Media Lens

Syndicate content
News analysis and media criticism
Updated: 12 hours 21 min ago

The Destruction of Freedom: Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange And The Corporate Media

Þri, 19/03/2019 - 07:57

In 2013, US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was given a 35-year prison sentence after she had leaked more than 700,000 confidential US State Department and Pentagon documents, videos and diplomatic cables about the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. Perhaps the most notorious of the releases was a US military video that WikiLeaks titled 'Collateral Murder'. It showed the indiscriminate slaying of up to eighteen people in Baghdad on 12 July, 2007. The footage, taken from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, showed the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters journalist and his rescuers. A second Reuters staff member, employed as a driver and camera assistant, was also killed. Two young children, whose father was among those killed, were seriously wounded.

The video, together with the transcript of army exchanges during the indiscriminate US killings, shocked many around the world:

Let's shoot.
Light 'em all up.
Come on, fire!
Keep shoot, keep shoot. [keep shooting]
keep shoot.
keep shoot.
[...]
Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards.
Nice.

While in prison, Manning twice attempted to commit suicide and also spent time in solitary confinement. She was released in 2017, after her sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama, two days before he left office.

On 8 March – International Women's Day – Manning was once again jailed after she refused to testify against WikiLeaks, and its founder Julian Assange, before a grand jury in Virginia. A grand jury means that the public is not allowed entry: the hearings are held in secret. She said in a statement:

'I will not comply with this, or any other grand jury.

'Imprisoning me for my refusal to answer questions only subjects me to additional punishment for my repeatedly-stated ethical objections to the grand jury system.

'I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to, particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech.'

Binoy Kampmark, who lectures at RMIT University in Melbourne, remarked:

'The sense of dredging and re-dredging in efforts to ensnare Manning is palpable... There is a distinct note of the sinister in this resumption of hounding a whistleblower'.

Kampmark added:

'Manning's original conviction was a shot across the bow, the prelude to something fundamental. Journalists long protected for using leaked material under the First Amendment were going to become future targets of prosecution.'

Sending Manning back to jail shows:

'the unequivocal determination of US authorities to fetter, if not totally neutralise, the reach of WikiLeaks in the modern information wars.'

The famous whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971 detailing US war crimes in Vietnam and US government lies to the public, told Amy Goodman in a Democracy Now! interview:

'This is a continuation of seven-and-a-half years of torture of Chelsea Manning, in an effort to get her to contribute to incriminating WikiLeaks, so that they can bring Julian Assange or WikiLeaks to trial on charges that would not apply to The New York Times. It's been speculated for years now that the secret charges, if they did exist—and apparently they do exist—against Julian Assange were under the same charges that I was first—the first person to be prosecuted for, back in 1971: violations of the Espionage Act, conspiracy and theft. It would be the same cases brought against me.'

Ellsberg continued:

'Unfortunately, bringing that against a journalist is even more blatantly a violation of the First Amendment, freedom of the press. And although Donald Trump has made it very plain he would love to prosecute and convict The New York Times, he doesn't have the guts to do that, to do what he wants, fortunately, because it would be so obviously unconstitutional, that although his base would be happy with it and he would be happy with it, he would get into too much trouble constitutionally. So he wants to find charges against Julian that would be different from mine, because if he brought the same charges that he brought against me—in this case, against a journalist—it would clearly be found unconstitutional.'

He then pointed to the significance of this latest development:

'And so, Chelsea, having failed to give them what they wanted over seven-and-a-half years here she was incarcerated, or since, or in the grand jury—namely, false incriminating charges against WikiLeaks—they're resorting again to torture, which does work at getting false confessions. That's what it's for. That's what it mainly does. They want her to contradict her earlier sworn testimony many times, that she behaved in relation to WikiLeaks exactly as she would have to The New York Times or The Washington Post, to whom she went first, before going to WikiLeaks. And they didn't pick up on what she was offering, so she went to WikiLeaks. But she took sole responsibility, not to spare them, but because that was the truth. And she tells the truth.'

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his contribution to a series of Guardian and Washington Post articles based on documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden, concurred that the real target is WikiLeaks:

'the Trump administration is trying to do what the Obama administration tried to do but ultimately concluded it couldn't do without jeopardizing press freedoms, which is to prosecute WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for what it regards as the crime of publishing top-secret or classified documents.'

Greenwald rightly called this attempt to go after WikiLeaks 'a grave threat to press freedom'. However:

'most reporters are mute on this scandal, on this controversy, and while a lot of Democrats are supportive of it, because they still hate WikiLeaks so much from the 2016 election that they're happy to see Julian Assange go to jail, even if it means standing behind the Trump administration'.

The reference to the 2016 election is the allegation that WikiLeaks' publication of emails from the Democratic Party and John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign chairman, brought about Trump's victory. Assange had even supposedly conspired with Trump, and with Trump's alleged Russian allies, to fatally damage Clinton's 2016 campaign: charges that are without any solid basis.

The Courage Foundation, a trust set up to fundraise the legal defence of individuals such as whistleblowers and journalists, warns of the 'Assange Precedent'; namely, the threat to all media posed by the Trump administration's attempt to prosecute Julian Assange:

'All media organizations and journalists must recognize the threat to their freedom and ability to work posed by the Trump Administration's prosecution of Assange. They should join human rights organizations, the United Nations and many others in opposing Assange's extradition. They should do so out of their own self-interest given that their ability to safely publish is under serious threat.'

In December 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention deemed that the WikiLeaks founder, whose health is deteriorating, has been arbitrarily detained since 2010, and that he should be freed and compensated. George Galloway rightly points out that:

'It's a kind of modern day torture that Julian Assange has been subjected to.'

In November 2018, Assange's mother made an urgent and impassioned plea to raise awareness of his plight:

'This is not a drill. This is an emergency. The life of my son...is in immediate and critical danger.'

On 18 March, Christine Assange renewed her appeal to journalists, in particular, to stand up for her son. Their record to date has been, in the main, shameful. We have previously detailed numerous examples of journalistic abuse, scorn and ridicule thrown at Assange, and WikiLeaks, notably by Guardian journalists. For instance, Hannah Parkinson, who writes for the Guardian and its sister Sunday paper, the Observer, tweeted this about Assange last year:

'this little shit has lived rent free in Knightsbridge for 5 years, probably saved about £200k'

The tweet was 'liked' by John Simpson, the 'impartial' grandly-titled BBC World Affairs Editor who exudes gravitas, if little insight, on world affairs.

And in response to the news last October that Assange was to launch legal action against the government of Ecuador, accusing it of violating his fundamental rights and freedoms, Parkinson had tweeted:

'a teenager whose parents turn the wifi off'

This is par for the course at the Guardian whose journalists are regularly shamed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange doing the real job of exposing power to public scrutiny. In 2015, Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs had even mocked Chelsea Manning when she was put in solitary confinement:

'And the world's tiniest violin plays a sad song'

That, however, did earn a mild rebuke in a tweet from Guardian editor Matt Wells. The tweets were subsequently deleted, but not before screenshots had been saved.

The disdain, sometimes outright hostility, towards WikiLeaks and Assange is also reflected in the minimal coverage, and distinct lack of support, for Chelsea Manning's renewed incarceration. The Guardian merely published a brief article titled, 'Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify to grand jury in WikiLeaks case'. As WikiLeaks journalist Kristinn Hrafnsson pointed out:

'Of the MSM ['mainstream' media] the @guardian benefitted most from material Chelsea Manning was sentenced for in 2013. You might expect a huge story on the yda [yesterday] jailing of @xychelsea [Chelsea Manning] to extort her to testify against Assange/@wikileaks. But nothing except a small AP [Associated Press] based story that quickly lost front.'

Hrafnsson added:

'Every day Chelsea Manning @xychelsea spends in jail for refusing to testify against Assange/@wikileaks adds shame to those journalists who remain silent about this disgrace. This applies especially to those who benefited most from her brave acts in the past. @guardian @nytimes'

The Guardian had, of course, benefitted in publishing Greenwald's work based on Manning's releases via WikiLeaks; as well as book sales that were generated on the back of WikiLeaks' work. In 2012, journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote that the British government's pursuit of Julian Assange was 'an assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism'. He described the corporate media's treatment of Assange as 'a vituperative personal campaign':

'Much of it has emanated from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover, has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables.'

A ProQuest newspaper database search on 19 March revealed that there were but four newspaper articles about the imprisonment of Chelsea Manning in the whole of the national print press: The Times, the Daily Mail, The Herald and the Daily Record (the latter two newspapers are based in Scotland). The Guardian article mentioned above, based on an Associated Press release, was published online; but not in the print version. There was also an online Telegraph piece which was also just a press release (by Agence France-Presse). As far as we could tell, there was not a single editorial or column in a major national newspaper defending Chelsea Manning, nor pointing to the grave danger to press freedom that her new incarceration posed. That is a disgraceful indictment of our so-called 'free press'.

In an interview last week with Dennis Bernstein on Radio KPFA, John Pilger described the significance, and injustice, of the recent jailing of Chelsea Manning. The irony of her being imprisoned on International Women's Day was first noted, then Pilger pointed to the shameful silence from the women's movement, and other human rights activists:

'Where are they [human rights activists] on Chelsea Manning? Why were there only ten people outside the Court House? Where is Amnesty International? Where are the women's groups? Where are the LGBT groups? Where are the Pride people? Why aren't they massing in support of Chelsea Manning? Instead I see Chelsea Manning's story relegated in a sort of, "Oh well, that's almost inevitable this is going to happen." But this [...] is the most significant act of principle; an inspiration to all decent people; to democrats, to people who believe in justice. So where are the groups who have been very loud in their condemnation – rightly - of Donald Trump? Where are they? Why are we not hearing from them?'

Discussion then turned to the crushing reality that the corporate media is an extension of an oppressive establishment order:

Dennis Bernstein: 'it seems to me that journalists believe Chelsea Manning should be in jail. And that Julian Assange isn't a publisher, and that he should be tried for treason because, after all, these journalists are patriots. They're no reporters.'

John Pilger: 'Well, I think I'll stand back a little from that question a little, Dennis. I think we can go on and beat our heads on the media brick wall, and asking these questions on the media. The media is part of an oppressive system in various forms [...]. It is an extension of the established order and these days it is without something it used to have, and that is spaces – limited spaces – but spaces for free and fair comment. Right across the corporate media these spaces have evaporated. So they are part of a system. They have shown this in a most grotesque way by the persecution of Julian Assange – the slandering of him, the distortion of the facts about his case.'

Pilger, who is well-versed in Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's propaganda model of the media, explained that it has already been clear for some considerable time how and why the corporate media operate in the way they do. It is now time for nonviolent direct action against the media that constantly promotes rapacious Western interests and erodes public freedoms:

'It is certainly right for us to protest – and I think our protests against the media should be more of a direct action now: occupy their spaces, occupy their buildings, confront them.'

Pilger added that 'people who preserve human decency' – the majority, that is – need to ask ourselves what we are doing about the ongoing state and corporate assault on freedom of expression; and, indeed, on freedom itself:

'The Chelsea Manning/Julian Assange case goes to the very heart of everything. It is about freedom. It's not just about freedom of expression. It is about justice. It is about the law: the use of law, the misuse of law. It is about right and wrong. If there is going to be any real debate, I think we have to confront it, and we have to do it on our terms; not through the hopeless cypher of a corporate media.'

The corporate media is institutionally opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the public; that is why we reject the label 'mainstream'. The corporate media, including BBC News, systematically promotes imperialist and exploitative state interests, together with private power in the form of big business, financial speculation, military forces, the arms industry, the fossil fuel lobby, destructive agribusiness, unsustainable food production and rampant global consumerism that is destroying ecosystems, ramping up mass loss of species and endangering human survival through climate chaos. This oppressive system, with the corporate media a vital cog in the apparatus, must be exposed, confronted, dismantled and replaced with a society that truly promotes democracy, justice and human potential. It is up to us to make it happen before it's too late.

DC

The Destruction of Freedom: Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange And The Corporate Media

Þri, 19/03/2019 - 07:57

In 2013, US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was given a 35-year prison sentence after she had leaked more than 700,000 confidential US State Department and Pentagon documents, videos and diplomatic cables about the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. Perhaps the most notorious of the releases was a US military video that WikiLeaks titled 'Collateral Murder'. It showed the indiscriminate slaying of up to eighteen people in Baghdad on 12 July, 2007. The footage, taken from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, showed the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters journalist and his rescuers. A second Reuters staff member, employed as a driver and camera assistant, was also killed. Two young children, whose father was among those killed, were seriously wounded.

The video, together with the transcript of army exchanges during the indiscriminate US killings, shocked many around the world:

Let's shoot.
Light 'em all up.
Come on, fire!
Keep shoot, keep shoot. [keep shooting]
keep shoot.
keep shoot.
[...]
Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards.
Nice.

While in prison, Manning twice attempted to commit suicide and also spent time in solitary confinement. She was released in 2017, after her sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama, two days before he left office.

On 8 March – International Women's Day – Manning was once again jailed after she refused to testify against WikiLeaks, and its founder Julian Assange, before a grand jury in Virginia. A grand jury means that the public is not allowed entry: the hearings are held in secret. She said in a statement:

'I will not comply with this, or any other grand jury.

'Imprisoning me for my refusal to answer questions only subjects me to additional punishment for my repeatedly-stated ethical objections to the grand jury system.

'I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to, particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech.'

Binoy Kampmark, who lectures at RMIT University in Melbourne, remarked:

'The sense of dredging and re-dredging in efforts to ensnare Manning is palpable... There is a distinct note of the sinister in this resumption of hounding a whistleblower'.

Kampmark added:

'Manning's original conviction was a shot across the bow, the prelude to something fundamental. Journalists long protected for using leaked material under the First Amendment were going to become future targets of prosecution.'

Sending Manning back to jail shows:

'the unequivocal determination of US authorities to fetter, if not totally neutralise, the reach of WikiLeaks in the modern information wars.'

The famous whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers in 1971 detailing US war crimes in Vietnam and US government lies to the public, told Amy Goodman in a Democracy Now! interview:

'This is a continuation of seven-and-a-half years of torture of Chelsea Manning, in an effort to get her to contribute to incriminating WikiLeaks, so that they can bring Julian Assange or WikiLeaks to trial on charges that would not apply to The New York Times. It's been speculated for years now that the secret charges, if they did exist—and apparently they do exist—against Julian Assange were under the same charges that I was first—the first person to be prosecuted for, back in 1971: violations of the Espionage Act, conspiracy and theft. It would be the same cases brought against me.'

Ellsberg continued:

'Unfortunately, bringing that against a journalist is even more blatantly a violation of the First Amendment, freedom of the press. And although Donald Trump has made it very plain he would love to prosecute and convict The New York Times, he doesn't have the guts to do that, to do what he wants, fortunately, because it would be so obviously unconstitutional, that although his base would be happy with it and he would be happy with it, he would get into too much trouble constitutionally. So he wants to find charges against Julian that would be different from mine, because if he brought the same charges that he brought against me—in this case, against a journalist—it would clearly be found unconstitutional.'

He then pointed to the significance of this latest development:

'And so, Chelsea, having failed to give them what they wanted over seven-and-a-half years here she was incarcerated, or since, or in the grand jury—namely, false incriminating charges against WikiLeaks—they're resorting again to torture, which does work at getting false confessions. That's what it's for. That's what it mainly does. They want her to contradict her earlier sworn testimony many times, that she behaved in relation to WikiLeaks exactly as she would have to The New York Times or The Washington Post, to whom she went first, before going to WikiLeaks. And they didn't pick up on what she was offering, so she went to WikiLeaks. But she took sole responsibility, not to spare them, but because that was the truth. And she tells the truth.'

Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his contribution to a series of Guardian and Washington Post articles based on documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden, concurred that the real target is WikiLeaks:

'the Trump administration is trying to do what the Obama administration tried to do but ultimately concluded it couldn't do without jeopardizing press freedoms, which is to prosecute WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for what it regards as the crime of publishing top-secret or classified documents.'

Greenwald rightly called this attempt to go after WikiLeaks 'a grave threat to press freedom'. However:

'most reporters are mute on this scandal, on this controversy, and while a lot of Democrats are supportive of it, because they still hate WikiLeaks so much from the 2016 election that they're happy to see Julian Assange go to jail, even if it means standing behind the Trump administration'.

The reference to the 2016 election is the allegation that WikiLeaks' publication of emails from the Democratic Party and John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign chairman, brought about Trump's victory. Assange had even supposedly conspired with Trump, and with Trump's alleged Russian allies, to fatally damage Clinton's 2016 campaign: charges that are without any solid basis.

The Courage Foundation, a trust set up to fundraise the legal defence of individuals such as whistleblowers and journalists, warns of the 'Assange Precedent'; namely, the threat to all media posed by the Trump administration's attempt to prosecute Julian Assange:

'All media organizations and journalists must recognize the threat to their freedom and ability to work posed by the Trump Administration's prosecution of Assange. They should join human rights organizations, the United Nations and many others in opposing Assange's extradition. They should do so out of their own self-interest given that their ability to safely publish is under serious threat.'

In December 2015, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention deemed that the WikiLeaks founder, whose health is deteriorating, has been arbitrarily detained since 2010, and that he should be freed and compensated. George Galloway rightly points out that:

'It's a kind of modern day torture that Julian Assange has been subjected to.'

In November 2018, Assange's mother made an urgent and impassioned plea to raise awareness of his plight:

'This is not a drill. This is an emergency. The life of my son...is in immediate and critical danger.'

On 18 March, Christine Assange renewed her appeal to journalists, in particular, to stand up for her son. Their record to date has been, in the main, shameful. We have previously detailed numerous examples of journalistic abuse, scorn and ridicule thrown at Assange, and WikiLeaks, notably by Guardian journalists. For instance, Hannah Parkinson, who writes for the Guardian and its sister Sunday paper, the Observer, tweeted this about Assange last year:

'this little shit has lived rent free in Knightsbridge for 5 years, probably saved about £200k'

The tweet was 'liked' by John Simpson, the 'impartial' grandly-titled BBC World Affairs Editor who exudes gravitas, if little insight, on world affairs.

And in response to the news last October that Assange was to launch legal action against the government of Ecuador, accusing it of violating his fundamental rights and freedoms, Parkinson had tweeted:

'a teenager whose parents turn the wifi off'

This is par for the course at the Guardian whose journalists are regularly shamed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange doing the real job of exposing power to public scrutiny. In 2015, Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs had even mocked Chelsea Manning when she was put in solitary confinement:

'And the world's tiniest violin plays a sad song'

That, however, did earn a mild rebuke in a tweet from Guardian editor Matt Wells. The tweets were subsequently deleted, but not before screenshots had been saved.

The disdain, sometimes outright hostility, towards WikiLeaks and Assange is also reflected in the minimal coverage, and distinct lack of support, for Chelsea Manning's renewed incarceration. The Guardian merely published a brief article titled, 'Chelsea Manning jailed for refusing to testify to grand jury in WikiLeaks case'. As WikiLeaks journalist Kristinn Hrafnsson pointed out:

'Of the MSM ['mainstream' media] the @guardian benefitted most from material Chelsea Manning was sentenced for in 2013. You might expect a huge story on the yda [yesterday] jailing of @xychelsea [Chelsea Manning] to extort her to testify against Assange/@wikileaks. But nothing except a small AP [Associated Press] based story that quickly lost front.'

Hrafnsson added:

'Every day Chelsea Manning @xychelsea spends in jail for refusing to testify against Assange/@wikileaks adds shame to those journalists who remain silent about this disgrace. This applies especially to those who benefited most from her brave acts in the past. @guardian @nytimes'

The Guardian had, of course, benefitted in publishing Greenwald's work based on Manning's releases via WikiLeaks; as well as book sales that were generated on the back of WikiLeaks' work. In 2012, veteran journalist and filmmaker John Pilger wrote that the British government's pursuit of Julian Assange was 'an assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism'. He described the corporate media's treatment of Assange as 'a vituperative personal campaign':

'Much of it has emanated from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover, has turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book has led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The authors, David Leigh and Luke Harding, gratuitously abuse Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also reveal the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables.'

A ProQuest newspaper database search on 19 March revealed that there were but four newspaper articles about the imprisonment of Chelsea Manning in the whole of the national print press: The Times, the Daily Mail, The Herald and the Daily Record (the latter two newspapers are based in Scotland). The Guardian article mentioned above, based on an Associated Press release, was published online; but not in the print version. There was also an online Telegraph piece which was also just a press release (by Agence France-Presse). As far as we could tell, there was not a single editorial or column in a major national newspaper defending Chelsea Manning, nor pointing to the grave danger to press freedom that her new incarceration posed. That is a disgraceful indictment of our so-called 'free press'.

In an interview last week with Dennis Bernstein on Radio KPFA, John Pilger described the significance, and injustice, of the recent jailing of Chelsea Manning. The irony of her being imprisoned on International Women's Day was first noted, then Pilger pointed to the shameful silence from the women's movement, and other human rights activists:

'Where are they [human rights activists] on Chelsea Manning? Why were there only ten people outside the Court House? Where is Amnesty International? Where are the women's groups? Where are the LGBT groups? Where are the Pride people? Why aren't they massing in support of Chelsea Manning? Instead I see Chelsea Manning's story relegated in a sort of, "Oh well, that's almost inevitable this is going to happen." But this [...] is the most significant act of principle; an inspiration to all decent people; to democrats, to people who believe in justice. So where are the groups who have been very loud in their condemnation – rightly - of Donald Trump? Where are they? Why are we not hearing from them?'

Discussion then turned to the crushing reality that the corporate media is an extension of an oppressive establishment order:

Dennis Bernstein: 'it seems to me that journalists believe Chelsea Manning should be in jail. And that Julian Assange isn't a publisher, and that he should be tried for treason because, after all, these journalists are patriots. They're no reporters.'

John Pilger: 'Well, I think I'll stand back a little from that question a little, Dennis. I think we can go on and beat our heads on the media brick wall, and asking these questions on the media. The media is part of an oppressive system in various forms [...]. It is an extension of the established order and these days it is without something it used to have, and that is spaces – limited spaces – but spaces for free and fair comment. Right across the corporate media these spaces have evaporated. So they are part of a system. They have shown this in a most grotesque way by the persecution of Julian Assange – the slandering of him, the distortion of the facts about his case.'

Pilger, who is well-versed in Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's propaganda model of the media, explained that it has already been clear for some considerable time how and why the corporate media operate in the way they do. It is now time for nonviolent direct action against the media that constantly promotes rapacious Western interests and erodes public freedoms:

'It is certainly right for us to protest – and I think our protests against the media should be more of a direct action now: occupy their spaces, occupy their buildings, confront them.'

Pilger added that 'people who preserve human decency' – the majority, that is – need to ask ourselves what we are doing about the ongoing state and corporate assault on freedom of expression; and, indeed, on freedom itself:

'The Chelsea Manning/Julian Assange case goes to the very heart of everything. It is about freedom. It's not just about freedom of expression. It is about justice. It is about the law: the use of law, the misuse of law. It is about right and wrong. If there is going to be any real debate, I think we have to confront it, and we have to do it on our terms; not through the hopeless cypher of a corporate media.'

The corporate media is institutionally opposed to the interests of the vast majority of the public; that is why we reject the label 'mainstream'. The corporate media including BBC News, systematically promotes imperialist and exploitative state interests, together with private power in the form of big business, financial speculation, military forces, the arms industry, the fossil fuel lobby, destructive agribusiness, unsustainable food production and rampant global consumerism that is destroying ecosystems, ramping up mass loss of species and endangering human survival through climate chaos. This oppressive system, with the corporate media a vital cog in the apparatus, must be exposed, confronted, dismantled and replaced with a society that truly promotes democracy, justice and human potential. It is up to us to make it happen before it's too late.

DC

The Fake News Nazi - Corbyn, Williamson And The Anti-Semitism Scandal

Mið, 06/03/2019 - 10:01

One of us had a discussion with an elderly relative:

'He can't be allowed to become Prime Minister.'

'Why not?'

'It's so awful...'

'What is?'

'The way he hates the Jews.'

The last comment was spoken with real anguish, the result of continuous exposure to just two main news sources: the Daily Mail and the BBC.

What is astonishing is that, just four years ago, essentially no-one held this view of Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn first became an MP in 1983. He stood for the Labour leadership 32 years later, in May 2015. We searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles containing:

'Jeremy Corbyn' and 'anti-semitism' before 1 May 2015 = 18 hits

'Jeremy Corbyn' and 'anti-semitism' after 1 May 2015 = 11,251 hits

None of the 18 hits accused Corbyn of anti-semitism. For his first 32 years as an MP, it just wasn't a theme associated with him.

We also searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles containing:

'Labour Party' and 'anti-semitism' before 1 May 2015 = 5,347 hits

'Labour Party' and 'anti-semitism' after 1 May 2015 = 13,921 hits

The archive begins in 1980, which means that more than twice as many articles have included these terms in the last four years than in the 35 years from 1980 until May 2015 when Corbyn stood for the Labour leadership. A standard response to these findings runs along these lines:

'Irrelevant backbencher gets less Press attention than Leader of The Opposition SHOCKER. What's your next scoop, Water Wet, Sky Blue?'

But in fact, Corbyn was not an irrelevant backbencher. We found 3,662 hits for articles mentioning Corbyn before May 2015. Many of these are mentions in passing, but he had also long been a high-profile anti-war MP at a time of numerous wars. And he was frequently smeared, only not about his supposed anti-semitism. Consider, for example, an article that appeared in The Sun in 1999, under a typically cruel title:

'Why did it take you so long to dump him, Mrs Corbyn?' (Ally Ross, The Sun, 13 May 1999)

The story:

'EXTREME Left MP Jeremy Corbyn has been dumped by his missus after an amazing bust-up over their son's education.'

The key issue, according to The Sun:

'Now the question on everyone's lips is: Why did it take her so long to leave the loathsome Lefty, and more importantly, why is she only moaning about his choice of schools?'

Because there was, apparently, plenty to moan about. The Sun described Corbyn as 'class crusader Jeremy - a rabid IRA sympathiser' who 'not only looks and dresses like a third-rate Open University lecturer, he thinks like one too. In 1984 the Provo stooge invited twice-convicted terrorist and bomber Linda Quigley to the House of Commons just 13 days after the IRA's murderous attack on Tories staying at the Grand Hotel in Brighton'.

This was pretty brutal stuff. The Sun added of Corbyn's ex-wife:

'Claudia's saviour of the masses also suffers incredible delusions of grandeur. Communist states may be falling like dominoes, but raving Red Jeremy still believes his outdated views are relevant to modern-day Britain.'

And:

'Not only is Jeremy a political coward who backs terrorists, he is also a self-confessed big girl's blouse.'

And:

'Jeremy's mis-shapen suits, lumpy jumpers and nylon shirts are not exactly what the well-dressed radical is wearing in 1999... Claudia should be aware her ex is irredeemably, unforgivably, annoyingly stupid.'

Given the no-holds-barred nature of the smear, it is amazing that The Sun made no mention at all of Corbyn's vile anti-semitism, viewed as his most obvious and dangerous defect now.

The reason is that, as this shows, not even his worst enemies viewed him as an anti-semite. The extreme Tory press aside, the accepted view of Corbyn pre-2015 is indicated by a long, admiring piece in which Jewish journalist Deborah Ross, whose family members were murdered in Polish pogroms even before the Nazi Holocaust was unleashed, interviewed him for the Independent in 2005. Ross commented:

'He is also, it is generally agreed, an exemplary constituency MP. Even my friend Rebecca, who recently sought his help on a local issue, and never usually has a nice word to say about anybody, which is why I like her, describes him as a "totally genuine mensch".'

Ross added:

'As The Sun would have it, Mr Corbyn is a "beardy Bolshevik" and "loathsome lefty" but he does not come across as either. He has strong opinions but does not demand you listen to them, if you don't want to.

'He is scandal free, unless you count the hoo-ha a few years back when it was revealed that Jeremy's oldest son would be attending a grammar school outside the borough.'

Joseph Finlay is a former Deputy Editor of the Jewish Quarterly, who co-founded a range of grassroots Jewish organisations such as Moishe House London, Wandering Jews, Jewdas and The Open Talmud Project. On 2 March 2018, Finlay wrote in his blog under the title, 'Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-racist, not an anti-Semite':

'Firstly we need to restore some perspective. The Labour party has thousands of Jewish members, many Jewish councillors, a number of prominent Jewish MPs and several Jewish members of its ruling council. Many people at the heart of the Corbyn team, such as Jon Lansman, James Schneider and Rhea Wolfson are also Jewish. Ed Miliband, the previous party leader, was Jewish (and suffered antisemitism at the hands of the press and the Conservatives). I have been a member for five years and, as a Jew, have had only positive experiences.'

Finlay added:

'Jeremy Corbyn has been MP for Islington North since 1983 – a constituency with a significant Jewish population. Given that he has regularly polled over 60% of the vote (73% in 2017) it seems likely that a sizeable number of Jewish constituents voted for him. As a constituency MP he regularly visited synagogues and has appeared at many Jewish religious and cultural events. He is close friends with the leaders of the Jewish Socialist Group, from whom he has gained a rich knowledge of the history of the Jewish Labour Bund, and he has named the defeat of Mosley's Fascists at the Battle of Cable as a key historical moment for him. His 2017 Holocaust Memorial Day statement talked about Shmuel Zygielboym, the Polish Bund leader exiled to London who committed suicide in an attempt to awaken the world to the Nazi genocide. How many British politicians have that level of knowledge of modern Jewish history?'

Israel-based journalist Jonathan Cook notes that a recent Labour Party report 'decisively undercut' the claims of Corbyn's critics 'not only of endemic anti-semitism in Labour, but of any significant problem at all'. Cook summarised:

'Over the previous 10 months, 673 complaints had been filed against Labour members over alleged anti-semitic behaviour, many based on online comments. In a third of those cases, insufficient evidence had been produced.

'The 453 other allegations represented 0.08 percent of the 540,000-strong Labour membership. Hardly "endemic" or "institutional", it seems.'

He added:

'That echoed an earlier report by the Commons home affairs committee, which found there was "no reliable, empirical evidence" that Labour had more of an anti-semitism problem than any other British political party.'

In 'Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel' by the Jewish Institute for Policy Research, L. Daniel Staetsky found:

'Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the "slightly left-of-centre," the "fairly left-wing" and the "very left-wing" – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: the presence of antisemitic attitudes in this group is 2 to 4 times higher compared to the general population.'

The report notes that 'the prevalence of antisemitism on the far right is considerably higher than on the left and in the political centre'.

Noam Chomsky has commented:

'The charges of anti-Semitism against Corbyn are without merit, an underhanded contribution to the disgraceful efforts to fend off the threat that a political party might emerge that is led by an admirable and decent human being, a party that is actually committed to the interests and just demands of its popular constituency and the great majority of the population generally, while also authentically concerned with the rights of suffering and oppressed people throughout the world. Plainly an intolerable threat to order.' (Noam Chomsky, email to Media Lens, 9 September 2018)

 

The Fake News Nazi - Corbyn, Williamson And The Anti-Semitism Scandal

Mið, 06/03/2019 - 10:01

One of us had a discussion with an elderly relative:

'He can't be allowed to become Prime Minister.'

'Why not?'

'It's so awful...'

'What is?'

'The way he hates the Jews.'

The last comment was spoken with real anguish, the result of continuous exposure to just two main news sources: the Daily Mail and the BBC.

What is astonishing is that, just four years ago, essentially no-one held this view of Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn first became an MP in 1983. He stood for the Labour leadership 32 years later, in May 2015. We searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles containing:

'Jeremy Corbyn' and 'anti-semitism' before 1 May 2015 = 18 hits

'Jeremy Corbyn' and 'anti-semitism' after 1 May 2015 = 11,251 hits

None of the 18 hits accused Corbyn of anti-semitism. For his first 32 years as an MP, it just wasn't a theme associated with him.

We also searched the ProQuest database for UK newspaper articles containing:

'Labour Party' and 'anti-semitism' before 1 May 2015 = 5,347 hits

'Labour Party' and 'anti-semitism' after 1 May 2015 = 13,921 hits

The archive begins in 1980, which means that more than twice as many articles have included these terms in the last four years than in the 35 years from 1980 until May 2015 when Corbyn stood for the Labour leadership. A standard response to these findings runs along these lines:

'Irrelevant backbencher gets less Press attention than Leader of The Opposition SHOCKER. What's your next scoop, Water Wet, Sky Blue?'

But in fact, Corbyn was not an irrelevant backbencher. We found 3,662 hits for articles mentioning Corbyn before May 2015. Many of these are mentions in passing, but he had also long been a high-profile anti-war MP at a time of numerous wars. And he was frequently smeared, only not about his supposed anti-semitism. Consider, for example, an article that appeared in The Sun in 1999, under a typically cruel title:

'Why did it take you so long to dump him, Mrs Corbyn?' (Ally Ross, The Sun, 13 May 1999)

The story:

'EXTREME Left MP Jeremy Corbyn has been dumped by his missus after an amazing bust-up over their son's education.'

The key issue, according to The Sun:

'Now the question on everyone's lips is: Why did it take her so long to leave the loathsome Lefty, and more importantly, why is she only moaning about his choice of schools?'

Because there was, apparently, plenty to moan about. The Sun described Corbyn as 'class crusader Jeremy - a rabid IRA sympathiser' who 'not only looks and dresses like a third-rate Open University lecturer, he thinks like one too. In 1984 the Provo stooge invited twice-convicted terrorist and bomber Linda Quigley to the House of Commons just 13 days after the IRA's murderous attack on Tories staying at the Grand Hotel in Brighton'.

This was pretty brutal stuff. The Sun added of Corbyn's ex-wife:

'Claudia's saviour of the masses also suffers incredible delusions of grandeur. Communist states may be falling like dominoes, but raving Red Jeremy still believes his outdated views are relevant to modern-day Britain.'

And:

'Not only is Jeremy a political coward who backs terrorists, he is also a self-confessed big girl's blouse.'

And:

'Jeremy's mis-shapen suits, lumpy jumpers and nylon shirts are not exactly what the well-dressed radical is wearing in 1999... Claudia should be aware her ex is irredeemably, unforgivably, annoyingly stupid.'

Given the no-holds-barred nature of the smear, it is amazing that The Sun made no mention at all of Corbyn's vile anti-semitism, viewed as his most obvious and dangerous defect now.

The reason is that, as this shows, not even his worst enemies viewed him as an anti-semite. The extreme Tory press aside, the accepted view of Corbyn pre-2015 is indicated by a long, admiring piece in which Jewish journalist Deborah Ross, whose family members were murdered in Polish pogroms even before the Nazi Holocaust was unleashed, interviewed him for the Independent in 2005. Ross commented:

'He is also, it is generally agreed, an exemplary constituency MP. Even my friend Rebecca, who recently sought his help on a local issue, and never usually has a nice word to say about anybody, which is why I like her, describes him as a "totally genuine mensch".'

Ross added:

'As The Sun would have it, Mr Corbyn is a "beardy Bolshevik" and "loathsome lefty" but he does not come across as either. He has strong opinions but does not demand you listen to them, if you don't want to.

'He is scandal free, unless you count the hoo-ha a few years back when it was revealed that Jeremy's oldest son would be attending a grammar school outside the borough.'

Joseph Finlay is a former Deputy Editor of the Jewish Quarterly, who co-founded a range of grassroots Jewish organisations such as Moishe House London, Wandering Jews, Jewdas and The Open Talmud Project. On 2 March 2018, Finlay wrote in his blog under the title, 'Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-racist, not an anti-Semite':

'Firstly we need to restore some perspective. The Labour party has thousands of Jewish members, many Jewish councillors, a number of prominent Jewish MPs and several Jewish members of its ruling council. Many people at the heart of the Corbyn team, such as Jon Lansman, James Schneider and Rhea Wolfson are also Jewish. Ed Miliband, the previous party leader, was Jewish (and suffered antisemitism at the hands of the press and the Conservatives). I have been a member for five years and, as a Jew, have had only positive experiences.'

Finlay added:

'Jeremy Corbyn has been MP for Islington North since 1983 – a constituency with a significant Jewish population. Given that he has regularly polled over 60% of the vote (73% in 2017) it seems likely that a sizeable number of Jewish constituents voted for him. As a constituency MP he regularly visited synagogues and has appeared at many Jewish religious and cultural events. He is close friends with the leaders of the Jewish Socialist Group, from whom he has gained a rich knowledge of the history of the Jewish Labour Bund, and he has named the defeat of Mosley's Fascists at the Battle of Cable as a key historical moment for him. His 2017 Holocaust Memorial Day statement talked about Shmuel Zygielboym, the Polish Bund leader exiled to London who committed suicide in an attempt to awaken the world to the Nazi genocide. How many British politicians have that level of knowledge of modern Jewish history?'

Israel-based journalist Jonathan Cook notes that a recent Labour Party report 'decisively undercut' the claims of Corbyn's critics 'not only of endemic anti-semitism in Labour, but of any significant problem at all'. Cook summarised:

'Over the previous 10 months, 673 complaints had been filed against Labour members over alleged anti-semitic behaviour, many based on online comments. In a third of those cases, insufficient evidence had been produced.

'The 453 other allegations represented 0.08 percent of the 540,000-strong Labour membership. Hardly "endemic" or "institutional", it seems.'

He added:

'That echoed an earlier report by the Commons home affairs committee, which found there was "no reliable, empirical evidence" that Labour had more of an anti-semitism problem than any other British political party.'

In 'Antisemitism in contemporary Great Britain: A study of attitudes towards Jews and Israel' by the Jewish Institute for Policy Research, L. Daniel Staetsky found:

'Levels of antisemitism among those on the left-wing of the political spectrum, including the far-left, are indistinguishable from those found in the general population. Yet, all parts of those on the left of the political spectrum – including the "slightly left-of-centre," the "fairly left-wing" and the "very left-wing" – exhibit higher levels of anti-Israelism than average. The most antisemitic group on the political spectrum consists of those who identify as very right-wing: the presence of antisemitic attitudes in this group is 2 to 4 times higher compared to the general population.'

The report notes that 'the prevalence of antisemitism on the far right is considerably higher than on the left and in the political centre'.

Noam Chomsky has commented:

'The charges of anti-Semitism against Corbyn are without merit, an underhanded contribution to the disgraceful efforts to fend off the threat that a political party might emerge that is led by an admirable and decent human being, a party that is actually committed to the interests and just demands of its popular constituency and the great majority of the population generally, while also authentically concerned with the rights of suffering and oppressed people throughout the world. Plainly an intolerable threat to order.' (Noam Chomsky, email to Media Lens, 9 September 2018)

 

‘We Don’t Do Propaganda’

Mið, 27/02/2019 - 09:54

Earlier this month, Dutch historian Rutger Bregman, author of 'Utopia For Realists', was interviewed by the high-profile Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson. During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos in Janary, Bregman had bluntly told billionaires that they should stop avoiding taxes and pay their fair share:

'We gotta be talking about taxes. That's it. Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit, in my opinion.'

His comments went viral which, in turn, led to him being invited on to Carlson's television show. It's safe to say that the interview did not go as the right-wing host would have liked. In fact, Fox News decided not to air the segment. However, it was captured on mobile phone footage in the Amsterdam studio where Bregman was doing the interview and it was later distributed via Twitter. He told Carlson:

'The vast majority of Americans, for years and years now, according to the polls – including Fox News viewers and including Republicans – are in favour of higher taxes on the rich. Higher inheritance taxes, higher top marginal tax rates, higher wealth taxes, it's all really mainstream. But no one's saying that at Davos, just as no one's saying it on Fox News, right? And I think the explanation for that is quite simple, is that most of the people in Davos, but also here on this channel, have been bought by the billionaire class. You know? You're not meant to say these things. So I just went there, and I thought, you know what, I'm just going to say it, just as I'm saying it right here on this channel.'

Carlson was happy enough at this point. Indeed, he praised Bregman for what he'd said in Davos:

'That was one of the great moments - maybe the great moment in Davos history.'

Carlson added:

'If I was wearing a hat, I'd take it off to you.'

The Dutch historian continued:

'America is still pretty much the most powerful country in the world, right? So if it really would want to, it could easily crack down on tax paradises. But the thing is, you guys have brought into power a president who doesn't even want to share his own tax returns. I mean, who knows how many billions he has hidden in the Cayman Islands or in Bermuda. So I think the issue really is one of corruption and of people being bribed, and of not being, not talking about the real issues. What the family—what the Murdochs [owners of Fox News] basically want you to do is to scapegoat immigrants instead of talking about tax avoidance.'

By this point, it was clear that Carlson was unhappy with how the interview was going:

'And I'm taking orders from the Murdochs, that's what you're saying?'

Bregman responded reasonably:

'No, I mean, it doesn't work that directly. But I mean, you've been part of the [right-wing libertarian think tank] Cato Institute, right? You've been a senior fellow there for years.'

The Fox News presenter interjected aggressively, seemingly rattled:

'Well how does it work?'

Bregman replied:

'Well, it works by you taking their dirty money. They're funded by Koch billionaires, you know? It's as easy as that. I mean, you are a millionaire, funded by billionaires, that's what you are. And I'm glad you now finally jumped the bandwagon of people like Bernie Sanders and AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a newly elected Democrat politician in New York], but you're not part of the solution, Mr. Carlson. You're part of the problem, actually. ... All the anchors, all the anchors of Fox—'

By this point, Carlson had lost it:

'You would have to be a moron, you would have to be—'

Bregman carried on speaking:

'They're all millionaires. How is this possible? Well it's very easy, you're just not talking about certain things.

'You are a millionaire funded by billionaires, that's what you are... You're part of the problem.'

Bregman then correctly predicted: 'you're probably not going to air this on your show.'

He added:

'But I went to Davos to speak truth to power and I'm doing exactly the same thing right now. You might not like it, but you're a millionaire funded by billionaires and that's the reason you're not talking about these issues.'

Carlson:

'But I am talking about these issues.'

Bregman replied:

'Yeah, only now. Come on, you jumped the bandwagon. You're all like, oh, I'm against the globalist elite, blah blah blah. It's not very convincing to be honest.'

That was too much for Carlson who exploded:

'I wanna say to you why don't you go fuck yourself ― you tiny brain. And I hope this gets picked up because you're a moron. I tried to give you a hearing, but you were too fucking annoying...'

Unflustered, Bregman interjected with a smile:

'You can't handle the criticism, can you?'

Afterwards, Bregman shared the clip on his Twitter feed:

'Here's the interview that @TuckerCarlson and Fox News didn't want you to see. I chose to release it, because I think we should keep talking about the corrupting influence of money in politics. It also shows how angry elites can get if you do that.'

As predicted, Fox News did not air the segment. No doubt prompted by Bregman releasing the exchange into the public domain, Carlson addressed it on his show:

'Things went fine for the first few minutes and then Bregman launched into an attack on Fox News. It's not clear that Bregman has ever seen Fox. But he wanted to make his point. Fine.

'But then he claimed that [adopts a fierce voice] my corporate masters tell me what to say on the show, and that was too much.'

Carlson continued:

'Whatever my faults or those of this channel, nobody in management has ever told us what positions to take on the air – never - not one time. We have total freedom here and we are grateful for that. I have hosted shows on both the other cable channels so I know first-hand how rare that freedom is. On this show, thanks to Fox, we get to say exactly what we think is true, for better or worse.

'But there was no convincing Bregman of that, he knew what he knew. So I did what I try hard never to do on this show, and I was rude. I called him a moron and then I modified that word with a vulgar Anglo-Saxon term that is also intelligible in Dutch.

'In my defence, I would say that was entirely accurate. But you're not allowed to use that word on television. So, once I'd said it out loud, there was no airing the segment.'

Carlson then pointed out that Bregman had released the exchange and that you could find it online:

'There is some profanity, and I apologize for that. On the other hand, it was genuinely heartfelt and I meant it with total sincerity.'

It was a far from convincing explanation for why Fox News had not aired the segment. After all, a simple bleep could have overridden any profanity: a standard procedure used in television.

Note that we are not claiming that everything Carlson says can be dismissed as kow-towing to his 'corporate masters'. Last year, for example, he admirably challenged the establishment consensus on Syria. That expression of dissent may well have boosted his ratings: always a welcome factor for a media outlet. Our point is that there is no freedom to 'say exactly what we think' on a corporate outlet. As Herman and Chomsky explained in 'Manufacturing Consent', there are structural limits in the 'mainstream' media:

'the "societal purpose" of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises.'

(Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, 'Manufacturing Consent', Vintage, 1998/2004, p. 298)

That phrase, 'keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises', is crucial. Thus, for instance, a Fox News presenter who looked critically at the ownership and advertising behind that network would not last long; indeed, would likely never have been promoted into that trusted position in the first place.

‘We Don’t Do Propaganda’

Mið, 27/02/2019 - 09:54

Earlier this month, Dutch historian Rutger Bregman, author of 'Utopia For Realists', was interviewed by the high-profile Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson. During a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos in Janary, Bregman had bluntly told billionaires that they should stop avoiding taxes and pay their fair share:

'We gotta be talking about taxes. That's it. Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit, in my opinion.'

His comments went viral which, in turn, led to him being invited on to Carlson's television show. It's safe to say that the interview did not go as the right-wing host would have liked. In fact, Fox News decided not to air the segment. However, it was captured on mobile phone footage in the Amsterdam studio where Bregman was doing the interview and it was later distributed via Twitter. He told Carlson:

'The vast majority of Americans, for years and years now, according to the polls – including Fox News viewers and including Republicans – are in favour of higher taxes on the rich. Higher inheritance taxes, higher top marginal tax rates, higher wealth taxes, it's all really mainstream. But no one's saying that at Davos, just as no one's saying it on Fox News, right? And I think the explanation for that is quite simple, is that most of the people in Davos, but also here on this channel, have been bought by the billionaire class. You know? You're not meant to say these things. So I just went there, and I thought, you know what, I'm just going to say it, just as I'm saying it right here on this channel.'

Carlson was happy enough at this point. Indeed, he praised Bregman for what he'd said in Davos:

'That was one of the great moments - maybe the great moment in Davos history.'

Carlson added:

'If I was wearing a hat, I'd take it off to you.'

The Dutch historian continued:

'America is still pretty much the most powerful country in the world, right? So if it really would want to, it could easily crack down on tax paradises. But the thing is, you guys have brought into power a president who doesn't even want to share his own tax returns. I mean, who knows how many billions he has hidden in the Cayman Islands or in Bermuda. So I think the issue really is one of corruption and of people being bribed, and of not being, not talking about the real issues. What the family—what the Murdochs [owners of Fox News] basically want you to do is to scapegoat immigrants instead of talking about tax avoidance.'

By this point, it was clear that Carlson was unhappy with how the interview was going:

'And I'm taking orders from the Murdochs, that's what you're saying?'

Bregman responded reasonably:

'No, I mean, it doesn't work that directly. But I mean, you've been part of the [right-wing libertarian think tank] Cato Institute, right? You've been a senior fellow there for years.'

The Fox News presenter interjected aggressively, seemingly rattled:

'Well how does it work?'

Bregman replied:

'Well, it works by you taking their dirty money. They're funded by Koch billionaires, you know? It's as easy as that. I mean, you are a millionaire, funded by billionaires, that's what you are. And I'm glad you now finally jumped the bandwagon of people like Bernie Sanders and AOC [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a newly elected Democrat politician in New York], but you're not part of the solution, Mr. Carlson. You're part of the problem, actually. ... All the anchors, all the anchors of Fox—'

By this point, Carlson had lost it:

'You would have to be a moron, you would have to be—'

Bregman carried on speaking:

'They're all millionaires. How is this possible? Well it's very easy, you're just not talking about certain things.

'You are a millionaire funded by billionaires, that's what you are... You're part of the problem.'

Bregman then correctly predicted: 'you're probably not going to air this on your show.'

He added:

'But I went to Davos to speak truth to power and I'm doing exactly the same thing right now. You might not like it, but you're a millionaire funded by billionaires and that's the reason you're not talking about these issues.'

Carlson:

'But I am talking about these issues.'

Bregman replied:

'Yeah, only now. Come on, you jumped the bandwagon. You're all like, oh, I'm against the globalist elite, blah blah blah. It's not very convincing to be honest.'

That was too much for Carlson who exploded:

'I wanna say to you why don't you go fuck yourself ― you tiny brain. And I hope this gets picked up because you're a moron. I tried to give you a hearing, but you were too fucking annoying...'

Unflustered, Bregman interjected with a smile:

'You can't handle the criticism, can you?'

Afterwards, Bregman shared the clip on his Twitter feed:

'Here's the interview that @TuckerCarlson and Fox News didn't want you to see. I chose to release it, because I think we should keep talking about the corrupting influence of money in politics. It also shows how angry elites can get if you do that.'

As predicted, Fox News did not air the segment. No doubt prompted by Bregman releasing the exchange into the public domain, Carlson addressed it on his show:

'Things went fine for the first few minutes and then Bregman launched into an attack on Fox News. It's not clear that Bregman has ever seen Fox. But he wanted to make his point. Fine.

'But then he claimed that [adopts a fierce voice] my corporate masters tell me what to say on the show, and that was too much.'

Carlson continued:

'Whatever my faults or those of this channel, nobody in management has ever told us what positions to take on the air – never - not one time. We have total freedom here and we are grateful for that. I have hosted shows on both the other cable channels so I know first-hand how rare that freedom is. On this show, thanks to Fox, we get to say exactly what we think is true, for better or worse.

'But there was no convincing Bregman of that, he knew what he knew. So I did what I try hard never to do on this show, and I was rude. I called him a moron and then I modified that word with a vulgar Anglo-Saxon term that is also intelligible in Dutch.

'In my defence, I would say that was entirely accurate. But you're not allowed to use that word on television. So, once I'd said it out loud, there was no airing the segment.'

Carlson then pointed out that Bregman had released the exchange and that you could find it online:

'There is some profanity, and I apologize for that. On the other hand, it was genuinely heartfelt and I meant it with total sincerity.'

It was a far from convincing explanation for why Fox News had not aired the segment. After all, a simple bleep could have overridden any profanity: a standard procedure used in television.

Note that we are not claiming that everything Carlson says can be dismissed as kow-towing to his 'corporate masters'. Last year, for example, he admirably challenged the establishment consensus on Syria. That expression of dissent may well have boosted his ratings: always a welcome factor for a media outlet. Our point is that there is no freedom to 'say exactly what we think' on a corporate outlet. As Herman and Chomsky explained in 'Manufacturing Consent', there are structural limits in the 'mainstream' media:

'the "societal purpose" of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises.'

(Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, 'Manufacturing Consent', Vintage, 1998/2004, p. 298)

That phrase, 'keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises', is crucial. Thus, for instance, a Fox News presenter who looked critically at the ownership and advertising behind that network would not last long; indeed, would likely never have been promoted into that trusted position in the first place.

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 2017 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 2017 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.'