Showing posts with label Coup d'etat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Coup d'etat. Show all posts

Friday 28 June 2013

Predictive Programming and the Threats on the Obama Family

"Don't you remember what happened to Martin Luther King Jr. ...?"

President Barack Hussain Obama, recently.
(According to Left Progressive friends of Ray McGovern)
(But then again, the man is "ex-"CIA, so who the hell knows)



An Example of Predictive Programming (1993) 

"It was just unreal... 

...almost like something out of a movie..."







Predictive Programming in The Faculty from InvestigatingtheTerror on Vimeo.

Clip from 1998 hi school horror flick The Faculty in which two of the characters discuss the idea of predictive programming. 

One character suggests that the X-Files is real and that aliens have been here for a long time, putting stories about themselves into science fiction books and films to prepare us for when they take over.



Tarpley: Syria, The Shadow Government and Threats to Obama's Life. from Paul Coker on Vimeo.
After the failure of the Benghazi coup and the stealing back of the election, he's really made them MAD now...

All bets are off and no holds barred for the next 3 1/2 years.

Gaps are appearing in the Secret Service cover for him and Michelle and clear (non-verbal) warnings are being issued, clear as day, with a full programme of predictive programming in effect.

Stay Vigilant .



"Serious students of the events of September 11, 2001 are aware of the process by which the memes or elements of that tragic day were carefully introduced, accredited, and developed in the public mind, especially through a series of Hollywood movies.

An example is the final scene of the movie The Fight Club, which shows the collapse of a number of skyscrapers in a manner eerily prophetic of the fate of the New York Twin Towers.

Hollywood is, after all, not far away from Santa Monica, the home of that leading scenario factory known as the Rand Corporation.

Precisely in this field we have this sudden emergence of a new genre of a Hollywood blockbuster - the movie extravaganza devoted to an armed assault on the White House.




Predictive Programming - Olympus Has Fallen

"The United State of America does not negotiate with terrorists...!!"

Said with absolute, dead-pan seriousness...
My Lord...

The first of these arrived in March of this year under the title of Olympus Has Fallen, directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Gerard Butler, Ashley Judd, and Morgan Freeman.

Here a large force of North Korean rogue terrorists strafe and storm the White House and take the president prisoner in the situation room, demanding that the US get out of Korea.

The tone is paranoid/serious, with no element of satire or irony.

The accent is on a certain kind of naturalism, including by having the real-life MSNBC commentator Lawrence O’Donnell report the events in a newscast.

Many images portray the blowing up of the entire West Wing of the premises.






Due in theaters in late June is a second movie with virtually the identical theme, this time called White House Down, from Sony Pictures and Columbia. The director is the German Roland Emmerich, known for Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Patriot. The stars are Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx.

This time, the White House is attacked by a domestic paramilitary group led by Emil Stenz, according to the script by James Vanderbilt of the well-known oligarchical clan.

The attackers also blow up the dome of the US Capitol as a diversion.

So far as is known, Obama has not commented on either of these two motion pictures.

The Kokesh march on Washington: Rifle-toting reactionaries

Are there correlated developments in the real world?

There certainly are:

Over a period of several weeks, the disgruntled Iraq war veteran Adam Kokesh was recently calling for a July 4 anti-Obama march of 10,000 black-clad white reactionaries to violate federal and District of Columbia law by crossing the Potomac from Virginia into the District and thence around the National Mall, passing by most of the executive departments, the Congress, and the White House - all the while armed with loaded rifles.

Until about a year ago, Kokesh was a leading supporter of the Republican austerity fanatic and antigovernment demagogue Ron Paul, but he then broke with Paul and set out on his own course of provocation and adventurism.

In the unlikely event that Kokesh’s march had succeeded, he would have had the equivalent of one rifle division in position to intimidate the Congress and the White House in turn - a clear step towards anarchy.

After being arrested at a pro-marijuana rally in Philadelphia and spending a few days in jail, Kokesh has changed his strategy, and is now calling for marches on July 4 in the 50 state capitals to demand immediate secession and breakup of the federal union.

Loaded rifles would still be de rigeur.

The question of secessionism was answered with thundering finality in the American Civil War of a century and a half ago, an episode which caused this nation more than 700,000 dead.

Since the Confederate surrender at Appomattox in April 1865, anyone attempting to be open this question must be regarded as a dangerous madman.

For our purposes here, it is enough to recall that the Kokesh march is too close for comfort to the two scenario films we have just discussed.

Such then is the immediate background for the Bilderberg 2013 deliberations this weekend."


Webster G.Tarpley.




Dick Gregory agrees with me and Webster Tarpley.

"When he went off to Arizona, and that white woman, the Governor, shook her finger in his face...?

Well, if you're the head of this State, and there's a whole lottsa people who would die for you in the National Guard, then is there somebody up there on the roof...?



I'm takin' my lead from you, yo' the Governor, you're the Head of the National Guard...


And yo' leader she her fist in my face...?

An' the people around him let him keep going...?

Like it's Business as Usual...?

...or is it different protocol for a negro President...? 

Huh?"


I don't know why all of you can't see it.


Assuming a role that clearly strays far from his acting comfort zone, Ole' Blue Eyes hiumself, Frank Sinatra portrays a pint-sized low-level mob hoodlum hired to carry out a paid hit.

The assassination of the President of the United States by rifle fire from an upstairs window using a high-velocity rifle with mounted scope on the presidential motorcade during a hastily arranged whisltestop tour.

This was produced in 1954, by the way.







A production feature on series two episode two of Spooks, also known as the suicide bomber episode. 

Cast and Crew talk about the controversy that resulted from the show, and why it was produced. Very much informs the dialogue about predictive programming.

We are noticeably lacking in counter-measures to rebutt the attacks and refute the incoming Black Propaganda from the Cryptocracy...




"I'll tell you right now, unequivocally; 
I won't give the reason for your resignations.... 

If I were to do that, this country would go right down the drain..." 

President Jordan Lyman


"You can't HANDLE the truth!!" 

Colonel Nathan R. Jessep





"As Financial Times reporter Anna Fifield tweeted, "amazing how Medea Benjamin of @codepink gets in to all these speeches. every reporter in Washington recognises her, but security never does." "

Oh, REALLY.... I have had severe concerns about Code Pink, their behavior and in particular their targets in the past.

But this deserves its own write up, due to its importantance, especially of late...

More elsewhere, except to say this - that is a PERFECT Press Pool shot, 

- She could have easily had a gun.

- This was a speech delivered by the President of the United States

-The venue was the National Defense University.

- And who's watching out for the President....?

Or is that just the Secret Service standard operating procedure for a negro Commander in Chief?

I have to ask the question. Both of the following questions are equally valid:

Why didn't the Secret Service in Dallas weld all the manhole covers shut?

How did a known troublemaker penetrate Presidential protection cover at the National Defense University and how was she allowed to create a distraction (like, perhaps, the epileptic or the Umbrella Man in Dealey) and continue speaking over the President for over a minute?

Security is being tested, and breached.

Things are not being done which should be done as a matter of course without thinking.

The President, Petreaus & the Pentagon - The Michael Hastings Interview







Exposing Seditious Treason will get you killed.



Thursday 27 June 2013

Snowden: Previously Sealed Indictment Dated the MonthBefore "Whistleblowing" Interview Occurs


USA Today
June 12, 2013 
Pg. 6

Where Was Snowden In 2006?

When USA TODAY revealed a massive NSA database, phone companies denied contracting with the government.


By Ken Paulson

My first reaction when I heard that the source who tipped news media about a National Security Agency secret phone records database had come forward was "Where were you when we needed you?"
Edward Snowden, a government contractor, announced this weekend that he leaked a sealed court order requiring Verizon to turn over the private phone records of millions of Americans.
I was the editor of USA TODAY in May 2006 when reporter Leslie Cauley revealed the existence of a massive NSA phone database, much like the one disclosed by Snowden. It involved the collection of records showing who called whom, along with call duration, but did not involve eavesdropping.
President George W. Bush responded quickly, saying "the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful," and emphasized that "the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities." Other news organizations did their own reporting and confirmed the existence of the database.
But then came a surprise. We had reported that three phone companies had contracted with the government to provide the databases, but Verizon and BellSouth denied they had cooperated. Our sources indicated otherwise, but we now needed additional documentation. And that's where someone like Snowden would have come in handy. By disclosing classified information, he gave the world a glimpse into the legal infrastructure that put phone company records into government hands.
To this date, we do not know whether three phone companies contributed to the database in 2006, and if so, whether they did it willingly or knowingly.
Revelation faded away
After an initial two-day flurry of news coverage, our 2006 story largely receded from view, so much so that when The Guardian reported the existence of a phone database last week, most news media reported it as though it was a fresh revelation. The Guardian did note USA TODAY's earlier report, as did others after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended the program, asserting that it had been in place for seven years.
Much has changed in those years.
As we prepared the story for publication in 2006, a designer pulled out a large photo of President Bush to be placed adjacent to our exclusive. I objected, saying the prominent play of the president's photo would immediately politicize the story. We wanted readers of all political persuasions to focus on the privacy and security implications.
On Friday, my old newspaper carried this headline: "SPYING EYES" in stark white letters on black background next to a prominent photo of a pained-looking President Obama. Another headline alluded to "Obama's spy plan."
It was a bold and attention-getting presentation, completely in tune with an era in which every aspect of public policy is measured with a political scorecard.
Of course, the greatest change since 2006 has been the proliferation of communications platforms. Tracking phone calls to uncover threats to national security seems almost quaint in an era of instant messaging and social media, such as Twitter and Skype. Of course, that's why news of the phone database was quickly followed by revelations about a government database tracking Internet use. That, in turn, was followed by technology and Internet companies saying they don't give the government direct access to their servers.
Will time pass again?
In all likelihood, the current furor will pass. Perhaps seven years from now, we'll see another news organization "reveal" the phone database one more time, along with disclosures about the tracking of any new digital platforms that appear in the intervening years.
These issues couldn't be more important. Our right to privacy is in play when the government has records showing what numbers we call and potentially what sites we visit. Our freedom of speech and freedom of association are at risk when the government can tell who we communicate with.
But for many Americans, these potential threats pale with our collective need for public safety. Having a record sitting somewhere saying you called for a pizza on a Tuesday evening may not seem much of a price to pay if it helps derail a terrorist plot.
It's an important debate, but one we're not likely to have at any length. Secret government programs don't lend themselves to public hearings, and journalists are hard-pressed to uncover any misuse of data. We don't know what we don't know.
Still, the Bill of Rights was ratified to keep our government at bay, ensuring that our most fundamental freedoms would remain secure. Americans deserve to know much more about the processes in place to "fiercely" protect the privacy of all citizens, as President Bush promised seven years ago.
Or perhaps we'll just wait until 2020.
Ken Paulson is the president of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum, a former editor of USA TODAY and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.













I love this guy sometimes.

Wednesday 5 June 2013

Rupert



Why the US media ignored Murdoch's brazen bid to hijack the presidency.


+++++++++++++++++++

Did the Washington Post and others underplay the story through fear of the News Corp chairman, or simply tin-eared judgment?

Carl Bernstein
The Guardian, Thursday 20 December 2012


SSo now we have it: what appears to be hard, irrefutable evidence of Rupert Murdoch's ultimate and most audacious attempt – thwarted, thankfully, by circumstance – to hijack America's democratic institutions on a scale equal to his success in kidnapping and corrupting the essential democratic institutions of Great Britain through money, influence and wholesale abuse of the privileges of a free press.


In the American instance, Murdoch's goal seems to have been nothing less than using his media empire – notably Fox News – to stealthily recruit, bankroll and support the presidential candidacy of General David Petraeus in the 2012 election.

Thus in the spring of 2011 – less than 10 weeks before Murdoch's centrality to the hacking and politician-buying scandal enveloping his British newspapers was definitively revealed – Fox News' inventor and president, Roger Ailes, dispatched an emissary to Afghanistan to urge Petraeus to turn down President Obama's expected offer to become CIA director and, instead, run for the Republican nomination for president, with promises of being bankrolled by Murdoch. Ailes himself would resign as president of Fox News and run the campaign, according to the conversation between Petraeus and the emissary, K T McFarland, a Fox News on-air defense "analyst" and former spear carrier for national security principals in three Republican administrations.

All this was revealed in a tape recording of Petraeus's meeting with McFarland obtained by Bob Woodward, whose account of their discussion, accompanied online by audio of the tape, was published in the Washington Post – distressingly, in its style section, and not on page one, where it belonged – and, under the style logo, online on December 3.

Indeed, almost as dismaying as Ailes' and Murdoch's disdain for an independent and truly free and honest press, and as remarkable as the obsequious eagerness of their messenger to convey their extraordinary presidential draft and promise of on-air Fox support to Petraeus, has been the ho-hum response to the story by the American press and the country's political establishment, whether out of fear of Murdoch, Ailes and Fox – or, perhaps, lack of surprise at Murdoch's, Ailes' and Fox's contempt for decent journalistic values or a transparent electoral process.

The tone of the media's reaction was set from the beginning by the Post's own tin-eared treatment of this huge story: relegating it, like any other juicy tidbit of inside-the-beltway media gossip, to the section of the newspaper and its website that focuses on entertainment, gossip, cultural and personality-driven news, instead of the front page.

"Bob had a great scoop, a buzzy media story that made it perfect for Style. It didn't have the broader import that would justify A1," Liz Spayd, the Post's managing editor, told Politico when asked why the story appeared in the style section.

Buzzy media story? Lacking the "broader import" of a front-page story? One cannot imagine such a failure of news judgment among any of Spayd's modern predecessors as managing editors of the Post, especially in the clear light of the next day and with a tape recording – of the highest audio quality – in hand.

"Tell [Ailes] if I ever ran," Petraeus announces on the crystal-clear digital recording and then laughs, "but I won't … but if I ever ran, I'd take him up on his offer. … He said he would quit Fox … and bankroll it."

McFarland clarified the terms: "The big boss is bankrolling it. Roger's going to run it. And the rest of us are going to be your in-house" – thereby confirming what Fox New critics have consistently maintained about the network's faux-news agenda and its built-in ideological bias.

And here let us posit the following: were an emissary of the president of NBC News, or of the editor of the New York Times or the Washington Post ever caught on tape promising what Ailes and Murdoch had apparently suggested and offered here, the hue and cry, especially from Fox News and Republican/Tea Party America, from the Congress to the US Chamber of Commerce to the Heritage Foundation, would be deafening and not be subdued until there was a congressional investigation, and the resignations were in hand of the editor and publisher of the network or newspaper. Or until there had been plausible and convincing evidence that the most important elements of the story were false. And, of course, the story would continue day after day on page one and remain near the top of the evening news for weeks, until every ounce of (justifiable) piety about freedom of the press and unfettered presidential elections had been exhausted.

The tape of Petraeus and McFarland's conversation is an amazing document, a testament to the willingness of Murdoch and the wily genius he hired to create Fox News to run roughshod over the American civic and political landscape without regard to even the traditional niceties or pretenses of journalistic independence and honesty. Like the revelations of the hacking scandal, which established beyond any doubt Murdoch's ability to capture and corrupt the three essential elements of the British civic compact – the press, politicians and police – the Ailes/Petraeus tape makes clear that Murdoch's goals in America have always been just as ambitious, insidious and nefarious.

The digital recording, and the dead-serious conspiratorial conversation it captures so chillingly in tone and substance ("I'm only reporting this back to Roger. And that's our deal," McFarland assured Petraeus as she unfolded the offer) utterly refutes Ailes' disingenuous dismissal of what he and Murdoch were actually attempting: the buying of the presidency.

"It was more of a joke, a wiseass way I have," Ailes would later claim while nonetheless confirming its meaning. "I thought the Republican field [in the primaries] needed to be shaken up and Petraeus might be a good candidate."

The recording deserves to be heard by any open-minded person trying to fathom its meaning to the fullest.

Murdoch and Ailes have erected an incredibly influential media empire that has unrivaled power in British and American culture: rather than judiciously exercising that power or improving reportorial and journalistic standards with their huge resources, they have, more often than not, recklessly pursued an agenda of sensationalism, manufactured controversy, ideological messianism, and political influence-buying while masquerading as exemplars of a free and responsible press. The tape is powerful evidence of their methodology and reach.

The Murdoch story – his corruption of essential democratic institutions on both sides of the Atlantic – is one of the most important and far-reaching political/cultural stories of the past 30 years, an ongoing tale without equal. Like Richard Nixon and his tapes, much attention has been focused on the necessity of finding the smoking gun to confirm what other evidence had already established beyond a doubt: that the elemental instruments of democracy, ie the presidency in Nixon's case, and the privileges of free press in Murdoch's, were grievously misused and abused for their own ends by those entrusted to use great power for the common good.

In Nixon's case, the system worked. His actions were investigated by Congress, the judicial system held that even the president of the United States was not above the law, and he was forced to resign or face certain impeachment and conviction. American and British democracy has not been so fortunate with Murdoch, whose power and corruption went unchecked for a third of a century.

The most important thing we journalists do is make judgments about what is news. Perhaps no story has eluded us on a daily basis (for lack of trying) for so many years as the story of Murdoch's destructive march across our democratic landscape. Only the Guardian vigorously pursued the leads of the hacking story and methodically stuck with it for months and years, never ignoring the underlying context of how Rupert Murdoch conducted his take-no-prisoners business and journalism without regard for the most elemental standards of fairness, accuracy or balance, or even lawful conduct.

When the Guardian's hacking coverage reached critical mass last year, I quoted a former top Murdoch deputy as follows: "This scandal and all its implications could not have happened anywhere else. Only in Murdoch's orbit. The hacking at News of the World was done on an industrial scale. More than anyone, Murdoch invented and established this culture in the newsroom, where you do whatever it takes to get the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify the means."

The tape that Bob Woodward obtained, and which the Washington Post ran in the style section, should be the denouement of the Murdoch story on both sides of the Atlantic, making clear that no institution, not even the presidency of the United States, was beyond the object of his subversion. If Murdoch had bankrolled a successful Petraeus presidential campaign and – as his emissary McFarland promised – "the rest of us [at Fox] are going to be your in-house" – Murdoch arguably might have sewn up the institutions of American democracy even more securely than his British tailoring.

Happily, Petraeus was not hungering for the presidency at the moment of the messenger's arrival: the general was contented at the idea of being CIA director, which Ailes was urging him to forgo.

"We're all set," said the emissary, referring to Ailes, Murdoch and Fox. "It's never going to happen," Petraeus said. "You know it's never going to happen. It really isn't. … My wife would divorce me."


Saturday 2 March 2013

Bernstein - The Post Exposes a Domestic Coup d'état Story in the Style Section

"The digital recording, and the dead-serious conspiratorial conversation it captures so chillingly in tone and substance ("I'm only reporting this back to Roger. And that's our deal," McFarland assured Petraeus as she unfolded the offer) utterly refutes Ailes' disingenuous dismissal of what he and Murdoch were actually attempting: the buying of the presidency.


The Murdoch story – his corruption of essential democratic institutions on both sides of the Atlantic – is one of the most important and far-reaching political/cultural stories of the past 30 years, an ongoing tale without equal.

The tape that Bob Woodward obtained, and which the Washington Post ran in the style section, should be the denouement of the Murdoch story on both sides of the Atlantic, making clear that no institution, not even the presidency of the United States, was beyond the object of his subversion. "

Carl Bernstein absolutely, unequivocally KNOWS what is going on, and what the free world has just lived through;

I missed this story too - not only was this Op-Ed column NOT published (or even much promoted) in the American media (the most important and devastating piece Bernstein authored previously had been published in Rolling Stone, not in the Washington Post), the fact of the dateline being three days before Christmas surely cannot be coincidental.

Why the US media ignored Murdoch's brazen bid to hijack the presidency.

Did the Washington Post and others underplay the story through fear of the News Corp chairman, or simply tin-eared judgment?

Carl Bernstein
The Guardian, Thursday 20 December 2012

So now we have it: what appears to be hard, irrefutable evidence of Rupert Murdoch's ultimate and most audacious attempt – thwarted, thankfully, by circumstance – to hijack America's democratic institutions on a scale equal to his success in kidnapping and corrupting the essential democratic institutions of Great Britain through money, influence and wholesale abuse of the privileges of a free press.

In the American instance, Murdoch's goal seems to have been nothing less than using his media empire – notably Fox News – to stealthily recruit, bankroll and support the presidential candidacy of General David Petraeus in the 2012 election.

Thus in the spring of 2011 – less than 10 weeks before Murdoch's centrality to the hacking and politician-buying scandal enveloping his British newspapers was definitively revealed – Fox News' inventor and president, Roger Ailes, dispatched an emissary to Afghanistan to urge Petraeus to turn down President Obama's expected offer to become CIA director and, instead, run for the Republican nomination for president, with promises of being bankrolled by Murdoch. Ailes himself would resign as president of Fox News and run the campaign, according to the conversation between Petraeus and the emissary, K T McFarland, a Fox News on-air defense "analyst" and former spear carrier for national security principals in three Republican administrations.

All this was revealed in a tape recording of Petraeus's meeting with McFarland obtained by Bob Woodward, whose account of their discussion, accompanied online by audio of the tape, was published in the Washington Post – distressingly, in its style section, and not on page one, where it belonged – and, under the style logo, online on December 3.

Indeed, almost as dismaying as Ailes' and Murdoch's disdain for an independent and truly free and honest press, and as remarkable as the obsequious eagerness of their messenger to convey their extraordinary presidential draft and promise of on-air Fox support to Petraeus, has been the ho-hum response to the story by the American press and the country's political establishment, whether out of fear of Murdoch, Ailes and Fox – or, perhaps, lack of surprise at Murdoch's, Ailes' and Fox's contempt for decent journalistic values or a transparent electoral process.

The tone of the media's reaction was set from the beginning by the Post's own tin-eared treatment of this huge story: relegating it, like any other juicy tidbit of inside-the-beltway media gossip, to the section of the newspaper and its website that focuses on entertainment, gossip, cultural and personality-driven news, instead of the front page.

"Bob had a great scoop, a buzzy media story that made it perfect for Style. It didn't have the broader import that would justify A1," Liz Spayd, the Post's managing editor, told Politico when asked why the story appeared in the style section.

Buzzy media story? Lacking the "broader import" of a front-page story? One cannot imagine such a failure of news judgment among any of Spayd's modern predecessors as managing editors of the Post, especially in the clear light of the next day and with a tape recording – of the highest audio quality – in hand.

"Tell [Ailes] if I ever ran," Petraeus announces on the crystal-clear digital recording and then laughs, "but I won't … but if I ever ran, I'd take him up on his offer. … He said he would quit Fox … and bankroll it."

McFarland clarified the terms: "The big boss is bankrolling it. Roger's going to run it. And the rest of us are going to be your in-house" – thereby confirming what Fox New critics have consistently maintained about the network's faux-news agenda and its built-in ideological bias.

And here let us posit the following: were an emissary of the president of NBC News, or of the editor of the New York Times or the Washington Post ever caught on tape promising what Ailes and Murdoch had apparently suggested and offered here, the hue and cry, especially from Fox News and Republican/Tea Party America, from the Congress to the US Chamber of Commerce to the Heritage Foundation, would be deafening and not be subdued until there was a congressional investigation, and the resignations were in hand of the editor and publisher of the network or newspaper. Or until there had been plausible and convincing evidence that the most important elements of the story were false. And, of course, the story would continue day after day on page one and remain near the top of the evening news for weeks, until every ounce of (justifiable) piety about freedom of the press and unfettered presidential elections had been exhausted.

The tape of Petraeus and McFarland's conversation is an amazing document, a testament to the willingness of Murdoch and the wily genius he hired to create Fox News to run roughshod over the American civic and political landscape without regard to even the traditional niceties or pretenses of journalistic independence and honesty. Like the revelations of the hacking scandal, which established beyond any doubt Murdoch's ability to capture and corrupt the three essential elements of the British civic compact – the press, politicians and police – the Ailes/Petraeus tape makes clear that Murdoch's goals in America have always been just as ambitious, insidious and nefarious.

The digital recording, and the dead-serious conspiratorial conversation it captures so chillingly in tone and substance ("I'm only reporting this back to Roger. And that's our deal," McFarland assured Petraeus as she unfolded the offer) utterly refutes Ailes' disingenuous dismissal of what he and Murdoch were actually attempting: the buying of the presidency.

"It was more of a joke, a wiseass way I have," Ailes would later claim while nonetheless confirming its meaning. "I thought the Republican field [in the primaries] needed to be shaken up and Petraeus might be a good candidate."

The recording deserves to be heard by any open-minded person trying to fathom its meaning to the fullest.

Murdoch and Ailes have erected an incredibly influential media empire that has unrivaled power in British and American culture: rather than judiciously exercising that power or improving reportorial and journalistic standards with their huge resources, they have, more often than not, recklessly pursued an agenda of sensationalism, manufactured controversy, ideological messianism, and political influence-buying while masquerading as exemplars of a free and responsible press. The tape is powerful evidence of their methodology and reach.

The Murdoch story – his corruption of essential democratic institutions on both sides of the Atlantic – is one of the most important and far-reaching political/cultural stories of the past 30 years, an ongoing tale without equal. Like Richard Nixon and his tapes, much attention has been focused on the necessity of finding the smoking gun to confirm what other evidence had already established beyond a doubt: that the elemental instruments of democracy, ie the presidency in Nixon's case, and the privileges of free press in Murdoch's, were grievously misused and abused for their own ends by those entrusted to use great power for the common good.

In Nixon's case, the system worked. His actions were investigated by Congress, the judicial system held that even the president of the United States was not above the law, and he was forced to resign or face certain impeachment and conviction. American and British democracy has not been so fortunate with Murdoch, whose power and corruption went unchecked for a third of a century.

The most important thing we journalists do is make judgments about what is news. Perhaps no story has eluded us on a daily basis (for lack of trying) for so many years as the story of Murdoch's destructive march across our democratic landscape. Only the Guardian vigorously pursued the leads of the hacking story and methodically stuck with it for months and years, never ignoring the underlying context of how Rupert Murdoch conducted his take-no-prisoners business and journalism without regard for the most elemental standards of fairness, accuracy or balance, or even lawful conduct.

When the Guardian's hacking coverage reached critical mass last year, I quoted a former top Murdoch deputy as follows: "This scandal and all its implications could not have happened anywhere else. Only in Murdoch's orbit. The hacking at News of the World was done on an industrial scale. More than anyone, Murdoch invented and established this culture in the newsroom, where you do whatever it takes to get the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify the means."

The tape that Bob Woodward obtained, and which the Washington Post ran in the style section, should be the denouement of the Murdoch story on both sides of the Atlantic, making clear that no institution, not even the presidency of the United States, was beyond the object of his subversion. If Murdoch had bankrolled a successful Petraeus presidential campaign and – as his emissary McFarland promised – "the rest of us [at Fox] are going to be your in-house" – Murdoch arguably might have sewn up the institutions of American democracy even more securely than his British tailoring.

Happily, Petraeus was not hungering for the presidency at the moment of the messenger's arrival: the general was contented at the idea of being CIA director, which Ailes was urging him to forgo.

"We're all set," said the emissary, referring to Ailes, Murdoch and Fox. "It's never going to happen," Petraeus said. "You know it's never going to happen. It really isn't. … My wife would divorce me."