Guardian Assistant Editor - Michael White

[Andrew Johnson]

I have had a brief e-mail exchange with Guardian Assistant editor Michael WHite and I believe Utopiated and Spiv also have. I think Keith may have too.

It's starting to look like Paul Reynolds (BBC) a while back - a complete refusal to debate points of evidence, merely a response with "clever" comments

Anyone else been talking to him?

[Rory Winter]

Yeah, me too, Andrew.

He sent me some clever comments about their being too stupid to organise a conspiracy such as the present False Flag Op. I agreed with him about their stupidity and countered it by suggesting, however, that their intentions are demonic in the extreme and that they get others to do their dirty work for them.

Never got a reply of course ...

venceremos.

[Rory Winter]

[spiv]

Yes, I've also been in correspondence a few times with him. He has promised to refer the matters of 'Physics' to "people who can understand it".

His full text stated "tell you what, I will compromise. I cant do the physics, but will consult people who can understand it. But reflecting on our exchange yesterday, I can only add meanwhile that however flawed the physics involved in the official version of 9/11 the version of the politics you invite me to consider ie yr version, are preposterous. Not knowing much about history, so i suspect, you do not seem to realise what a large elephant trap you are almost certainly in, nor what nasty beasties lurk there !! best wishes"

And the text in his lastest reply to me "thanks for the note, I will take advice on the contents which are above the level of chemistry which I abandoned at Bodmin Grammar School in 1961. Meanwhile, I would repeat that I am in favour of scepticism, but not of cynicism. Far from taking what the authorities say on trust, I see the media as being awash with scepticism, not to mention cynicism, a fine lack of discrimination usually evident. That's what troubles me: do we really think the people we elect are fools and liars ? best wishes"

Anybody care to decipher? I had hoped that, being a fellow Cornishman, he would have taken the points raised a little more seriously, but it seems he has lost his celtic blood. Still, I suppose he replied, I've never had anything back from Trevor Kavanagh (Sun) or Duncan Gardham (Telegraph). Just shows the contempt that journalists feel towards the very people who buy their papers, doesn't it!!

God help the media, where are journalists like Woodward and Bernstein these days?

[Mark Gobell]

I didn't do classics but I just know there must be some ancient phrase to describe the position we are in regarding the msm.

Emotionally we rage at what we see as their blinding indifference to what we consider to be self evident truths.

Intellectually we need to understand their position and honestly evaluate our expectations of them.

I understand our immediate goal is to raise awareness among the general public, by our own efforts and by persuading the gatekeepers of the collective psyche, the media, to consider and promote our case so that eventually the decision makers, the politicians will invoke the judiciary and change will arrive.

That is our mountain and we should always remember who we are and the gargantuan task we are taking on. Leaving aside, for a moment the point of debate about realism in our expectations, I often compare our position to this analogy:

I was walking in the park today and actually bumped into Jesus. I didn't know it was Jesus at first but he did have a beard and some holes in his hands and feet.

The thing that caught my eye was seeing him walk across the surface of the lake.

Then he approached a child in a wheelchair who couldn't walk. When the man with the beard placed his hands on the child a blinding white light shone form the skies and I could hear what sounded like angels singing. The next thing I saw was the child get out of his chair and start to walk for the first time ever.

I pinched myself, thought I was hallucinating. But then the man came over to me and told me everything about my life, every single detail.

He then placed his hands on my head and the same thing happened again, the light, the sound of angels. When he let go I looked at him with tears in my eyes and said "thank you."

These two words were the first words I had ever spoken in my life.

Now, imagine trying to persuade the Assistant Editor of a "newspaper" that these events did actually happen.

Their reaction would be incredulous denial. Before long, I would imagine that I would be sectioned and detained under the Mental Health Act. They would explain away my new found voice as a fluke of nature. The story would be buried.

These people bury stories everyday. It's what they do for a living. They exist on the money and kudos they gain from their positions as powerful gatekeepers. They exist in an elitist bubble surrounded by like minded servants of politicians, intelligence agencies and business.

If I turned up something about Jordan's tits or Cameron's homosexuality I too would be paid lots of cash. That's the way it is.

I imagine there are some keen, aware and eager young hacks on these rags who follow 9/11 as much as we do. Just think how they might feel. They, like us, risk being ignored and ridiculed, along with losing their jobs. The "higher ups" also face the same risks, along with a permanent loss of reputation and credibility and well they know it.

Witness Blairs Broadcasting Corporation post Dr Kelly's murder.

Their largesse and self worth is self perpetuating. They are important individuals because of where they are and what they do. Just as someone with big houses, expensive cars and lots of money consider themselves special and successful.

Don't also forget the political landscape. I am dumbstruck as to where the UK left media has gone after 19 years of resisting Thatcher's junta. I don't imagine for one minute that they bargained for a new dictator, in shiny New Labour clothes. Blair was after all, paydirt for staying the course and unflinching loyalty. What indeed are they to do now? Tongue tied and twisted comes to mind. It is after all, another fine mess into which they led themselves and us. But, we should all be forgiven. We were fooled. Perhaps even Blair was, who knows.

The reasons why the msm are in their individual positions may be easy to see. We berate Murdoch's empire, for example, because we know they echo his masters voice.

Who is the biggest customer of Guardian advertising space ? Why would they bite the hand that feeds them, even if a story was of global importance.

Replace the miracle story with "I have proof that Tony Blair worked for MI5" - the same would happen, only I would end up in a grave instead of a sanatorium.

Simply put, our dilemna is one of access. We cannot access the msm on our own terms. They continue to set the agenda for a variety of reasons and we somehow think that the enormity of the evidence for our case should be enough to win their hearts and minds. Plainly it isn't.

Perhaps among all of the varied personal, political and cultural reasons that make the msm difficult for anyone to access, is the overiding perception that they know best. The media flow is and always has been a very one sided affair; a top down slurry of what they consider is good for us and for the "greater good" whatever that now means. Unless of course our stories occasionally expose our stupidity or can justify a political direction or just simply Jordan's tit's, because, well they're there aren't they.

You see, like a parent, it is difficult if not impossible to shift from a paradigm of mummy or in this case nanny, knows best, because after all she does, doesn't she.

That I would say is our mountain. You want to climb it then go ahead. I think it is unrealistic but would not argue completely against any effort to do so.

If you want to try engage these people:

Learn to think like they think
Consider what's in it for them
Play to their strengths
Find some common ground
Establish trust
Create a dialogue

From Michael White's reply:

"thanks for the note, I will take advice on the contents which are above the level of chemistry which I abandoned at Bodmin Grammar School in 1961. Meanwhile, I would repeat that I am in favour of scepticism, but not of cynicism. Far from taking what the authorities say on trust, I see the media as being awash with scepticism, not to mention cynicism, a fine lack of discrimination usually evident. That's what troubles me: do we really think the people we elect are fools and liars ? best wishes"

Not knowing what went before I would guess the following from this one parapraph:

He seems to be polite and a posess a degree of humility, preparing to admit gaps in his knowledge.

Why does he say that he went to Grammar school and provide a date ? What's that got to do with anything we might say ?

He may be proud and confident to announce his old school, apparently flying in the face of earlier "progressive" dogma about them being eltist and devisive. This from an Ass. Ed. of the Guardian.

On the other hand he may want to tell you that he had a Grammar School education and that he knows best.

We now have an idea of his age, very late 50's if not 60, I would say, not far from retirement. Will he make Editor? If not would he consider an alternative swansong ?

More importantly he also seems to contradict himself. At once declaiming trust in "authorities" whilst doubting "we" elect politicians whom are both fools and liars. He may be expressing his own doubts ?

He prefers healthy scepticism not cynicism from which I would interpret he sees as unmentionable, unthinkable. Too much cynicism about these days he says. Agree. But cynical denial in the media is our key. Play to this.

I would say that he may be more benevolent than most we might encounter. He is "old school" which may help or hinder depending on our approach. He has age and experience on his side. In his own mind he does know better than some cynical conspiracy theorist demanding his precious attention.

He holds a BA (Hons) History, from UCL, London. He is an experienced editor of a broadsheet with a highly respected tradition of investigative journalism. He has family, may well have a wife, children of his own and grandchildren. These are his strengths and weaknesses, points of entry into his psyche. This is his life. Play to them. Find some examples and make allusions to these in your message.

Research examples that exemplify the Guardian's journalistic achievements and integrity, especially his own past efforts. He knows History. Play to that. Portray examples of historical inaccuracies in the media. Ask how it has learned from these.

I would avoid politics and vilification. Stick to the facts and present them humbly, not in his face.

Appeal to his humanity for I suspect this man is not a modern day Machiavelian, rather someone who still holds some level of trust in our modern system of governance and the efficacy of journalistic "checks and balances".

He has after all invested all of his working life in that very paradigm.

Few are likely to risk undoing all of that, for some "conspiracy theory", however many facts it may contain.

For what it's worth my opinion is that you are wasting your time. Force feeding a child, food it doesn't like, just doesn't work. Feeding them that food when they are hungry does.

But, as I said, I wouldn't say don't try and climb the mountain, That's up to you. I think we need to find a way of going around the mountain instead of hoping against hope that these people will one day wake up and regret the very foundations upon which, they have built their lives.

For me, the answer must and will come from the US electorate, with, or probably in spite of their, mainstream media.

9/11 was, after all across the pond and I don't know of too many modern examples where the UK media have messed about in their back yard.

Reality check: Don't fall into the trap of thinking that we know best just because we obsess on this subject. This man is aware and intelligent. He thinks about these things, he is not blind to the realties and nefarious mechanisms at work in the world. He probably knows more about these things than some of us. It's the venus fly trap of his paid, public position that renders him apparently speechless. He may not want to or be able to say so, but that's not the same as ignorance. That is why I think it's a waste of time.

Good luck, I think you'll need it.

[conspiracy analyst]

How many editors or assistant editors of the mainstream media took the view that the Soviet Union wasn't about to bomb us into oblivion?

Zero.

In our age that of the 'terrorist' myth how many will take an opposing view without their careers put into jeopardy?

The media on the whole in particular its top echelons know its an inside job. That isn't under dispute. Their job is to perpetrate the myth and the lie.

Thats how wars are fought and justified, thats why they are corporate.

You can get the mafia to admit to racketeering, fraud, exploitation death and murder. But they will answer everyone is doing it, why should I be different.

That is the mainstream media.

Their role is to perpetuate and sustain the terrorist myth for their paymasters, nothing more nothing less.

[Rory Winter]

[Wokeman]

Mark,
Michael White makes us laugh. But on any more serious issues and when push comes to shove, he has to work for a living, like the Observer group. And then he has to become VERY serious.

[Mark Gobell]

Thanks Mike

I'm not up to speed.

My apologies.

[spiv]

Mark, I agree with the majority of your comments, and, indeed, my own thoughts run along these lines, with one great exception, which I will come to later.

You state "For me, the answer must and will come from the US electorate, with, or probably in spite of their, mainstream media." Yes, I do believe that, one day, probably in several years to come, the truth of what actually happened on 9/11 (and events following thereafter which are all linked, such as the phoney "war on terror", the illegal invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe one day soon Iran, the high profile 'terror' arrests which subsequently turned out to be false, the rather dubious 7/7 bombing in London, the current, and rather absurd, 'liquid bomb plot' etc etc) will come to the fore. However, it will be once current politicians lose their grip on power, and new ones have been voted in. It will take, I believe, a change of politics by the electorate in America to do this, and I do believe this will happen, although not 'next week'.

If you have not yet seen and heard Keith Olbermann blasting forth, then you ought to just listen to what he has to say:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/310806olbermann.htm

So, in essence, I am not in complete disagreement with you - except for one thing - and it is this. Even though the MSM do not cover much of the alternative views of 9/11, that still should not preclude any of us in engaging with the established people within the media (the gatekeepers as you so eloquently put it), and let them know facts, discrepancies, questions and so forth regarding 9/11. One day, when the weight of public opinion becomes such that the American (and other Western) Government(s) just cannot keep a lid on it, I am looking forward to reading all those jocks' articles in the media, who we have been engaging with, all falling over themselves to get a better and better story to print, and to work overtime to get more truth revealed, so they can sell more copies than their competitors.

Imagine what may have happened if Woodward and Bernstein had simply shrugged their shoulders and thought "we can't print this, we'd lose our jobs!!"

[Mark Gobell]

Spiv, thanks for your considered reply.

I am now reaching for that ancient Greek phrase again as I now find myself in the same "rock and a hard" place I opened with.

You are evidently more serious about your efforts and I respect that. Vitriolic posturing on the other hand, is not the method I would employ.

I also have said that I would not discourage any efforts to engage these robots, if that is your bag, go ahead with my best wishes and support should you need it. I even offered my thoughts on how I would try to go about it.

Personally I see no precedent where journalistic effort alone has managed to bring down any government.

However, your point about the Watergate affair deserves a response.

Tricky Dicky, in the end was forced to resign to avoid impeachment. He had lost critical support in the Congress. This is political will at work. We could argue forever about whether this was due to journalistic efforts alone. I suspect not.

Importantly in the context of 9/11, those halcyon days where the first US President in history was forced to resign, were over 30 years ago.

The "political" landscapes of then and now are worlds apart.

Crucially, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein the Washington Post hacks who "uncovered" Watergate, were ably aided and abetted by the Deputy Director of the FBI. It took 30 years for his name to be revealed and even Mark Felt was not acting on his own initiative.

Clearly then Woodward and Bernstein were not "lone gunmen".

Have "newspapers" ever been able to effect real political change other than the outing of some low level whoring or cottaging on Hampstead Heath ?

The USA 9/11 Truth Movement does not have the support of the FBI, who in turn probably do not have the support of the US Government on such matters.

I would imagine some mileage in enaging Michael White, after all he is a high level figure in the British msm. For your combined efforts so far you should be applauded in retaining his attention.

Quite how he views the whole affair, one can only speculate.

One more thing, Nixon was pardoned by the next incoming President. Only his minions went to jail.

Ironically, history may record Nixon as the last US President that did in fact step out of line by acting on his own initiative.

[spiv]

Mark, you state "Personally I see no precedent where journalistic effort alone has managed to bring down any government". I'm sorry, perhaps we may be talking at cross purposes here, but I am not taking the view that the media will "bring down" a Government, but, in my opinion, it should inform, disseminate and discuss matters which are of interest to their readers, even if it does not agree with those matters.

I view - well, used to view - the media as being the purveyor of impartial news and information to the populace. However, those days seem to be long gone, as it is now so controlled that it is simply a propaganda machine for Governments and corporations. However, that said, I do not simply assume that everyone in the media is a Government mouthpiece, even if their corporations and employers have gone that way. I do still retain some faith in the integrity of some people.

And as regards "bringing down" Governments, it is people who "bring down" Governments. You may have lost heart, but I haven't, indeed, I am encouraged that more and more people in this world are raising questions themselves.

I do feel that, one day, we shall see a full, thorough and independent inquiry into the events of 9/11 (and 7/7) as, if we believe Bush, Blair and their cronies, they have got nothing whatsoever to hide, have they!!

[Mark Gobell]

Spiv

I really don't want to argue inanely about semantics here.

I simply mentioned my opinion about journalists not being able to bring down goverments in response to your point about the Watergate journalists which implied that Nixon crumbled because of the Washington Post hacks.

I think that the evidence says otherwise.

Plainly speaking: The Washington Post had a green light to do so and were supported from within the system not from without.

I also applauded you for your efforts in retaining the attention of a senior figure in our msm. I have offered my own thoughts as to how I would approach these people, not from experience of journalists but from experience with people, whilst retaining the view that it's a waste of time.

What could be clearer than that.

My question as to MW's view of the whole matter was meant to evoke some thought in how he may be viewing these email exchanges.

Pwerhaps I should speak more plainly.

I have not "lost heart" as you put it. Far from it. I personally feel more able and tenacious now that at any time previously.

Please do not confuse what was intended to by constructive criticism with destructive criticism.

I personally think you are wasting your time trying to get our msm to pay attention to anything the public says about the consipracy of 9/11. I have tried to illustrate some of these and why that may be the case.

I think 5 years of evidential absence proves the point somewhat.

MW has given some clues in his responses already as far as potential traps that you may be falling into.

Learning about 9/11, spreading the word and thinking you are then going to persuade a top UK broadsheet to cover any of it are three very different pursuits.

Does it not occur to anyone that if we can discover what we know then the media machine knows at least what we think we know and a whole lot more too.

We read the internet and books and watch DVD's. Are these the only resources available to the more enlightened among the media ?0

Besides, what would you do Spiv as the Asst. Editor of the Guardian. Roll over and reveal the beans because I emailed you with some stuff I'd read ?

Or wait for the light to show signs of turning from red to amber like they always do ?

As I said, and will repeat again: I would not discourage you from doing what you think is best. My point is that I think your efforts are best spent in other directions.

[Mark Gobell]

Spiv

In the interests of our common endeavours and solidarity I would like to suggest an idea:

Since you have this man's ear, how about asking for his view on our difference of opinion:

Tell him that what you think about the value of the general public trying to engage the msm in subjects like 9/11.

Then tell him what I think.

Then ask him for what he thinks.

What do you say ?

[spiv]

Mark, whatever gave you the idea that I "have this man's ear"?? I've e-mailed him a few times with my questions and views regarding 9/11, but in no way do I consider that I "have his ear", any more than you do. However, just because I don't have someone's ear does not preclude me from e-mailing that person. I am respectful of Mr White for one reason, and that is that at least he does take the time and trouble to reply to my questions, which is much more than others in the mainstream media have done. They may be inane, robotic, bureaucrat-like answers, but nevertheless the replies are "his opinions".

And, hence, I have voiced my own opinion of the mainstream media here.

I have no doubts that, if and when the "bubble bursts" about 9/11, these gutless people will fall over themselves to print their questions and 'editorials', no doubt in a very self-righteous fashion. But not until then.

I see little point in asking him your question, but, of course, you may at michael.white@guardian.co.uk

[brian]

Heartening article by Pilger

Return Of People Power

By John Pilger

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14758.htm

[Mark Gobell]

Spiv

Thanks for the email address.

I have sent MW my question which I will post if and when I get a reply.

[Mark Gobell]

Thats good to hear from JP.

I enjoyed the clarity of the Reagan, Nicaragua and Bush, Al Qaeda parallel.

I don't see how all of this is true though. Yet.

In my experience, this critical public intelligence and moral sense have always been ahead of those who claim to speak for the public. What Vandana Shiva calls an "insurrection of subjugated knowledge" is on the rise in Britain and across the world, perhaps as never before, thanks to a revived internationalism aided by new technologies. Whereas Reagan could get away with many of his lies, Bush and Blair cannot. People know too much

My experience tells me that most normal mortals with half a brain have always known intrinsically what is right and wrong, what is believable and fake. Technology may reinforce and offer support to these ideas as it can in equal measure obscure and misdirect.

I have yet to see how Bush and Blair have not got away with their lies.

[Mark Gobell]

I have been exchanging views with Spiv in PM's debating the merits of contacting the msm about 9/11.

We are doing so politely, calmly and with respect for each other's opinion. Spiv, among others has been instrumental in "retaining the attention" of MW and, as previously, I applaud his efforts.

As a result of our dialogue I emailed MW at the Guardian and asked him for his opinion about the merits of contacting the msm about 9/11. He replied today.

Self evidently, MW is presently willing to engage in a dialogue about 9/11 with people who can present their case politely and with moderation. He has passed some points about the physics on to a colleague for an opinion as proof of this.

His point about dialogue needing to be a conversation not a fatwah could not be clearer.

With respect to Spiv and others who have engaged MW respectfully and without emotion, and to MW himself for reading and replying to "some of the emails" I was wrong to suggest that, in this case, it would be a waste of time.

Clearly an open channel is better than no channel at all. Please let us keep that channel open. My apologies.

MY email to MW:

Dear Mr White

I have been debating the merits of contacting the mainstream media in this country to present evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Some feel strongly that there is a point with some possible tangible outcome from their efforts while others counter with "you are wasting your time".

I am curious to know what you think about this debate.

Sincerely

Mark Gobell

Michael White's reply:

Re: Your Opinion Please

It's always wise and proper to seek to stimulate debate on what you may
feel are neglected areas of public debate. There are many such.

I read some of the conspiracy theory stuff on 9/11 which people like you send me.

Recently I onpassed a sample of it to a scientifically competetent friend
for his verdict on the physics.

Meanwhile I say to people who suggest it was a US plot not an Islamicist plot '' I don't know enough physics to judge yr claims about the twin towers, I do know enough politics to know that the politics which prompt yr claims are pretty wild.

The people you accuse are neither wicked enough nor clever enough to do plot what you suggest.''

BUT do keep going, conspiracy theory is occasionally right !

best wishes

[Rory Winter]

Well, perhaps, our collective correspondence has been a bit Mutt and Jeff with those like me playing Mutt!

Anyway, my correspondence with MW is at a temporary halt though we remain on good terms. Meantime, I've had a reply from Alex Thomson on my recent complaint to Jim Gray, C4's News Editor, that Thomson had falsely alleged that Iran was developing a nuclear warhead. Here is the ensuing correspondence:

6/9/06, from Alex Thomson

Hi Rory - thanks for your email. I'll try and address your points as you
raise them. First, my name's Thomson, not Thompson - at the risk of
being pedantic!

Second - I did not say that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon at all.
You miss-heard. I said it was involved in enrichment, which is one of
the key early stages of making a nuclear weapon. That's a rather
different matter.

Third - scurrilous or otherwise, this is an allegations raised - quite
legitimately -- by both the EU, the USA and the IAEA - they all have
concerns, whether you believe them to be scurrilous or not. I'm paid to
put those concerns to the Iranains when the opportunity arises.

Best - AT, <Alex.Thomson@itn.co.uk>

My Reply, 6/9/06

Hi Alex,

Thank you for replying. Apologies for mispelling your name.

I searched high and low for a video replay of the newscast but could find none. This, despite it being advertised in the video replay section that day.

Others claim to have heard similar. What I recall your saying involved the phrases 'nuclear enrichment' and 'nuclear weapon'. Are you saying that your statement that day wasn't making any inference of the second by commenting upon the first?

You know as well as I do that there is no proof of this allegation whatsoever and that the latest IAEA report observes that despite all the pressure to which it has been subject by the USUK Empire of Evil.

Let's suppose, despite this, that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon. It would only be doing so to counter the threat of Israel with its 200+ nuclear warheads. Perhaps that would be a good thing?

Why do you people so eagerly parrot everything that is fed you by a UK propaganda machine which to quote a senior Labour MP, is "so far up the arse" of the Bushistas it has lost all credibility. I know that your paid to do as you're told but doesn't your conscience ever trouble you. Or do you no longer pay attention to such whimsicalities?

Best, rw.

Reply from AT, 6/9/06

Oh come off it Rory - from the team the broke the dodgy dossier
story...broek the dodgy legal advice for war...from the reporter who
stood in the desert and -- quite alone at the time -- said we'd all get
totally boghged down in Iraq -- I mean come off it. IO don't mind
spending time dealing with legit complaints but if you think we're up
anybody's arse but our own then I dunno what planet you inhabit.
Look - stop telling me what you, I and the dogs on the street already
k,now about hypocrisy, Israel and all the rest and just face the simple
fact that yes, these bodies have no proof but they have suspicions - the
french, the germans for gods sake.

Get real - our job is to report these things, even things that you Rory,
might not like or agree with -- that's journalism.

My Reply, 6/09/06

Exactly, suspicion and nothing else.

If the police suspected me of having committed murder it would up to them and the courts to prove it. Innocent until proved guilty USED to be inherently part of our way of life in this country until the Blairites overturned Habeas Corpus and Magna Carta. Now we are guilty until proved innocent and so are governments that the USUK doesn't approve of.

During Stalinist days it was a common adage amongst people that if they interpreted the exact opposite of what the state propaganda machine they would not be far wrong from the truth. It's got like that here now, except for the fact that we're far better at the game of disinformation, relying much more on inferences, half-truths and subliminal suggestion.

You know the score better than I do and I don't expect you to admit to it because it's more than your job's worth, believe me my sympathies are with you. Following one's conscience is an expensive business but I would rather do that than be a man for all seasons.

Ok, I accept your word that you didn't say anything so blatant as Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. But to say that their enrichment programme could lead to a nuclear weapon is surely speculative and alarmist? Why does the UK mainstream media always choose to accept statements made by US and UK government sources so unquestioningly? Why are the ILEA's documents not being fully reported, just selective passages which suit the USUK war-propaganda machine?

Why is Iran being made out to be a pariah nation "defiant against the international community" (the last read US, UK) and its support by 114 non-aligned nations conveniently ignored? Why are the neo-cons' Project for a New American Century consistently ignored by the USUK MSM as well as the geopolitical chess-game they play with their military in order to secure resources such as oil? I could go on ...

Twenty-odd years ago I left my job as a teacher, sickened after one of the lads I taught was killed in the Falklands/Malvinas war. In those days I despised Thatcher as a mass murderer. But against the thousand or so soldiers that died in her and Reagan's wars, over 20 thousand died during Major's time, and well over 70 thousand and counting in Blair's. I could no longer stomach working in the state's slaughter machine and left. That is why I can sympathise with others who are forced to say and behave in a way which goes against the grain of their own decency.

But in the same way that Czechoslovakia conducted its velvet revolution the time will come when we shall need to do the same against our totalitarian politicians. There is already not very much time left before we all have to decide whose side we're on.

Regards, rory.

PS: Journalism ... ah yes, guess I'm one of those old-fashioned types that believe in reporting on reality, not embedded fairy stories.


Reply from AT, 6/9/06

Er yes, Rory - suspicion - I think I said that. But there's no suspicion about resuming nuclear enrichment. I mean what do want me to do - just pretend none of this is happening and run nice pretty films about coatal erosion? Nuclear enrichment can lead to the bomb - that's a fact Rory. Whether you like it or not - cna lead - not does lead but can lead and that is what we said.

You really cannot go on with a whole bunch of ludicrous accusations and distortions -- frankly you begin to sound like the very thing to profess to despise -- US neo-con conspirqacy theorists. We'vve reported in full on the IAEA findings as have most broadsheet papers. We've reported endlessly and in depth on how human rights have been eroded in this country as you point out.

And then you suddenly claim your sympathies are with me? Christ - I wouldn't like to be someone for whom your sympathy's dried up - scareeee!!

And as for embedded fairy stories -- well you've lost me there. Ive done embeds and non-embeds and will continue to report war as I see it - as I belive I did recently in Lebanon and will hopefully do so again soon in Affghanistan -- another mess the government has led us into -- as I am sure you would agree.

My Reply, 6/9/06

C4 was supposed to have had a video replay on the topic that night but for some reason omitted it. My first instinct was to check what I believed had been said as I don't video newscasts. No, no suspicion about enrichment but no proof whatsoever that the enrichment programme is not part of a peaceful, nuclear power programme either.

What the western MSM is presently doing is simply quoting government sources without bothering to do a proper investigation for themselves. The MSM happily quotes government press releases etc but how often does it balance these allegations with equal time given to the other side. I know in that particular newscast you interviewed Larijani, but that followed a headline announcement which led the ordinary Joe to believe that Iran is declaring a nuclear weapon.

Given the average span of attention Joe has it's the headline and the sub-headline that sinks in. You've begun to lose him as soon as you get into the detail. You know that as a journalist. All the more reason that the introduction should put both side's point of view as the television news did not so long ago. My sympathy is with you because you have to read the news, not interpret it. That's done by the news managers. That's why, when I made this complaint I said I held the News Editor responsible not you.

Embedded news reporting, you know, was a US import which they adopt in their wars. Not so in the Lebanon recently. I am not suggesting you do this but you know there are some journalists who practically knock out a report on the press releases they're fed, particularly yanks. They would have our people do the same if they could.

I never thought I'd say it but, after Blair, I think I'd prefer Maggie back! I could never agree with her policies but credit her sense of self-respect in the face of our American cousins.


Reply from AT, 6/9/06

Well I find your patronising attitude to peopel watching the programme distasteful and plain wrong. What is MSM by the way? And are you actually aware that we -- alone among any news programme in the Uk -- actually broadcast a whole week's news from Iran earlier in the year precisely to try and address some of the more valid of your concerns.

Ad no - news interpretation is not done by editors - I wrotwe that headline - it's factually correcxt as you now agree and therefore both I and you stand by it.

now - not wishing to be rude - but I've gotta go and knowck out some more pro-US propaganda from the edit booth.

Cheers

My Reply to AT, 6/9/06

No, that's not what I said. I said that I will have to accept your word because there is apparently no video replay available to the public. I accept you stated that Iran was continuing its enrichment programme and that I recall you following that up by inferring something along the lines that, hence, it was building a nuclear bomb. That sounded to me very much like disinformation.

Enrichment in no way means that a weapon is being produced. The degree of enrichment being produced by Iran and open to inspection is nowhere near the degree of 80 to 90 percent required for a warhead. No one therefore can truthfully say that such a level of enrichment can lead to a nuclear warhead. So either you were badly mistaken or deliberately misleading.

I am not patronising people, just know a little bit about how the modern MSM works. MSM, by the way, is the acronym for mainstream media, another one of those cynical Americanisations adopted from our American cousins.

See you on the 7 o'clock,

rory.

PS: Yes, I watched the Iran special. It was quite heartening and I was beginning to think that the Brits were going back to more honourable days of reporting. Seems I was wrong, the USUK war-machine is gearing up and you poor guys will be required to do your job if not your duty. Sympathies, as I said Alex, rather you than me!


Further Email to AT, 14/9/06

Dear Alex Thomson,

In the light of our recent email exchange and my correcting your mistaken assumptions about weapons enrichment I hope you will further bear in mind this IAEA report on the USA's "outrageous and dishonest" allegations.

Rory Winter

IAEA complains of 'outrageous' inaccuracies in Iran report to House Intelligence Committee
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/14/europe/EU_GEN_Nuclear_Iran_U S.php

The Associated Press

Published: September 14, 2006
VIENNA, Austria A recent U.S. House of Representatives committee report on Iran's nuclear capability is "outrageous and dishonest" in trying to make a case that Tehran's program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press on Thursday outside a 35-nation IAEA board meeting, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran's nuclear program "for concluding that the purpose of Iran's nuclear programme is to construct weapons."

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran's request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report's version "incorrect and misleading."

"In addition," says the letter, "the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for 'not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.'"

Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

An IAEA official, who asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written "to set the record straight."

The dispute was reminiscent of the clashes between the Vienna-based agency and the U.S. administration over whether Iraq's Saddam Hussein was trying to make weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. American arguments that Saddam had such covert arms programs were given as the chief reason for toppling Saddam.

ElBaradei's criticism of the U.S. standpoint on Iraq and subsequent perceptions that he was soft on Iran in his staff's investigation of suspicions Tehran's nuclear activities may be a cover for a weapons program led to a failed attempt last year by Washington to prevent his re-election.

AT's Reply

Thanks Rory.I've no recollection of you correcting any mistaken assumptions on my part, as I've repeatedly tried to point out to you. But this is intriguing and I've passed it on to our editor and programme producer for tonight. Well worth looking into if they're not across it - so thanks..

My Reply

Hi Alex,

You're most welcome; we've all been seriously misled by the US on this matter and in the light of sanctions and possibly military action against Iran at some later date I feel it is essential that we in the UK are given the facts and not neo-con disinformation. Therefore, am most grateful to you for taking action on this article.

Best Wishes,
R.

His Reply

well strange as it might seem - I think we are rather keen on giving people facts rather than neo-con bs -- as our track record for many years will show. hvaing passed it on - I can say theyll do anything - but I'm co-presenting and will try and make sure it get in somehow. It's important.

But this is good stuff Rory having read it through in full now - we'll try and get it on in as much detail as we can -as ever- cannot promise (above my pay-grade) but \aa good steer and it came as news to many who'd not read the Washington Post website.

well - programme editor onto our man in washington as we speak -- we're buzzin' - trying for IAEA interviews out of Vienna. So no more beating me up!

But needless to say - never assume we know of everything moving on tyhis or any other story - we're a tiny team here with e BIG programme -- so all tips and steers gratefully recieved.

fingers crossed - we're very excited -- as things stand it's Lead Story!!

My Replies

Happy to be of service.

Thanks, Alex. I will be glad to help where I can. Hope this newcast works out, a feather in your cap!

best, r.

not aty all - it's a good story on a quiet day - I said it should lead - so did jon Snow who's on with me tonight -- editor agreed so there you go. you chose a quiet day to tip me that one! --That said - it's still only 17.39 as I write this - more than time enough for the entire programme to get turned upside down and inside out.

TO BE CONTINUED?

[utopiated]

That was quite a funny to 'n' fro I think you made some good points.

Did anyone get his take on 9/11 from any email outs?

I've come to the conclusion that most semi-serious media types know things are going on. It's either unconscious and giving them a stomach ulcer or it's virtually been processed but they're sh*t scared of 'coming out'.

And as for Michael White... I did a ten email ping-pong with him after sending AJ's template media letter of pertinent points. His excuse to the steve jones [this is just one example] was that he couldn't read it as he wasn't a "physicist".



"Specialisation is for insects" as the great Robert Anton Wilson said - we have insects in the media. I stopped writing to the media about anything 10 years back and I can see why i came to that conclusion.

There are other ways to crack this nut.

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

I've given up with White. I just sent him a newscast from Democracy Now stating that Ehud Olmert has been charged with war crimes in Spain!

This was White's reply

I never cease to be surprised at spanish attempts to interfere in other
people's human rights, israel's, chile's, ours, when they have never sorted
out the Spanish Civil war, over which bloody affair a veil has been
drawn....

My reply to him is unrepeatable!

[Anyone who wants to f*ck around with this guy, you'll need a big tube of vaseline and an even bigger ingratiating smile. That Lenny Bruce quote, Scratch a Liberal & you'll find a Fascist was spot on!]