Money is paid to (or by) corrupt agency officials or criminals in exchange for the surveillance material. Sometimes favours / goods are exchanged instead
The recipients are usually media (mafia) executives, corporate criminals or political players. Also, direct monitoring of surveillance frequencies is arranged whereby corrupt media personnel monitor the audio (sometimes visual) frequencies of surveillance operations set up by the CIA, Office of Homeland Security etc.
The results are used to arrange “coincidences” for the target to see or hear; ie to oppress them. Alternatively, theft of intellectual property can be the motive.
With reference to innocent surveillance targets (and with full knowledge of the truth) the media can also be responsible for spreading false rumours and/or lodging false complaints with corrupt police. This helps them to avoid enquiries by honest law enforcers who are often monitored themselves. In any event, investigating “protected” public figures is almost impossible. Remember, large sections of the media / entertainment industry are controlled by organised crime (esp. in the US). All they have to do is deny it or make themselves “unavailable” to any would be investigator (with lawyers at the ready).
Two thirds of what is gathered by the media is never presented, much being used only to blackmail / oppress political targets. In this manner the political process is warped beyond the mere agency vetting of those entering politics in the first place; taking it towards a situation where transient political figures are tightly “controlled” by the media which can destroy them just as quickly as it builds them up. In turn, large sections of the mainstream media are controlled by criminals with vested interests (eg the drug syndicates).
NB: The links between organised crime, the covert government agencies and the media (mainly at the executive level). Little wonder they say “control the media and you control the world”.
Notably, anyone from researchers to writers, from story editors to floor managers, from producers (and other executives) to presenters can be involved in what is broadcast or printed. It is only necessary for a few in each media outlet to be corruptible for damage to be done through MANY articles, items, etc. Most would not know the origins of the “inserted” material but many are aware they are party to a corrupt, oppressive practice.
The feedback procedures include the “spiking” of articles, program promos, advertisements, news and current affairs items with comments, phrases and events which make it clear to the target that they have no privacy. Specifically, what you say or write (or do) is “used” on a timely basis again and again and again in print or on air (with no reference to the source, of course). Public figures are also monitored closely (in private) but the results are not often fed back. Only the disempowered get surveillance feedback.
When and Where?
Also the media mafia can arrange for the harassment of non public figures to come from different sources. By asking leading questions of interviewees, timing when certain stories or shows run, carefully editing and taking matters out of proper context they can paint a deceptive picture, and a very familiar/annoying one for their targets. And they do something similar with photos/video. For example if a target mentions a public figure (in private) that celebrity’s picture (etc) will soon appear somewhere the victim is likely to see it. It will “appear” that the celebrity has been told what the target said (a positive comment drawing a happy response and so on). Constant repetition of this transparent means of harassment is very annoying.
Other media tricks involve presenting half truths, misquotes and deliberate mistakes (using names, dates, statistics, no’s etc). Even song/music selections for background can be “familiar” or coincidental to monitored targets. On top of this they can prioritise stories on news & current affairs programs, often using stories filed for another occasion or over emphasizing the importance of relatively insignificant news.
A simple example of prioritizing: A target could spend their day as follows:- *Visiting a heart specialist, *paying utilities bills, *talking golf and, perhaps *mentioning obscure or long since retired celebrities at some stage. When viewing a current affairs program that night there may well be items touching on each of these topics (to varying degrees). Bizarre coincidences? Not when you throw in actual phrases used by the target, and this happens night after night. It’s clear that such people are targeted by the media mafia. Allowing them to “agenda set” is just one of the lures/traps.
Aside from the “timing” and “presentation” of items, which covertly assault the monitored targets without giving any real influence to them…there is also the covering of stolen ideas / phrases etc by starting “waves of coincidence”. For example, in the early part of the writer’s own surveillance, (early ’90’s), I complained privately about the “Doof Doof” music I’d hear coming from hoons cars. I don’t know if someone else had the same notion or not but as a monitored person these remarks were picked up and the term was then used widely…This feedback can happen with things you say whether they are original or not. EG The phrase “The Elephant in the Room”, which dates back at least to Mark Twain’s time, has become more popular again because I use it often. Sometimes the references are just to hurt you and make you look ridiculous if you tell anyone but othertimes it’s to use you; still laughing off any claim that this was the case. In the case of “Doof Doof”.. Waves and waves of references followed by so many others that the origin of the term would be completely lost and now, (probably courtesy of those that took the term in the first place), even Wikipaedia has been used as a cover by stating that a Sydney housewife, a neighbour of the contributor, was first overheard using the term in 1993. Hmm. At least that’s an admission that it was taken from the private conversation of a private citizen. Also, occasionally a phrase or idea can actually be subliminally or even knowingly “planted” in the mind of the unwary target just before another person said it to create added confusion. This method can also be used to transfer ideas to corrupt celebrities who then deceive themselves that the notion was theirs; ie not all stolen material is handed over overtly, many are happy to have it subliminally planted and don’t want to hear where it came from in either instance.Celebrities realise that all of this goes on but take direction from execs and read what “writers” present them with without question. They have no conscience when it comes to harassing ordinary citizens on behalf of their agency / syndicate handlers.
The purpose is not to lure the target for an interview (or research a story) but to harass you, covertly. The media do have a political agenda and break many laws. Like most politicians they are directed by vested interests.
Also stories / rumours are often released on a timely basis to pressure honest (or semi honest) public figures and law enforcers on certain issues. These people are often monitored around the clock, keeping those who will “stop at nothing” at least “one step ahead”. Often the media watchdog role is merely a public facade presented to win public favour / confidence.
Usually only those who are corruptible gain prominent positions within a corrupt media empire. No one who questions corrupt practices survives for long; their careers being halted.
In other words, instead of asking why a highly paid journalist / entertainer etc would be compromised just to damage (even) a non public figure the skeptic should ask himself whether that person would have such highly paid opportunities in the first place if they weren”t corruptible. Remember, as with any job / career, ability is not the only criterion for selection in public life.
Alternative Method of Arranging ‘Coincidences’ (Experimental)
Using subliminal messages, relayed via technologies mentioned in this web site, news, commentary, songs etc which are to be broadcast (whether prerecorded or live) can be planted. The effect would be as annoying as conventional audio-visual media feedback but less involvement would be needed on the part of on-air presenters. An agency operative need only have access to whats yet to be aired or insert material of his/her own by arrangement.
More bizarre is the possibility that a targeted persons thoughts/words could be subliminally fed to on-air presenters (without their knowledge). They would then occasionally repeat the targets thoughts/words during ad-lib periods, without even realising it. Naturally this would work better during live broadcasts. Proof that such things have been tried is, of course, unavailable.
Equally perverse is the potential to scan on-air presenters/writers for their thoughts and subliminally feed those to the victim and/or feed a monitors words etc to both victim and presenters so correlations occur in speech and thought.
Like conventional (common) methods these possibilites could lead to deceptions and setups eg some targets may believe that they are psychic or directly accuse presenters of spying.
The supportive Minister, Brendan O’Connor, was immediately removed as Minister for Privacy in a cabinet reshuffle. He is now, amongst other things, Minister for Homelessness and will have no further involvement in the enquiry.