Posts Tagged ‘Rupert Murdoch’

Do we really have a free press or are our journalists being dictated to and told what they can and can’t report on? Are certain topics suppressed from the public’s consciousness by those who own or greatly influence the media? Are there any free-thinking, free-speaking journos left – alive and not retired that is?

We examine these issues, and more, in our book THE ORPHAN CONSPIRACIES: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy.

One of us (a former journalist, newspaper editor and public relations consultant with experience in television, radio, print and online reporting) can speak from first-hand experience. It’s our contention that few journos ever seriously challenge the Establishment. Why? Because it’s usually not in the best interests of their employers – the select few media barons who run mainstream media these days. These media tycoons are among the most powerful and influential individuals on the planet as they and their minions shape society’s opinions.

We devote an entire chapter to the state of journalism and the media today in THE ORPHAN CONSPIRACIES. Here’s an excerpt:

Some commentators say the world’s six biggest media empires, between them, largely control what news we see, hear or read in the Western world. Others say the 10 biggest media empires control our news. Either way, the ramifications are frightening, wouldn’t you agree?

The respected news and entertainment site Elite Daily, which calls itself “The voice of Generation-Y”, makes the following claim: “With media oversight being taken for granted in recent years, media concentration has been a trend that’s been rolling along with few signs of stopping. As a result, many of your favorite media entities have been consolidated and all work under the same umbrella corporation. If you think, for example, one channel offers better content than the other, you might be surprised to learn that you’ve stuck with the same company and are just now loyal to another one of its assets.”

media-ownership

Elite Daily has identified the following as the world’s 10 largest media conglomerates: Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA, Gannett Company Inc., CBS Corporation, British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc., Liberty Media, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner Inc., The Walt Disney Disney Company and Comcast Corporation.

In the early 1980’s, some 50 companies owned 90% of American media. Now, 90% of US media is owned by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, GE, CBS, Time Warner and Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp.

Each of these conglomerates has fingers in many pies. Take Time Warner for example. It has major stakes in film and TV companies like New Line Cinema, CNN, TNT, Warner Bros. Pictures, HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network and Castle Rock plus magazines like People, Time, Sports Illustrated, Fortune and Marie Claire.

The problem with such media monopolies, especially when they are heavily entangled with politics as Murdoch’s outlets are, is that censorship or even disseminating misinformation becomes a very real possibility.

If you believe the TV networks, newspapers and other media outlets owned by such conglomerates are regularly delivering balanced, unbiased news, you’re dreaming. Each has its own agenda and recent history has shown those agendas aren’t always honorable. Regrettably, and all too often, journalistic ethics come a distant second to corporate profits.

You only need to consider the events surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World phone-hacking scandal to be reminded that media conglomerates and their owners don’t always act honorably or have the public’s best interests at heart.

Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg

Rupert Murdoch…media tycoon extraordinaire.

For anyone who has been living under a rock since that controversy broke, Murdoch employees working in some of his British newspapers hacked the phones of leading politicians, businessmen and celebrities, resulting in a public outcry against News Corporation and Murdoch.

JFK Addresses the Nation on Civil Rights

President Kennedy welcomed media scrutiny of his Administration.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that President John F. Kennedy was a champion of a free press. Here’s an excerpt from his speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association in New York on April 27, 1961:

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy – available via Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/The-Orphan-Conspiracies-Conspiracy-Theories-ebook/dp/B00J4MPFT6/

A book that’s for the common people…the 99%.

Happy reading! –Lance & James

 

******************************************************

 

There’s no escaping the media. Whether radio, television, newspapers, magazines, billboards, feature films, documentaries, online news or social media – it’s everywhere.

If media in all its forms is compromised then frankly, we’re all screwed!

One of us (Lance) writes from personal experience on this subject: as a former journalist, newspaper editor and public relations consultant with experience in television, radio, print and online reporting, he has observed the workings of the media from the inside over the past 45 years.

You don’t need to be a former journalist however, to realize that manipulating the media is akin to poisoning a nation’s water supply – it affects all of our lives in unimaginable ways.

Journalists are the barometer of a nation’s freedom of speech. If they are threatened, gagged or otherwise silenced then who is going to ask the tough questions and keep the authorities honest?

 

“No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers–I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.” –President John F. Kennedy, speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. April 27, 1961, New York City.

 

JFK Addresses the Nation on Civil Rights

President Kennedy welcomed media scrutiny of his Administration.

In our thriller The Orphan Factory, the novel’s lead female character Helen Katsarakis is a student journalist in Chicago. When she learns the shocking truth of the Pedemont Orphanage and starts to write about it, her life is suddenly endangered. Without giving away any spoilers, let’s just say the powers that be swing into action to prevent her story ever reaching the masses.

Helen’s character was partly a plot device designed to ask tough questions about the modern media. In particular, questioning the commonly held belief that here in the West we have a free press.

So, what’s the truth? Do we really have a free press or are our journalists, or journos, being dictated to and told what they can and can’t report on? Are certain topics suppressed from the public’s consciousness by those who own or greatly influence the media? Are there any free-thinking, free-speaking journos left – alive and not retired that is?

 

What made it worse was Helen wasn’t just any old journalist. She was a student reporter unconnected to any of the mainstream media outlets – outlets Omega could usually control as a result of the moles the agency had planted in their midst. No, Helen and her university newspaper could not be bought or controlled. She was a free agent, able to investigate whatever took her fancy, and The Daily Illini newspaper was free to publish whatever it wanted to. The Orphan Factory

 

Taking on the Establishment

Few journos ever seriously challenge the Establishment. Why? Because it’s usually not in the best interests of their employers – the select few media barons who run mainstream media these days. (More about them later).

The upshot of this is, while their turn of phrase may be eloquent, most journos just report on issues their masters are happy to allow to be aired publicly. This makes them little more than parrots for the Establishment. Unfortunately, few realize that.

The tragedy of this is major issues remain hidden and the public are continually being denied access to the truth.

 

Any journo who takes on the Establishment and interrogates officialdom about questionable policies – such as committing troops to new theaters of war – is quickly brought to heel. If the journo persists, he or she risks being branded a traitor, or unpatriotic at least.

In June 2013, former Minnesota Governor, Navy Seal and professional wrestler-turned political activist Jesse Ventura told The New York Times, “You’re not unpatriotic for criticizing your government.” Elaborating, Ventura said, “I know from experience, the only way you get good government is for the citizens to hold its feet to the fire.”

Of course, holding an administration’s feet to the fire relies on total freedom of speech, and a truly free media is a major part of that.

We know from personal experience it takes balls to ask the hard questions. Questions such as why Western nations are embroiled in perpetual wars and spending gazillions on military budgets when so many of their citizens are living hand to mouth on or below the poverty line.

What’s needed is uncompromising, in-depth, insightful reporting where journos don’t shy away from applying the metaphorical blowtorch to world leaders, politicians and business moguls. This would be in stark contrast to the staged interviews we are more commonly shown where handpicked journos rarely deviate from script.

True journalism is about uncovering and reporting on the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. In today’s fast-moving world, where corruption, violence and grief are never far away, it’s difficult to think of a more important job.

File:FleetStreetSign.JPG

Fleet Street, London…once the traditional home of British newspapers.

 

News reporting or storytelling?

Traditional journalism, where reporters deliver information in a balanced and unbiased fashion, is rapidly fading into obscurity. This is especially evident on television where high profile reporters become bigger than the story, delivering news with large dollops of personality and wit – almost as if they are actors. And is it our imagination or are TV reporters becoming younger and more glamorous every year?

To our eyes, on major world issues at least, it seems very little factual-based news reporting occurs these days. Instead, it’s nearly all opinion-based and colored to some degree.

Unfortunately, mainstream news has become infotainment, sharing more in common with the entertainment industry than with traditional journalism. Gossip, characterizations and injections of drama are subtly infused with facts, altering the truth in a similar way to how dramatists twist true stories to create greater excitement.

Another useful analogy here may be documentary movies. Although as filmmakers we only produce feature films, we know a lot of doco filmmakers and many tell us storytelling is just as prominent in reality-based productions as it is in dramatic ones. This makes sense because when a doco enters post-production after the filming period, the director has hundreds of hours of footage to sift through in the editing suite. The film then has to be edited down to around 90 minutes and there are often any number of stories a director can tell, depending on what is edited out, what is left in and what is highlighted.

In theory, documentary filmmakers are able to remain totally unbiased and allow the material to dictate the most relevant story to them. But only the very best are able to achieve this. All too often the filmmakers’ own beliefs end up convincing them to tell stories that don’t actually reflect the heart of the material.

Similarly, subjective storytelling is now almost as common in the news media as it is in feature films, TV dramas, novels or theater shows. Journalists at their worst are self-centered storytellers who either knowingly or unknowingly bend truths into stories that match their personal beliefs or those of their employers.

What is scarier however, is when entire media organizations craft fictional stories out of the truth to influence the masses on a grand scale.

Sara Carbonero Sara Carbonero Arevalo Tv Reporter Telecinco Wc 48nq69nvl

Spanish TV presenter Sara Carbonero…voted the world’s sexiest reporter.

 

The kingmakers

Media tycoons are among the most powerful and influential individuals on the planet as they and their minions shape society’s opinions. It’s no coincidence that a large percentage of the members of the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations and other such elitist organizations are media moguls. If it’s true that nothing is more potent than an idea, then those who control the media can direct minds en masse.

Australian-born tycoon Rupert Murdoch has built a media empire unlike any other in history. His far-reaching enterprises incorporate major newspapers, television networks, book publishers and film production companies throughout the UK, the US, Australia and Asia. It’s estimated that 40% of American television viewers are watching Murdoch-owned stations at any given time.

It has been reported in the mainstream media on several occasions that no Prime Minister of the UK or Australia takes office without consulting Murdoch first. Then again, if he controls the media wouldn’t Murdoch have censored such reports? In which case wouldn’t that make a mockery of this whole conspiracy theory? Ah well, you can’t win ‘em all!

There are parallels, albeit on a smaller scale, in Italy where former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owns much of the Italian media. During his controversial term as PM, critics argued many of Berlusconi’s newspapers and TV channels promoted his far-right political ideologies.

Bottom line is: the media, like anything else, can be bought. Everything, it seems, has its price. Even the free press.

Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg

Rupert Murdoch…media tycoon extraordinaire.

 

The trend toward media consolidation

Some commentators say the world’s six biggest media empires, between them, largely control what news we see, hear or read in the Western world. Others say the 10 biggest media empires control our news. Either way, the ramifications are frightening, wouldn’t you agree?

The respected news and entertainment site Elite Daily, which calls itself “The voice of Generation-Y”, makes the following claim: “With media oversight being taken for granted in recent years, media concentration has been a trend that’s been rolling along with few signs of stopping. As a result, many of your favorite media entities have been consolidated and all work under the same umbrella corporation. If you think, for example, one channel offers better content than the other, you might be surprised to learn that you’ve stuck with the same company and are just now loyal to another one of its assets.”

media-ownership

Elite Daily has identified the following as the world’s 10 largest media conglomerates: Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA, Gannett Company Inc., CBS Corporation, British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc., Liberty Media, News Corporation, Viacom, Time Warner Inc., The Walt Disney Disney Company and Comcast Corporation.

In the early 1980’s, some 50 companies owned 90% of American media. Now, 90% of US media is owned by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, GE, CBS, Time Warner and Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp.

Each of these conglomerates has fingers in many pies. Take Time Warner for example. It has major stakes in film and TV companies like New Line Cinema, CNN, TNT, Warner Bros. Pictures, HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network and Castle Rock plus magazines like People, Time, Sports Illustrated, Fortune and Marie Claire.

The problem with such media monopolies, especially when they are heavily entangled with politics as Murdoch’s outlets are, is that censorship or even disseminating misinformation becomes a very real possibility.

If you believe the TV networks, newspapers and other media outlets owned by such conglomerates are regularly delivering balanced, unbiased news, you’re dreaming. Each has its own agenda and recent history has shown those agendas aren’t always honorable. Regrettably, and all too often, journalistic ethics come a distant second to corporate profits.

You only need to consider the events surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World phone-hacking scandal to be reminded that media conglomerates and their owners don’t always act honorably or have the public’s best interests at heart.

For anyone who has been living under a rock since that controversy broke, Murdoch employees working in some of his British newspapers hacked the phones of leading politicians, businessmen and celebrities, resulting in a public outcry against News Corporation and Murdoch.

 

“There is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.” –President John F. Kennedy, speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. April 27, 1961, New York City.

 

Censoring the truth

Censorship involves limiting free expression and controlling information. Most Westerners tend to associate the word censorship with art – especially film. However, in less democratic regions of the world, censorship is all pervasive with North Korea being one of the best, or worst, examples of this in recent years.

aaaa

Censorship is also alive and well in the West, although it is done in far more subtle ways. Sometimes it relates to that modern day ailment known as corportocracy, or the control of economic and political systems by corporate interests; sometimes it relates to government meddling where administrations or individual politicians derail what should be a free press.

Reporters Without Borders, a global freedom of press organization, recently announcedin its annual Worldwide Freedom Index that the US has one of the highest levels of media censorship in the Western world. From their research, conducted in 2013, they reported that journalists in the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand experience greater freedoms of speech than in the US.

The index reflects the level of freedom that news organizations, reporters and citizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by governing bodies to respect this freedom.

Given the US was founded on the greatest constitutional freedom of expression in history (the First Amendment) it’s sad to see it only managed 32nd place on the Worldwide Freedom Index – behind the likes of Ghana and Suriname.

 

“Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed–and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment – the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution – not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” – but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.” –President John F. Kennedy, speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. April 27, 1961, New York City.

 

Spin doctors

A conservatively estimated 90% of all news items aired in the media – whether in print, radio or television – on any given day are placed items. (Placed news items are articles contributed by individuals, companies and organizations outside the media). An estimated 75% of all news items are placed by spin doctors, or public relations consultants.

Journos and PR gurus will know what we’re talking about, but for outsiders we accept these stats are hard to get your head around.

Incidentally, many if not most spin doctors are former journos, so they know firsthand how the media works and they have well established journalistic networks to tap into. Very handy when it comes to placing stories.

 

What makes it difficult to accurately assess the amount of news that is placed or contributed, is that many such items appear under a journo’s byline. All too often the journo may only change one para, sentence or word – or nothing at all – before recycling the story for publication under his or her name. Sad but true.

In the case of news items sourced from PR firms, the reality is those firms are handsomely paid by their (usually) corporate clients to publicize the clients’ products and services. In some cases their non-corporate clients may be lobby groups, politicians, political parties, government departments, armed forces or other such entities each with their own barrow to push. All too often, the truth is secondary to the message. Also sad but true.

Mainstream media all too often serves as a public relations agency for the global elite, including politicians, bankers and Fortune 500 members. As a result, the so-called news has become a junkyard for propaganda. Such an environment is open slather for the spin doctors.

 

“News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.” Lord Northcliffe, British publisher (1865-1922)

 

Media manipulation

All too often news stories deliver one viewpoint, or one dominant viewpoint, so the audience will likely draw one particular conclusion. This can be done so cleverly we are usually none the wiser – unless we’re on the lookout for such subterfuge.

Politicians and political parties are very aware of this, as are our military leaders. Media manipulation they call it – off the record of course. To sell their message to the public, they need to use the media to their advantage. Sometimes they go direct, oftentimes they use the spin doctors.

A classic example of this was how the US Administration used the media to convince the American public Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction before the troops were sent in. How wrong they were, but how effective their advance publicity was. It was swallowed hook, line and sinker by most Americans and, indeed, by much of the Western world. Certainly, Britain and others weren’t slow to send their troops in to Iraq either. And it’s worth noting this was initially a conspiracy theory, but now even mainstream media outlets commonly accept this was fabrication or at least exaggerated spin to start a war.

Clearly, the media can be used by political administrations as a propaganda tool.

The 1922 speech of former New York City Mayor John Hylan we quoted from in an earlier chapter is worth quoting from again: “These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.”

 

Operation Mockingbird

From the 1950’s to 1970’s, the CIA covertly funded a number of leading domestic and foreign journalists from numerous major media outlets like The Washington Post, Time, The New York Times and CBS to publish CIA propaganda. This was known as Operation Mockingbird and was first brought to the public’s attention in 1975 by The Church Committee.

Senator Frank Church, after whom the committee was named, claimed that misinforming the world cost American taxpayers around US$265 million a year. Some of that cost was wages as many of the CIA’s journalist-spooks drew a CIA salary over and above their official media salary. Talk about serving two masters!

After the initial revelations, Congress admitted in 1976 that the CIA maintained a network of several hundred foreigners “who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda.”

The CIA also admitted that these individuals provided the agency with direct access to many media outlets.

Although restraints have since been applied to the CIA’s media-related activities, to this daythe agency makes no secret it continues to welcome the voluntary cooperation of reporters.

cia controls media

The CIA’s involvement with media doesn’t end there. In 1977, Washington Post journo Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, reported that “more than 400 journalists…in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments” for the CIA.

Intelligence agencies’ approach to manipulating news media is probably best summed up by a comment a senior CIA employee made to Bernstein: “One journalist is worth twenty agents.”

Besides messing with news media outlets, the agency has also been known to dabble in other forms of media. For example, the 1954 animated film Animal Farm, based on George Orwell’s classic novel, was secretly funded by the CIA. In fact, three-fifths of the movie’s half a million dollar budget was financed by the agency via one of its shell corporations, Touchstone Inc.

On the film’s listing on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) site, the following is mentioned under the trivia section:“The CIA obtained the film rights to “Animal Farm” from Orwell’s widow, Sonia, after his death and covertly funded the production as anti-Communist propaganda. Some sources assert that the ending of the story was altered by the CIA (in the book, the pigs and humans join forces) to press home their message”.

 

“The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue.” –Edward R. Murrow (1908-1965), American broadcast journalist

 

The power of the Internet

The Internet is expanding at a faster rate than most of we mere mortals can understand. Someone seriously compared its rate of growth to the speed of light, though we suspect he’s prone to exaggerating. Even so, its growth is impressive, that much we know.

Impressive, too, is the growth and power of online news and especially social media. Nowhere has this been better demonstrated than during the Arab Spring, the revolution that is sweeping the Arab world. Since 2010, Egyptians, Libyans and more recently Syrians have effectively used the Internet both to access foreign news during media blackouts and to get news and images to the outside world as dramatic events unfolded in their respective countries.

Just as the Internet offers society many advantages and disadvantages so, too, does online journalism. On the one hand, alternative thought-provoking news and ideas can be aired online whereas they’d never see the light of day in a metropolitan daily newspaper or other conventional media outlets.

online newsroom best practicesOn the other hand, there are fewer checks and balances online where anyone can write just about anything and get away with it.

This duality of online news is exemplified by the rise of freelance journalists using the Internet to their advantage. Citizen journos we call them.

Some of these citizen journos are qualified reporters who, for various reasons, have chosen to go it alone. Many may prefer the autonomy that comes with freelance writing, others may have become disillusioned with traditional mainstream reporting. Some are good, some are bad and some should probably be shot. The latter, who are usually inexperienced or wannabe journalists, often pretend to present unbiased news stories. In reality, they have radical agendas be they political, religious, racist or whatever. These agendas, incidentally, aren’t always apparent when you visit their blog sites.

It’s also important to remember that mainstream media are major players on the Internet. Almost all major newspapers, television and radio networks have online news portals to recycle their news to reach audiences far beyond their traditional catchment areas.

Despite the Internet’s faults, more and more people are viewing it as the only source for truthful information. Politicians and business moguls are aware of this and are actively lobbying to restrict or censor this medium so they can continue to manipulate, or better still control, public opinion.

Those same politicians and moguls are very mindful of initiatives like the Occupy Wall Street movement whose members are so heavily reliant on social media to spread their message. Young people are becoming more switched on, too. They’re increasingly favoring alternative websites and citizen journos over mainstream media when it comes to receiving news and information.

We are the 99 % poster

“We are the 99%.”…catchcry of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

#

So, what are we to believe when we search online or open that newspaper or switch on that radio or TV set for our daily dose of news?

Unfortunately there’s no easy answer. As we keep saying, retain a healthy skepticism and don’t believe everything you’re told. The truth is out there…somewhere!

 

Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy – available now via Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Orphan-Conspiracies-Conspiracy-Theories-ebook/dp/B00J4MPFT6/

A book that’s for the common people.

 

Happy reading! –James & Lance

 

******************************************************

 

 

What do President Bill Clinton, David Rockefeller, Prince Charles, Bill Gates and Prime Minister David Cameron, plus the founders and CEO’s of Google, Facebook and Amazon all have in common?

Each has attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group, an invitation-only organization whose annual conferences for the most part remain mysteriously off the record.

Bill Clinton.jpg Head and shoulders photo of Bill Gates

President Clinton and Bill Gates…confirmed Bilderbergers.

In The Ninth Orphan we shine a light on the little known Bilderberg Group and portray it as being America’s, and the world’s, shadow government. We present Bilderberg members as an elite club who pull the strings of various administrations around the globe.

 

“Bilderberg pulls the strings of every government and intelligence agency in the Western world.”The Ninth Orphan

 

Is there any truth behind this supposed political conspiracy?

Well, that depends on who you ask.

Independent researchers have long claimed the Bilderberg Group undermines democracy and influences everything from nations’ political leaders to the venue for the next war; the politicians and industrialists who attend say it’s nothing more than a think-tank, conducted without media coverage so the world’s most powerful can speak freely.

Certainly, it’s easy to see why conspiracy theories plague the group.

Bilderberg history

The Bilderberg Group takes its name from the Hotel de Bilderberg, in Oosterbeek, in the Netherlands, where the organization’s first meeting took place in 1954. Ever since, every Bilderberg conference has had almost complete media blackouts despite being held at prominent five-star resorts.

Hotel de Bilderberg.

Independent researchers point out this dearth of media coverage is highly unusual given the veritable who’s who of world leaders and movers-and-shakers in attendance each year. Certainly some high ranking journalists have written articles on Bilderberg conferences, but overall the events are ignored by mainstream media outlets.

American Bilderbergers

Within the last few years, Google’s former CEO and now Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes as well as Jeff Bezos, Founder and CEO of Amazon.com, have all attended Bilderberg conferences. In 2010, Microsoft founder and the world’s richest man Bill Gates attended his first Bilderberg conference at the Hotel Dolce, in Sitges, Spain.

Eric Schmidt at the 37th G8 Summit in Deauville 037.jpg  Chris Hughes.jpg

Eric Schmidt and Chris Hughes…confirmed Bilderberg conference attendees.

Other notable US political figures to have officially attended Bilderberg meetings include former Director of the CIA David Petraeus, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, President Gerald Ford as well as current Governor of Texas Rick Perry.

Condoleezza Rice cropped.jpg  President Gerald Ford, arms folded, in front of a United States Flag and the Presidential seal.

 Condoleezza Rice and President Gerald Ford…also confirmed attendees.

The Logan Act

Some political analysts say all American attendees of Bilderberg conferences have been in direct violation of the Logan Act – a federal law which prevents US citizens and representatives from making policy decisions in secret with foreign government officials.

However, the catch is that no Bilderberger has ever acknowledged engaging in policy-making during the meetings and there is no conclusive proof that any of them do.

Global Bilderbergers

On the international roster, Bilderbergers have included leaders of almost every Western nation, Swiss bankers, EU Commissioners and Royalty. Among past and present attendees are current Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, former British Prime Ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Margaret Thatcher, the King of Spain Juan Carlos I and the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip.

Photograph  

Margaret Thatcher and Stephen Harper…among past and present Bilderbergers.

In 2013, current British Prime Minister David Cameron came under fire from the British press for attending a Bilderberg conference in Watford, England. On June 7, 2013, leading UK newspaper The Daily Mail reported that Cameron would “take part in a debate on the global economy” and that Downing Street said they “will not give details of what is discussed”.

Prime Minister Cameron also refused to provide any details of the time and day he would attend the conference – and this only a short while after promising the British public he would lead the “most open and transparent government in the world.”

In recent years with the economic rise of the East, the Bilderberg Group has for the first time begun inviting leading business and political figures from Asia, especially Japanese and Chinese citizens.

 

Nine had heard whisperings that the secretive Bilderberg Group was effectively the World Government, undermining democracy by influencing everything from nations’ political leaders to the venue for the next war. He recalled persistent rumors and confirmed media reports that the Bilderberg Group had such luminaries as Barack Obama, Prince Charles, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair, Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush. Other Bilderberg members sprung forth from Nine’s memory bank. They included the founders and CEOs of various multinational corporations like Facebook, BP, Google, Shell and Amazon, as well as almost every major financial institution on the planet. The Ninth Orphan

 

Obama, Murdoch and the Bush/Clinton clans

In addition to the aforementioned Bilderbergers, who are all confirmed to have participated in at least one conference, there’s also a raft of other powerful figures suspected of having attended the group’s annual meetings.

For whatever reason, it appears some world leaders decide it is better for their reputation to meet other Bilderbergers secretly rather than officially. Some critics have speculated this may because these people wish to maintain their façade of being for the people rather than the elite. Or put another way, they don’t want it known that they represent the 1% instead of the 99%.

One such figure may be President Obama. Shortly before becoming the US President, Barack Obama was strongly rumored to have met with key Bilderberg members at or near their conference venue in Chantilly, Virginia, in 2008.

President Barack Obama

President Obama…rumor persists.

Veteran Bilderberg observer, Jim Tucker, phoned Obama’s office during the presidential election campaign to confirm whether he had attended the conference. A campaign spokeswoman refused to discuss the matter, but would not deny that Obama had attended.

Other rumored attendees include media mogul Rupert Murdoch and US presidents George Bush, Sr. and George W. Bush.

Hillary Studies

Hillary Clinton…Mum’s the word.

Hillary Clinton also denies having attended any Bilderberg meetings despite reported sightings of her at the locations of the 2006 (Toronto) and 2008 (Virginia) conferences.

Bill Clinton, however, was an official attendee of the 1991 Bilderberg conference in Germany while still a little known Governor of Arkansas; the following year he won the US Presidential Election.

The former US President has since reluctantly answered questions regarding his confirmed involvement with the secretive organization.

 

Some of the more independent thinkers in the media had compared Naylor’s unexpected rise to the top of the CIA ladder to that of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton – both of whom had a speedy ascension to the White House, catching many political analysts by surprise. The Ninth Orphan

 

The Council on Foreign Relations

The Council on Foreign Relations is worth a brief study – if only to compare with the Bilderberg Group.

Another elitist, invitation-only organization which operates in almost total secrecy, the council has an equally impressive membership. Among its most famous members are Joe Biden, George Soros, George H.W. Bush, Richard Branson, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rupert Murdoch, Oprah Winfrey and Angelina Jolie.

5.3.10RichardBransonByDavidShankbone.jpg  Angelina Jolie - Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2012 (12) (headshot).jpg

Sir Richard Branson and Angelina Jolie…CFR members. 

It should be noted that many members of the Council on Foreign Relations have also attended Bilderberg conferences and the two organizations are apparently closely aligned…

…We are reminded of a line in the 2000 feature film The Skulls, which perfectly encapsulates our assessment of organizations like the Bilderberg Group and the CFR: “If it’s secret and elite, it can’t be good.”

Primary image for The Skulls

Blockbuster movie likened to real-life secret organizations.

People come up with all kinds of reasons to justify clandestine activities. Some say the masses are not smart enough and need wise old men to covertly influence voters. Others argue knights of the round table-style groups are needed to ensure the ill-informed public are not allowed to have too much power.

But however the invisible power players spin things, the truth is supporters of such elitist groups are deceiving themselves and others with such justifications.

The bottom line is: Any time a secret group usurps the collective will of the people, it’s wrong. Period.

One small confirmation of the dangers of secretive and elitist organizations comes from within police forces in the US and UK, and relates to Freemasonry. Senior American and British police chiefs have gone on the record recommending that police officers should not be permitted to join any Masonic lodge. The police chiefs concerned invariably cited fears that Freemason police officers would have conflicts of interest. That’s to say officers may at times put the interests of Freemasonry ahead of their police work.

Such dangers are obviously magnified a hundredfold when it comes to high ranking politicians being members of unaccountable organizations like the Bilderberg Group and the CFR.

 

Bilderberg’s modus operandi reinforced in his mind the complexity of the global hierarchy. He didn’t know if Omega controlled the Bilderberg Group or vice versa, but the situation reminded him that no matter how much anyone thought they knew about the New World Order elite, there were always higher levels in the plethora of secret societies and shadow organizations that ruled the planet.The Ninth Orphan

 

So what does all this mean exactly? Is it just a pile of the usual circumstantial evidence that seems to conveniently support many conspiracy theories? According to Belgian magnate and former Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon, that is exactly the case. In the January 22, 2011 edition of The Economist, Davignon said Bilderberg Group meetings allowed attendees to speak off-the-record and share opinions with major figures – without the risk of casual comments being taken out of context by the media.

On guard: Police patrol the grounds of The Grove hotel which is hosting the annual Bilderberg conference

Flashback to 2013 when the Bilderberg Conference was held in Britain for the first time since 1998 – at the plush (and secure) Grove Hotel, in Hertfordshire.

Those of Davignon’s school of thought propose that all conspiracy theories surrounding Bilderberg simply arise because of the group’s strict methods of ensuring absolute privacy of participants involved. Then again, it’s hard to believe the only decisions the world’s elite make at these exclusive resorts each year is what to order for dinner or what time to play golf!

Ring of steel: Police officers man a road block as delegates arrived for the four-day meeting

As for all Bilderberg conferences, security was predictably tight at the 2013 conference.

There’s also another possibility, or theory, in this discussion. It would lie about half way between the two extremes covered so far in this chapter.

This possibility would suggest that the powerful individuals who attend Bilderberg conferences have no devious intentions. On the contrary, all they really desire is to have informal chats with others at their own business or political level.

However, this would also suggest that in imperceptible ways leaders of different nations end up influencing each other’s policymaking. And therefore a globalist agenda would still end up circumventing democracy in the nations represented – albeit subtly and possibly without the awareness of conference attendees.

If this theory is true then the darker intentions would lie with the lesser known individuals running the Bilderberg Group. These invisible puppet masters would be using Bilderberg attendees to orchestrate world events to their liking. It could be argued that the carrots the organization dangles – especially assistance in climbing business or political ladders – tug at the personal ambitions of those attendees.

But, of course, we could be totally wrong about everything we wrote about the Bilderbergers in The Orphan Trilogy. In which case, you can go back to trusting your elected politicians and believing they have no ulterior motives and really do have your best interests at heart…

 

Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy – available now via Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/The-Orphan-Conspiracies-Conspiracy-Theories-ebook/dp/B00J4MPFT6/

A book that’s for the common people.

 

Happy reading! –James & Lance

 

******************************************************