| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
 Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: MEDIA ALERT: PENTAGON PROPAGANDA - THE GUARDIAN'S FRONT PAGE |
 |
|
|
|
| Quote: | 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_armstrong/2007/05/iran_iraq_and_sources_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_guttenplan/2007/05/dont_get_fooled_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_hiro/2007/05/briefing_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_guttenplan/2007/05/dont_get_fooled_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.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Write to Simon Tisdall
Email: simon.tisdall@guardian.co.uk
Write to Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor
Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
Write to Siobhain Butterworth, readers' editor of the Guardian
Email: reader@guardian.co.uk
Write to the letters page
Email: letters@guardian.co.uk
Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org
Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us at
Email: editor@medialens.org
This media alert will shortly be archived here:
www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070524_pentagon_propaganda_occupies.php
The Media Lens book 'Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media' by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in 2006. John Pilger described it as "The most important book about journalism I can remember."
For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php
We are very happy to maintain these alerts as a free service but please consider donating to Media Lens:
www.medialens.org/donate
Please visit the Media Lens website: www.medialens.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| why not be abusive to them I wonder? They're basically saying a big "fuck you!" to their readers by printing this shite in the first place! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i feel the same way faceless, i did write out a really bad email to them, saying he could work out, after the iran attack which he's paving the way for, how many people died per pound he received for his work - but i didn't send it, i don't really wanna undermine what the medialens lot do - they get a bad press without my inarticulate ramblings
a lot of those peeps do a lot of hard work trying there best to get these journalists and media outlets to see the reality and cover it correctly
but when you see stuff like this its just ... its almost seems hopeless, its like they've learnt nothing from history |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Nice article Luke .. I used to like the Guardian .. indeed, George lists it as his #2 or #3 in his daily read after the Independent [#1] (unless my memory fails me) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i check it now and then, like i do the indie - but i get the morning star most days now, great paper, no adverts ( except for workers union events etc ), no celebrity rubbish or pointless story's, much better coverage of important things, george usually has an article in there once a week as well, as well as people like pilger, mark curtis etc
i'm the only one who gets it in my local shop though, the sun and daily mail are the biggest sellers round here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Thanks Luke. I think George's #3 read was the Morning Star.
| luke wrote: | | i'm the only one who gets it in my local shop though, the sun and daily mail are the biggest sellers round here |
I wonder how many people have deserted the "intelligent" daily papers for the internet [not least due to their propaganda] .. leaving the "picture" papers to rule king in the shops.
Though until they develop a computer & internet connection which would work on the Kazi .... there is something to be said for the physical thing. [of-course you can print off any articles you like from the web 1st] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i remember from somewhere that a lot of the press is down in circulation, but whether people are turning to the internet, getting it from the tv or just not bothering i don't know ...
i hope its to the internet, but i know from a lot of friends that when they turn to the net for news, its usually still the big news sites, bbc etc
on a side note, there was research done at the time of the last gulf war, which showed the more people watched the corporate media about the war, the less they actually understood, but the more supportive of the government line they became ...
| Quote: | CASMII UK Press Release
CASMII Strongly Criticises the Guardian for anti Iranian article
25 May 2007
UK newspaper the Guardian was today strongly criticised by the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) for republishing unsubstantiated Bush Administration propaganda on its May 22 edition.
It is feared that the front page article which lacked basic journalistic professionalism, will be used to provide justification for an escalation of the US military surge in Iraq and possible military action against Iran.
Under the headline, "Iran's Secret Plan for Summer Offensive to Force US out of Iraq", the author Simon Tisdall quotes almost without qualification statements made by an anonymous senior US official in Baghdad. With no other source cited and no evidence asked for, the Guardian reported:
"Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces..." He continues, "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]... We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to [US commander Gen. David] Petraeus's report in September, the official said."
Professor Abbas Edalat of CASMII UK said today: "The Guardian has reported, without any challenge or any critical analysis, highly incriminating but unfounded and unsubstantiated statements by an unnamed US official in such a way that they appear to the reader as facts. These malicious accusations, which have been systematically heightened recently, are designed to cover up the failure of the US in establishing security in Iraq four years after the criminal and illegal invasion of that country, to blame Iranian interference and thereby justify a US pre-emptive military attack on Iran."
By propagating the myth of a link between Iran and al-Qaida and using the existing legislation in the US which authorizes the white House to use force against countries and organisations supporting al-Qaida, President Bush can launch an attack on Iran without any further explicit approval from the Congress.
Edalat added: "The Guardian article can be used to pave the way for such a scenario in the public opinion and support the propaganda interests of the Bush administration by echoing White House smears that war critics are aiding and abetting terrorist governments and organizations. We expect this kind of shoddy, biased political journalism from some of the more right wing publications around the world and are deeply disappointed about the Guardian's oversight in publishing this report in the way it has appeared."
For more information please visit http://www.campaigniran.org
[END]
Press contact number: 07828022339
email: campaign@campaigniran.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| luke wrote: | i remember from somewhere that a lot of the press is down in circulation, but whether people are turning to the internet, getting it from the tv or just not bothering i don't know ...
i hope its to the internet, but i know from a lot of friends that when they turn to the net for news, its usually still the big news sites, bbc etc
|
The mainstream papers and TV are loosing HUGE advertising revenue .. and laying advertising execs off. They just haven't recouped their money from the internet {though the Guardian has done v. well on web with # of views .. but again uncertain about ad revenue]
Many people now realise the papers are propaganda, so who wants to pay for it ?
| luke wrote: |
on a side note, there was research done at the time of the last gulf war, which showed the more people watched the corporate media about the war, the less they actually understood, but the more supportive of the government line they became ...
|
Yep, Research showed a correlation between the more you watched Fox the more wrong facts you had (e.g. WMDs in Iraq).
[and a weaker link with other MSMs] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
thanks mandy, i'm going to try find the report, there was a book covering it as well
| Quote: | In his aptly titled book The More You Watch, The Less You Know, Danny Schechter refers to a University of Massachusetts study that found a strong correlation between the amount of television people watched and their knowledge of the 1991 Gulf war.
It concluded that, the greater the viewing time, the lower the relative knowledge about the war and the higher the relative support for the US government. |
i really don't think most people understand how powerful the media is at propaganda and indoctrination. what gets me as well is all the rubbish that people are interested in, bread and circuses as they called it roman times ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses ) , or prolefeed as orwell called it in 1984
| Quote: | Prolefeed is a Newspeak term in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. It was used to describe the heaps of useless literature, movies and music which were produced by Prolesec, a section of the Ministry of Truth, to keep the "proles" (i.e., proletariat) content and to prevent them becoming too knowledgeable and rebelling against the ruling Party. A quote from the novel illustrates it:
“ And the Ministry had not only to supply the multifarious needs of the party, but also to repeat the whole operation at a lower level for the benefit of the proletariat. There was a whole chain of separate departments dealing with proletarian literature, music, drama, and entertainment generally. Here were produced rubbishy newspapers containing almost nothing except sport, crime and astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes, films oozing with sex, and sentimental songs which were composed entirely by mechanical means on a special kind of kaleidoscope known as a versificator. There was even a whole sub-section -- Pornosec, it was called in Newspeak -- engaged in producing the lowest kind of pornography, which was sent out in sealed packets and which no Party member, other than those who worked on it, was permitted to look at. ”
The term prolefeed has been used in recent years by some critics[citation needed] to describe news about famous celebrities (or the tabloids and magazines which publish them) or excessive sports coverage. |
this is going a bit of topic  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
This report covers Gulf War II
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
nice one mandy, that was interesting  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| it was interesting indeed - I wonder how many of those people actually care that they're being fed a pack of lies though? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Some people may prefer it .. i.e. to live in a fantasy till it "bites them in the back" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| faceless wrote: | | it was interesting indeed - I wonder how many of those people actually care that they're being fed a pack of lies though? |
what is it chomsky says ... if we choose, we can live in a world of comforting illusions ...
the illusionary world is nice and simple, you don't have to bother, let the government fix it, their the good guys ... the reality on the other hand ...
i actually had a mate say to me a while back regarding this kinda thing, ignorance is bliss  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandy
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| If you worry too much, you die sooner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
