| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rory Winter
Major Poster
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1107
Location: Free Scotland!
|
 Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:06 am Post subject: The Grauniad - Unlimited Conduit for UKUSA's War Propaganda |
 |
|
The Grauniad: An Unlimited Conduit for USUK's War Propaganda
CHIMES OF FREEDOM
http://urlsnip.com/943830
US Military Encirclement of Iran
Fed up of the garbage with which their mainstream media force-feeds them, North American as well as readers all over the world have turned to newspapers like the UK's Guardian in the hope of finding informed, intelligent reporting of world events. They will be disappointed. Today's Guardian is as much part of an Orwellian, Atlanticist, warmongering propaganda campaign as is the disgraceful New York Times.
Far from being the 'socialist' newspaper that our American cousins believe it to be, the Guardian has all along played an enthusiastic role in promoting the Bushblair war party's war crimes against the people of Iraq. Without admitting to it, and through its uneasy relationship with Blairism, it has moved away from Trilateralism to become, de facto, a promoter of the neocon worldview and its Blueprint for a New American Century.
Along with the rest of the western mainstream media (MSM) the quality of its reportage, now so dependent on 'embedded journalism', has taken a revolting downward lurch. A lurch made all the more disastrous since the appointment of a pimpish US government mouthpiece, Simon Tisdall, as its deputy editor.
British journalism has long been infiltrated by the intelligence services with newspapers like the Telegraph and its notorious Con Coughlin known to be MI5 stooges. Whether or not Tisdall is yet another is not certain but he certainly likes to play the cheerleader for US foreign policy on issues like the Iraq occupation and its anti-Chavism.
His latest piece of disinformation on Iraq, supplied him as the article repeatedly suggests by US "official sources", is not only full of nonsensical contradictions but the kind of blatant propaganda that could only have come straight out of Dick Cheney's Iran Policy Committee.
'Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq', begins with the hysterical allegation that, "Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say."
Note the last three words, "US officials say", which are to be found sprayed across the rest of this tripe. Any journalist who uses language such as "al-Qaida elements" without questioning the highly dubious CIA origins of the nebulous Al Qaeda is either naive in extremis or a fully fledged disinformer. Iran is a nation of Shiites who are no friends of the Sunnis. To suggest now that Iran is backing its mortal enemy takes us into a world so full of convoluted logic we could easily drown. Another classic ploy of the disinformer.
Iran expert and academic, Juan Cole, comments despairingly on his blog, "I suppose I have to link to this silly article by poor Simon Tisdall in of all places, The Guardian, whom someone is using to push a sinister agenda. Yes, its sources are looney in positing a coming offensive jointly sponsored by Iran, the Mahdi Army and al-Qaeda."
He continues, "At a time when Sunni Arab guerrillas are said to be opposing 'al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia' for its indiscriminate violence against Iraqis, including Shiites, we are now expected to believe that Shiite Iran is allying with it. And, it claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are shelling the Green Zone."
"The parliament building that was hit to day by such shelling is dominated by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and its paramilitary, the Badr Organization. Who trained Badr? The Iranian Revolutionary Guards. And they are trying to hit their own guys . . . why?"
" It really is discouraging that Tisdall didn't report instead on what crazy things the US military spokesmen in Iraq told him. US military spokesmen have been trying to push implausible articles about Shiite Iran supporting Sunni insurgents for a couple of years now, and with virtually the sole exception of the New York Times, no one in the journalistic community has taken these wild charges seriously. But The Guardian?"
Somebody should have warned Juan Cole that the Guardian is no longer the respected journal it was traditionally considered to be. But Cole's incredulity is common enough among North Americans who, it appears, haven't quite woken up to smell the Guardian's new, more bellicose brand of coffee. British readers are already more cynical:
"Not sure whether Tisdall has any intelligence links, and it doesn't matter if he has, but this looks very similar to the sort of material produced by Con Coughlin over at the Telegraph, and perhaps suggests that 'officials' and 'intelligence sources' are looking for other outlets now that Coughlin has been investigated twice for reporting spurious and unverifiable claims from the same type of sources in the past."
"This does look like a deliberately constructed story concocted through anonymous sources which provides a picture of the situation in the region that serves the purposes of the US and UK government perfectly."
"Tisdall's article blames Iran for the problems in the region and sets it up as the likely cause for any worsening of the confict in the summer, if that were even possible. This is justified solely by anonymous US government sources. The thrust of the article clearly serves the US government without any evidence."
"This is truly dreadful journalism."
Looks like a Placed Story!
"It would be laughable if it was not so malignant. That is, the absurd idea that Iran is preparing for a military "showdown" with coalition forces."
"The Guardian seems to be directly acting as an agent of US propaganda. Is this to prepare public opinion for a US attack on Iran?"
Re: war pimp Simon Tisdall serving up propaganda
"Exactly as it was intended:
“the labelling of news in some way as “official” (“Dublin Castle”, “GHQ”, etc) is the essence of the whole thing; the whole system of propaganda by news hangs on it. For by virtue of that label our news gets monopoly value, a sort of hall-mark or copyright. It is that hall-mark which gives to the news (in the eyes of the newspapers if not in the eyes of the readers) a news value so high that they cannot afford to be without it. Take away that hall-mark and you ruin the whole business.”
Re: Daily Telegraph playing the same game
"Merely repeating what unnamed US sources say, however outlandish, is what I'd expect from the Sun, not a proper newspaper. Shame on you - at this time more than ever we need journalists willing to fight the culture of spin and lies, before Brown turns into Blair Two."
WTF is going on at the Guardian?
Faced with a barrage of hostile criticism, the Guardian editors clearly panicked and put out an explanation stating that Tisdall had never been approached by US officials. Instead, it was he who had sought their views. That's all right then, so clearly this doesn't make him a stooge of US military propaganda! Further correspondence by email I had with the Guardian's Assistant Editor, Michael White, drew a series of hysterically defensive replies suggesting that the newspaper's editors are now well dug into their bunkers and suffering from severe shell shock.
Their latest PR attempt by the newspaper prompted this:
"Tisdall: please! please! give me a scoop, any scoop, I'll print anything you say, my editors assure me it will be on the front page, Cockburn over at the Independent just had a big scoop about the US trying to trap Sadr, and Fisk is an eyewitness to what's happening in Lebanon. I need something, we need something, quick. Anything you say we'll print, we won't ask for sources, we won't ask for any of those pesky anti americans to respond, you'll have the field to yourself."
"Unnamed US official: hmmm, your kneel is very convincing Tisdall, perhaps we can do business. But don't you think begging is a bit undignified for the independent fourth estate?"
"Tisdall: Oh, I was just down here looking for my integrity on the palace floor. You know, we could reprint the news from Jan 2003, change the names, dress it up with a headline and spread it over the front page and people would swallow it like honey. never underestimate the gullibility of the public."
"Unnamed US official: or the servility of journalists!"
How groveling of Mr. Tisdall!
Clearly, the purpose of this blatant piece of embedded journalism is to provide the Guardian's chattering classes with a drip-feed of US military propaganda meant to justify Bush's 'Surge Policy' and doubling of occupation troops. It is not Bush's intention or that of his London quislings, Blair and Brown, to withdraw their troops from Iraq. They plan to stay there for an awful long time to come.
And given Bush's domestic weakness it is quite possible that an outright first strike military onslaught on Iran might have been postponed. But that will not stop an ongoing build-up of US military forces in the Gulf and surrounding area which already encircles and threatens Iran. And now Bush has authorized a "CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions." The objective of all this fits in neatly with the neocon Blueprint whose purpose is to capture and occupy the Middle East as on oil producer solely to feed a greedy US appetite.
The greater number of guerilla attacks taking place in Iraq, it is now admitted, are being made against the Coalition occupiers and not on civilians (see GAO Report graph on p.39, Pdf). But you won't find that in the Guardian or anywhere else in the MSM. What you will find is the endless reporting of so-called terrorist attacks.
By using undercover terrorists to wreak havoc and terror, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East, it is the long-term intention of the Bush regime and its European quislings --the latter comprised mainly of Brits-- to balkanize the entire area into a region of warring fiefdoms entirely under their control ... a major theatre of the many resource wars we can expect capital to enact during the coming years. And the CIA can expect to further enrich itself, as it has done in Afghanistan, on the rapid increase of opium poppy cultivation in Iraq.
All of this is being actively supported by the banana republic 'journalism' of the likes of Tisdall and the Guardian. Readers are encouraged to remind the Guardian's editors that a suitable definition of Tisdall's embedded propaganda is to be found in the candid observation of Sir Christopher Meyer, ex-UK Ambassador in Washington, who reminds us that the purpose of British foreign policy is to get as far up the arse of the US and to stay there.
**********
Condemnations of Tisdall's garbage article may be sent to
simon.tisdall@guardian.co.uk
alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
michael.white@guardian.co.uk
Labels: embedded journalism, guardian, informed comment, iran, juan cole, occupation of iraq, simon tisdall
_________________
One Planet - One People - One Destiny
http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com
http://eurodemocrats.blogspot.com/
http://x09.eu/splash/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAIALINK/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAIALINK_FREE_UNIVERSITY/
Last edited by Rory Winter on Thu May 24, 2007 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the offensive piece of tripe from the Grauniad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329891795-103550,00.html
I've reproduced the propaganda here, with an alternative narrative, to see if it makes any more or any less sense.
You choose.
| Quote: | Iraq Occupation forces secret plan for summer offensive to force ISUSUK into Iran
Mark Gobell
Thursday May 24, 2007
Not in the Guardian
The US & UK Occupation Forces in Iraq have been secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for increased summer attacks on coalition forces intended to provoke an attack on Iran and to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military intervention, US officials say.
"The Israel, US, UK (ISUSUK) are fighting a proxy war in Iraq using insurgents and it's a very productive course for us to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [ISUSUK] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to reinforce US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by Special Forces who are connected right to the top [of the US, UK and Israeli governments]."
The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, ISUSUK-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to the allies Special Forces, that the US, UK & Israel hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and provoke a third US war In Iran.
"We expect that al-Qaida and their handlers, ISUSUK will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements]," the official said.
"Certainly it [the violence] is going to pick up from our side. There is significant latent capability in Iraq, especially ISUSUK-sponsored capability. They can turn it up whenever they want. You can see that from the pre-positioning that's been going on and the huge stockpiles of weapons that we've turned up in the last couple of months. The relationships between ISUSUK and groups like al-Qaida are very fluid," the official said.
"It often comes down to individuals, and people constantly move around. For instance, the Sunni Arab so-called resistance groups use Salafi jihadist ideology for their own purposes. But the whole ISUSUK-al-Qaida linkup is very secret."
Iran has maintained close links to Iraq's Shia political parties and militias but has previously eschewed collaboration with ISUSUK-al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents.
US officials now say they have firm evidence that ISUSUK has switched tack as it senses a chance of invading Iran. In a parallel development, they say they also have proof that ISUSUK has continued its previous policy in Afghanistan and is supporting and supplying the Taliban's campaign against US, British and other Nato forces.
Washington's strategy to discredit Tehran and foment a decisive congressional counter-revolt against critics of Mr Bush is national in scope and not confined to Baghdad, its traditional sphere of influence, the senior official in Baghdad said. It included stepped-up coordination with Shia militias such as Moqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Syrian-backed Sunni Arab groups and the newly invented ISUSUK group, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, he added. Washington was also expanding contacts across the board with paramilitary forces and political groups, including Kurdish parties such as the PUK, a US ally.
"Their strategy takes into account all these various parties. Washington is playing all these different factions to maximise its future control and maximise US and British opportunities. Their co-conspirator is Syria which is allowing the takfirists [fundamentalist Salafi jihadis] to come across the border," the official said.
Any US decision to blame and then invade Iran on its own territory could be taken only at the highest political level in Washington, the official said. But he indicated that American patience was wearing thin.
Warning that the US was "absolutely determined" to hit Iran hard wherever it was challenged by ISUSUK proxies or agents inside Iraq, he cited the case of five Iranian Diplomats detained in Irbil in January. Despite strenuous protests from Washington, which claims the men are members of the Revolutionary Guard's al-Quds force, they have still not been released.
"Washington is behaving like a racecourse gambler. They're betting on all the horses in the race, even on people they fundamentally don't trust," a senior administration official in Washington said. "We knew what the outcome in Iraq will be chaos and the break up of the country into smaller warring factions. So we're hedging our bets on which method is best to provoke an attack on Iran."
The administration official also claimed that notwithstanding recent US and British faux overtures, Syria was still collaborating closely with ISUSUK's strategy in Iraq.
"80% to 90%" of the foreign jihadis entering Iraq were doing so from Syrian territory, he said, "which is good for us, which is why we allow them entry".
"The more we can support the efforts of so called insurgents, the longer we can stay here to foment chaos and civil war. This will enable us to blame Tehran and lead to an attack on Iran, which is the whole point."
"In the meantime, defence spending continues at unprecedented rates which is a boost for the economy, my share portfolio and the military corporations. Our continued presence and support for the insurgency also allows President Bush to undermine any and all political opposition in Washington. It's a win win situation", he beamed.
Despite recent diplomatic contacts, and an agreement to hold bilateral talks at ambassadorial level in Baghdad next week, US officials say there has been no let-up in hostile ISUSUK activities, including continuing support for violence, weapons smuggling and training.
"ISUSUK are perpetuating the cycle of sectarian violence through support for extra-judicial killing and murder cells. They bring Iraqi militia members and insurgent groups into Iraq for training and then help infiltrate them back into the country. We have plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. There's no argument about that. That's just a fact," the senior official in Baghdad said.
In trying to force an ISUSUK invasion, ISUSUK hardline leadership also hoped to bring about a humiliating political and diplomatic defeat for Tehran that would increase Washington's regional influence while reducing Tehran's own.
But if ISUSUK succeeded in "prematurely" driving US and British forces into Iran, the likely result would be a "colossal humanitarian disaster" and possible regional war drawing in the Sunni Arab Gulf states, Syria and Turkey, which would be brilliant, he said.
Despite such concerns, or because of them, the US pretended to welcome the chance to talk to Iran, the senior administration official said. "Our agenda starts with false flag terrorism and Iraq is no different," he said.
But there were many other Iraq-related issues to be discussed. Recent pressure had shown that ISUSUK's behaviour could not be modified, the official claimed: "Since the illegal invasion we have been literally getting away with murder."
But tougher action by security forces in Iraq against Iranian diplomats and networks, the dispatch of an additional aircraft carrier group to the Gulf and UN security council resolutions imposing sanctions had given Tehran cause for concern, he said.
Washington analysts and commentators predict that Gen Petraeus's report to the White House and Congress in early September will be a pivotal moment in the history of the four-and-a-half-year war - and a decision to begin a troop drawdown or continue with the surge policy will hinge on the outcome. Most Democrats and many Republicans in Congress believe Iraq is in the grip of a civil war and that there is little that a continuing military presence can achieve. "Political will has already failed. It's over,", "It's time we moved onto Iran" a former Bush administration official said.
A senior adviser to Gen Petraeus reported this month that the surge had increased violence, especially sectarian killings, in the Baghdad area and Sunni-dominated Anbar province. But the adviser admitted that much of the trouble had spread elsewhere to former peaceful areas, "resulting in spikes of activity in Diyala [to the north] and some areas to the south of the capital". "Overall violence is worse everywhere [since the surge began in February]. Exactly as we had planned."
Iranian officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces. Interviewed in Tehran recently, Mohammad Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs with primary responsibility for Iran's policy in Iraq, said: "We believe it would be to the benefit of both the occupiers and the Iraqi people that they [the coalition forces] withdraw immediately." |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Last edited by Mark Gobell on Thu May 24, 2007 8:10 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: The Guardian... |
|
|
has been pro-war throughout Bliars tenure.
They circulated endless and countless propaganda regarding the 'ethnic cleansing' of the Serbs which became the stepping stone for the new world order in the Balkans.
Moving forwards they propagated the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq justifying and promoting the occupation.
Now its all gone to pot they are moving forwards behind their British government paymasters in the form of public sector advertising in its editions and finding the blame in Iran, just like in the 1970's Laos and Cambodia were victims of US imperialism.
They are also running propaganda regarding Al Quaeda in Lebanon when everyone knows Siniora is a US Quisling.
Indeed supporting the neo-cons under a 'left' persona nowadays is the main game. All else is a sideshow. They dyed in the wool hardcore rightwingers are yesterdays news as is evidenced by the court case of Conrad Black. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spot on and Mark I was going to say that map kinda reminds me of Dads Army
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who do you think you are kidding Ayatollah
If you think we won't attack
We are the boys who installed the former Shah
We are the boys who do not respect Allah
The first false flag that started it was nine eleven one
And now we tour the planet just invading everyone
Who do you think you are kidding Ayatollah
When you know we did Iraq
We are the boys who destroyed old Mosaddeq
We are the boys who just want your black gold back
You know we'll stop at nothing cos you nationalised your oil
We'll say you're Al Qaeda, we're in love with making war
So who do you think you are kidding Ayatollah
If you think the West is done
You are surrounded on every single side
Just give us back your oil and hold your hands up high
Who do you think you are kidding Ayatollah
We want to spread democracy
We are the boys who terrorise and lie
We are the boys who can make those missiles fly
So who do you think you are kidding Ayatollah
If you think the West is done
You are surrounded on every single side
Just give us back your oil and hold your hands up high
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
More propaganda from the Puzzle Palace
Friday, March 30, 2007
Con Coughlin of the Daily Torygraph is a lying ****. Official.
http://postmanpatel.blogspot.com/search?q=Coughlin+
Lord Patel has always been suspicious of the all wise, obese scribbler , with an evident venereal strabismus, who when he appears on Newsnight - which is remarkable for it's frequency - gives every impressionnof terminal shiftiness (and you can leave out the 'f' ). Simply I wouldn't leave him in charge of the baby or the babysitter.
Now the NUJ have nailed the * and have chapter and verse on what a devious lying * he is, and how inaccurate and opaque his stories are. Still in a paper that regularly used to print Lady Black's vile bile it is difficult to determine the dross from the good stuff.
Travel to NUJ New Media and read all about it.
http://nujnewmedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-telegraphs-political-editor -mi6.html
Analysing 44 articles by Mr Coughlin on Iran, the report finds some stark patterns in terms of his journalistic technique:
• Sources are unnamed or untraceable, often “senior Western intelligence officials” or “senior Foreign Office officials”.
• Articles are published at sensitive and delicate times where there has been a relatively positive diplomatic moves towards Iran.
• Articles contain exclusive revelations about Iran combined with eye-catchingly controversial headlines;
• The story upon which the headline is based does not usually exceed one line or at the most one paragraph. The rest of the article focuses on other, often unrelated, information.
This is not of course the first time the talentless fabricator has been exposed
"Nearly 25 years later, readers of the Sunday Telegraph were regaled with a dramatic story about the son of Col Gadafy of Libya and his alleged connection to a currency counterfeiting plan. The story was written by Con Coughlin, the paper’s then chief foreign correspondent, and it was falsely attributed to a “British banking official”. In fact, it had been given to him by officers of MI6, who, it transpired, had been supplying Coughlin with material for years."
"The origins of that November 1995 Telegraph article only came to light when they were recently disclosed by Mark Hollingsworth, the biographer of renegade security service officer David Shayler."
access the article for more of this well documented case.
Leopards do not change their spots.
Britain’s security services and journalists: the secret story by David Leigh
British Journalism Review
Vol. 11, No. 2, 2000, pages 21-26
It may interest some that his Daily Torygraph blog suddenly ended on February 13th - which was launched as "Con Coughlin will be writing a weekly blog on world events relating to the war on terror. "... who said that about a week being a long time ...?
The man is a lying * and no credence whatsoever should be given to his activities, which are basically to re-write the stuff prepared for him by the Puzzle Palace.... he is however, not alone. Read the David Leigh article.
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Monday, April 02, 2007
Alan Rusbridger : Correction
http://www.order-order.com/2007/04/alan-rusbridger-correction.html
In an article last week Guido suggested that Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the loss making Guardian, was paid an "obscene" £487,000 last year. Guido would like to apologise for this error since he was not paid £487,000.
Piers Morgan gets him to reveal, in a brilliant* interview, that he actually trousered £520,000 last year. Some priceless banter in the interview (see the "how much is a loaf of bread?" bit). You can sense some testosterone issues in the room. Strangely they didn't discuss Rusbridger's private life in much detail, which is odd when you consider what him and Piers have in common.
See also...............
http://praguetory.blogspot.com/2006/08/power-behind-grauniad.html
please ciopy that material to this thread if possible
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rory Winter
Major Poster
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 1107
Location: Free Scotland!
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: The Power Behind The Grauniad |
|
|
The Power Behind The Grauniad
PRAGUETORY, 13 August 2006
http://praguetory.blogspot.com/2006/08/power-behind-grauniad.html
Editor, Alan Rusbridger
In the aftermath of an averted atrocity it's even obvious to the Lefties at bloggers4labour who the bad guys are.
So I pick up the Saturday's Grauniad (we're a bit behind in Prague) to find on page 2 and 3 a selection of eulogies to the men arrested on suspicion of plotting these despicable and unjustifiable terrorist acts. See here or here. Page 4 gives column inches to the terrorists' political wing attempting to blackmail the UK into a change of policy. This rag gets worse - who or what do they stand for? So I thought I'd do a bit of digging.
The Guardian Media Group's annual report makes interesting reading. As required by International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) the group's performance is recorded by segment. One segment is the "national newspapers" division comprising the Grauniad, Grauniad Unlimited and the Observer. The operating loss in this segment was £49.9m (a cynic might suggest £50m+!) compared to a £48.3m loss last year. Net assets (the balance of assets less liabilities) in this segment were a wafer-thin £2.2m at the balance sheet date so they must be charting negative territory by now. So far so bad for the Grauniad. However, it appears that the Grauniad editor and GMG board member Alan Rusbridger (pictured) who trousered an increased bonus has little to fear from the financial disaster at the Grauniad.
Although the newspapers are losing money hand over fist, a less politically correct arm of the group is making incredible profits. The "Trader Media" division which includes print titles such as Auto Trader, Bike Trader and Motorhome & Caravan Trader and successful on-line sites such as Autotrader made operating profits of £119.5m last year easily offsetting the problems at the print division.
So, if you want to hurt the Grauniad, don't buy your cars
_________________
One Planet - One People - One Destiny
http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com
http://eurodemocrats.blogspot.com/
http://x09.eu/splash/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAIALINK/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GAIALINK_FREE_UNIVERSITY/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent stuff, chaps.
Con Coughlin was certainly well named.
I can't remember where I read it but I remember someone once saying that the Torygraph was the voicepiece of MI6 and The Times of MI5. There's nothing new under the sun. 
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sinclair
Moderate Poster
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 395
Location: La piscina de vivo
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MediaLens take on the Guardian's 22nd May 07 piece (of trash):
(embedded links therein)
| Quote: |
May 24, 2007 MEDIA ALERT
PENTAGON PROPAGANDA OCCUPIES THE GUARDIAN'S FRONT PAGE
"The Guardian's vision is to offer independent, agenda-setting content that positions us as the modern, progressive, exciting challenger to the status-quo." (Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger; http://www.adinfo-guardian.co.uk/the-guardian/index.shtml)
The Con Coughlin School Of Hard News
Commenting on Con Coughlin's "reliance on unnamed intelligence sources in several far-fetched articles about Iran," the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) identified key features in reports filed by the Daily Telegraph's executive foreign editor:
"Sources were unnamed or untraceable, often senior Western intelligence officials or senior Foreign Office officials.
"Articles were published at sensitive and delicate times where there had been relatively positive diplomatic moves towards Iran.
"Articles contained exclusive revelations about Iran combined with eye-catchingly controversial headlines." (Campaign Iran, 'Press Watchdog slammed by "Dont Attack Iran" Campaigners,' May 1, 2007; www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/2060/print)
CASMII revealed that it was Coughlin who, with the help of unnamed intelligence sources, discovered that Saddam Hussein could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. And it was Coughlin who revealed the link between the 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, and Iraqi intelligence. Both claims have, of course, been exposed as utter nonsense.
However disturbing these revelations, many readers will have been reassured by the thought that these articles were, after all, published in the Telegraph.
The same readers may have shared our dismay, then, on reading the Guardian's astonishing May 22 front-page story this week: 'Iran's secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq' by Simon Tisdall. (You can see the front page here: www.medialens.org/alerts/07/screenshots/guardian_070522_cover.jpg)
Tisdall's high-profile piece claimed that Iran has secret plans to do nothing less than wage war on, and defeat, American forces in Iraq by August.
Iran, it seems, is "forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal". (www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2085195,00.html)
The claim was based almost entirely on unsupported assertions made by anonymous US officials. Indeed 22 of the 23 paragraphs in the story relayed official US claims: over 95 per cent of the story. The compilation below indicates the levels of balance and objectivity:
"US officials say"; "a senior US official in Baghdad warned"; "The official said"; "the official said"; "the official said"; "US officials now say"; "the senior official in Baghdad said" "he [the senior official in Baghdad] added"; "the official said"; "the official said"; "he [the official] indicated; "he [the official] cited"; "a senior administration official in Washington said"; "The administration official also claimed"; "he [the administration official] said"; "US officials say"; "the senior official in Baghdad said"; "he [the senior official in Baghdad] said"; "the senior administration official said"; "he [the senior administration official] said"; "the official claimed"; "he [the official] said"; "Gen Petraeus's report to the White House and Congress"; "a former Bush administration official said"; "A senior adviser to Gen Petraeus reported"; "the adviser admitted".
No less than 26 references to official pronouncements formed the basis for a Guardian story presented with no scrutiny, no balance, no counter-evidence - nothing. Remove the verbiage described above and a Guardian front page news report becomes a straight Pentagon press release.
Tisdall quoted "a senior official in Baghdad" as saying:
"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces."
And: "We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus's report in September" - when the US commander, General David Petraeus, will report to Congress on the "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements.
The anonymous official added:
"Iran is perpetuating the cycle of sectarian violence through support for extra-judicial killing and murder cells. They bring Iraqi militia members and insurgent groups into Iran for training and then help infiltrate them back into the country. We have plenty of evidence from a variety of sources. There's no argument about that. That's just a fact.'"
Tisdall included the most pitiful of disclaimers in the final paragraph of a long (1,200-word) piece:
"Iranian officials flatly deny US and British allegations of involvement in internal violence in Iraq or in attacks on coalition forces."
The Guardian Braces Itself
Edward Herman commented to us:
"I saw that story and was amazed that what we call here the 'Judy Miller syndrome' has caught on in the UK 'liberal media.' Pretty amazing, after the overwhelming evidence of the past five years that the U.S.-Bush government is in the very business of disinformation, and their steady and obvious desire to demonize the Iranians, that this unconfirmed propaganda is treated as news (and not news pathology)." (Email to Media Lens, May 22, 2007)
Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan, dismissed Tisdall's "silly article", describing the anonymous sources as "looney in positing a coming offensive jointly sponsored by Iran, the Mahdi Army and al-Qaeda". (Juan Cole, Informed Comment blog, May 22, 2007; www.juancole.com/2007/05/parliament-building-shelled-iraqi.html)
The holes in the story were obvious, Cole added: "At a time when Sunni Arab guerrillas are said to be opposing 'al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia' for its indiscriminate violence against Iraqis, including Shiites, we are now expected to believe that Shiite Iran is allying with it."
He concluded:
"US military spokesmen have been trying to push implausible articles about Shiite Iran supporting Sunni insurgents for a couple of years now, and with virtually the sole exception of the New York Times, no one in the journalistic community has taken these wild charges seriously. But The Guardian?"
The Guardian was soon bracing itself for the fallout from Tisdall's story. Murray Armstrong, an associate editor, noted in his blog that the article had "led the discussion" at that morning's editorial conference. Whether Guardian staff were uncomfortable, dismayed or horrified at turning US propaganda into a front-page story he did not say. But he did report: "Simon noted that several readers had already accused him of peddling US propaganda." (Murray Armstrong, 'Iran, Iraq and sources of information,' May 22, 2007; http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/murray..._of_infor.html)
It is fair to describe readers' responses to Armstrong's defence on his blog as devastating and close to 100 per cent critical.
Tisdall responded to one challenger via email:
"Today's article was based on statements made by several senior US officials who are intimately familiar with the problems facing coalition forces in Iraq. I requested the interviews, not the other way round. These officials asked not to be identified. I am confident that they were telling the truth as they see it, on the basis of information received from a variety of sources." (Email to Ian Thomas, May 22, 2007)
It seems readers are to be reassured by Tisdall's defence that he actively sought out US propaganda, rather than acted as a passive conduit.
To the Guardian's credit, two critical pieces soon appeared on their online section, Comment is Free. D.D. Guttenplan, London correspondent for The Nation magazine, wrote:
"History really does repeat itself. Either that or the Bush administration has decided to show its commitment to the environment by recycling lies. Those are the only firm conclusions to be drawn from the Guardian's front page story this morning." (Guttenplan, 'Don't get fooled again,' Comment is Free, May 22, 2007; http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dd_gut...led_again.html)
Middle East analyst Dilip Hiro warned that the official briefings given to the Guardian were driven by a US political agenda. The timing was crucial: Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador in Iraq, is about to meet Iran's envoy Hassan Kazerni Qomi in Baghdad to discuss Iraqi security (See the second point made by CASMII at the top of this alert).
Hiro also pointed out obvious inconsistencies in the story: the claim of a link-up between the virulently anti-Shia al-Qaida in Mesopotamia and the largely Shia Iranians "is beyond belief". (Hiro, 'Briefing Encounter,' Comment is Free, May 22, 2007; http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dilip_...encounter.html)
Why, then, would such an implausible claim be made? Hiro explains: "[T]here is no more potent phrase than 'al-Qaida' to draw the attention, even alarm, of Americans and other westerners. And when it is bracketed with Iran, the combination can set alarm bells ringing in most western capitals."
Noam Chomsky described the Guardian cover story as: "Disgusting, but not far from the norm," adding that, in any case, "the whole debate is utterly mad." He expanded:
"Would we have had a debate in 1943 about whether the Allies were really guilty of aiding terrorist partisans in occupied Europe? The absurdity of the whole discussion was highlighted by a marvellous statement by Condi Rice a few days ago. She was asked what the solution is in Iraq, and said something like this: "It's obvious. Withdraw all foreign forces and foreign weapons." I was waiting to see if one commentator would notice that there happen to be some foreign troops and weapons in Iraq apart from the Iranian ones she was of course referring to. Couldn't find a hint.
"The basic assumption, so deeply rooted as to be invisible, is that the US owns the world (and Britain must toddle obediently behind), so US forces and weapons cannot be foreign anywhere, by definition. If they were to "liberate" England, they'd be indigenous. I doubt if any religion or totalitarian state could command such fanatic obedience. Maybe North Korea, or some crazed religious cult." (Email to Media Lens, May 24, 2007)
The internet-based response to Tisdall's piece has been extremely fierce and widespread. It suggests that the long years when the elite media could boost official propaganda without serious challenge, and without cost, are coming to an end. Comments left on the Guardian website, for example, have been overwhelmingly sceptical. One reader posed two questions:
"1 - How did a White House press release find its way on to the Guardian front page?
"2 - Why hasn't it been replaced with an apology and the article that should have been there? You know, the one written by a journalist with some functioning brain cells and at least a vestige of a critical faculty." (Comment posted at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dd_gut...led_again.html)
Another reader asked: "why are the US/UK/western strategies never reported by 'journalists' like Tisdall? Perhaps we could even have similar reports about US strategy based on unnamed Iranian sources, spinning and confabulating in order to further their own hidden plans, on the front page of the Guardian.
"I simply can't remember ever reading a print article that discussed the USA's long-term geo-political strategies (except from people it is easy to dismiss as 'extremists'), or come to that, any serious examination of Iranian strategies that aren't framed by the US's view of the matter." (Ibid)
Many readers feel the Guardian has simply been used as a booster for crude US propaganda. The reputation of the paper has surely suffered.
source:mediaLens |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Abandon all hope all ye who enter there.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
