…Harman…Are people getting immune or something? All we see: temporary outrage, then, move on to the next scandal/fiasco…No action. Blogging is a good start, but without actual action, without having a course of action, it accomplishes zilch.

    Chad: I believe I’ve been on his show, maybe several times, a long time ago (long time for me!). We’ll see how he’ll do; usually, people get,aaahhhh, ‘milder’ and more conventional once they enter the MSM, and kinda forget how they became popular ‘n the first place. But thank you for your comment-keep them coming:-)

  20. Spinoza says:

    to arealjeffersonian:

    Media, the plural of medium meaning the method by which information is transmitted, but most commonly referring specifically to technologies like print, broadcast, etc. is a concept that is bigger than just newspapers and TV. My point was twofold–1) that in terms of consciousness creation the news media are but one part of a complex landscape including many other venues and 2) that we need to concern ourselves not just with the structural constraints of media and those who control access to them but also with the actual thoughts and ideas being transmitted. Understanding one and not the other impairs our ability to effect change.

    Another way to look at it is that both the media and its content are at the same time as much tools of change as they are the objects of our change. We can’t change what people think without changing the structure of global media, but we can’t change the structure of global media without changing what people think. Global consciousness (and individual consciousness) is a feedback loop where stuff goes in and stuff comes out which has an effect on what stuff comes in in the next round.

    I’m sorry if some of this strikes anyone as claptrap, but I’ll confess that I have for years had an academic interest in culture and media from both a sociological and technological perspective so that I can be a stickler for things like defining terms and laying out as clearly as possible the nature of a problem to be studied… 🙂

    p.s. I posted my first comment as anonymous but henceforth will post as “Spinoza”…

  21. That was me Sibel in case you didn’t know…

    Jon Gold.

  22. Anonymous says:


  23. Spinoza says:

    Robert Kane Pappas’ documentary Orwell Rolls in His Grave is a great intro into many of these issues… http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4467655342219448521

  24. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Spinoza: Thank you for the link. I’ll check it out tonight, with better connection/speed.
    Also, I like Spinoza much better than Anon! It makes it much easier to respond to.

    Last Anon: Good. Hope you’ll be a regular and join the discussion…

    Jon, hi, I didn’t know.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Awesome, thank you so much for doing this.
    Already an outstanding blog.

  26. arealjeffersonian says:

    Mizgin, good post, and I checked out the link you provided.

    I think this blog is going to be dynamite – already is. I’m sending links to all the interested parties I know and I’m sure that those who come here and see whats being done by Sibel and those who are participating in the commentaries will do likewise.

    Power to the people.

  27. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Jeffersonian- and thank you. The first 24 hours brought us nearly 1000 unique visitors! I cannot believe this…

  28. Links to surveys and public opinion polls on media and internet:

    Harris Poll #4. “Fewer Americans Than Europeans Have Trust in the Media – Press, Radio and TV: But more Americans than Europeans trust religious institutions”. Harris Interactive. January 13, 2005.
    (It’s also true that a greater % of Americans who distrust the media, do so because they perceive a “liberal” bias)

    Harris Poll #24. “Over Half of Americans Say They Tend Not to Trust the Press”. Harris Interactive. March 6, 2008.
    “Looking at the press in general, over half (54%) of Americans say they tend not to trust them, with only 30 percent tending to trust the press. Just under half (46%) of Americans say they do not trust television, while one-third (36%) do trust them. Somewhat surprisingly, Internet news and information sites do slightly better as a plurality of Americans (41%) trust them while just one-third (34%) tend not to trust them. And, radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it and one-third (32%) tend not to trust radio.”

    Kurzweil, Ray. “A quarter of planet to be online by 2012, and able to understand each's other's language”. KurzweilAI.net. July 21, 2008.

    Pew Research Poll. “Internet Now Major Source of Campaign News”. Pew Research Center Publications. October 31, 2008.
    “Many more Americans are turning to the internet for campaign news this year as the web becomes a key source of election news. Television remains the dominant source, but the percent who say they get most of their campaign news from the internet has tripled since October 2004 (from 10% then to 33% now).”

    Pew Research Center for the People & the Press “Internet News Audience Highly Critical of News Organizations – Views of Press Values and Performance: 1985-2007” August 9, 2007.
    “People who rely on the internet as their main news source express relatively unfavorable opinions of mainstream news sources and are among the most critical of press performance. As many as 38% of those who rely mostly on the internet for news say they have an unfavorable opinion of cable news networks such as CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, compared with 25% of the public overall, and just 17% of television news viewers.”

    Sacred Heart University Poll. “AMERICANS SLAM NEWS MEDIA ON BELIEVABILITY”. Jan 8, 2008.
    “just 19.6% of those surveyed could say they believe all or most news media reporting. This is down from 27.4% in 2003.” It also states, “The perception is growing among Americans that the news media attempts to influence public opinion – from 79.3% strongly or somewhat agreeing in 2003 to 87.6% in 2007.” Dr. James Castonguay, said about the poll results; "The fact that an astonishing percentage of Americans see biases and partisanship in their mainstream news sources suggests an active and critical consumer of information in the U.S. The availability of alternative viewpoints and news sources through the Internet no doubt contributes to the increased skepticism about the objectivity of profit-driven news outlets owned by large conglomerates.”

  29. Anonymous says:



    Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert in the record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains their activity in this war matter, just discussed by the gentleman from >Pennsylvania, [Mr. Moore]:

    "In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States.
    "These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 170 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest newspapers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interest of the purchasers.
    "This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness argument and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.
    "This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the national congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under the false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is >that it is "patriotism." They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people."

    J.P. Morgan was one of the men who erected the "Federal" "Reserve", the Rothschild central bank in the U.S.

    In other words, the men who built the Federal Reserve, then printed the money to take over, generally, the "free press" in the U.S., and that's exactly what they did. They've only consolidated their power down through the years, and later took over most of the radio and T.V. stations too. And you see all those mediums being controlled by fewer and fewer hands.

    It's all – ALL a con game, Sibel.

    Stop being a sucker.

    The evidence is that you've now resorted to a blog, because those same "media" outlets are ignoring you and your story.

    Welcome to the resistance Sibel.

    What took you so long?

    And Sibel, they WILL have you killed, that is to say, they CAN have you killed. I can only surmise that the reason you're still alive is that you have something they don't want to get out and you've left instructions that if you end up dead, this information is to be given to so and so.

    And if you haven't made some sort of contingency in case you do end up "suicided", I highly suggest you do so.

    I don't mean to scare you Sibel, but lets face it, you're a grown woman and you're neck deep in a very dangerous game with people who have no aversion to murder, even mass murder and torture.

    I would tell you to ask John F. Kennedy, but you can't.

    It really would truly be sad if you fell victim to them, and I can only pray to God that He sends his holy angels to guard you.

    As long as the average American remains in the dark, and largely out of the process (by voting ie electronic manipulation, and by duopoly controll by the Democrats and Republicans of the body politic) and by non resistance (ie no revolution) everything these plutocrats have planned for the world will proceed according to plan.

    And Sibel, there's nothing you can do to stop them.

    Not a single thing.

  30. Anonymous says:

    the sleep of reason rarely gives birth to such monsters as emerge from whatever skull or jekyll island, {and hide behind the likes of the congressional entry you’ve cited here} . . . will and intellect being one and the same, only fully mindful malice aforethought can account for what teratoid taxonomy now metastasizes around us

    when it comes to organized crime, never underestimate just being organized: nor the insanely rigorous Reason around it


  31. Anonymous says:

    We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. — David Rockefeller, Trilateral Commission meeting, June 1991.

  32. Anonymous says:

    This is how they do it….

    The CFR is the American counterpart to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, both of which are susidiaries of the Round Table Group, which was formed by Cecil Rhodes.

    You can read about the Round Table Groups here: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Elite.htm

    Another website which is VERY informative is the Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions. It recently changed its name and is now known as the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics.


  33. Anonymous says:

    Sibel, can anyone deny that the outright “Blacklisting” of you by the Government and the Media is a conspiracy against you?

  34. Sibel Edmonds says:

    I hope we get to see more nick names, pseudo names, screen names.Because I am going to sound a bit confusing below:

    Last Anon.: I don’t consider it ‘against’ me; these are efforts (successful, indeed!) to quash certain ‘information’/facts.

    Anon with Rockefeller quote: Nice find! Ironic and sadly funny, right?

    Re: distinguishing between ‘anon.s’, you see what I mean. I wish the site would at least number these comments, that way I’d use numbers to identify…

  35. eric zaetsch says:

    For what it’s worth, news of this blog reached me not by mainstream recognition, but from here:


    I cannot say how I came upon that site, other than by accident while looking for something else, or by a google item, thirty links down from the lead items.

  36. {quote}Last Anon.: I don’t consider it ‘against’ me; these are efforts (successful, indeed!) to quash certain ‘information’/facts.

    Siebel, it’s YOU that has the information and facts, and its YOU they want to silence because OF the information and facts you have. Therefore, since it is a conspiracy to coverup and silence the information and facts YOU have, then by extension, it is a conspiracy against YOU because of the information and facts you have in your possession.

    What year were you born, Siebel? I don’t ask you that to be disrespectful of the ettiquet of asking a woman her age, but rather to make you think and see things as they are.

    You can’t legally tell me how old you are Siebel.

    But, judging from your recent photos, I’ll give you a compliment – you are weathering quite well, and I do know how old you are already, so no need to even think about “breaking the law” and divulging that classified information.

    Sibel, did you know that Skull and Bones got its start from the Opium Trade? Tiawan became an independent part of China because of the “Opium Wars” between China and Magnum Brittania.

  37. I have to agree and go with #7, but I think special importance goes to #4 because otherwise honest, naive journalists who go into the profession with idealistic notions find out that direct or indirect pressure from numbers 1,2,3,and 6 are very real when pursuing anything with real significance that may threaten their legitimacy. They find that going into too much detail about many things is frowned upon. As for the arguement that investigative journalism needs a subscription base to be economically possible, I agree for the most part, except that even many economically sound media outlets have over the past 20 years have trimmed investigative budgets to nothing, again because of the other forces on this list. But let’s not romanticize the past either. Even though there was more of it and money for it in the past, it’s still been monitored and controlled in the mainstream for the last 50 years by those folks alluded to by the people who posted the Rockefeller Trilateral quote, and the 1917 Congressional record post. Good old Z-big Brezinsky helped to create the Trilateral Commission and look now, he’s one of Obama’s most important foreign policy advisors. It’s actually amazing how many of Obama’s people are Trilateral members and tied to Wall St. So maybe supranational covert political organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trialateral Commission, and the shady Bilderberg Group should be on the list too.
    I also suspect that even independent media feels these forces too if they’re big enough. When was the last time you were asked to be on Democracy Now Sibel? I would be having you on regularly right now, you would be able to contribute so many interesting insights into so many issues that they’re talking about, and your credibility, apoliticalness (if that’s even a word), and courage are unmatched. Staying out in the open and in contact with as much media as possible is probably the best thing for safety for someone in your position.
    Lastly, I’m also pretty concerned that we’re ripe and may be in for some kind of an internet fasle flage attack, an internet 9/11 if you will, and a subsequent internet patriot act. There seems to be some momentum gathering in Congress towards some kind of new regulation of the internet under a few different guises, but mostly in the name of protecting children from having their feelings hurt. Senator Jay Rockefeller said recently that he thinks we’d be better off without the internet, at least in its current incarnation. I think that the powerful interests talked about on these posts and on your list are worried about the fact that they’ve been losing hearts and minds in huge numbers over the past 10 because of the internet, and I think that some kind of controlled security breakdown and cover story will be necessary for these people to get the changes they need to maintain control, because there’s no way the public will allow heavy curtailment of internet freedoms otherwise.

  38. Siebel, why didn’t you sue the judges in their personal capacity for violating your Constitutional Rights when they barred you (and the public) from your own appeal hearing?

    They DO NOT have the power to do that, unless of course, you let them.

    I know this has nothing to do with the “Media” story, but let me give you the relevant Constitutional law:

    Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Also this:


    Section 2.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    It is also my understanding that the “State Secrets Privilege” is not actually a law at all.

    Jurisdiction in your case, since you were contracting for the FBI, working in the capacity of serving the public and Citizens of the USA, would be the Supreme Court, also because your work was in the District of Columbia which is not a State.

    And yes, you CAN sue judges for violation of your Rights. It’s not easy to do, but you DO have that Right as well.

    Oh, and one more thing. Joe Bannister is a Whistleblower from the IRS Criminal Investigatiion Division. His story, like yours, is simply amazing. They fired Joe, whom I have met personally and can attest his is an impeccable person, who merely asked questions as to how to apply the Internal Revenue Code, and they fired him. They later charged him with various crimes, and were going to try him on an offshore Island off the coast of California, until public protest forced them to change the venue.

    His website is http://www.freedomabovefortune.com

    You should contact Joe and try to get him Whistleblower status. You’ll be amazed at what he has to say concerning the IRS.

  39. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Rob: That option was both considered and ‘sought.’ You will not find a single attorney who’s willing to do this. My case may be the only one before a certain ‘questionable’ judge, but these attorneys have to deal with them for their other cases…So, no one dares. At least I didn’t find one.

  40. Well, Ms. Edmunds, you should do this yourself. I suggest you that you represent yourself if you cannot find a lawyer who will touch suing the judges. I’m sure there are various groups, whom if you explain the circumstances, will assist you even if you have to do it yourself. I have learned how to file complaints and suits all on my own, and its not that hard at all. It does take some research, and you should be aware of the rules and procedures of the court you’re in, as well as the rules for discovery and court procedure, any of which a lawyer could assist you, off the record.

    You shouldn’t just rollover and become somewhat of an “oddity” in exchange for justice. If you can’t find an amry, be an army of one.

    Now, I know that you don’t want to do this alone, you’d rather have counsel, and I may be able to help you in that regard.

    But, this will be a time consuming process and it will take years to see it through to fruition, but, in my opinion, you’re worth it. You are a very brave woman Siebel. But the ultimate decision to pursue this avenue must be yours.

    Whatever you decide, I want to thank you for all you did to help protect me and all the citizens of this nation from those who would do us all harm.


  41. Anonymous says:

    I’ll come back and have a screen name next time;-) Keep it up!

  42. Anonymous says:

    I would imagine its a combination of all the above. at this point i view the MSM as a filter. maybe in the past they provided a way for the average person to find out what was really going on in the world. with our world becoming smaller faster there is way too much ‘news’ to put forward so the media has to pick and choose what it presents. this is obviously managed by a few select enforcers with strong corporate/fascist motives and selectively pushes the stories it wants us to focus on. it literally shapes the group think of most americans. it is able to limit anything which goes against the interests of the elite. this is why we keep seeing stories that might get a little play, like Harmon, get squashed just as quickly. this has the added advantage of subtly reinforcing the idea that ‘if the story disappeared that quickly, it must not have been that important to begin with.’ it is all about massaging the group mind and leading it in directions that the elite want it to go and away from the important ones. interestingly, we have been seeing a LOT of New World Order references over the past year…openly. those exact words have been spoken by very prominent people to the point where it almost seems like a joke…can they really be saying what i think they just said?! one of the previous comments posting the rockefeller quotes spells it out. this has been in the planning stages for a long time. look at the Bilderberg meeting..going on this weekend, where is the coverage? by our own Logan act this should be illegal for some of our attendees but not a word gets spoken about it and if it does, it is ridiculed as ‘conspiracy theory talk.’ when world leaders of politics/business/media/industry gather together in secret are we really to believe they are just grabbing cocktails and talking about fashion? yet this is not covered.
    as for means of control…all it takes is one editor at a paper to kill a story. you can have 100 great reporters but if the person they all report to , who also basically holds the purse strings over their careers and livlihoods, says no, then that is it…story killed. i believe there is a lot of intimidation that goes on with ‘the good guys’, reporters who want to do the right thing but dont want to put their families/careers in jeopardy. especially in tough times and employment being what it is now. who is going to stand up and fight the suppression? not many. i dont know if Rather was one of the bad guys but there were some times where i think he really was on our side but the pressure was too much. it seemed like he was being threatened but lost that fight back with poppy bush during that wonderful interview in which he pressed him and got poppy all mad. you mentioned you have a long list of NO NO people…that is what is so frustrating about all of this..there appears to be nowhere to turn. EVERYONE is corrupted or being blackmailed. I personally think the shadow gov is doing exactly that and tapping every congresscritters phone so they have the goods on them all. this must be why we see this farce of no one in congress fighting the obvious corruption we see daily now. everyone has the goods on everyone else and if one domino falls they all might…thus, everyone covers for everyone else. sorry for rambling…one more point. another big issue that has not gotten much play is the idea of secret/semi secret organizations like The Family. or the Prayer group folks. they are connections of like minded/fascist thinkers who network with people in high places. they all have the same goal of maintaining power and pulling in their power friends when possible. there was a great article in Harpers about this called Jesus plus nothing..by Jeffrey Sharlet.
    anyway..glad for your site. now kick some ass!

  43. Sibel Edmonds says:

    Ian: That's my position as well; #7. Good points re: 1Editor & 100 Reporters. I should mention that in my next postings.

    I will certainly look up that Harpers article. Sounds interesting.

    As for kicking: better impact if we do it collectively;-)

  44. pmorlan says:

    I wrote a blog post the other day about a Washington Post piece where they lied about the Max Baucus approach to health care reform. They said that Baucus didn’t rule out any ideas or policy change when in fact he had ruled out the idea about single-payer and kept any representative of single-payer from having a seat at the table in the discussions about health care reform. Another Post reporter had said in a Post chat that the Post and the rest of the media didn’t report on single-payer because the president didn’t support it.

    I made the comment that it was unclear if this was self-censorship or due to government pressure. I’d really like to know.



  45. Robert Schopmeyer says:

    Sibel Edmonds,

    Thank GOD for your effort, and that someone like you is doing this, pointing out when the MSM has hidden information from the American public, GREAT JOB!

    After attending the 9/11 Commission public hearings on April 13-14, 2004, and unable to understand why the CIA had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to occur when they had the names of three of the al Qaeda terrorists for 21 months prior to the attacks on 9/11, I made an effort to understand what actually had happened at the CIA and FBI that had allowed these attacks to succeed.

    Over a time span of 4-5 years I meticulously went through all of the available public records for the investigations of 9/11 and made very detailed time lines of everyone at the CIA and FBI involved with the time period prior to the attacks on 9/11. These records were the report on the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate, late, 2002, the 9/11 Commission report , July, 2004, the DOJ IG report on the FBI prior to 9/11 , May, 2006, and the evidence items entered into the trail of Zacarias Moussaoui, May, 2006, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan, July 2006 and then complied what each person knew, how and where did they get this information and did they then act like a “prudent person would have acted when they had this information”.

    All of this detailed information is complied now in a book, “Prior Knowledge of 9/11”, located on the web site http://www.eventson911.com, which also summaries this information, and even provided the source documents to back up the books conclusions. It turns out that there was more than publically enough information so that anyone with enough effort could put this story on 9/11 back together again, this information was just scattered over many US government web sites and sources, information that was released by the US government over a period of several years. I would be very interested to see what you think of the information on just this web site.

    This information at the front of the book, has been given to the many FBI criminal investigators numerous times, investigators for the Joint Inquiry Committee of the House and the Senate, the 9/11 Commission, and to FBI agents still at the FBI. I have had personal contact with many FBI investigators, Joint Inquiry Investigators and 9/11 Commissioners on this information.
    I have also given this information, which in all cases is information directly from the US government to many reporters at numerous main stream news organizations, and even though they personally seem to understand the importance of this information they have not found fit to print this information in their papers.

    I can site you the exact names of the reporters and papers and the information I have given them, information that even to this day has been hidden from the American public, on why the al Qaeda terrorists were successful in carrying out the attacks on 9/11.

  46. Konstantin says:

    I'm glad you started this blog. It means there are people out there who care and provide hope.

    I think the reasons are everything except #5 and #8. (By the way, you misspelled Britney's name; only one "t")

    I do think generally people want to know the real news. Many people in the mid-west just want to live their lives and be left alone.

    Most people in the major cities are more engaged in current events although they don't get a true picture of them from the MSM.

    Some journalists in the MSM may mean well and think they are reporting accurate portrayals of events but I think that's because are inclined not to disrupt their view of the world otherwise it would too much of a psychological shock to them.

    I think a major problem is that most people in this country think that their current elected officials have their best interests at heart even if they criticize their politicians from time to time.

    In a related issue, Norman Dodds (now deceased), who was Chris Dodds' father, said in an interview with G. Edward Griffin, that major foundations, such as the Carnegie Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Guggenheim Foundation, and the Ford Foundation implemented a major effort to rewrite history and history textbooks, to favor their policies and agendas.

    That could be one reason people today are inclined to believe the MSM's version of events.

    Here are the 5 videos of the 1982 interview, part 1 to 5:
    Transcript of the interview:

  47. Konstantin says:

    Correction to something I wrote:

    I meant "Many people in the 'middle America' just want to live their lives and be left alone" not the 'mid-west'.

Speak Your Mind