Boycott the newsmedia !

<< Brad Siegel, President, Turner Entertainment. >>

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jews-in-the-media-hollywood/

 

I took a quick glance at that link.I saw about 30 names,some of them are talk show hosts,others are retired or no longer in the media etc. etc. ---- Why don't you post a link listing EVERYONE involved in high postions in media,you know the thousands of people.A 'reputable' list will show most of these people are NOT Jewish.--Anyhow have fun with you're BS and nonsense,this thread isn't even worth looking at anymore.

 

Yes... and there's also a very long list of Zionist Jews who used to occupy key positions in the government, who've long since retired to the private sector, where they work for various "think-tanks" and lobbyist groups, and where they employ their talents for the sake of creating even more wars and bloodbaths. Wolfowitz isn't there any longer, and neither is William Cohen, etc. etc. There's a very long list of Zionist Jews who used to occupy key positions in the government ... but it would seem as if they've all been replaced by a whole new group of Zionist Jews ! I'm sure that it must work pretty much the same way in the newsmedia, i.e. after Zionist A retires, Zionist B steps right in and fills the shoes of his colleague.

 

"Blitzer began his career in journalism in the early 1970s in the Tel Aviv bureau of the Reuters news agency. In 1973 he caught the eye of Jerusalem Post editor Ari Rath, who hired Blitzer as a Washington correspondent for the English language Israeli newspaper. Blitzer would remain with the Post until 1990, covering both American politics and developments in the Middle East." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer

 

You'll be pleased to know the BBC (The biggest media organisation in the world) and ITN are not run by zionist jews...
I agree though, the premise of this thread is BS.

 

yeah.... Jews control the world... riiight. What even makes them "Jewish".

 

I'm assuming this was meant to be a question?

If so, the answer is whether or not they practice Judaism, in any of its forms. The term "Jewish" refers to a religious bent, like the words "Christian," "Muslim," "Hindu" or "Buddhist."

This is not to be confused with "Israeli." That refers to nationality. And while it's true that many Israelis are Jewish, not all of them are. Anyone from Israel is an "Israeli," but only people who actually practice one of the sects of Judaism are "Jewish."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_Abramsky <"Jennifer Gita Abramsky, DBE (born 7 October 1946) is chairman of the UK's National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF).[1] The NHMF makes grants to preserve heritage of outstanding national importance. Until her retirement from the BBC Jenny Abramsky was its most senior woman employee; she was Director of Audio and Music. She is the daughter of Professor Chimen Abramsky and the granddaughter of Rabbi Yehezkel Abramsky.">

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/10/bbc.radio <"Abramsky joined the BBC in 1969 as a programme operations assistant. During nearly 40 years at the BBC she served as editor of Radio 4's Today, World at One and PM; launch controller of BBC Radio Five Live; director of continuous news services, including News 24; and as director of radio, where she launched five digital stations.">

 

There are many people who profess to have no real belief in God, who eat "traife" on a regular basis, and who seldom even bother to attend synagogue services, but if you were to ask them about their "race" or ethnicity, they're going to tell you that they are Jewish, and they are most likely CORRECT in that regard because under Jewish law a person IS considered to be Jewish providing that they have a Jewish mother (and this btw is according to some of the highest authorities in Judaism).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Yentob <"Alan Yentob (born 11 March 1947) is a British television executive. He was born into a Jewish family in London of Iraqi descent, and was educated at the independent The King's School, Ely and Leeds University. After initially joining the BBC as a trainee in the BBC World Service in 1968, he has spent his entire professional career with the Corporation.">

 

As a point of fact ... there are many untold thousands of Gentiles or "goyim" who are working for the newsmedia in their capacity as truck drivers and delivery drivers and delivery boys and maintenance men and weather forecasters and printing machine operators and janitors, etc. In total contrast, there's only a small handful of Jewish media executives who are actually running the whole operation and who are setting the editorial policies with regard to the Middle East and the "war against terrorism," etc. ...

When you consider the "cold hard reality" of the situation, i.e. when you consider the fact that there are MANY MANY TIMES MORE GENTILES THAN JEWS who are actually working in the newsmedia on a day-to-day basis, then by logical necessity it MUST follow that Jewish newsmedia influence doesn't really amount to very much, and that it carries very little weight in terms of its practical everyday consequences. Isn't that right?

 

:smilielol5: I'll wait a few days and look forward to seeing a few Jewish names who happen to work at ITN...so it must prove it is run buy zionist jews. :smilielol5:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=373091&f=74

 

If the government were allowed to seize control of the media, then we would lose our first amendment right; the right to free speech.

 

The only people with a right to freedom of speech are the people who own and control the newsmedia. The rest of us are little more than passive consumers of propaganda. If you're lucky, you might be able to get a letter published in your local newspaper, but on the other hand you can just about kiss your freedom of speech "goodbye" if you should ever try to say something that doesn't sit well with the news censors. The bottom line is that you must be a newsmedia owner if you'd like to have freedom of speech.

 

Actually it means "rule by the people" "people" coming from the Greek word "demos". The demos were the "mass of people" that is those not distinguished as aristocracy. Having said that, modern democracy is best described by the term "representative democracy", that is, a select few make policy based on the will of the demos (in theory at least).

Freedom of speech as far as democracy is concerned is not about allowing every single person equal coverage. The point is that you legally have the right to try and influence people and your society. Do you think everybody in ancient Athens had an equal ability to propose legislation? think again, only those who were well practiced in rhetoric (or could afford writers) and were respected got the most attention.

If anything you have more freedom of speech (but far less power as a people because you cannot directly propose legislation), because you are not held responsible for your words, like in ancient Athens. You cannot be ostracised for your thoughts like in ancient Athens.

There is no point pretending that modern democracy is the same as the ancient brand. So i will just ask, what is that you think would be the best system of speech (lets not even bother with legislation)? Would it involve silencing those who can afford to speak to an entire nation (those who can afford to own news companies)?

I'm not asking how we should go about changing the system as it is, i am asking, what would your perfect system be like (regarding the rights to speech)?

 

I really don't see that there's a whole lot of difference between saying on the one hand that democracy means "rule by majority" while saying on the other hand that it means "rule by the mass of people." It's kind of like saying "six of one or a half-dozen of the other."

The newspapers are privately-owned, and they should be allowed to print whatever propaganda they like, but the airwaves are a completely different story. The airwaves are public property, and they should be owned collectively by the taxpayers. I would send in the Marines and have them seize control of all radio and television stations.

I really don't see why the news-giants should be allowed to get away with telling lies and with censoring the rest of us. If the new-giants can be allowed to silence others with impunity, then imo it's only fair that they should be allowed to do so ONLY in their own privately-owned publications and NOT in forums which are publicly-owned.

 

6 of one, a half bakers dozen of the other. You talk about the ancient brand of democracy without even knowing what it was all about, I suggest you study Athenian history from the time of Solon's reforms to the Athenian Empire.

 

http://www.daily.pk/six-jewish-companies-control-96-of-the-world’s-media-12030/