Today's Google News Search Results For 'Oliver Stone'

[Kirk Gallaway]

 The question  by David  was: CIA budget cut? Does anyone know their total yearly budget, for any year?

The answer is yes, there is a budget, that's approved every year, and is a matter of public record. But  that of course doesn't stop a black budget within the budget, and money going to very nefarious things. The biggest parts of the pie are to  the National   Intelligence budget, (NIP 62.7 billion in 2020.) which includes the CIA, and the Military Intelligence budget (MIP 23.1 billion in 2020). I love this disclaimer by the Director of national Intelligence.

In addition, other departments and agencies may engage in certain activities related to intelligence for their own mission needs that are not captured here.

I found out some interesting things. During the last 4 Obama years, Intelligence was largely underfunded , actually given less money than they asked for(with one exception on MIP in 2014), and during the Trump years they were almost all over funded. 2017 budget is largely done by the time Trump gets to office.

https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/ic-budget

Of course this doesn't eve take in account, Homeland Security.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway

[W. Niederhut]

Getting back to the central thesis of this thread... which is HUGE...

Are mainstream media corporations in the U.S. still working under contracts with "Mockingbird"/Langley to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report, in accordance with the 1964 CIA executive order?  (And promoting the WCR means censoring and denigrating the truth about JFK's assassination.)

It's a question that can be studied by observing the data.  Where is the accurate, honest M$M coverage of Oliver Stone's movie?

Will we, eventually, see the M$M reporting the facts about Oliver Stone's film to the general public?

Or will we see it marginalized and misrepresented-- which is what the M$M has been doing with the truth about JFK's assassination for the past 57 years?

So, my thesis here is different from Matt's tangential focus on whether the public is interested in the subject.  That is an entirely different question.

[Jeff Carter]

It is a common practice for MSM outlets to reserve film reviews and related coverage until the domestic release of the project, often at the request of the production. It is at that stage that the often symbiotic relationship between the distribution/publicists and the media kicks into gear. The eyebrow-raiser in this instance is there does not yet seem to be a US distribution deal in place. If accurate, the notion that Netflix, for example, refused the film on advice of its “fact-checkers” does not create confidence that there in fact will be a US domestic release. Netflix previously not only screened “Untold History”, but also Errol Morris’ “Wormwood” which contained content highly critical of the national security apparatus. Morris’ film was set in the 1950s, so maybe another 5-6 years must pass before it is deemed safe to deal with the 1960s. Along that line, perhaps Warren’s contention that most persons living in 1963 would need to have passed on before a full accounting would be permitted wasn’t just a conjecture.

[W. Niederhut]

43 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

It is a common practice for MSM outlets to reserve film reviews and related coverage until the domestic release of the project, often at the request of the production. It is at that stage that the often symbiotic relationship between the distribution/publicists and the media kicks into gear. The eyebrow-raiser in this instance is there does not yet seem to be a US distribution deal in place. If accurate, the notion that Netflix, for example, refused the film on advice of its “fact-checkers” does not create confidence that there in fact will be a US domestic release. Netflix previously not only screened “Untold History”, but also Errol Morris’ “Wormwood” which contained content highly critical of the national security apparatus. Morris’ film was set in the 1950s, so maybe another 5-6 years must pass before it is deemed safe to deal with the 1960s. Along that line, perhaps Warren’s contention that most persons living in 1963 would need to have passed on before a full accounting would be permitted wasn’t just a conjecture.

        As I said, it's a working hypothesis.  It will be interesting to see if Oliver Stone's film gets some proper, accurate M$M coverage, or is marginalized and denigrated by the M$M-- as has been the case with the truth about JFK's assassination for the past 57 years.

       If coverage is censored, or inaccurately disparaging, I would posit that Mockingbird was never killed.

      Two other thoughts about Matt's comments about lack of public interest in the JFKA, and comparisons with interest in Lincoln's assassination.

1)  Public interest in any subject is partly a function of mainstream media coverage.  No coverage = Less interest.

2)  Lincoln wasn't assassinated by powerful people in the U.S. government.

[Matt Allison]

Press promotion for films is just like what we deal with in the music world. You don't line up album reviews for a record that people can't buy yet.

Any big review in the US press for the movie would mean people would instantly try to see if they could stream it. They'd find out they can't, get annoyed, and promptly forget about it. Not the desired outcome.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Press promotion for films is just like what we deal with in the music world. You don't line up album reviews for a record that people can't buy yet.

Any big review in the US press for the movie would mean people would instantly try to see if they could stream it. They'd find out they can't, get annoyed, and promptly forget about it. Not the desired outcome.

       So, Matt, is your prediction that we will eventually see some honest, accurate coverage of Oliver Stone's new film in the U.S. mainstream media this year?

       Perhaps we could have an Education Forum tally of people's predictions about this.

Edited August 13, 2021 by W. Niederhut

[Anthony Thorne]

The film hasn't had a screening in the US yet. It had a European screening. When a film screens at Cannes I expect IndieWire and Deadline to cover it. Both of them did and they're at the top of the front Google News page when I search the term 'Oliver Stone', talking about the movie. Deadline is the major film news outlet online, and in its review of the movie their leading critic agrees with the thesis of the movie and says Stone has won him over.

I'd also expect major blogs to cover the film. One of the biggest film blogs is Hollywood Elsewhere. The guy who runs that site, Jeffrey Wells, did a big post on the movie and said he wished he could be in Cannes to cover it. When the movie eventually comes out I'm sure he'll do more coverage.

If the film gets a release in the US I'm sure we'll see more US coverage about it, unless people are expecting media outlets to essentially cover the film's story twice.

My prediction. When the film comes out you'll see some honest, accurate coverage of it, and likely an equal number of hit pieces slamming it, and the latter will appear among the bigger outlets where the journalists essentially act as puppets, and the former will probably appear in regional outlets where some people are able to have their say. There were some 9/11 stories of note that were ignored by the mainstream outlets in LA and NY, but the regional versions of those same outlets covered them.

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

29 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

The film hasn't had a screening in the US yet. It had a European screening. When a film screens at Cannes I expect IndieWire and Deadline to cover it. Both of them did and they're at the top of the front Google News page when I search the term 'Oliver Stone', talking about the movie. Deadline is the major film news outlet online, and in its review of the movie their leading critic agrees with the thesis of the movie and says Stone has won him over.

I'd also expect major blogs to cover the film. One of the biggest film blogs is Hollywood Elsewhere. The guy who runs that site, Jeffrey Wells, did a big post on the movie and said he wished he could be in Cannes to cover it. When the movie eventually comes out I'm sure he'll do more coverage.

If the film gets a release in the US I'm sure we'll see more US coverage about it, unless people are expecting media outlets to essentially cover the film's story twice.

My prediction. When the film comes out you'll see some honest, accurate coverage of it, and likely an equal number of hit pieces slamming it, and the latter will appear among the bigger outlets where the journalists essentially act as puppets, and the former will probably appear in regional outlets where some people are able to have their say. There were some 9/11 stories of note that were ignored by the mainstream outlets in LA and NY, but the regional versions of those same outlets covered them.

 

Anthony,

      Thanks for making my point.

      I specifically mentioned IndieWire and Deadline in my lead post on this thread.  And by, "mainstream media," I'm referring to the major media corporations in the U.S.-- including major newspapers like NYT, WaPo, LA Times, USA Today, Huffington, et.al., along with mainstream news sources like Time, Newsweek, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, et.al.  

      All of these major media corporations have blacked out any references to things like CIA Operation Timber Sycamore, (in Syria) with the exception of a single unedited comment on MSNBC by Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

     The real question I'm raising here is whether the 21st century iteration of CIA Operation Mockingbird, as described by the late Udo Ulfkotte, is still operational in the mainstream U.S. media.  I think it is.

     In the case of 9/11, the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years.  The American public is living in a bubble of unreality.

     Blogs and alternative news websites have focused on these blacklisted issues, but, as in the case of the bona fide JFK assassination research, they have been marginalized and misrepresented by the major media corporations.

    

    

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Press promotion for films is just like what we deal with in the music world. You don't line up album reviews for a record that people can't buy yet.

You’re spot on. 

[Anthony Thorne]

43 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Anthony,

      Thanks for making my point.

      I specifically mentioned IndieWire and Deadline in my lead post on this thread.  And by, "mainstream media," I'm referring to the major media corporations in the U.S.-- including major newspapers like NYT, WaPo, LA Times, USA Today, Huffington, et.al., along with mainstream news sources like Time, Newsweek, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, et.al.  

      All of these major media corporations have blacked out any references to things like CIA Operation Timber Sycamore, (in Syria) with the exception of a single unedited comment on MSNBC by Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs.

     The real question I'm raising here is whether the 21st century iteration of CIA Operation Mockingbird, as described by the late Udo Ulfkotte, is still operational in the mainstream U.S. media.  I think it is.

     In the case of 9/11, the bona fide scientific and forensic evidence has been completely blacked out of the U.S. mainstream media for the past 20 years.  The American public is living in a bubble of unreality.

     Blogs and alternative news websites have focused on these blacklisted issues, but, as in the case of the bona fide JFK assassination research, they have been marginalized and misrepresented by the major media corporations.

    

    

Do Huffington, USA Today, CBS etc usually do coverage of documentaries premiering at Cannes? Not too often, I would have thought. Film journals do. Those film journals have covered it. 

More to the point, do those same mainstream outlets usually - or ever - cover CIA operations like the one you cited? I'm not sure what you're anticipating from them. They probably employ lots of CIA assets, and occasionally print stories that have been vetted or approved by the CIA. By the same token - who still reads them, or watches them? The Joe Rogan show on Youtube has been receiving 3 million or 4 million views per episode, and he's given a couple of hours uninterrupted to Oliver Stone, to Abby Martin, to the author of CHAOS, and to other counter-cultural figures. The younger generation are far more likely to watch him, than they are to watch ABC or NBC. There's a funny clip online where Bill Maher is on Rogan's show, and Maher basically begs Rogan to appear on his Real Time show, and Rogan chuckles and isn't that enthusiastic about it.

If (probably when) Stone's documentary comes out in the US, I'm sure there will be more coverage of it, including a few of the big traditional outlets you cited. I'm sure the reviews will be very mixed, but I wouldn't rule out a couple more mainstream journalists coming over to Stone's side. It's happened here and there. In general though we're probably in agreement on most things here and I'm just stirring the pot a little bit. But I can drop some news that hasn't appeared online anywhere else that you may find of interest, and it links to your comment about 9/11 evidence being blocked by the mainstream media.

A friend of mine worked with two of the three LOOSE CHANGE filmmakers just a couple of weeks ago - including director Dylan Avery. They have a new documentary on the way, on 9/11 (not their recent WTC7 doco, but something bigger).  It does have new evidence, it will probably create a few headlines when it appears, and it already has a major US distributor. My guess is it will be out within the next 12 months, hopefully sooner rather than later. So funny times ahead.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

        As I said, it's a working hypothesis.  It will be interesting to see if Oliver Stone's film gets some proper, accurate M$M coverage, or is marginalized and denigrated by the M$M-- as has been the case with the truth about JFK's assassination for the past 57 years.

       If coverage is censored, or inaccurately disparaging, I would posit that Mockingbird was never killed.

      Two other thoughts about Matt's comments about lack of public interest in the JFKA, and comparisons with interest in Lincoln's assassination.

1)  Public interest in any subject is partly a function of mainstream media coverage.  No coverage = Less interest.

2)  Lincoln wasn't assassinated by powerful people in the U.S. government.

W.--

1. Yes, project Mockingbird is probably still on. I doubt there is a major government in the world not trying to slant media coverage. The US government may be aggressive in this regard.

2. In addition, major media in the US has been absorbed into the DC globalist establishment. No one asks why US troops are quartered in Germany 75 years after WWII. That would be blasphemy. Nancy Pelosi's website says national security means promoting prosperity "across the globe."  Major media is a party organ for the Donks, except Fox which is the (mostly) mouthpiece for the 'Phants. But the Donks are now the party of Wall Street, tech giants, multinationals. People think the Donks are progressive as they mouth some ID politics jibber-jabber. 

3. You are right. The media can make George Floyd a national issue, or make the JFKA an issue. Or, for 20 years, not make an issue of getting out of Afghanie. Just depends on what the establishment wants. 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Do Huffington, USA Today, CBS etc usually do coverage of documentaries premiering at Cannes? Not too often, I would have thought. Film journals do. Those film journals have covered it. 

More to the point, do those same mainstream outlets usually - or ever - cover CIA operations like the one you cited? I'm not sure what you're anticipating from them. They probably employ lots of CIA assets, and occasionally print stories that have been vetted or approved by the CIA. By the same token - who still reads them, or watches them? The Joe Rogan show on Youtube has been receiving 3 million or 4 million views per episode, and he's given a couple of hours uninterrupted to Oliver Stone, to Abby Martin, to the author of CHAOS, and to other counter-cultural figures. The younger generation are far more likely to watch him, than they are to watch ABC or NBC. There's a funny clip online where Bill Maher is on Rogan's show, and Maher basically begs Rogan to appear on his Real Time show, and Rogan chuckles and isn't that enthusiastic about it.

If (probably when) Stone's documentary comes out in the US, I'm sure there will be more coverage of it, including a few of the big traditional outlets you cited. I'm sure the reviews will be very mixed, but I wouldn't rule out a couple more mainstream journalists coming over to Stone's side. It's happened here and there. In general though we're probably in agreement on most things here and I'm just stirring the pot a little bit. But I can drop some news that hasn't appeared online anywhere else that you may find of interest, and it links to your comment about 9/11 evidence being blocked by the mainstream media.

A friend of mine worked with two of the three LOOSE CHANGE filmmakers just a couple of weeks ago - including director Dylan Avery. They have a new documentary on the way, on 9/11 (not their recent WTC7 doco, but something bigger).  It does have new evidence, it will probably create a few headlines when it appears, and it already has a major US distributor. My guess is it will be out within the next 12 months, hopefully sooner rather than later. So funny times ahead.

 

       Well, it will be interesting to see what happens to Oliver Stone in America this year.  Will we see a surprising departure from the 57-year censorship and misrepresentation of the facts about JFK's assassination by the U.S. mainstream media?  Or will the new JFK Revisited film get bugliosied and posnered?

      As for 9/11, a great deal of suppressed evidence seems to indicate that our government and mainstream media have fostered and maintained a mass delusion in the United States-- as they did for decades in the case of JFK's assassination.

      It's downright Orwellian.

[Jeff Carter]

The ever schizophrenic CounterPunch site (at least re: conspiracy theories) has published an interview with Oliver Stone on his film career,Vietnam, and the new JFK doc. Stone says the doc will be released in US in November.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/24/the-camera-is-the-rifle-an-interview-with-oliver-stone/

 

[Dennis Berube]

On 8/13/2021 at 7:07 PM, W. Niederhut said:

The real question I'm raising here is whether the 21st century iteration of CIA Operation Mockingbird, as described by the late Udo Ulfkotte, is still operational in the mainstream U.S. media.  I think it is.

As Chris pointed out, it is far worse than in the mockingbird days. If you actually pay attention to various whistleblowers and contrast real media with MSM, it is rather obvious these companies are practicing a form of mind control of a simulated reality. I highly suggest digesting everything Whitney Webb has done with the big tech companies. Google, facebook, Twitter, etc… were actually designed and furthered by US military/intelligence from the beginning. They are social control mediums and highly censor everything that goes against the desired narrative. This is key to understand as figures like Gates and Bezos do not look the same after realizing this. 
 

As with most covert operations nowadays, the alphabet agencies activities have been significantly privatized allowing them to get away with crimes with even less oversight. This has been well blended with western “media” to the point that they are two sides of the same coin and constantly deliver the chosen narrative with a healthy dose of fear and misinformation. 
 

I mean, the government releases a report saying UFOs are real but we have no idea what they are and no one in the media asks how its possible we have classified space weapons but cant identify a flying object in our atmosphere with our advanced radars? Furthermore, no one points out that the videos showed very similar technology to what has been reliably reported (see Larrys book) for over 70 years. It’s difficult to believe that those videos represent the latest technology possessed by the globalists. The D-wave people talk about quantum computing in other dimensions for crying out loud.
 

Another. No one in MSM bothered to ask the World Economic Forum one of the most important questions of our times after they said “you will own nothing and be happy” by 2030. I think the obvious question would be, “well who do you think will own everything?” But i guess we will just ignore it while events unfold just like the WEF and others like them said. In 2016, Klaus Schwab said in an interview that within 10 years, everyone will be “chipped” and you will be able to call a friend by thinking they’re name, digitally integrated. The interviewer failed to ask what would happen to those who wish to maintain they’re human status. Maybe they are going to follow up with Klaus and ask “according to what you said in 2016, everyone will be digital by 2026, when will you roll out this massive program to the world?” 
 

Just two examples of huge topics that are completely devoid of reasoning and logic in the MSM. Best advice is to turn off the fear porn TV entirely imo. 
 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

As Chris pointed out, it is far worse than in the mockingbird days. If you actually pay attention to various whistleblowers and contrast real media with MSM, it is rather obvious these companies are practicing a form of mind control of a simulated reality. I highly suggest digesting everything Whitney Webb has done with the big tech companies. Google, facebook, Twitter, etc… were actually designed and furthered by US military/intelligence from the beginning. They are social control mediums and highly censor everything that goes against the desired narrative. This is key to understand as figures like Gates and Bezos do not look the same after realizing this. 
 

As with most covert operations nowadays, the alphabet agencies activities have been significantly privatized allowing them to get away with crimes with even less oversight. This has been well blended with western “media” to the point that they are two sides of the same coin and constantly deliver the chosen narrative with a healthy dose of fear and misinformation. 
 

I mean, the government releases a report saying UFOs are real but we have no idea what they are and no one in the media asks how its possible we have classified space weapons but cant identify a flying object in our atmosphere with our advanced radars? Furthermore, no one points out that the videos showed very similar technology to what has been reliably reported (see Larrys book) for over 70 years. It’s difficult to believe that those videos represent the latest technology possessed by the globalists. The D-wave people talk about quantum computing in other dimensions for crying out loud.
 

Another. No one in MSM bothered to ask the World Economic Forum one of the most important questions of our times after they said “you will own nothing and be happy” by 2030. I think the obvious question would be, “well who do you think will own everything?” But i guess we will just ignore it while events unfold just like the WEF and others like them said. In 2016, Klaus Schwab said in an interview that within 10 years, everyone will be “chipped” and you will be able to call a friend by thinking they’re name, digitally integrated. The interviewer failed to ask what would happen to those who wish to maintain they’re human status. Maybe they are going to follow up with Klaus and ask “according to what you said in 2016, everyone will be digital by 2026, when will you roll out this massive program to the world?” 
 

Just two examples of huge topics that are completely devoid of reasoning and logic in the MSM. Best advice is to turn off the fear porn TV entirely imo. 
 

 

Back in the late 50’s we had deceitful individuals and agencies influencing press, now we have a whole system compatible with deceit, where in unison the industry sings from the same hymn sheet.