Media Lens

Syndicate content
News analysis and media criticism
Updated: 53 min 9 sec ago

Dump The Guardian

Þri, 12/02/2019 - 23:24

We were sad to hear that the comedian Jeremy Hardy had died on 1 February. Typically, media reports and obituaries prefixed the label 'left-wing' before the word 'comedian' as a kind of government health warning. What they really meant was that he was 'too far left'. Normally, the media don't label entertainers as 'extreme centrists', 'neocon sympathisers' or 'Israel supporters', when perhaps they should.

Hardy was a regular panellist on BBC shows, the News Quiz and I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. His ability to be extremely funny and sharp-witted, as well as being popular with other panellists and the public, probably allowed him a measure of corporate BBC indulgence to inject left-wing bullet points that others might not have been afforded. Fellow comedian Miles Jupp noted that:

'Many people have the ability to express their political beliefs coherently and many people have the ability to be funny. Jeremy Hardy, who has died of cancer aged 57, had an astonishing ability to do both things at the same time.'

He added:

'from the earliest days his socialist beliefs were a thread that ran throughout his comedy, as they did his life and his campaigning.'

One of us (Cromwell) saw Hardy perform twice at Nuffield Theatre at the University of Southampton, where he had studied in the 1980s. On both occasions, he was very funny, sharp and thoroughly engaging. During the second performance, on 15 October 2017, he spoke passionately about the blatantly negative media coverage targeting Jeremy Corbyn:

'The worst is the liberal media. Take the Guardian. What is it that the Guardian actually guards? It guards how progressive you're allowed to be. You can go this far to the left and no further.'

This echoed Noam Chomsky's well-known remark about the liberal media policing the bounds of permissible debate:

'Thus far and no further.'

It is ironic, but entirely apt, that the Guardian's obituary noted that Hardy wrote a column for the paper between 1996 and 2001, but neglected to mention that he was dropped for being too left-wing.

In his final, potent column on 4 April, 2001 Hardy had written:

'Some of you will be relieved to know that this is the last column I shall be writing for the Guardian. Others may be sorry, and I thank you for that. I have been told that my column has run its course, which is a self-fulfilling accusation...also told that I shouldn't use the column as a platform for the Socialist Alliance.'

By contrast, commentators – including those holding senior Guardian positions – have not been told to stop using their columns as a platform for the apartheid Israeli state, neoliberalism or Western 'intervention' around the world.

Hardy crammed in many astute observations that make poignant reading now, 18 years later. He rightly observed that:

'most of the exciting developments in politics are happening outside the electoral orb.'

Ironically, it was grassroots pressure outside Parliament and 'the electoral orb' that enabled Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour leader and pull off results in the 2016 General Election that stunned 'seasoned' political 'analysts'. Consider, too, the recent Extinction Rebellion movement that is literally campaigning for the survival of the human species – precisely because electoral politics has utterly failed; or rather succeeded in entrenching the interests of a right-wing, super-rich and powerful elite.

Hardy warned presciently of the dangers of the Lib Dems attaining power in a coalition – which they did after the 2010 General Election, propping up an extremist Tory-led government. He also pointed to the emasculation of the trade union movement:

'For me to write this will appal those socialists who still hold the line that "Labour is the party of the organised working class", but I think it's time to replace the word "working" with "capitalist", and try the sentence again. Trade unionists put tremendous effort into the relationship but it's an abusive one. I'm sure union leaders will say, "But Tony's not like that when he's with me", but they're just throwing money at the problem.'

Ex-Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook commented via Twitter:

'Fascinating reading now the late comedian Jeremy Hardy's last column for the Guardian in 2001. He admits he was pushed out for refusing to use humour simply to provoke a postmodern chuckle and for being too outspoken against Tony Blair, who would go on to wage illegal war in Iraq'.

When we highlighted on Twitter that the Guardian's Jeremy Hardy obituary had omitted the uncomfortable fact that the paper dropped him for being too left-wing, the deputy obituaries editor of the Telegraph retorted:

'He wasn't dropped for being too left-wing. He was dropped for not putting in enough jokes. Read the column'

In fact, anyone reading the column beyond the first paragraph would have noted the crucial part when Hardy said he was 'told that I shouldn't use the column as a platform for the Socialist Alliance.' It was clear from reading the whole column, and using common sense to read between the lines, that Hardy had indeed been dumped by the Guardian for his left-wing views. Hardy's first wife, Kit Hardy, confirmed this:

'As his wife at the time, I can vouch that he was dropped for being too left wing. It wasn't about jokes. He'd have been kept on without jokes if he'd been willing to write inconsequential nonsense. He wasn't.'

Guardian readers with a long memory may recall that comedian Mark Steel, a good friend of Jeremy Hardy, had earlier been ditched by the Guardian in 1999, after contributing a column for over two years, for his 'unflinching' support of 'unfashionable left-wing causes' such as striking Liverpool dockers. A more recent example of a progressive columnist being dumped by the Guardian is the 2014 defenestration of Nafeez Ahmed for overstepping the mark in his critical reporting of Israel.

Eventually, even the hugely-respected, award-winning journalist John Pilger, with an unparalleled record of reporting the truth 'from the ground up', became persona non grata at the Guardian. He said in a radio interview in January 2018:

'My written journalism is no longer welcome in the Guardian which, three years ago, got rid of people like me in pretty much a purge of those who really were saying what the Guardian no longer says any more.'

And yet, the Guardian continues to employ, for example, Luke Harding who abruptly left an interview by Aaron Maté on The Real News Network when he was challenged to provide convincing evidence of the 'collusion' referred to in the title of his book, 'Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win'. Harding was also behind the fake Guardian 'exclusive' last December that Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign manager, had met Julian Assange three times in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Harding and the paper's editor Katharine Viner have shamefully remained silent in the face of robust questioning of their CIA-friendly propaganda story that appears to have no basis in reality.

US comedian Jimmy Dore, interviewed on RT's Going Underground by Afshin Rattansi, who previously worked at the BBC, said scathingly:

'Well, the Guardian has been doing fantastic work on this story. "Fantastic" meaning "fantastic fantasies" because the most surveilled building in the world has got to be that Ecuadorian embassy. And, somehow, the Guardian has a story that Manafort visited Julian Assange three times, and even knew what he was wearing, but there isn't a picture of it.'

Dore concluded of the Guardian:

'They're pushing propaganda; they're not doing journalism.'

Dore also pointed to extremely well-paid, supposed 'progressives' in the US who have high-profile slots on US networks such as MSNBC:

'You know how much MSNBC's Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow makes? They make $30,000 a day. That's a lot of money and that buys your integrity.'

He added, echoing his comments about the Guardian on Assange:

'It's just CIA talking points. In fact, they hire people from the CIA to be their "news analysts". That's the opposite of journalism, that's propaganda.'

On a recent MSNBC show, Maddow even speculated that, with parts of the US shivering in sub-zero conditions, the Russians or the Chinese might launch cyber attacks on vital pipelines and the power grid. This grotesque Red-scaremongering was justified as 'the intelligence community's assessment.'

She asked:

'What would happen if Russia killed the power in Fargo today? What would you do if you lost heat indefinitely as the act of a foreign power on the same day the temperature in your backyard matched the temperature in Antarctica?'

Dore rightly pointed out how this nonsense is but a part of the huge current wave of anti-Russian propaganda that is even worse than the anti-Red hysteria of the McCarthy era in 1950s US. Why worse?

'Because it's being pushed ubiquitously. The first Red Scare in the States came from the right. Well, the left is now pushing the Red Scare because they don't want to admit that neoliberalism failed at the ballot box in 2016. 90 million people didn't come out to vote in that election in 2016. And Hillary Clinton, the biggest, most well-funded political machine in the history of the United States lost the election to a political novice gameshow host who everyone referred to as a joke and a clown: Donald Trump.'

Dore said of MSNBC management:

'They wouldn't even let their hosts cover Bernie Sanders [in the race to become 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate, losing to Hillary Clinton] because he was progressive. In fact, Ed Schultz got fired for covering Bernie Sanders.'

He continued:

'That tells you that all the people on air at MSNBC go along with war propaganda when told to, and don't cover progressive politicians when ordered [not] to. Every one of those hosts goes along with the edict from the top of the corporation Comcast [owners of MSNBC] to tell them what they can talk about, and how they can talk about what they can talk about. They're all puppets and they're bought.'

In a similar way, although with much lower salaries, the silence of Guardian commentators on numerous issues has also, in essence, been 'bought.' Not a single one, as far as we can tell, has called out the Guardian's fake Manafort-Assange story. Not a single one has castigated the Guardian over its long-running cynical vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks. Not a single one has exposed the Guardian's editorial line that upholds the myth that Western foreign policy is largely determined by concerns over universal human rights, democracy and development. Not a single one has made any significant criticism of the Guardian's actual role in setting the limits of acceptable 'news' and commentary at the 'liberal' end of the media 'spectrum'.

Dump The Guardian

Þri, 12/02/2019 - 23:24

We were sad to hear that the comedian Jeremy Hardy had died on 1 February. Typically, media reports and obituaries prefixed the label 'left-wing' before the word 'comedian' as a kind of government health warning. What they really meant was that he was 'too far left'. Normally, the media don't label entertainers as 'extreme centrists', 'neocon sympathisers' or 'Israel supporters', when perhaps they should.

Hardy was a regular panellist on BBC shows, the News Quiz and I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue. His ability to be extremely funny and sharp-witted, as well as being popular with other panellists and the public, probably allowed him a measure of corporate BBC indulgence to inject left-wing bullet points that others might not have been afforded. Fellow comedian Miles Jupp noted that:

'Many people have the ability to express their political beliefs coherently and many people have the ability to be funny. Jeremy Hardy, who has died of cancer aged 57, had an astonishing ability to do both things at the same time.'

He added:

'from the earliest days his socialist beliefs were a thread that ran throughout his comedy, as they did his life and his campaigning.'

One of us (Cromwell) saw Hardy perform twice at Nuffield Theatre at the University of Southampton, where he had studied in the 1980s. On both occasions, he was very funny, sharp and thoroughly engaging. During the second performance, on 15 October 2017, he spoke passionately about the blatantly negative media coverage targeting Jeremy Corbyn:

'The worst is the liberal media. Take the Guardian. What is it that the Guardian actually guards? It guards how progressive you're allowed to be. You can go this far to the left and no further.'

This echoed Noam Chomsky's well-known remark about the liberal media policing the bounds of permissible debate:

'Thus far and no further.'

It is ironic, but entirely apt, that the Guardian's obituary noted that Hardy wrote a column for the paper between 1996 and 2001, but neglected to mention that he was dropped for being too left-wing.

In his final, potent column on 4 April, 2001 Hardy had written:

'Some of you will be relieved to know that this is the last column I shall be writing for the Guardian. Others may be sorry, and I thank you for that. I have been told that my column has run its course, which is a self-fulfilling accusation...also told that I shouldn't use the column as a platform for the Socialist Alliance.'

By contrast, commentators – including those holding senior Guardian positions – have not been told to stop using their columns as a platform for the apartheid Israeli state, neoliberalism or Western 'intervention' around the world.

Hardy crammed in many astute observations that make poignant reading now, 18 years later. He rightly observed that:

'most of the exciting developments in politics are happening outside the electoral orb.'

Ironically, it was grassroots pressure outside Parliament and 'the electoral orb' that enabled Jeremy Corbyn to be elected Labour leader and pull off results in the 2016 General Election that stunned 'seasoned' political 'analysts'. Consider, too, the recent Extinction Rebellion movement that is literally campaigning for the survival of the human species – precisely because electoral politics has utterly failed; or rather succeeded in entrenching the interests of a right-wing, super-rich and powerful elite.

Hardy warned presciently of the dangers of the Lib Dems attaining power in a coalition – which they did after the 2010 General Election, propping up an extremist Tory-led government. He also pointed to the emasculation of the trade union movement:

'For me to write this will appal those socialists who still hold the line that "Labour is the party of the organised working class", but I think it's time to replace the word "working" with "capitalist", and try the sentence again. Trade unionists put tremendous effort into the relationship but it's an abusive one. I'm sure union leaders will say, "But Tony's not like that when he's with me", but they're just throwing money at the problem.'

Ex-Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook commented via Twitter:

'Fascinating reading now the late comedian Jeremy Hardy's last column for the Guardian in 2001. He admits he was pushed out for refusing to use humour simply to provoke a postmodern chuckle and for being too outspoken against Tony Blair, who would go on to wage illegal war in Iraq'.

When we highlighted on Twitter that the Guardian's Jeremy Hardy obituary had omitted the uncomfortable fact that the paper dropped him for being too left-wing, the deputy obituaries editor of the Telegraph retorted:

'He wasn't dropped for being too left-wing. He was dropped for not putting in enough jokes. Read the column'

In fact, anyone reading the column beyond the first paragraph would have noted the crucial part when Hardy said he was 'told that I shouldn't use the column as a platform for the Socialist Alliance.' It was clear from reading the whole column, and using common sense to read between the lines, that Hardy had indeed been dumped by the Guardian for his left-wing views. Hardy's first wife, Kit Hardy, confirmed this:

'As his wife at the time, I can vouch that he was dropped for being too left wing. It wasn't about jokes. He'd have been kept on without jokes if he'd been willing to write inconsequential nonsense. He wasn't.'

Guardian readers with a long memory may recall that comedian Mark Steel, a good friend of Jeremy Hardy, had earlier been ditched by the Guardian in 1999, after contributing a column for over two years, for his 'unflinching' support of 'unfashionable left-wing causes' such as striking Liverpool dockers. A more recent example of a progressive columnist being dumped by the Guardian is the 2014 defenestration of Nafeez Ahmed for overstepping the mark in his critical reporting of Israel.

Eventually, even the hugely-respected, award-winning journalist John Pilger, with an unparalleled record of reporting the truth 'from the ground up', became persona non grata at the Guardian. He said in a radio interview in January 2018:

'My written journalism is no longer welcome in the Guardian which, three years ago, got rid of people like me in pretty much a purge of those who really were saying what the Guardian no longer says any more.'

And yet, the Guardian continues to employ, for example, Luke Harding who abruptly left an interview by Aaron Maté on The Real News Network when he was challenged to provide convincing evidence of the 'collusion' referred to in the title of his book, 'Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win'. Harding was also behind the fake Guardian 'exclusive' last December that Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's former campaign manager, had met Julian Assange three times in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Harding and the paper's editor Katharine Viner have shamefully remained silent in the face of robust questioning of their CIA-friendly propaganda story that appears to have no basis in reality.

US comedian Jimmy Dore, interviewed on RT's Going Underground by Afshin Rattansi, who previously worked at the BBC, said scathingly:

'Well, the Guardian has been doing fantastic work on this story. "Fantastic" meaning "fantastic fantasies" because the most surveilled building in the world has got to be that Ecuadorian embassy. And, somehow, the Guardian has a story that Manafort visited Julian Assange three times, and even knew what he was wearing, but there isn't a picture of it.'

Dore concluded of the Guardian:

'They're pushing propaganda; they're not doing journalism.'

Dore also pointed to extremely well-paid, supposed 'progressives' in the US who have high-profile slots on US networks such as MSNBC:

'You know how much MSNBC's Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow makes? They make $30,000 a day. That's a lot of money and that buys your integrity.'

He added, echoing his comments about the Guardian on Assange:

'It's just CIA talking points. In fact, they hire people from the CIA to be their "news analysts". That's the opposite of journalism, that's propaganda.'

On a recent MSNBC show, Maddow even speculated that, with parts of the US shivering in sub-zero conditions, the Russians or the Chinese might launch cyber attacks on vital pipelines and the power grid. This grotesque Red-scaremongering was justified as 'the intelligence community's assessment.'

She asked:

'What would happen if Russia killed the power in Fargo today? What would you do if you lost heat indefinitely as the act of a foreign power on the same day the temperature in your backyard matched the temperature in Antarctica?'

Dore rightly pointed out how this nonsense is but a part of the huge current wave of anti-Russian propaganda that is even worse than the anti-Red hysteria of the McCarthy era in 1950s US. Why worse?

'Because it's being pushed ubiquitously. The first Red Scare in the States came from the right. Well, the left is now pushing the Red Scare because they don't want to admit that neoliberalism failed at the ballot box in 2016. 90 million people didn't come out to vote in that election in 2016. And Hillary Clinton, the biggest, most well-funded political machine in the history of the United States lost the election to a political novice gameshow host who everyone referred to as a joke and a clown: Donald Trump.'

Dore said of MSNBC management:

'They wouldn't even let their hosts cover Bernie Sanders [in the race to become 2016 Democratic Presidential candidate, losing to Hillary Clinton] because he was progressive. In fact, Ed Schultz got fired for covering Bernie Sanders.'

He continued:

'That tells you that all the people on air at MSNBC go along with war propaganda when told to, and don't cover progressive politicians when ordered [not] to. Every one of those hosts goes along with the edict from the top of the corporation Comcast [owners of MSNBC] to tell them what they can talk about, and how they can talk about what they can talk about. They're all puppets and they're bought.'

In a similar way, although with much lower salaries, the silence of Guardian commentators on numerous issues has also, in essence, been 'bought.' Not a single one, as far as we can tell, has called out the Guardian's fake Manafort-Assange story. Not a single one has castigated the Guardian over its long-running cynical vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks. Not a single one has exposed the Guardian's editorial line that upholds the myth that Western foreign policy is largely determined by concerns over universal human rights, democracy and development. Not a single one has made any significant criticism of the Guardian's actual role in setting the limits of acceptable 'news' and commentary at the 'liberal' end of the media 'spectrum'.

Venezuela Blitz - Part 2: Press Freedom, Sanctions And Oil

Fim, 07/02/2019 - 08:37
  Press Freedom - Taking A Glance At A Newspaper Stand

In support of their claim that Maduro is a 'tyrant' who does not allow free elections, corporate media consistently point to a lack of press freedom. When British academic Alan MacLeod of Glasgow Media Group reviewed 166 Western media articles evaluating the state of press freedom between 1998-2014, he found that all depicted Venezuelan media as 'caged', or unfree. Last week, Canadian political analyst Joe Emersberger commented in The Canary:

'The idea that Venezuela has a "caged" media has to be one of the most unforgivable pieces of Western propaganda about the country. And a simple analysis shows just how ignorant that allegation is. Indeed, just a few days ago, one of Venezuela's most widely read newspapers, El Universal, published an op-ed enthusiastically applauding the efforts of the US-backed opposition to bring about President Nicolás Maduro's ouster by recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country's new president. The op-ed said Guaidó was managing his US-backed strategy "perfectly". And it joyously stated that the US and its allies had Maduro surrounded, and almost ready to be ousted.'

In 2016, Emersberger wrote of earlier protests:

'In fact the protests and the leading opposition leaders' take on the protests are being extensively covered on the largest private networks: Venevision, Televen, Globovision. If people abroad sampled Venezuela's TV media directly, as opposed to judging it by what is said about it by the international media and some big NGOs, they'd be shocked to find the opposition constantly denouncing the government and even making very thinly veiled appeals to the military to oust Maduro.'

The Venezuela Analysis website tweeted:

'A cursory glance at any newspaper stand in Caracas will reveal that vast majority of Vzlan papers are anti-govt. Opposition also has massive social media presence – just search Twitter for "Venezuela" w/ Spanish filter. Intl journalists been lying re lack of media freedom for yrs'

Independent journalist Abby Martin did exactly as suggested and visited a Venezuelan newspaper stand. She offered this summary:

'So, out of the seven papers, four are anti-government, two are pro-government, and one is neutral, can go either way. So, it looks like the press is not as controlled as we think.'

This is the kind of research even corporate journalists should be able to conduct for themselves.

 

Venezuela Blitz - Part 2: Press Freedom, Sanctions And Oil

Fim, 07/02/2019 - 08:37
  Press Freedom - Taking A Glance At A Newspaper Stand

In support of their claim that Maduro is a 'tyrant' who does not allow free elections, corporate media consistently point to a lack of press freedom. When British academic Alan MacLeod of Glasgow Media Group reviewed 166 Western media articles evaluating the state of press freedom between 1998-2014, he found that all depicted Venezuelan media as 'caged', or unfree. Last week, Canadian political analyst Joe Emersberger commented in The Canary:

'The idea that Venezuela has a "caged" media has to be one of the most unforgivable pieces of Western propaganda about the country. And a simple analysis shows just how ignorant that allegation is. Indeed, just a few days ago, one of Venezuela's most widely read newspapers, El Universal, published an op-ed enthusiastically applauding the efforts of the US-backed opposition to bring about President Nicolás Maduro's ouster by recognizing opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country's new president. The op-ed said Guaidó was managing his US-backed strategy "perfectly". And it joyously stated that the US and its allies had Maduro surrounded, and almost ready to be ousted.'

In 2016, Emersberger wrote of earlier protests:

'In fact the protests and the leading opposition leaders' take on the protests are being extensively covered on the largest private networks: Venevision, Televen, Globovision. If people abroad sampled Venezuela's TV media directly, as opposed to judging it by what is said about it by the international media and some big NGOs, they'd be shocked to find the opposition constantly denouncing the government and even making very thinly veiled appeals to the military to oust Maduro.'

The Venezuela Analysis website tweeted:

'A cursory glance at any newspaper stand in Caracas will reveal that vast majority of Vzlan papers are anti-govt. Opposition also has massive social media presence – just search Twitter for "Venezuela" w/ Spanish filter. Intl journalists been lying re lack of media freedom for yrs'

Independent journalist Abby Martin did exactly as suggested and visited a Venezuelan newspaper stand. She offered this summary:

'So, out of the seven papers, four are anti-government, two are pro-government, and one is neutral, can go either way. So, it looks like the press is not as controlled as we think.'

This is the kind of research even corporate journalists should be able to conduct for themselves.

 

Venezuela Blitz – Part 1: Tyrants Don’t Have Free Elections

Þri, 05/02/2019 - 10:01

In our new book, we describe a 'Propaganda Blitz' as a fast-moving campaign to persuade the public of the need for 'action' or 'intervention' furthering elite interests. Affecting great moral outrage, corporate media line up to insist that a watershed moment has arrived – something must be done!

A classic propaganda blitz was triggered on January 23, when Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared himself 'interim President'. This was presented as dramatic new evidence that the people of Venezuela had finally had enough of Nicolas Maduro's 'regime'.

In reporting this news the following day, the BBC website featured a disturbing graphic of a captive with arms tied behind his back being tortured. The caption read:

'Inside Venezuela's secret torture centre'

The image linked to a complex interactive piece that allowed readers to explore the torture centre. There was also a long report on the same centre. The interactive report included this statement by a former prisoner, Rosmit Mantilla:

'In a country like Venezuela there's no difference between being in or out of prison. You are equally persecuted and mistreated, and you can die either way.'

Venezuela, then, is a giant gulag. The interactive piece had clearly taken a good deal of time and effort to produce – odd that it should appear on the same day that news of Guaidó's coup attempt was reported. The BBC followed this up with a piece on January 25 openly promoting 'regime' change:

'Venezuela's Maduro "could get Amnesty"

'Self-declared leader Guaidó also appeals to the powerful army, after receiving foreign backing.'

In fact, Guaidó, also received foreign rejection from China, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Syria and Iran. On January 29, the BBC front page headline read:

'Venezuela, "living under dictatorship"

'The opposition leader tells the BBC President Maduro has abused power, and renews calls for polls.'

Echoing the BBC's 'amnesty' front page story, the Guardian's Simon Tisdall, also talked up the merits of the coup:

'It seems clear that Juan Guaidó, the opposition leader, has the backing of many if not most Venezuelans.'

A remarkable claim, given that George Ciccariello-Maher reported in The Nation that an opinion poll in Venezuela conducted between January 7-16 had found that 81 per cent of Venezuelans had never heard of Juan Guaidó. But then this is the same Simon Tisdall who wrote in 2011:

'The risky western intervention had worked. And Libya was liberated at last.'

The Guardian may currently be Guaidó's greatest UK cheerleader. After the opposition leader gave the paper an exclusive interview, former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook tweeted:

'Extraordinary even by the Guardian's standards. Juan Guaido, the CIA's pick to lead a coup against Venezuela's govt, gives the paper one of his first interviews – and it simply acts as a conduit for his propaganda. It doesn't even pretend to be a watchdog'

On February 1, Cook added:

'Oh look! Juan Guaido, the figurehead for the CIA's illegal regime-change operation intended to grab Venezuela's oil (as John Bolton has publicly conceded), is again presented breathlessly by the Guardian as the country's saviour'

The BBC continues to administer a daily dose of propaganda. On January 31, the big morning news story was:

'Venezuela opposition "speaking to army"

'Opposition leader Juan Guaidó says his team has held talks with the army about regime change'

As we noted, if a US version of Guaidó made that admission in public, he would soon be paid a visit by Navy Seals, perhaps shot on the spot and dumped at sea, or bundled away to a life on death row for probable later execution.

On February 4, the front page of the BBC website featured a heroic picture of Guaido's mother kissing her son on the forehead at a protest rally. Sombre, stoic, the saviour's head appears bowed by the weight of the hopes and expectations of his people (people who, until recently, had no idea who he was and had never voted for him). This was a pure propaganda image. More will certainly follow. We discussed earlier BBC efforts here.

 

Venezuela Blitz – Part 1: Tyrants Don’t Have Free Elections

Þri, 05/02/2019 - 10:01

In our new book, we describe a 'Propaganda Blitz' as a fast-moving campaign to persuade the public of the need for 'action' or 'intervention' furthering elite interests. Affecting great moral outrage, corporate media line up to insist that a watershed moment has arrived – something must be done!

A classic propaganda blitz was triggered on January 23, when Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared himself 'interim President'. This was presented as dramatic new evidence that the people of Venezuela had finally had enough of Nicolas Maduro's 'regime'.

In reporting this news the following day, the BBC website featured a disturbing graphic of a captive with arms tied behind his back being tortured. The caption read:

'Inside Venezuela's secret torture centre'

The image linked to a complex interactive piece that allowed readers to explore the torture centre. There was also a long report on the same centre. The interactive report included this statement by a former prisoner, Rosmit Mantilla:

'In a country like Venezuela there's no difference between being in or out of prison. You are equally persecuted and mistreated, and you can die either way.'

Venezuela, then, is a giant gulag. The interactive piece had clearly taken a good deal of time and effort to produce – odd that it should appear on the same day that news of Guaidó's coup attempt was reported. The BBC followed this up with a piece on January 25 openly promoting 'regime' change:

'Venezuela's Maduro "could get Amnesty"

'Self-declared leader Guaidó also appeals to the powerful army, after receiving foreign backing.'

In fact, Guaidó, also received foreign rejection from China, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Syria and Iran. On January 29, the BBC front page headline read:

'Venezuela, "living under dictatorship"

'The opposition leader tells the BBC President Maduro has abused power, and renews calls for polls.'

Echoing the BBC's 'amnesty' front page story, the Guardian's Simon Tisdall, also talked up the merits of the coup:

'It seems clear that Juan Guaidó, the opposition leader, has the backing of many if not most Venezuelans.'

A remarkable claim, given that George Ciccariello-Maher reported in The Nation that an opinion poll in Venezuela conducted between January 7-16 had found that 81 per cent of Venezuelans had never heard of Juan Guaidó. But then this is the same Simon Tisdall who wrote in 2011:

'The risky western intervention had worked. And Libya was liberated at last.'

The Guardian may currently be Guaidó's greatest UK cheerleader. After the opposition leader gave the paper an exclusive interview, former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook tweeted:

'Extraordinary even by the Guardian's standards. Juan Guaido, the CIA's pick to lead a coup against Venezuela's govt, gives the paper one of his first interviews – and it simply acts as a conduit for his propaganda. It doesn't even pretend to be a watchdog'

On February 1, Cook added:

'Oh look! Juan Guaido, the figurehead for the CIA's illegal regime-change operation intended to grab Venezuela's oil (as John Bolton has publicly conceded), is again presented breathlessly by the Guardian as the country's saviour'

The BBC continues to administer a daily dose of propaganda. On January 31, the big morning news story was:

'Venezuela opposition "speaking to army"

'Opposition leader Juan Guaidó says his team has held talks with the army about regime change'

As we noted, if a US version of Guaidó made that admission in public, he would soon be paid a visit by Navy Seals, perhaps shot on the spot and dumped at sea, or bundled away to a life on death row for probable later execution.

On February 4, the front page of the BBC website featured a heroic picture of Guaido's mother kissing her son on the forehead at a protest rally. Sombre, stoic, the saviour's head appears bowed by the weight of the hopes and expectations of his people (people who, until recently, had no idea who he was and had never voted for him). This was a pure propaganda image. More will certainly follow. We discussed earlier BBC efforts here.

 

Democracy Or Extinction

Þri, 22/01/2019 - 13:50

What will it take for governments to take real action on climate? When will they declare an emergency and do what needs to be done? How much concerted, peaceful public action will be required to disrupt the current economic and political system that is driving humanity to the brink of extinction?

Meanwhile, climate records continue to tumble. 2018 was the hottest for the world's oceans since records began in the 1950s, continuing a deeply worrying trend. Moreover, the last five years were the five hottest. The consequences are likely to be catastrophic. The oceans are crucial to the Earth's climate; they absorb more than 90 per cent of the heating generated by greenhouse gases. Yet another sign of serious climate disruption is revealed with seemingly no impact on the juggernaut of economic 'growth' and government decision-making.

John Abraham, one of the authors of the new scientific study on this alarming rise in ocean temperatures, said:

'We scientists sound like a broken record. Every year we present the science and plead for action. Not nearly enough is being done. We can still tackle climate change, but we must act immediately. We have the means to make a difference, we lack only the will.'

It is, of course, heartening to see scientists finally being this outspoken. But it is not accurate to keep repeating the mantra, as many well-intentioned people do, that 'we' lack 'the will'. Who is the 'we' here? Big business, powerful financial interests and corporate lobbies have fought tooth and nail to oppose any substantive action. They have battled hard over decades to obscure, rubbish and downplay the science - with huge sums devoted to disinformation campaigns - and to bend government policy in their favour.

US environmentalist Bill McKibben recently observed of the fossil fuel lobby that:

'The coalition ha[s] used its power to slow us down precisely at the moment when we needed to speed up. As a result, the particular politics of one country for one half-century will have changed the geological history of the earth.'

One could argue that there is a lack of public will to expose and counter corporate power in collusion with nation states; that there needs to be a grassroots revolution to overturn this destructive system of rampant global capitalism. Perhaps there needs to be a revolution in human consciousness; an increased awareness of what it is to be fully human that respects ourselves, other species and the planet itself. Most likely, all of the above. If so, it is vital to say and do much more than merely say, 'we lack only the will'.

Take the ad-dependent, establishment-preserving, Corbyn-hating Guardian. It obfuscated along similar lines in an editorial sparked by the record-breaking ocean temperatures. Global warming, the editors said:

'can still be tackled if we act immediately; this is a test of will, not ability.'

But where is the Guardian's systemic analysis of root causes of climate chaos and what needs to be done about it? The Polish revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, who was murdered by right-wing paramilitary forces one hundred years ago this month, warned that global capitalism would lead to environmental destruction. This is not a defect of capitalism, she argued, but an inherent feature of a system that is rooted in brutality, gaping inequality and the unsustainable extraction of natural resources.

In her discussion of Luxemburg's legacy, Ana Cecilia Dinerstein, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Bath, noted:

'This is evident in the recent decision of Brazil's new far-right president, Bolsonaro, to "integrate the Amazon region into the Brazilian economy". This would expand the authority and reach of powerful agribusiness corporations into the Amazon Rainforest – threatening the rights and livelihoods of indigenous people and the ecosystems their lives are entwined with.'

This destruction of indigenous peoples and ecosystems has been inflicted on the continent since Columbus 'discovered' America in 1492. Globally, the process intensified during the Industrial Revolution and, in more recent decades, with the rise of destructive 'neoliberal' economic policies pursued with ideological fervour by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and later acolytes. No wonder that Luxemburg saw a stark choice between 'socialism or barbarism'. Today, the choice is most likely 'socialism or extinction'.

To any reader unsettled by the scare word 'socialism', simply replace it with 'democracy': a genuinely inclusive system where the general population has proper input and control, and does not simply have its wishes overridden by a tiny elite that enriches itself at our, and the planet's, expense.

Democracy Or Extinction

Þri, 22/01/2019 - 13:50

What will it take for governments to take real action on climate? When will they declare an emergency and do what needs to be done? How much concerted, peaceful public action will be required to disrupt the current economic and political system that is driving humanity to the brink of extinction?

Meanwhile, climate records continue to tumble. 2018 was the hottest for the world's oceans since records began in the 1950s, continuing a deeply worrying trend. Moreover, the last five years were the five hottest. The consequences are likely to be catastrophic. The oceans are crucial to the Earth's climate; they absorb more than 90 per cent of the heating generated by greenhouse gases. Yet another sign of serious climate disruption is revealed with seemingly no impact on the juggernaut of economic 'growth' and government decision-making.

John Abraham, one of the authors of the new scientific study on this alarming rise in ocean temperatures, said:

'We scientists sound like a broken record. Every year we present the science and plead for action. Not nearly enough is being done. We can still tackle climate change, but we must act immediately. We have the means to make a difference, we lack only the will.'

It is, of course, heartening to see scientists finally being this outspoken. But it is not accurate to keep repeating the mantra, as many well-intentioned people do, that 'we' lack 'the will'. Who is the 'we' here? Big business, powerful financial interests and corporate lobbies have fought tooth and nail to oppose any substantive action. They have battled hard over decades to obscure, rubbish and downplay the science - with huge sums devoted to disinformation campaigns - and to bend government policy in their favour.

US environmentalist Bill McKibben recently observed of the fossil fuel lobby that:

'The coalition ha[s] used its power to slow us down precisely at the moment when we needed to speed up. As a result, the particular politics of one country for one half-century will have changed the geological history of the earth.'

One could argue that there is a lack of public will to expose and counter corporate power in collusion with nation states; that there needs to be a grassroots revolution to overturn this destructive system of rampant global capitalism. Perhaps there needs to be a revolution in human consciousness; an increased awareness of what it is to be fully human that respects ourselves, other species and the planet itself. Most likely, all of the above. If so, it is vital to say and do much more than merely say, 'we lack only the will'.

Take the ad-dependent, establishment-preserving, Corbyn-hating Guardian. It obfuscated along similar lines in an editorial sparked by the record-breaking ocean temperatures. Global warming, the editors said:

'can still be tackled if we act immediately; this is a test of will, not ability.'

But where is the Guardian's systemic analysis of root causes of climate chaos and what needs to be done about it? The Polish revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg, who was murdered by right-wing paramilitary forces one hundred years ago this month, warned that global capitalism would lead to environmental destruction. This is not a defect of capitalism, she argued, but an inherent feature of a system that is rooted in brutality, gaping inequality and the unsustainable extraction of natural resources.

In her discussion of Luxemburg's legacy, Ana Cecilia Dinerstein, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Bath, noted:

'This is evident in the recent decision of Brazil's new far-right president, Bolsonaro, to "integrate the Amazon region into the Brazilian economy". This would expand the authority and reach of powerful agribusiness corporations into the Amazon Rainforest – threatening the rights and livelihoods of indigenous people and the ecosystems their lives are entwined with.'

This destruction of indigenous peoples and ecosystems has been inflicted on the continent since Columbus 'discovered' America in 1492. Globally, the process intensified during the Industrial Revolution and, in more recent decades, with the rise of destructive 'neoliberal' economic policies pursued with ideological fervour by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and later acolytes. No wonder that Luxemburg saw a stark choice between 'socialism or barbarism'. Today, the choice is most likely 'socialism or extinction'.

To any reader unsettled by the scare word 'socialism', simply replace it with 'democracy': a genuinely inclusive system where the general population has proper input and control, and does not simply have its wishes overridden by a tiny elite that enriches itself at our, and the planet's, expense.

Remembrance - The Dehumanised Human

Mið, 16/01/2019 - 11:09

It is clear even from their titles that corporate newspapers are objective, balanced and impartial. Or so we are to believe. The Telegraph and Mail are disinterested systems of communication - the prejudices of telegraphists and postmen/women certainly do not influence the content of the messages they deliver. The Times and Financial Times simply reflect the key events of our time, as of course does the Mirror. The Sun impartially spreads illumination to the benefit of all life on earth. As does the Independent, with no shadows cast by the Russian oligarch by which it is owned or the adverts on which it depends. The Observer looks on and records, a mere Spectator. Only the Guardian hints at political engagement. A staunch defender of 'free' comment and 'sacred facts', the title is commonly understood to indicate the paper's determination to act as a guardian of ordinary people against powerful interests.

And, as the name suggests, the Express is an entirely neutral rapid information delivery service – we will have to look elsewhere for political bias. Last November, the editors of the tabloid opined:

'From the smallest village memorial services to the 10,000 who marched solemnly past the Cenotaph, the nation came together yesterday in an overwhelming display of respect for the fallen.

'With poppies and soldier silhouettes, with beach artwork and bell-ringing, or simply with quiet reflection, they honoured those who sacrificed themselves for the freedoms we hold dear. Up and down the country, the two-minute silence was immaculately observed, though the message it conveyed was deafening: We will not forget. Leading it all, as ever, was the Queen. She has lived through most of the 100 years since the Armistice that ended the First World War and she remains as staunch and dependable as ever.'

There was no hint of bias in this idea that the 'nation' was united in this view of the Great War and its commemoration. The nation 'came together' in ceremonies led by royalty and religion, with the key focus – appropriately enough – on silence.

Why this constant emphasis on silent remembering: 'We will not forget'? What is it that we are supposed not to forget, and to what purpose? What exactly is the point of it?

Of course, we are being asked to 'remember' the suffering and death of 'the fallen', of those who 'served' and 'sacrificed'. But in fact, they did not fall, they were pushed: by bullets, shells and bayonets. They were pushed by elite-run systems of propaganda that think nothing of exploiting the vulnerability of children to patriotic, religious and militaristic manipulation long before they are capable of intellectual self-defence. They were pushed by nationalistic sloganeering and shaming, by the threat of jail, by the threat of bullets from a firing squad. In 1895, Tolstoy observed:

'From infancy, by every possible means - class books, church services, sermons, speeches, books, papers, songs, poetry, monuments - the people are stupefied in one direction' - unquestioning patriotism. (Tolstoy, 'Writings On Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence', New Society, 1987, p.95)

And as psychoanalyst Erich Fromm explained on the basis of decades of research:

'The average individual does not permit himself to be aware of thoughts or feelings which are incompatible with the patterns of his culture, and hence he is forced to repress them.' (Fromm, 'Beyond The Chains Of Illusion', Abacus, 1962, p.120)

The psychologist Stanley Milgram agreed, noting:

'The individual often views authority as an impersonal force, whose dictates transcend mere human wish or desire. Those in authority acquire, for some, a suprahuman character.' (Milgram, 'Obedience to Authority', Pinter & Martin, 1974, p.162)

Milgram concluded of the modern individual:

'The culture has failed, almost entirely, in inculcating internal controls on actions that have their origin in authority.' (p.164)

This is the reality behind the claim that the 'fallen' had 'sacrificed themselves for the freedoms we hold dear'. They 'sacrificed' themselves to defend a system that attacks the freedom of the young to think for themselves in challenging the views of 'authority' on the crucial issues facing us as human beings.

Consider religion as a further example. A child, of course, has not the remotest idea about the meaning of the word 'God' that features so prominently at times of 'remembrance'. And yet innumerable societies throughout history have taken for granted that children should be exposed to education from the earliest age to ensure they become 'good' Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists. What strange, heretical parent would encourage the child to think, feel and decide for him or herself on these issues, to consider different ideas about how best to relate oneself to existence, how best to experience love, truth and delight?

Proudly irreligious parents need not crow too hard. Their tiny children enjoying the inborn delight of non-competitive being are trained just as fanatically for ambition – to exult in coming first in class, to despair at coming last, to get to the best university, to get the best job with the best salary – before the child has any idea of what is at stake, of what he or she stands to lose. Which school explores the mystical philosophy of purposeless being, the sheer ecstasy of living in the moment, comparing it to the heart-rending stress of exam-oriented, 'success'-oriented living that subordinates the present moment to some future moment deemed far more important? Anyone who understands that authentic religion is fundamentally concerned with identifying and dropping the ambitious ego, knows that this, too, is a form of religious indoctrination.

In the Guardian, columnist Suzanne Moore wrote of the 'remembrance' ceremonies:

'The act of remembrance is significant because forgetting is what destroys us.'

But is it? We come closer to the truth when we amend Moore's observation that: 'Terrible wars are happening right now that no one thinks can end.' The reality, of course, is that terrible wars are happening right now that no one thinks about at all; that no one thinks, writes or cares about.

'Don't you care about Yemen?' Moore asked as an example of 'petty political point-scoring' at a time when we should all be united in 'remembrance'. In fact, this was the sixth time since the war began in 2015 that Moore has mentioned the word 'Yemen' in her Guardian column (ProQuest newspaper database search, January 15, 2019) – all have been the briefest possible mentions, all in passing. Moore has not offered a single substantive comment on the nature of the conflict – on the civilian death toll, on Britain's role in waging a truly devastating war against an impoverished, famine-stricken country.

And this gives the lie to the whole focus on 'remembering'. It is not 'forgetting' that destroys 'us'; it is a level of power-serving propaganda, mendacity and indifference that overwhelmingly destroys 'them' while 'we' know little or nothing of what's happening. There is no risk of us forgetting because we don't know. We don't know because journalism has been transformed into one more corporate product where celebrity media workers sell their 'brand' as columnists without risking their privileged lifestyles by treading on important toes.

 

Remembrance - The Dehumanised Human

Mið, 16/01/2019 - 11:09

It is clear even from their titles that corporate newspapers are objective, balanced and impartial. Or so we are to believe. The Telegraph and Mail are disinterested systems of communication - the prejudices of telegraphists and postmen/women certainly do not influence the content of the messages they deliver. The Times and Financial Times simply reflect the key events of our time, as of course does the Mirror. The Sun impartially spreads illumination to the benefit of all life on earth. As does the Independent, with no shadows cast by the Russian oligarch by which it is owned or the adverts on which it depends. The Observer looks on and records, a mere Spectator. Only the Guardian hints at political engagement. A staunch defender of 'free' comment and 'sacred facts', the title is commonly understood to indicate the paper's determination to act as a guardian of ordinary people against powerful interests.

And, as the name suggests, the Express is an entirely neutral rapid information delivery service – we will have to look elsewhere for political bias. Last November, the editors of the tabloid opined:

'From the smallest village memorial services to the 10,000 who marched solemnly past the Cenotaph, the nation came together yesterday in an overwhelming display of respect for the fallen.

'With poppies and soldier silhouettes, with beach artwork and bell-ringing, or simply with quiet reflection, they honoured those who sacrificed themselves for the freedoms we hold dear. Up and down the country, the two-minute silence was immaculately observed, though the message it conveyed was deafening: We will not forget. Leading it all, as ever, was the Queen. She has lived through most of the 100 years since the Armistice that ended the First World War and she remains as staunch and dependable as ever.'

There was no hint of bias in this idea that the 'nation' was united in this view of the Great War and its commemoration. The nation 'came together' in ceremonies led by royalty and religion, with the key focus – appropriately enough – on silence.

Why this constant emphasis on silent remembering: 'We will not forget'? What is it that we are supposed not to forget, and to what purpose? What exactly is the point of it?

Of course, we are being asked to 'remember' the suffering and death of 'the fallen', of those who 'served' and 'sacrificed'. But in fact, they did not fall, they were pushed: by bullets, shells and bayonets. They were pushed by elite-run systems of propaganda that think nothing of exploiting the vulnerability of children to patriotic, religious and militaristic manipulation long before they are capable of intellectual self-defence. They were pushed by nationalistic sloganeering and shaming, by the threat of jail, by the threat of bullets from a firing squad. In 1895, Tolstoy observed:

'From infancy, by every possible means - class books, church services, sermons, speeches, books, papers, songs, poetry, monuments - the people are stupefied in one direction' - unquestioning patriotism. (Tolstoy, 'Writings On Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence', New Society, 1987, p.95)

And as psychoanalyst Erich Fromm explained on the basis of decades of research:

'The average individual does not permit himself to be aware of thoughts or feelings which are incompatible with the patterns of his culture, and hence he is forced to repress them.' (Fromm, 'Beyond The Chains Of Illusion', Abacus, 1962, p.120)

The psychologist Stanley Milgram agreed, noting:

'The individual often views authority as an impersonal force, whose dictates transcend mere human wish or desire. Those in authority acquire, for some, a suprahuman character.' (Milgram, 'Obedience to Authority', Pinter & Martin, 1974, p.162)

Milgram concluded of the modern individual:

'The culture has failed, almost entirely, in inculcating internal controls on actions that have their origin in authority.' (p.164)

This is the reality behind the claim that the 'fallen' had 'sacrificed themselves for the freedoms we hold dear'. They 'sacrificed' themselves to defend a system that attacks the freedom of the young to think for themselves in challenging the views of 'authority' on the crucial issues facing us as human beings.

Consider religion as a further example. A child, of course, has not the remotest idea about the meaning of the word 'God' that features so prominently at times of 'remembrance'. And yet innumerable societies throughout history have taken for granted that children should be exposed to education from the earliest age to ensure they become 'good' Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists. What strange, heretical parent would encourage the child to think, feel and decide for him or herself on these issues, to consider different ideas about how best to relate oneself to existence, how best to experience love, truth and delight?

Proudly irreligious parents need not crow too hard. Their tiny children enjoying the inborn delight of non-competitive being are trained just as fanatically for ambition – to exult in coming first in class, to despair at coming last, to get to the best university, to get the best job with the best salary – before the child has any idea of what is at stake, of what he or she stands to lose. Which school explores the mystical philosophy of purposeless being, the sheer ecstasy of living in the moment, comparing it to the heart-rending stress of exam-oriented, 'success'-oriented living that subordinates the present moment to some future moment deemed far more important? Anyone who understands that authentic religion is fundamentally concerned with identifying and dropping the ambitious ego, knows that this, too, is a form of religious indoctrination.

In the Guardian, columnist Suzanne Moore wrote of the 'remembrance' ceremonies:

'The act of remembrance is significant because forgetting is what destroys us.'

But is it? We come closer to the truth when we amend Moore's observation that: 'Terrible wars are happening right now that no one thinks can end.' The reality, of course, is that terrible wars are happening right now that no one thinks about at all; that no one thinks, writes or cares about.

'Don't you care about Yemen?' Moore asked as an example of 'petty political point-scoring' at a time when we should all be united in 'remembrance'. In fact, this was the sixth time since the war began in 2015 that Moore has mentioned the word 'Yemen' in her Guardian column (ProQuest newspaper database search, January 15, 2019) – all have been the briefest possible mentions, all in passing. Moore has not offered a single substantive comment on the nature of the conflict – on the civilian death toll, on Britain's role in waging a truly devastating war against an impoverished, famine-stricken country.

And this gives the lie to the whole focus on 'remembering'. It is not 'forgetting' that destroys 'us'; it is a level of power-serving propaganda, mendacity and indifference that overwhelmingly destroys 'them' while 'we' know little or nothing of what's happening. There is no risk of us forgetting because we don't know. We don't know because journalism has been transformed into one more corporate product where celebrity media workers sell their 'brand' as columnists without risking their privileged lifestyles by treading on important toes.

 

Veneration Of Power Leading To Climate Catastrophe

Mið, 12/12/2018 - 09:41

In a recent media alert, we presented a few rules that journalists must follow if they are to be regarded as a safe pair of hands by editors and corporate media owners. One of these rules is that 'we' in the West are assumed to be 'the good guys'. This seriously damaging narrative, flying in the face of historical evidence and endlessly crushing state policies, ensures that the public is kept ignorant and pacified. The consequences have been deadly for millions of the West's victims around the world, and now mean climate catastrophe that could end human civilisation.

First, take the recent devout coverage following the death of George Herbert Walker Bush, US President from 1989-1993, and Vice-President under Ronald Reagan from 1981-1989. When a (former) Western leader dies, the raw propaganda is often at its most fawning and servile. On Bush's death, 'mainstream' media outlets broadcast and published eulogies and fanciful words of praise, divorced from reality. For example, BBC News channelled former President Barack Obama:

'George HW Bush's life is a testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous good along the journey.'

The Clintons - like the Bush dynasty, part of the US ruling class - added their own gushing propaganda tribute:

'Few Americans have been - or will ever be - able to match President Bush's record of service to the United States and the joy he took every day from it.'

Referring to the massive US attack following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, 'impartial' BBC News launched into full-blown Orwellian newspeak:

'The subsequent battle proved to be a triumph for American military expertise and a major boost for the nation's morale.'

Likewise, the Guardian's obituary described Bush Senior's devastation of Iraq as 'triumphant'; 'the president did not put a foot wrong'; 'his most impressive achievement'; 'Bush's masterly management of the first Iraq war'; and so on, in an elite-friendly script that was essentially a press release from the very centre of US power.

The cruel reality of Bush's 'most impressive achievement', as we noted in a 2002 media alert, was that Iraq's entire civilian infrastructure was targeted and largely destroyed under the rain of bombs. All of Iraq's eleven major electrical power plants, as well as 119 substations, were destroyed. 90 per cent of electricity generation was out of service within hours; within days, all power generation in the country had ceased. Eight multi-purpose dams were repeatedly hit and destroyed, wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of Iraq's seven major water pumping stations were destroyed. According to Eric Hoskins, a Canadian doctor and coordinator of a Harvard study team on Iraq, the allied bombardment:

'effectively terminated everything vital to human survival in Iraq - electricity, water, sewage systems, agriculture, industry and health care'. (Quoted Mark Curtis, 'The Ambiguities of Power', Zed Books, 1995)

Under the 88,500 tons of bombs - the equivalent of seven Hiroshimas - that followed the launch of the air campaign on January 17, 1991, and the ground attack that followed, 150,000 Iraqi troops and 50,000 civilians were killed. The Guardian's glowing obituary omitted all of these brutal facts. The Observer, the Guardian's Sunday sister paper, sang from the same hymn sheet, describing the former head of the CIA and US president as:

'an American patriot with a deep sense of duty'.

The guff piece was written by serial propagandist Simon Tisdall who has variously been a foreign leader writer, foreign editor and US editor for the Guardian. Tisdall waxed that:

'Bush set great store by civility in public life. As Republican candidate in 1988 he called for a "kinder, gentler nation". He was, quintessentially, a decent man, with a taste for the lifestyle of an English country gentleman.'

Bush's 'most admirable quality', opined the Guardian man, was 'his deep sense of public duty and service.' That word 'service' again, repeated over and over like a mantra. But who was really being served by Bush's violence?

The Guardian devoted a section of its website to Bush Sr, featuring headlines such as:

'"A different command". How Bush's war shaped his work for peace'

'a man of the highest character'

'The "dear dad" dedicated to faith, family and country'

'Steady hand during collapse of communism'

'"Dear Bill." Clinton heralds letter from Bush as source of lasting friendship'

When Official Enemies portray their Glorious Leaders in this way, western commentators routinely sneer with derision. Al Abunimah, editor of Electronic Intifada, highlighted the above litany of nonsense in a single tweet, and rightly scorned the Guardian as 'a bastion of regime propaganda and sycophancy to powerful elites.'

Meanwhile, BBC News, like the rest of the corporate media, virtually canonised Bush as a saintly agent of Western benevolence. Even his 'service dog' Sully paid a 'touching last tribute', sleeping beside the late President's casket. We were to understand that Sully was heart-broken after long years spent devotedly serving his 'master'. In fact, he had been assigned to assist Bush in the summer of 2018, just a few months ago.

By glaring contrast, a Morning Star editorial gave an honest assessment of Bush Sr's contribution to the world, summed up as:

'A lifetime in the service of imperialism.'

Nathan Robinson, editor of Current Affairs, listed numerous appalling crimes and abuses of human rights carried out by Bush, almost entirely buried by sycophantic journalists on his death, and concluded:

'Coverage of George H.W. Bush's death proves that Noam Chomsky's media theory is completely true'.

'Mainstream' media professionals do not know, or do not care, what Bush actually did in his life. Perhaps they also assume that the public do not know or care either. Obedient journalists have simply buried the destruction and mass death wreaked on Iraq in the Gulf War. In his Bush obituary, Nick Bryant, the New York-based BBC News correspondent, brushed all this away and stuck to the standard deception of 'mistakes were made' in Iraq. By 'mistakes', Bryant meant that the US encouraged the Kurds and Shia-dominated south to revolt against Saddam Hussein, but then failed to offer sufficient backing. Under BBC 'journalism', Bush's 'mistakes' do not include mass killing and destruction. That is simply unthinkable.

The truth is that the corporate media, the BBC very much included, do not care about the deadly effect of mass sanctions and infrastructure destruction on Iraq through the 1990s, up to the 2003 Iraq War. Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, reported that 4,000 more children under five were dying every month in Iraq than would have died before Western sanctions were imposed. A total of half a million children under five died, amongst a total death toll of over one million Iraqis. There is clearly no need or desire for western corporate media to dwell on Bush Sr's role in such horrors.

Nor do corporate journalists care about his service to death, torture, secret assassinations, and propping up of dictators in his role as head of the CIA. They do not care that, as Vice-President, Bush refused to apologise for the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655 over the Persian Gulf by the US warship Vincennes on July 3, 1988. All 290 people on board the plane were killed, including 66 children. Instead, he said callously:

'I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are. ... I'm not an apologize-for America kind of guy.'

Clearly, most corporate journalists do not care that Bush shares responsibility for the multiple bloodbaths that soaked Latin America in the 1980s. They do not care that Bush was, as historian Greg Grandin notes, an 'icon' of 'brutal US oppression in the Third World'. They do not care that Bush invaded Panama in 1989, in the biggest deployment of US force since the Vietnam War, ostensibly to capture former US ally Manuel Noriega on charges of drug trafficking. US planes heavily bombed populated areas, resulting in the estimated deaths of 3,000 Panamanians. Grandin says that the 'lasting impact of the Panama invasion' is the US wars that followed in subsequent decades. On Bush's death, the corporate media did their job of whitewashing his blood-soaked legacy; just as they covered for his crimes when he was in power.

Veneration Of Power Leading To Climate Catastrophe

Mið, 12/12/2018 - 09:41

In a recent media alert, we presented a few rules that journalists must follow if they are to be regarded as a safe pair of hands by editors and corporate media owners. One of these rules is that 'we' in the West are assumed to be 'the good guys'. This seriously damaging narrative, flying in the face of historical evidence and endlessly crushing state policies, ensures that the public is kept ignorant and pacified. The consequences have been deadly for millions of the West's victims around the world, and now mean climate catastrophe that could end human civilisation.

First, take the recent devout coverage following the death of George Herbert Walker Bush, US President from 1989-1993, and Vice-President under Ronald Reagan from 1981-1989. When a (former) Western leader dies, the raw propaganda is often at its most fawning and servile. On Bush's death, 'mainstream' media outlets broadcast and published eulogies and fanciful words of praise, divorced from reality. For example, BBC News channelled former President Barack Obama:

'George HW Bush's life is a testament to the notion that public service is a noble, joyous calling. And he did tremendous good along the journey.'

The Clintons - like the Bush dynasty, part of the US ruling class - added their own gushing propaganda tribute:

'Few Americans have been - or will ever be - able to match President Bush's record of service to the United States and the joy he took every day from it.'

Referring to the massive US attack following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, 'impartial' BBC News launched into full-blown Orwellian newspeak:

'The subsequent battle proved to be a triumph for American military expertise and a major boost for the nation's morale.'

Likewise, the Guardian's obituary described Bush Senior's devastation of Iraq as 'triumphant'; 'the president did not put a foot wrong'; 'his most impressive achievement'; 'Bush's masterly management of the first Iraq war'; and so on, in an elite-friendly script that was essentially a press release from the very centre of US power.

The cruel reality of Bush's 'most impressive achievement', as we noted in a 2002 media alert, was that Iraq's entire civilian infrastructure was targeted and largely destroyed under the rain of bombs. All of Iraq's eleven major electrical power plants, as well as 119 substations, were destroyed. 90 per cent of electricity generation was out of service within hours; within days, all power generation in the country had ceased. Eight multi-purpose dams were repeatedly hit and destroyed, wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of Iraq's seven major water pumping stations were destroyed. According to Eric Hoskins, a Canadian doctor and coordinator of a Harvard study team on Iraq, the allied bombardment:

'effectively terminated everything vital to human survival in Iraq - electricity, water, sewage systems, agriculture, industry and health care'. (Quoted Mark Curtis, 'The Ambiguities of Power', Zed Books, 1995)

Under the 88,500 tons of bombs - the equivalent of seven Hiroshimas - that followed the launch of the air campaign on January 17, 1991, and the ground attack that followed, 150,000 Iraqi troops and 50,000 civilians were killed. The Guardian's glowing obituary omitted all of these brutal facts. The Observer, the Guardian's Sunday sister paper, sang from the same hymn sheet, describing the former head of the CIA and US president as:

'an American patriot with a deep sense of duty'.

The guff piece was written by serial propagandist Simon Tisdall who has variously been a foreign leader writer, foreign editor and US editor for the Guardian. Tisdall waxed that:

'Bush set great store by civility in public life. As Republican candidate in 1988 he called for a "kinder, gentler nation". He was, quintessentially, a decent man, with a taste for the lifestyle of an English country gentleman.'

Bush's 'most admirable quality', opined the Guardian man, was 'his deep sense of public duty and service.' That word 'service' again, repeated over and over like a mantra. But who was really being served by Bush's violence?

The Guardian devoted a section of its website to Bush Sr, featuring headlines such as:

'"A different command". How Bush's war shaped his work for peace'

'a man of the highest character'

'The "dear dad" dedicated to faith, family and country'

'Steady hand during collapse of communism'

'"Dear Bill." Clinton heralds letter from Bush as source of lasting friendship'

When Official Enemies portray their Glorious Leaders in this way, western commentators routinely sneer with derision. Al Abunimah, editor of Electronic Intifada, highlighted the above litany of nonsense in a single tweet, and rightly scorned the Guardian as 'a bastion of regime propaganda and sycophancy to powerful elites.'

Meanwhile, BBC News, like the rest of the corporate media, virtually canonised Bush as a saintly agent of Western benevolence. Even his 'service dog' Sully paid a 'touching last tribute', sleeping beside the late President's casket. We were to understand that Sully was heart-broken after long years spent devotedly serving his 'master'. In fact, he had been assigned to assist Bush in the summer of 2018, just a few months ago.

By glaring contrast, a Morning Star editorial gave an honest assessment of Bush Sr's contribution to the world, summed up as:

'A lifetime in the service of imperialism.'

Nathan Robinson, editor of Current Affairs, listed numerous appalling crimes and abuses of human rights carried out by Bush, almost entirely buried by sycophantic journalists on his death, and concluded:

'Coverage of George H.W. Bush's death proves that Noam Chomsky's media theory is completely true'.

'Mainstream' media professionals do not know, or do not care, what Bush actually did in his life. Perhaps they also assume that the public do not know or care either. Obedient journalists have simply buried the destruction and mass death wreaked on Iraq in the Gulf War. In his Bush obituary, Nick Bryant, the New York-based BBC News correspondent, brushed all this away and stuck to the standard deception of 'mistakes were made' in Iraq. By 'mistakes', Bryant meant that the US encouraged the Kurds and Shia-dominated south to revolt against Saddam Hussein, but then failed to offer sufficient backing. Under BBC 'journalism', Bush's 'mistakes' do not include mass killing and destruction. That is simply unthinkable.

The truth is that the corporate media, the BBC very much included, do not care about the deadly effect of mass sanctions and infrastructure destruction on Iraq through the 1990s, up to the 2003 Iraq War. Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, reported that 4,000 more children under five were dying every month in Iraq than would have died before Western sanctions were imposed. A total of half a million children under five died, amongst a total death toll of over one million Iraqis. There is clearly no need or desire for western corporate media to dwell on Bush Sr's role in such horrors.

Nor do corporate journalists care about his service to death, torture, secret assassinations, and propping up of dictators in his role as head of the CIA. They do not care that, as Vice-President, Bush refused to apologise for the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655 over the Persian Gulf by the US warship Vincennes on July 3, 1988. All 290 people on board the plane were killed, including 66 children. Instead, he said callously:

'I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are. ... I'm not an apologize-for America kind of guy.'

Clearly, most corporate journalists do not care that Bush shares responsibility for the multiple bloodbaths that soaked Latin America in the 1980s. They do not care that Bush was, as historian Greg Grandin notes, an 'icon' of 'brutal US oppression in the Third World'. They do not care that Bush invaded Panama in 1989, in the biggest deployment of US force since the Vietnam War, ostensibly to capture former US ally Manuel Noriega on charges of drug trafficking. US planes heavily bombed populated areas, resulting in the estimated deaths of 3,000 Panamanians. Grandin says that the 'lasting impact of the Panama invasion' is the US wars that followed in subsequent decades. On Bush's death, the corporate media did their job of whitewashing his blood-soaked legacy; just as they covered for his crimes when he was in power.

Limits Of Dissent - Glenn Greenwald And The Guardian

Fim, 06/12/2018 - 12:10

When we think of prisons, we tend to think of Alcatraz, Bang Kwang and Belmarsh with their guard towers, iron bars and concrete. But in his forthcoming book, '33 Myths of the System', Darren Allen invites us to imagine a prison with walls made entirely of vacuous guff:

'Censorship is unnecessary in a system in which everyone can speak, but only those guaranteed not to say anything worth listening to can be heard.'

Is this true? For example, how easy is it to encounter genuinely uncompromised analysis locating the Guardian within a propaganda system designed to filter news, views and voices to serve powerful interests?

It is a key issue because the Guardian is the best 'centre-left' newspaper we have. If The Times and Telegraph define the limits of thinkable thought on the 'mainstream' right, then the Guardian does the same at the other end of the 'spectrum'. In other words, the Guardian defines corporate media limits in accepting left views and voices. If it's not in the Guardian, it's not going to be anywhere else in the 'mainstream'.

Are the Guardian's famous in-house dissidents willing and able to address this crucial issue? How about leftist firebrand Owen Jones? In November 2017, Jones lamented on Twitter:

'I'm barred from criticising colleagues in my column. Weirdly this doesn't seem to work the other way round.'

Jones can tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the corporate media, as long as he doesn't dish the dirt on his employer. Ironies inevitably abound. Last April, Jones commented:

'The main thing I've learned from working in the British media is that much of it is a cult. Afflicted by a suffocating groupthink, intolerant of critics, hounds internal dissenters, full of people who made it because of connections and/or personal background rather than merit.'

Even as Jones was speaking out on this 'suffocating groupthink', his comment was being suffocated by his obligation to spare his colleagues' blushes.

In December 2014, former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook challenged George Monbiot:

'@GeorgeMonbiot Guardian, your employer, is precisely part of media problem. Why this argument [on the need for structural reform] is far from waste of energy. It's vital.'

Monbiot brazenly stonewalled:

'@Jonathan_K_Cook that's your view. I don't share it. Most of my work exposing corporate power has been through or with the Guardian.'

Limits Of Dissent - Glenn Greenwald And The Guardian

Fim, 06/12/2018 - 12:10

When we think of prisons, we tend to think of Alcatraz, Bang Kwang and Belmarsh with their guard towers, iron bars and concrete. But in his forthcoming book, '33 Myths of the System', Darren Allen invites us to imagine a prison with walls made entirely of vacuous guff:

'Censorship is unnecessary in a system in which everyone can speak, but only those guaranteed not to say anything worth listening to can be heard.'

Is this true? For example, how easy is it to encounter genuinely uncompromised analysis locating the Guardian within a propaganda system designed to filter news, views and voices to serve powerful interests?

It is a key issue because the Guardian is the best 'centre-left' newspaper we have. If The Times and Telegraph define the limits of thinkable thought on the 'mainstream' right, then the Guardian does the same at the other end of the 'spectrum'. In other words, the Guardian defines corporate media limits in accepting left views and voices. If it's not in the Guardian, it's not going to be anywhere else in the 'mainstream'.

Are the Guardian's famous in-house dissidents willing and able to address this crucial issue? How about leftist firebrand Owen Jones? In November 2017, Jones lamented on Twitter:

'I'm barred from criticising colleagues in my column. Weirdly this doesn't seem to work the other way round.'

Jones can tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the corporate media, as long as he doesn't dish the dirt on his employer. Ironies inevitably abound. Last April, Jones commented:

'The main thing I've learned from working in the British media is that much of it is a cult. Afflicted by a suffocating groupthink, intolerant of critics, hounds internal dissenters, full of people who made it because of connections and/or personal background rather than merit.'

Even as Jones was speaking out on this 'suffocating groupthink', his comment was being suffocated by his obligation to spare his colleagues' blushes.

In December 2014, former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook challenged George Monbiot:

'@GeorgeMonbiot Guardian, your employer, is precisely part of media problem. Why this argument [on the need for structural reform] is far from waste of energy. It's vital.'

Monbiot brazenly stonewalled:

'@Jonathan_K_Cook that's your view. I don't share it. Most of my work exposing corporate power has been through or with the Guardian.'

The Filter Bubble - Owen Jones And Con Coughlin

Mið, 14/11/2018 - 13:13

There is something dreamlike about the system of mass communication sometimes described as 'mainstream media'. The self-described 'rogue journalist' and 'guerrilla poet' Caitlin Johnstone tweeted it well:

'The Iraq invasion feels kind of like if your dad had stood up at the dinner table, cut off your sister's head in front of everyone, gone right back to eating and never suffered any consequences, and everyone just kind of forgot about it and carried on life like it never happened.'

In a dream, the common sense rules and rationality of everyday life are, of course, suspended – we float to the top of the stairs, a cat smiles, a person is beheaded at the dinner table and the vegetables are served.

In similar vein, Iraq was destroyed in a nakedly illegal oil grab, more than one million human beings were killed, and the 'mainstream' continued to treat the criminals responsible as respectable statespeople, and to take seriously their subsequent calls for 'humanitarian intervention' in oil-rich Libya. With Libya reduced to ruins, the same journalists dreamed on, treating the same criminals with the same respect as they sought yet one more regime change in Syria.

This nightmare version of 'news' is maintained by a corporate 'filter bubble' that blocks facts, ideas and sources that challenge state-corporate control of politics, economics and culture. It is maintained by a mixture of ruthless high-level control and middle- and lower-level compromise, conformity and self-serving blindness.

It stands to reason that anyone seeking employment within this bubble will have to accept an unwritten agreement not to challenge the integrity of the bubble by which they are granted wealth and fame. Any ingrate deciding to renege is attacked, reviled and cast out; treated almost as sub-human, not entirely real. Politicians like George Galloway challenging the bubble can be beaten up in broad daylight and it is of no concern. Idealistic hippies like Russell Brand preaching love can be torn to shreds and silenced by the press pack – it doesn't matter. Whistleblowing activists like Julian Assange can be trapped, threatened with life imprisonment and death, and it is a laughing matter. Whole countries can be destroyed – it doesn't matter. The climate can be destroyed – it doesn't matter. The filter bubble has its own dream logic, follows its own cosmic laws as if the real world was none of its concern.

It is fine for one corporate bubble-head to criticise another bubble-head's take on current affairs – boisterous, jovial, intra-bubble gossip is welcome. Anything that challenges the integrity of the bubble is forbidden, hated; tolerated in tiny doses, perhaps, to keep up appearances. It is just understood.

So what happens when a high-profile political commentator breaks the rules and thrusts a pin of Truth at the filter bubble? What happens when a fellow journalist is exposed in a way that has negative implications for all newspapers, all media outlets? How will the rest of journalism respond? 

The Filter Bubble - Owen Jones And Con Coughlin

Mið, 14/11/2018 - 13:13

There is something dreamlike about the system of mass communication sometimes described as 'mainstream media'. The self-described 'rogue journalist' and 'guerrilla poet' Caitlin Johnstone tweeted it well:

'The Iraq invasion feels kind of like if your dad had stood up at the dinner table, cut off your sister's head in front of everyone, gone right back to eating and never suffered any consequences, and everyone just kind of forgot about it and carried on life like it never happened.'

In a dream, the common sense rules and rationality of everyday life are, of course, suspended – we float to the top of the stairs, a cat smiles, a person is beheaded at the dinner table and the vegetables are served.

In similar vein, Iraq was destroyed in a nakedly illegal oil grab, more than one million human beings were killed, and the 'mainstream' continued to treat the criminals responsible as respectable statespeople, and to take seriously their subsequent calls for 'humanitarian intervention' in oil-rich Libya. With Libya reduced to ruins, the same journalists dreamed on, treating the same criminals with the same respect as they sought yet one more regime change in Syria.

This nightmare version of 'news' is maintained by a corporate 'filter bubble' that blocks facts, ideas and sources that challenge state-corporate control of politics, economics and culture. It is maintained by a mixture of ruthless high-level control and middle- and lower-level compromise, conformity and self-serving blindness.

It stands to reason that anyone seeking employment within this bubble will have to accept an unwritten agreement not to challenge the integrity of the bubble by which they are granted wealth and fame. Any ingrate deciding to renege is attacked, reviled and cast out; treated almost as sub-human, not entirely real. Politicians like George Galloway challenging the bubble can be beaten up in broad daylight and it is of no concern. Idealistic hippies like Russell Brand preaching love can be torn to shreds and silenced by the press pack – it doesn't matter. Whistleblowing activists like Julian Assange can be trapped, threatened with life imprisonment and death, and it is a laughing matter. Whole countries can be destroyed – it doesn't matter. The climate can be destroyed – it doesn't matter. The filter bubble has its own dream logic, follows its own cosmic laws as if the real world was none of its concern.

It is fine for one corporate bubble-head to criticise another bubble-head's take on current affairs – boisterous, jovial, intra-bubble gossip is welcome. Anything that challenges the integrity of the bubble is forbidden, hated; tolerated in tiny doses, perhaps, to keep up appearances. It is just understood.

So what happens when a high-profile political commentator breaks the rules and thrusts a pin of Truth at the filter bubble? What happens when a fellow journalist is exposed in a way that has negative implications for all newspapers, all media outlets? How will the rest of journalism respond? 

How To Be A Reliable ‘Mainstream’ Journalist

Fim, 08/11/2018 - 09:36

There are certain rules you need to follow as a journalist if you are going to demonstrate to your editors, and the media owners who employ you, that you can be trusted.

For example, if you write about US-Iran relations, you need to ensure that your history book starts in 1979. That was the year Iranian students started a 444-day occupation of the US embassy in Tehran. This was the event that 'led to four decades of mutual hostility', according to BBC News. On no account should you dwell on the CIA-led coup in 1953 that overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. Even better if you just omit any mention of this.

You should definitely not quote Noam Chomsky who said in 2013 that:

'the crucial fact about Iran, which we should begin with, is that for the past 60 years, not a day has passed in which the U.S. has not been torturing Iranians.' (Our emphasis)

As Chomsky notes, the US (with UK support) installed the Shah, a brutal dictator, described by Amnesty International as one of the worst, most extreme torturers in the world, year after year. That ordinary Iranians might harbour some kind of grievance towards Uncle Sam as a result should not be prominent in 'responsible' journalism. Nor should you note, as Chomsky does, that:

'When he [the Shah] was overthrown in 1979, the U.S. almost immediately turned to supporting Saddam Hussein in an assault against Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, used extensive use of chemical weapons. Of course, at the same time, Saddam attacked his Kurdish population with horrible chemical weapons attacks. The U.S. supported all of that.'

As a 'good' journalist, you should refrain from referring to the US as the world's most dangerous rogue state, or by making any Chomskyan comparison between the US and the Mafia:

'We're back to the Mafia principle. In 1979, Iranians carried out an illegitimate act: They overthrew a tyrant that the United States had imposed and supported, and moved on an independent path, not following U.S. orders. That conflicts with the Mafia doctrine, by which the world is pretty much ruled. Credibility must be maintained. The godfather cannot permit independence and successful defiances, in the case of Cuba. So, Iran has to be punished for that.'

As a reliable journalist, there is also no need to dwell on the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655 over the Persian Gulf by the US warship Vincennes on July 3, 1988. All 290 people on board the plane were killed, including 66 children. President Ronald Reagan excused the mass killing as 'a proper defensive action'. Vice-President George H.W. Bush said: 'I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are. ... I'm not an apologize-for America kind of guy.'

The US has never forgiven Iran for its endless 'defiance' in trying to shirk off Washington's impositions. Harsh and punitive sanctions on Iran, that had been removed under the 2015 nuclear deal, have now been restored by President Donald Trump. Trump has also decided to pull out of the INF, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, with Russia. This is the landmark nuclear arms pact signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

But 'balanced' journalism need not focus on the enhanced threat of nuclear war, or the diplomatic options that the US has ignored or trampled upon. Instead, journalism is to be shaped by the narrative framework that it is the US that is behaving responsibly, and that Iran is the gravest threat to world peace. Thus, BBC News reports that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has:

'warned that the US will exert "relentless" pressure on Iran unless it changes its "revolutionary course".'

BBC News adds:

'Iran's President Hassan Rouhani earlier struck a defiant tone, saying the country will "continue selling oil".

'"We will proudly break the sanctions," he told economic officials.'

Good reporters know that Official Enemies resisting US imperialism must always be described as 'defiant'. But the term is rarely, if ever, applied to the imperial power implementing oppressive measures.

BBC News dutifully reported Pompeo's comments:

'The Iranian regime has a choice: it can either do a 180-degree turn from its outlaw course of action and act like a normal country, or it can see its economy crumble.'

A good reporter knows not to critically appraise, far less ridicule, the idea that the US is an exemplar of 'a normal country', rather than being an outlaw state that outrageously threatens to make another country's economy 'crumble' for refusing to obey US orders.

How To Be A Reliable ‘Mainstream’ Journalist

Fim, 08/11/2018 - 09:36

There are certain rules you need to follow as a journalist if you are going to demonstrate to your editors, and the media owners who employ you, that you can be trusted.

For example, if you write about US-Iran relations, you need to ensure that your history book starts in 1979. That was the year Iranian students started a 444-day occupation of the US embassy in Tehran. This was the event that 'led to four decades of mutual hostility', according to BBC News. On no account should you dwell on the CIA-led coup in 1953 that overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader, Mohammad Mossadegh. Even better if you just omit any mention of this.

You should definitely not quote Noam Chomsky who said in 2013 that:

'the crucial fact about Iran, which we should begin with, is that for the past 60 years, not a day has passed in which the U.S. has not been torturing Iranians.' (Our emphasis)

As Chomsky notes, the US (with UK support) installed the Shah, a brutal dictator, described by Amnesty International as one of the worst, most extreme torturers in the world, year after year. That ordinary Iranians might harbour some kind of grievance towards Uncle Sam as a result should not be prominent in 'responsible' journalism. Nor should you note, as Chomsky does, that:

'When he [the Shah] was overthrown in 1979, the U.S. almost immediately turned to supporting Saddam Hussein in an assault against Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, used extensive use of chemical weapons. Of course, at the same time, Saddam attacked his Kurdish population with horrible chemical weapons attacks. The U.S. supported all of that.'

As a 'good' journalist, you should refrain from referring to the US as the world's most dangerous rogue state, or by making any Chomskyan comparison between the US and the Mafia:

'We're back to the Mafia principle. In 1979, Iranians carried out an illegitimate act: They overthrew a tyrant that the United States had imposed and supported, and moved on an independent path, not following U.S. orders. That conflicts with the Mafia doctrine, by which the world is pretty much ruled. Credibility must be maintained. The godfather cannot permit independence and successful defiances, in the case of Cuba. So, Iran has to be punished for that.'

As a reliable journalist, there is also no need to dwell on the shooting down of Iran Air flight 655 over the Persian Gulf by the US warship Vincennes on July 3, 1988. All 290 people on board the plane were killed, including 66 children. President Ronald Reagan excused the mass killing as 'a proper defensive action'. Vice-President George H.W. Bush said: 'I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are. ... I'm not an apologize-for America kind of guy.'

The US has never forgiven Iran for its endless 'defiance' in trying to shirk off Washington's impositions. Harsh and punitive sanctions on Iran, that had been removed under the 2015 nuclear deal, have now been restored by President Donald Trump. Trump has also decided to pull out of the INF, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, with Russia. This is the landmark nuclear arms pact signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

But 'balanced' journalism need not focus on the enhanced threat of nuclear war, or the diplomatic options that the US has ignored or trampled upon. Instead, journalism is to be shaped by the narrative framework that it is the US that is behaving responsibly, and that Iran is the gravest threat to world peace. Thus, BBC News reports that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has:

'warned that the US will exert "relentless" pressure on Iran unless it changes its "revolutionary course".'

BBC News adds:

'Iran's President Hassan Rouhani earlier struck a defiant tone, saying the country will "continue selling oil".

'"We will proudly break the sanctions," he told economic officials.'

Good reporters know that Official Enemies resisting US imperialism must always be described as 'defiant'. But the term is rarely, if ever, applied to the imperial power implementing oppressive measures.

BBC News dutifully reported Pompeo's comments:

'The Iranian regime has a choice: it can either do a 180-degree turn from its outlaw course of action and act like a normal country, or it can see its economy crumble.'

A good reporter knows not to critically appraise, far less ridicule, the idea that the US is an exemplar of 'a normal country', rather than being an outlaw state that outrageously threatens to make another country's economy 'crumble' for refusing to obey US orders.