too interesting 2 not repost:..
The War Of Terror
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
thanks: Eddie NWO Censored (268579829)
To: (110382090)
Date: 4/07/2009 2:08:45 AM
Subject: Pentagon And The Hollywood Propaganda Machine
Eddie NWO Censored
CLICK TO READ ALL OF EDDIE NWO CENSORED RECENT BULLETINS
Airmen run for cover while a camera crew on a four-wheeler captures the action during filming of the movie "Transformers" at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. The producers of the upcoming sequel are again planning to use airmen as extras.
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
Military unites with Hollywood on 'Transformers'
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
US Air Force
by Joe Davidson
6/25/2009
Special to American Forces Press Service
http:../../..www...af...mil/..news/..story...asp?..id=1231555796/23/2009 - LOS ANGELES (AFNS) -- "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" hits theaters nationwide June 24 as the culmination of more than a year of Defense Department support, ranging from script and uniform notes to C-17 Globemaster III aerial maneuvers and jumps from the Army's Golden Knights parachute demonstration team.
The first "Transformers" film released in July 2007 used a variety of Air Force assets and the latest film, DreamWorks and Paramount studios partnered with all four services to highlight America's military members and combat power on the big screen.
Deciding how and why to work with the services was essential in making the film work, producers said.
"There are really a lot of similarities between a military operation and a movie production," said Army Lt. Col. Greg Bishop, the department's project officer for the movie. "The mobility of the operation, the logistics and planning required, and the problem-..solving skills required to pull the whole thing off are very much alike."
"Transformers" Executive Producer and Director Michael Bay has worked with military leaders on other films and frequently consults with them to make action sequences in his movies appear more authentic.
"You know the first thing we're going to look at is that if you're going to fight these 32- to 125-foot robots; who else would you fight them with?" "Transformers" Producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura said.
Like its predecessors, the latest "Transformers" movie uses hundreds of military members from all the services and from throughout the country to make the film feel more realistic.
"I enjoyed being able to walk on the set and there are a hundred real soldiers as opposed to walking on and it's a hundred actors from Orange County or LA in fatigues," said Megan Fox, the film's female lead actor. "It was just an overall pleasant experience, and I have an immense amount of respect for the Soldiers and for our troops."
Read The Rest HERE*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
The Deep Politics of Hollywood:
Close Encounters with the Pentagon
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
Information Clearning House
By Robbie Graham and Matthew Alford
http:../../..informationclea..ringhouse...info/..article22893...htmJune 23, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- For 60 years space aliens have left their mark on the Hollywood box-office in some of the most popular movies of all time, from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), E.T: The Extraterrestria..l (1982) and Independence Day (1996), to the highly lucrative Monsters vs. Aliens (2009). The new Transformers sequel, Revenge of the Fallen (2009), is also poised for box-office glory this summer with its big-budget blend of eye-popping special effects, fan-fiction and UFO mythology. The most interesting aspects of the Transformers films, however, are evident not so much in celluloid form as they are behind the scenes – in a production process built around the close relationship between Hollywood, the United States military and a variety of government agencies. While the dryer details of this relationship have been relatively well documented, the curious tale of government involvement in Hollywood’s UFO movies represents a forgotten chapter in the history of American cinema.
Perception Management: Past and Present
Bizarrely – and for reasons not entirely clear – the U.S. government has taken a keen interest in Hollywood’s flying saucer movies since the early days of the phenomenon. Official efforts to debunk UFOs through media channels originated with the CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel which, in 1953, decided that public excitement about flying saucers should be actively discouraged. The panel recommended “That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the… aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired,” and that this should “be accomplished by mass media such as television [and] motion pictures...” with specific reference to Walt Disney.i
Unambiguous evidence for the Robertson Panel's covert impact on media representations.. of UFOs is found in the CBS TV broadcast of UFOs: Friend, Foe, or Fantasy? (1966), a documentary narrated by Walter Cronkite. In a personal letter addressed to former Robertson Panel Secretary Frederick C. Durant, Dr Thornton Page confides that he “helped organize the CBS TV show around the Robertson Panel conclusions,..”ii even though this was thirteen years later and despite the fact that he was personally sympathetic to the existence of flying saucers.
Government concern over, or involvement in, UFO movies continues to be evidenced in more modern Hollywood productions. Take, for example, the 1996 alien invasion blockbuster Independence Day, which, despite its proud championing of American values and leadership, was denied cooperation from the Department of Defense (DoD) due in large part to a plotline concerning Area 51 (a super-secret military facility in the Nevada desert long rumoured to be the testing ground for captured extraterrestria..l technologies) and the so-called ‘Roswell Incident.’ The Pentagon specifically requested that “any government connection” to Area 51 or to Roswell be eliminated from the film – a request apparently based on the ridiculous assumption that both the Roswell Incident and Area 51 were not already known to half of America.iii
The DoD may have been unable to dictate script changes on Independence Day, but its involvement with both Transformers movies (2007 and 2009) was much more deep-rooted. The original film’s script is loaded with UFOlogical references and laboured rhetoric absolving the U.S. military of complicity in what turns out to be a massive cover-up of alien visitations. The finger is pointed instead at the quasi-..governmental “Sector 7” which has been concealing its “Top Secret” alien research for decades within “special access projects” – and all without the knowledge and consent of a shocked and concerned Secretary of Defense.
The United States Air Force (USAF) provided Transformers director Michael Bay with hundreds-..of-..millions-..of-dollars worth of state-..of-the-art hardware for use in the 2007 movie, including the F-117 stealth fighter and – in its first ever Silver Screen appearance – the F-22 Raptor fighter. The DoD’s support for the Transformers sequel (2009) was no less enthusiastic as Bay was granted every benefit of the Pentagon’s coveted “full co-operation.”
Read The Rest HERE
Movie makers team with military for realistic scenes - Airmen filling the roles of movie extras run on the set of the movie "Transformers" during filming at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. The movie, scheduled for release July 4, will feature 300 Airmen and Soldiers alongside military aircraft, including the CV-22 Osprey, F-117 Nighthawk and F-22 Raptor.

Airmen filling the roles of extras on the set of the movie "Transformers" run for cover during filming May 31 at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. The movie, scheduled for release July 4, will feature 300 Airmen and Soldiers alongside military aircraft, including the CV-22 Osprey, F-117 Nighthawk and F-22 Raptor.

Movie director Michael Bay films an Airman on the set of the movie "Transformers" May 31 at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. Several Airmen had the opportunity to fill roles as extras during filming. The movie, scheduled for release July 4, will feature 300 Airmen and Soldiers alongside military aircraft, including CV-22 Osprey, F-117 Nighthawk and F-22 Raptor.

Three reporters working with the History Channel, accompanied by James Darcy (kneeling), V-22 Osprey Program public affairs officer, and a flight engineer from the 71st Special Operations Squadron, film a CV-22 Osprey during a training mission at a landing zone here for a show called Modern Marvels - Military Movers
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
Guard unites with Hollywood on 'Transformers'
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
National Guard News
By Joe Davidson
Space and Missile Systems Center
http:../../..www...ngb...army...mil/..news/0609.aspxLOS ANGELES, (6/24/09) -- "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" hits theaters nationwide today as the culmination of more than a year of Defense Department support, ranging from script and uniform notes to C-17 aerial maneuvers and jumps from the Army's Golden Knights parachute demonstration team.
The Virginia and North Carolina National Guard provided equipment and personnel. Their involvement provided an opportunity for Soldiers from both states to work collaboratively.. in the planning of this mission. They also received valuable training on essential equipment.
The first Transformers film released in July 2007 used a variety of Air Force assets. In the latest film, DreamWorks and Paramount studios partnered with all four services to highlight America's military members and combat power on the big screen. Deciding how and why to work with the services was essential in making the film work, producers said.
"There are really a lot of similarities between a military operation and a movie production," said Army Lt. Col. Greg Bishop, the department's project officer for the movie. "The mobility of the operation, the logistics and planning required, and the problem-..solving skills required to pull the whole thing off are very much alike."
Transformers executive producer and director Michael Bay has worked with military leaders on other films and frequently consults with them to make action sequences in his movies appear more authentic.
"You know the first thing we're going to look at is that if you're going to fight these 32- to 125-foot robots, who else would you fight them with?" Transformers producer Lorenzo di Bonaventura said.
Like its predecessors, the latest Transformers movie uses hundreds of military members from all the services and from throughout the country to make the film feel more realistic.
"I enjoyed being able to walk on the set and there are a hundred real soldiers as opposed to walking on and it's a hundred actors from Orange County or L.A. in fatigues," said Megan Fox, the film's female lead actor. "It was just an overall pleasant experience, and I have an immense amount of respect for the soldiers and for our troops."
That realism extends to military equipment as jet fighters roar from the deck of an aircraft carrier to the recoiling sounds of M1-A1 Abrams tanks firing 120-mm rounds at their deceptive and at times overpowering foes.
"What [the military] bring to it is obviously a sense of reality. But for us what is most interesting about it is our interaction with them," di Bonaventura said. "Because you actually get to see these people who have made a life choice and the honesty of that choice comes through each and every time you meet these guys. So, for us, that's the really exciting thing. We get to hang out at the base and see the joy they get out of being a part of us, and you also see us get affected by their level of commitment."
This latest Transformers film shows an extreme example of what the military does in everyday life.
"Though the 'enemy' in this film are alien robots, we strove to make the depiction of operations as realistic and accurate as possible," said Capt. Bryon McGarry, the Air Force project officer for the movie. "As in real-world operations, we go to 'war' against the Decepticons in the film jointly to achieve coordinated, balanced and devastating results. If they ever came to Earth, we'd be ready for them."
DreamWorks and Paramount pictures have given permission to provide special screenings of "Transformers, Revenge of the Fallen" at bases that provided support for the film and also aboard the USS John C. Stennis.

..
Operation Hollywood
..
Hollywood and the Pentagon: A Dangerous Liaison (2003) - Somewhere in Texas, one of the most famous episodes of the Iraq war; the heroic rescue of U.S. Private Jessica Lynch was turned into a scene for a made-for-TV movie. The movie was broadcast on TV earlier this Fall, but not without sparking some controversy. The official military version of the rescue had been contradicted by several investigative journalists. But when the film was produced, a U.S. Army official was on the set overseeing the operation. The U.S. Army also had direct control over the script, but at what expense to reality? With the help of interviews with key military officials and filmmakers, Hollywood and the Pentagon: A Dangerous Liaison attempts to explain the behind-..the-scenes relations between Hollywood and the Pentagon.
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
Operation Hollywood
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
How the Pentagon bullies movie producers into showing the U.S. military in the best possible light.
—By Jeff Fleischer
Mon September 20, 2004
http:../../..www...motherjones...com/..politics/..2004/..09/..operation-..hollywoodTo keep the Pentagon happy, some Hollywood producers have been known to turn villains into heroes, remove central characters, change politically sensitive settings, or add military rescues to movies that require none. There are no bad guys in the military. No fraternization between officers and enlisted troops. No drinking or drugs. No struggles against bigotry. The military and the president can’t look bad (though the State Department and Canada can).
“The only thing Hollywood likes more than a good movie is a good deal,” David Robb explains, and that’s why the producers of films like “Top Gun,” “Stripes” and “The Great Santini” have altered their scripts to accommodate Pentagon requests. In exchange, they get inexpensive access to the military locations, vehicles, troops and gear they need to make their movies.
During his years as a journalist for Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, Robb heard about a quid-pro-quo agreement between the Pentagon and Hollywood studios, and decided to investigate. He combed through thousands of Pentagon documents, and interviewed dozens of screenwriters, producers and military officials. The result is his new book, "Operation Hollywood."
Robb talked with
MotherJones.com about deal-making that defines the relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon.
MotherJones.com: How far back does collaboration between the U.S. military and Hollywood go?
David Robb: The current approval process was established right after World War II. Before that, the Pentagon used to help producers, but it wasn’t very formalized, like it is now. They helped producers going back to at least 1927. The very first movie that won an Oscar, “Wings,” -- even that got military assistance.
MJ.com: What steps does a producer take to get assistance from the military? How does the process work?
DR: The first thing you have to do is send in a request for assistance, telling them what you want pretty specifically -- ships, tanks, planes, bases, forts, submarines, troops -- and when you want this material available. Then you have to send five copies of the script to the Pentagon, and they give it to the affected service branches -- Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard. Then you wait and see if they like your script or not. If they like it, they’ll help you; if they don’t, they won’t. Almost always, they’ll make you make changes to the military depictions. And you have to make the changes that they ask for, or negotiate some kind of compromise, or you don’t get the stuff.
So then you finally get the approval, after you change your script to mollify the military, put some stuff in about how great it is to be in the military. Then when you go to shoot the film, you have to have what I call a “military minder” -- but what they call a “technical advisor” -- someone from the military on the set to make sure you shoot the film the way you agreed to. Normally in the filmmaking process, script changes are made all the time; if something isn’t working, they look at the rushes, and say, “let’s change this.” Well, if you want to change something that has to do with the military depictions, you’ve got to negotiate with them again. And they can say, “No, you can’t change it, this is the deal you agreed to.” As one of the technical advisors, Maj. David Georgi of the Army, said to me, “If they don’t do what I say, I take my toys and go away.”
After the film is completed, you have to prescreen the film for the Pentagon brass. So before it’s shown to the public, you have to show your movie to the generals and admirals, which I think any American should find objectionable -- that their movies are being prescreened by the military.
MJ.com: At that stage, with the film finished, what can the military do if they have a problem?
DR: This happened on the Clint Eastwood movie “Heartbreak Ridge.” He finished the film, showed it to them, and they went through the roof. There was a scene in the script where he shoots an injured and defenseless Cuban soldier. They said, “You have to take that out. It’s a war crime. We don’t want that.” They hate having war crimes in movies. So with “Heartbreak Ridge,” Eastwood shot the film, and the scene ended up in the movie anyway. They said, “We told you to take that out.” He said he thought it was only a suggestion, that he didn’t know he had to. So they withdrew their approval. The film was still released, of course. But at the end of a movie that gets military assistance, there’s always a little tagline that says “thanks to the cooperation of the U.S. Army” or whatever branch. They said, “We’re not going to let you put that on there. We’re withdrawing cooperation.” And they can stop it from being shown in military theaters overseas or on bases in the U.S., which can really hurt the box office of a film. They’ve done this to numerous films. Also, at that time, Clint Eastwood was the chairman of Toys for Tots, the Marine Corps Christmas gift program for poor children. He wanted to screen the movie at a premiere to benefit Toys for Tots, and they said, “We’re not going to let you do that.”
They can be very spiteful, they can hurt the box office of a film, and they don’t forget, either. So you do this at your peril. They can’t arrest you, they can’t stop the film. But if you want cooperation again, and you’ve screwed them like that before, you’re not going to get it. People almost never screw the Army on these deals.
MJ.com: What criteria does the Pentagon use in deciding whether to help a film?
DR: The most important one is that the film has to “aid in the retention and recruitment of personnel.” I don’t want to say that’s the whole thing, but it’s the main thing. They also say it has to reasonably depict military operations. And if it’s based on history, they say it has to be historically accurate, which is really a code. They’re much less interested in reality and accuracy than they are in positive images. They often try to change historical facts that are negative. Like with the movie “Thirteen Days,” which was very accurate but very negative toward the military during the Cuban missile crisis, showing that they would have taken us down the path toward World War III. During the negotiations with the producers, Peter Almond and Kevin Costner, the military tried to get them to tone down the bellicose nature of Gen. Maxwell Taylor and Gen. Curtis LeMay -- who the record is very clear on, because before Nixon was taping in the White House, Kennedy was taping in the White House, and all the conversations from October 1962 are on tape. When Kennedy rejected LeMay’s insistence that we attack Cuba -- when Kennedy said let’s put up a naval blockade, we don’t want to get into war -- you can hear Curtis LeMay say, “This is the worst sellout since Munich.” He actually said that, when he didn’t think anybody was listening. Well, the military wanted to change it anyway, saying he was too bellicose and they had to tone it down. To their credit, Kevin Costner and Peter Almond stood up to the military, refused to buckle under, and made their film without military assistance.
MJ.com: Why don’t more producers take that approach?
DR: A lot of the studio heads tell their producers, “We’re not going to make this film unless we get military assistance, because it would be too expensive. So you’d better make sure the script conforms to what they want.” Also, what you don’t see in these documents is the self-..censorship that goes with knowing you need their assistance and that they’re going to be your first audience. Writers write stuff to get that military assistance. So there’s no documents saying, “In “Black Hawk Down,” let’s leave out the whole part about the soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.” Jerry Bruckheimer knows that if they have that in there, the military’s just going to tell them to take it out or they won’t help them. I asked Ridley Scott, the director, if “Black Hawk Down” could have been made without military assistance. He said, “Yeah. We just would have had to call it ‘Huey Down’.” So there’s this self-..censorship. When you know the government is looking over your shoulder while you’re typing, that’s a very bad situation.
MJ.com: Aside from showing war crimes, what are some of the other things the military balks at?
DR: They never -- at least that I’ve seen -- help movies with aliens. Usually in those movies, the military is shown to be ineffective in combating the aliens, and it’s always some tricky, enterprising person who figures out how to defeat them. Like in “Mars Attacks!,” a grandma playing Slim Whitman over her radio blows the aliens’ heads up. Well, the military didn’t want to help them. They don’t want to help any movie that shows them being ineffective, even in combating aliens. They have no sense of humor! They wouldn’t help “Independence Day.” The military could not get over the fact that one of the key plot points was that the U.S. was secretly working on a spaceship captured at Area 51, so the film ended up not getting assistance.
Another thing, they don’t like drinking or drugs in the military. They’ll make you change that. Like in “Stripes,” they made them take out all drug references, and the original script had lots of drug references. They don’t want to see any pot smoking, even in Vietnam. The former Navy Secretary James Webb, after he left that post, he became a book writer. He’d been a Marine in Vietnam, and one of his books was semi-..autobiographica..l, with many of the things he saw and knew for a fact happened in Vietnam: fragging of officers, smoking pot, burning Vietnamese villages. He had a screenplay and wanted to turn it into a movie. They said, “No, you have to change all this stuff,” and he wouldn’t do it. So that’s a film that never got made. Many films have never been made because they couldn’t get assistance.
MJ.com: In the book, you give examples of how the Pentagon won’t allow military characters to be depicted as bad guys.
DR: Right. For example, there was an HBO movie “The Tuskegee Airmen,” where the military made them replace the villain. This was a movie about the first black airmen during World War II, where the bad guy was a general at the base where these guys were training, and the good guy was a white congressman. Well, the army said they didn’t like that, so they ended up changing it. I have a letter where the producers wrote to the military, to Phil Strub, who’s the head of the Pentagon’s film office. The producers wrote, “The following changes are in the works and will soon be fully executed by the writer. It is our intention to reverse the characterizatio..n of General Stevenson and Senator Powell, making the senator the source of bigotry. General Stevenson will be revealed as someone who is loyal to the efforts of the Tuskegee Airmen.” Now when people saw that film, they had no idea that the good guy and the bad guy had been reversed, just so the military could meet its recruiting goals.
MJ.com: You also talk about the military targeting children by encouraging pro-military storylines in shows like “The Mickey Mouse Club” and “Lassie.”
DR: In those cases, they recognized that children are the future recruits. With the “Mickey Mouse Club,” it’s kind of a long story, but they used to show these little documentary films called “Mouse Reels.” For example, they took these kids out on the U.S.S. Nautilus, which was the first nuclear submarine. And there’s a Pentagon document that says, “This is an excellent opportunity to introduce a whole new generation to the nuclear Navy.” It was all military propaganda to show how “child-..friendly” nuclear submarines are – there’s hardly any radiation, the food is great, they even have a jukebox that plays the “Mickey Mouse Club March” in the cafeteria.
As far as reaching children, I think one of the best examples -- and they’re very candid in these documents, because I don’t think they ever expected anybody to be looking at this stuff -- there was this movie “The Right Stuff” about the early days of the space program. The original script was filled with vulgarity and cussing, and the military sent the producers a letter. It reads, “The obscene language used seems to guarantee an ‘R’ rating. If distributed as an ‘R’, it cuts down on the teenage audience, which is a prime one to the military services when our recruiting bills are considered.” Of course, an ‘R’ rating means children under 17 have to be accompanied by a parent, so a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds couldn’t see this picture. And the Air Force wanted young people to see this so they’d get a good, positive image of the military and join up. So they changed it.
MJ.com: Among the films you looked at, which went through the most radical change from the script to the final, military-..assisted movie?
DR: There was a movie called “Air Strike” by a guy named Cy Roth. Now, Ed Wood is often credited as being the worst director in Hollywood history, but Cy Roth would really give him a run for his money. Roth decided around 1953 that he’d made a Western, he’d made a space movie, now he wanted to make a war movie. This movie was set on a World War II aircraft carrier, and the lead characters were a young Jewish flyer and a young black flyer who are constantly being subjected to anti-Semitism and racism on the ship. The military said, “No, we don’t want to show any kind of racism or anti-Semitism in this picture, you’ve got to change that.” They also said, “We don’t want a World War II-era picture, we want a movie set in the modern jet age.” And Roth went nuts. He called his congressman, he wrote a letter to President Eisenhower -- and the day after the White House got his letter of complaint, they sicced the FBI on him to see whether he was a Communist or not. Well, he finally caved in; he made the picture the way they wanted. So it was no blacks, no Jews, no propellers. If you look at this film, it’s so bad, it looks like a home movie shot on an aircraft carrier. So this film was completely changed.
MJ.com: You argue that this military screening process violates the First Amendment.
DR: The First Amendment doesn’t just give people the right to free speech; fundamentally, it prevents the government from favoring one form of speech over another. There’s a great 1995 Supreme Court case called Rosenberger v. University of Virginia that says, “Discrimination.. against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutiona..l. It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on the substantive content of the message it conveys. In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another.” And yet that’s what they’re doing every day. Not just 50 years ago on “Air Strike,” but right now. This is a holdover from the Cold War, and it should be abolished. Or at least Congress, which has oversight over the Pentagon, should really look into what’s going on.
Congress has only looked into it twice, when Robert Aldrich made a stink about not getting assistance for the movie “Attack,” and then again in the 1960s when it turned out the government had footed the entire bill for all the military stuff on John Wayne’s “The Green Berets.” In these two investigations,.. the Pentagon basically said it’s not their intention to influence the content of movies. And Congress just accepted that. If they looked at these documents, they would see that clearly the intent is to influence the movies.
Major Georgi, who had been the military minder on many movies, said that one of the targets of this program is Congress; that Congress goes to movies, and that when they see positive images of the military, that makes it easier for them to vote for that $500 billion military appropriation. They also target voters, the people who are really footing the bill. Really, if you talk to soldiers and sailors and Marines, many of them will tell you they joined the military because of some movie that they saw. The former head of the Marine Corps film office, Matt Morgan, he told me he joined the military after seeing “Top Gun.” After “Top Gun” came out, there was a huge spike in recruitment for the Navy flying program. They know that it works. People are going off to war and getting killed, in part because of some movie that they saw that was adjusted by the military.
MJ.com: What would it realistically take to change this system?
DR: I think that if just 50 people wrote their congressman and asked, “what’s going on here?,” I think it wouldn’t take much. It’s not going to happen otherwise. The Writer’s Guild, whose stated mission is to protect the creative and economic rights of its members, has never made a single protest that its members’ scripts are being manipulated and changed by the military. Congress has done nothing. Hollywood likes the way it is, and the military likes the way it is; they don’t want to change it. The only people who have a real interest in this are the American people. They’re being saturated with military propaganda in their mainstream movies and TV shows, and they don’t even know. But I think there’s a very good argument that can be made that over the past 50 years, this chronic sanitization of the military and what war is has affected the American character; that we’re now a more warlike people than we were 50 years ago. Clearly, there are also other reasons, but I think when the world’s most powerful medium colludes with the world’s most powerful military to put propaganda in mainstream films and television shows, that has to have an effect on the American psyche.

*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
FROM FACT TO FICTION
Giving Writers an Inside Look at the FBI
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
http://www. fbi. gov/..page2/..oct08/..writers_..100608. htmlImagine you’re a writer working on a film or television script about the FBI, but you really know very little about us beyond what you’ve seen in other movies or TV shows
What do you do? For decades, you’ve been picking up the phone and calling us. Every year, in fact, we get calls from hundreds of writers, directors, and producers seeking our advice and guidance
We are happy to help, because we understand that the entertainment industry plays a key role in educating the public about our mission to keep the nation safe from terrorists and criminals. And we know that the more educated people are about the Bureau, the more likely they will help us solve—and prevent—crimes and terror attacks
Any writer or producer can ask about our procedures, our history, and our cases in the public domain. They are not required to consult with us, though, and we don’t edit or approve their work. As a result, some story lines about the FBI are relatively accurate, while others, well, not so much
For example, the popular TV series Without a Trace—which we provide assistance to and which helps us by publicizing some of our cases—features an FBI New York missing persons squad. But even though we do help search for those who have gone missing, we don’t actually have a missing persons squad, in New York or elsewhere

John Miller, Assistant Director of FBI Public Affairs
We understand dramatic license, but writers who take the time to discover the real Bureau, said Assistant Director of Public Affairs John Miller, may come to understand that “the reality of the FBI is much better than its fiction”
Miller recently spoke to about 25 members of the Writers Guild of America East and the Producers Guild of America East in New York City as part of an “FBI 101” program. This day-long seminar periodically brings together members of the book, film, and television industries to streamline the process of providing information about the Bureau—to make it easier and more efficient for everyone involved
“The world is a dangerous place,” Miller said, “and the FBI seems to have a piece of every one of those dangers”
On any given day, he explained, agents are engaging in undercover operations to get the goods on organized crime figures, tracking suspected terrorists, investigating corrupt politicians, and using technology to stop child predators. Somewhere within our worldwide field of operations, a hostage negotiator may be helping to resolve a life-..threatening situation, and a SWAT team is ready to breach a door to make an arrest
“And that is not some special day,” Miller said. “That is an average day at the FBI”
The veteran writers participating in the workshop heard from agents who specialize in evidence collection, organized crime, counterterroris..m, cyber crimes, and SWAT. The writers followed up with questions on everything from the Russian mob and online pornographers to wiretaps and knockoff Prada handbags
Afterward, one writer noted, “The seminar could have been twice as long, and it still would have been terrific”
Twice as long would not have been a problem for the SWAT team leader. After regaling his audience with tales of foreign deployments, hijacking cases, and the arduous training required of team members, he concluded by saying, “I haven’t even used up half my stories”
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
Working with the FBI: A Guide for Writers, Authors, and Producers
*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..*..***************
http://www. fbi. gov/..aboutus/..faqs/..working_..with_fbi. htmWe can help: if you are a writer, author, or producer who wants to feature the FBI, we may be able to work with you to create an accurate portrayal of the Bureau
We’ve been doing it since the 1930s. Most recently, we have assisted the motion pictures “The Kingdom,” “Shooter,” and “Breach”; television programs like “Without A Trace,” “CSI,” “Numb3rs,” “Criminal Minds,” and “The Closer”; and books like Big City, Bad Blood;Lone Wolf: Eric Rudolph: Murder, Myth and the Pursuit of an American Outlaw; and Lightning Out of Lebanon: Hezbollah Terrorists on American Soil
Specifically, the Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs Unit (IPPAU) in our Office of Public Affairs is a small staff that spends a portion of its time working with domestic and international screenwriters, producers, authors, and other industry personnel associated with TV programs, documentaries, made-for-TV movies, books, and motion pictures. The unit is the same one that manages national and international publicity for wanted fugitives (including the “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives”), Most Wanted Terrorists, missing children, and coordinate other proactive initiatives
What we need from you:
Your name, any pertinent company name, point of contact, address, e-mail, and phone number;
Acknowledgement.. whether the project is “sold,” “green lit,” commissioned, or speculative;
A description how the FBI fits into the project and its relative importance;
An explanation of FBI characters and actions (what they will be doing);
Film script, plot, or treatment;
Project status/..timeline/..production schedule (if known);
Specificity regarding cases, procedures, or information needed; and
A list of FBI personnel desired (if known) for interviews or backgrounders (note: please allow ample time for the approval process)
What we can provide you:
Guidance on content regarding FBI investigations,.. procedures, structure, and history;
Information on costumes, props, scenery, and weapons;
Fact checks;
Liaison and coordination with local FBI field offices;
Coordination of location shots; and
Access to FBI facilities for filming scenes, interviews, or b-roll footage
Contact information: call FBI Headquarters at (202) 324-3000 and ask for the Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs Unit. Or write to: FBI Headquarters, Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs Unit, Room 7257, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20535
Please note: IPPAU considers project assistance on a case-by-case basis. We have limited resources and cannot assure cooperation or offer reviews or critiques