| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Pilots For Truth > Research > Hill & Knowlton |
| Posted by: jo56 Jan 6 2007, 03:41 PM |
| Hill and Knowlton (the king of propaganda) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_&_Knowlton What the UK says about them: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=378 Corporate Crimes: http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=380 Hill and Knowlton and BCCIs PR Campaign: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/18hill.htm NOTE: One partner of this firm left due to the BCCI account being taken. The ethical partner, apparently. |
| Posted by: jo56 Jan 24 2007, 06:11 PM |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadassah_Lieberman Joe Lieberman's wife started working at Hill and Knowlton March, 2005. |
| Posted by: Sanders Jan 24 2007, 11:51 PM |
 http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3357 Look at the organizations her husband runs with - you know I've been trying to "connect the dots" lately, and when I see: Committee on the Present Danger: Honorary Co-chair Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: Distinguished Adviser and Committee for the Liberation of Iraq: Former Co-chair; I know this is a real "insider". Leiberman is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (Right Web doesn't mention that). Good work, jo  |
| Posted by: jo56 Feb 2 2007, 05:33 PM |
| Death by Propaganda http://www.newswithviews.com/Dean/carolyn33.htm “The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." --Alex Carey (Australian academic) "Looking back over how corporate power became the dominant force in our everyday life and how government now follows in lockstep to suit every corporate whim, it is useful to understand its origins. In all, it’s been a long, deliberate process that continues to become evermore sophisticated in its manipulation of us, the American public." |
| Posted by: Devilsadvocate Feb 4 2007, 06:51 PM |
| ...How do you control a democratic society? ...By controlling public opinion. ...How do you control public opinion? ...By controlling the media. ...How do you control the media? Well- Hitler did it the simple way: Dr. Josef Göbbels simply took charge, and called it "Gleichschaltung" ("To switch in-line", in the sense of "To bring in line with the powers in being") In a democratic society which prides itself in a free press, you can't simplly do that- it would cause eyebrows to be raised, Heads to roll, and all kinds of other problems you could do without if you decided to have designs in that regard. But- there is a simple alternative. It's a free market economy, is it not? So- you simply find someone with suitable financial means (...and who just *happens* to share your political views... ), and he simply begins to collect newspapers like other people collect stamps!When i arrived in Ireland in 1984, the papers back then were full with a major scandal. Apparently, the internal security-service MI6 had completely undermined the BBC. As a result of the scandal, those editors who were identified as MI6 agents were fired, and the old staff got their jobs back. Around that time, Rupert Murdock was collecting newspapers- like other people collect stamps...  ...Honi soit qui mal y pense... |
| Posted by: jo56 Feb 4 2007, 07:42 PM |
| I also call on Hill and Knowlton to start presenting HONEST clients, and not the scum of the earth. (Referring to BCCI namely) There are so many clients this firm has represented that shows they have NO VALUES nor INTEGRITY. It appears that the DOLLAR is all that is important to them. Their Code of Professional Conduct: http://www.hillandknowlton.com/common/file.php/pg/localhost72/hillandknowlton.com/binaries/245/HK_Code_Conduct.pdf It is beyond time for these corporations to show some INTEGRITY, and start living by their Codes of Conduct and Mission Statements. |
| Posted by: Devilsadvocate Feb 5 2007, 12:23 PM |
| These days, the media, advertising-industry and entertainment are strongly linked. Television can only function through the provision of entertainment, while being financed by advertising. What is propaganda? Just a different form of advertising, no? It has been said that the most powerful weapon to emerge from WWII was not the new aircraft-technology, the missile-technology or even the nuclear bomb- but propaganda. Josef Göbbels was a highly dangerous man- because he was one of the few Nazi-leaders who was also highly intelligent. Propaganda is nothing new- the idea of presenting an enemy as having horns and a tail is ancient. But that is the sledgehammer-method. Propaganda is most effective when its subtle- when its not recognisable as propaganda. Some of the things provided by Hill and Knowlton in 1990 were still quite easily recognisable as propaganda. I recall specifically a scene in which an Iraqi officer who had just 'surrendered' to US-troops gave an interview (  ), explaining that he was glad that it was over and that '...no one over there (i.e.,on the Iraqi side) likes Saddam Hussein'. In the background could be seen two more Iraqis, climbing over some barbed wire, then approaching the American soldiers behind the Iraqi lieutenant: bowing, eventually kissing their hands.The lieutenant supposedly had been sitting for weeks in a trench in the desert. For weeks- yet he appeared clean, fresh and not at all fatigued. His helmet was brandnew.  What gave the scene away was the lighting: It was definitely artificial- all one had to do was to compare it with some of the real images from the desert. The reason why it worked was because no one would have assumed that fake information like that would ever make it into the mainstream media. The prevailing attitude was that the US don't do things like that- after all, this was a nation priding itself in a free press. There were also images of dead seabirds: "The Iraqis are pouring Oil into the Gulf!"- the pictures came from a tanker-accident a few years before operation desert-storm, and were identified as such by a Journalist (Peter Scholl-Latour, as far as i know). The story of the Kuwaiti nurse was also part of it- a bit more sophisticated perhaps, but the significant part was that the 'nurse' was flown to America, were- as one of very few foreigners ever- she was allowed to adress Congress directly: This is were it stopped being mere propaganda, aiming at showing 'the enemy' in a bad light; this is were it began to be manipulation. Those being manipulated were the elected representatives of the people of the United States. But the really subtle propaganda comes by way of the entertainment-industry. Göbbels controlled that industry and used it to perfection: The Film-industry in Germany at the time churned out musicals meant to provide escapism pure, subtle propaganda which left people no choice but to identify with the characters they were meant to identify with, while at the same time not appearing to be directly dealing with the cause of 'Germany' or the Nazis. They also provided the sledgehammer-material, of course- namely films in which jewish people were equated with vermin. But the most effective films were the other ones- the subtle ones. Does anyone remember a TV-series called "Major Dad"? |
| Posted by: Devilsadvocate Feb 6 2007, 02:51 PM |
| There was one episode of that which stuck in my mind (...one of a handful: pretty dire stuff, this) The daughter came home from school with bad grades in history. So, granddad was drafted in- the "Colonel". He gave her a history-grind... Next scene: Granddad: "...and we could see them shifting supplies on the other side of the border, but we could not do anything about it. Well, it was a pretty controversial thing back then, but in hindsight i still think that bombing Cambodia was the right thing to do..." Daughter: "...Wow- Granddad! That's sooo interesting...I bet you wouldn't find that in a history-book!" No- you probably wouldn't, considering the reason *why* it was a controversy back then- namely because they were bombing a supposedly neutral Country back into the stoneage without Congress even knowing about it. If "Granddad" would believe in democratic ideals, he would have a serious problem with that- and so would the makers of that TV-program. Entertainment? According to the rating it was given, it was pure family-entertainment, suitable for younger viewers. Politicians make use of Image-consultants: What people vote for is an illusion, an image projected into the public domain to make a candidate palatable to the voters. Hill and Knowlton simply take this concept a step further; the entertainment-industry may well have it's roll to play as well. Who owns those companies? Who determines what they report, propagate or sell as "entertainment"? And who benefits from the profits these companies make? |
| Posted by: jo56 Feb 6 2007, 06:41 PM |
| I wonder how many kids of Hill and Knowlton firm people are in Iraq? Also, if all of their kids were in Iraq so that their HEARTS were involved, would they advertise differently? |