How does US propaganda infiltrate foreign countries? Serbia reveals how US Embassy funds local media, using this propaganda to influence public opinion and prep US voters and citizens for future military actions in international conflicts.
What does the statement like this really mean: "I am not interested in the dissolution of your government?" How about the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations then?
"I've been a media freedom defender since my childhood, because my mother has a diploma in journalism and my grandfather was a newspaper editor. As a result, I am surrounded by the journalists all my life," US Ambassador to Serbia Michael Kirby said in an interview to one of Serbian newspapers. If he was cited correctly, one must wonder how he could be a media freedom defender as a child? Maybe you are an advanced child of journalism just because your mother is a graduate journalist and your grandfather is an editor? There aren't really examples of inheritance of love for media freedom. Could it possibly happen in the US.
Overall, Kirby states that "the problem of funding (Serbian) media must be solved; it has been difficult for several years already as too much media are hunting for too little money." In fact, newspapers released information about the sums the American and British Embassies donated to the Center for Investigative Journalism in Belgrade. These figures are quite impressive, and for some reason they can be found in the "gifts and inheritance" section in the balance books. Some inheritance? How can NGOs, namely centers of investigative journalism, inherit something from the US Embassy or Kirby himself? After all, the Embassy is in full service and US Ambassador, is safe and sound.
as of 2011, the Pentagon had a $200m a year social media propaganda budget. https://t.co/5tT8occNKd Are they just total boneheads?— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 22, 2015
Some dream of having a wealthy American uncle and having received a notice stating that so-and-so has died in Chicago or Florida and has left a tidy sum. This would be real legal basis for accession to the heirship. In the beginning one was a reader of Zagreb school magazine Blue Swallow, and later, when its investigation didn't seem to reliable enough, one switched to the children's newspaper of Serbian town Gornji Milanovac — this would be real freedom of choice.
It is painful to realize that fully independent investigative Western journalism has nothing to do with reality. Take for instance, the articles on Sadam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which have never been found in Iraq. The Iraqis have paid a high price for this American media example of "investigative journalism" — 350 thousand lives and entirely destroyed and fragmented country. The US military casualties totaled 5 thousand people.
Another example is the so called British investigative media. In December 2002, they wrote that Saddam Hussein's missiles with biological weapons might destroy all of London within ten minutes. Another example is being asked by Neil Gardner — a Heritage Fund researcher in Washington — which European army would play the role of a policeman in Iraq best, after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. At that time, in September 2002, when the whole story of Saddam's nuclear weapons has not received such wide publicity yet, the preparation was already in full swing. Therefore, the so called "investigators" were paving the way for the invasion.
How the NDAA Allows US Gov to Use Propaganda Against Americans https://t.co/3O1RlKkLvj
— philip harris (@pharris830) November 23, 2015
Another sensitive topic is Western investigative journalism and US missile defense system in Europe. Despite the agreement on Iranian nuclear program, the US does not intend to abandon its missile defense system. After all, this system is supposed to protect against Iranian and North Korean missiles. When at least one honest article about this matter will appear in the Washington Post or The New York Times? Only if Iranian and North Korean Embassies allocate some funds and buy newspaper space to cover the topic. Perhaps, even after that it won't happen.
Michael Kirby spoke to a group of journalists in Belgrade and told them about his conversation with the Prime Minister Alexandar Vucic, to whom he allegedly said that "he is not interested in the dissolution of Serbian government and does not intend to do so." Could he have really said something of that kind? The US Ambassador won't allow himself such things in any African state. What does this mean "not interested in the dissolution of the government?" This means that if the US is interested in this, it will definitely do so. But what about the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations? Apparently, when it comes to Serbia, everything is crystal clear.