Zoeken in deze blog šŸ”ŽšŸ”Ž

Posts gesorteerd op relevantie tonen voor zoekopdracht murdoch. Sorteren op datum Alle posts tonen
Posts gesorteerd op relevantie tonen voor zoekopdracht murdoch. Sorteren op datum Alle posts tonen

zondag 11 oktober 2015

Robert Parry 44


Rupert Murdoch: Propaganda Recruit


Special Report: Journalistic objectivity was never high on Rupert Murdoch’s ethics list, but “secret” records from the 1980s show how far the media magnate went to ingratiate himself with President Reagan by collaborating with U.S. propaganda operations, reports Robert Parry.

In February 1983, global media magnate Rupert Murdoch volunteered to help the Reagan administration’s propaganda strategy for deploying U.S. mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe by using his newspapers to exacerbate public fears about the Soviet Union, according to a recently declassified “secret” letter.
Murdoch, then an Australian citizen with major newspaper holdings in Great Britain and some in the United States, had already established close political ties with British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and was developing them with President Ronald Reagan, partly through one of Murdoch’s lawyers, the infamous Red-baiter Roy Cohn, who had served as counsel to Sen. Joe McCarthy’s investigations in the 1950s.
President Reagan meets with publisher Rupert Murdoch, U.S. Information Agency Director Charles Wick, lawyers Roy Cohn and Thomas Bolan in the Oval Office on Jan. 18, 1983. (Photo credit: Reagan presidential library)
President Reagan meets with publisher Rupert Murdoch, U.S. Information Agency Director Charles Wick, lawyers Roy Cohn and Thomas Bolan in the Oval Office on Jan. 18, 1983. (Photo credit: Reagan presidential library)
By February 1983, Cohn had already arranged a face-to-face meeting between Reagan and Murdoch (on Jan. 18, 1983) and had brokered a collaborative relationship between Murdoch and Charles Z. Wick, director of the U.S. Information Agency who oversaw U.S. propaganda operations worldwide.
On Feb. 14, 1983, in a “secret” letter to Reagan’s National Security Advisor William P. Clark, USIA Director Wick described a phone call from Murdoch in which they discussed ways to heighten European and American fears about Soviet SS-20 intermediate-range missiles and thus undermine activists pushing for nuclear disarmament. Murdoch said his comments reflected the views of high-ranking British officials with whom Murdoch had talked.
In the letter, Wick told Clark that CIA Director William J. Casey was eager to help Murdoch’s efforts by releasing classified satellite photos of the Soviet missiles in eastern Europe but was confronting resistance from the spy agency’s professional analysts.
“Rupert Murdoch … called me on February 9 [1983],” Wick told Clark. “Senior British officials have been telling him of their increasing concern with the rapid progress being made by the unilateralists,” a reference to the anti-nuclear activists who were rallying millions of Europeans to the cause of nuclear disarmament.
“According to Murdoch, the majority of the people just do not understand the SS-20 threat. He asked if we could release satellite photographs of Soviet SS-20s to dramatically stem the rising opposition to GLCM [U.S. ground-launched cruise missiles] and Pershing II deployment. He felt that the delineation of the SS-20 threat graphically could be very persuasive. It would give the press – the friendly press in particular – an opportunity to counter the growing wave of unilateralism.
“I pointed out to Murdoch that I had seen these photographs and they are not comprehensible to the lay person. Murdoch responded that he would commission credible analysts to be briefed here. They could make the photographs understandable to the average individual with circles, arrows, and other enhancements.” The next section of Wick’s letter remains classified – more than three decades later – on national security grounds.
On the letter’s second page, Wick describes his contact with CIA Director Casey regarding Murdoch’s phone call to seek the CIA’s cooperation in releasing the satellite photographs and making other public relations moves to influence domestic and international public opinion, including “a presidential press conference similar to President Kennedy’s during the Cuban missile crisis.”
Wick said President Reagan “could present large blow-ups while experts would be on hand to provide explanations in greater detail. Bill Casey agreed to re-check the objections raised by his people when we initially discussed release of the photographs last year. Bill’s people still oppose release of the photographs for ‘legal and security considerations.’ However, Bill said we do not want to be too rigid and protective, given Murdoch’s observations and with so much hanging in the balance on the upcoming German elections.”
Wick added that he and Casey wanted NSC Advisor Clark to take this “major public diplomacy question” to the Senior Policy Group (SPG) to consider overriding the CIA staff’s objections. (Wick’s letter was declassified last month by the National Archives in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that I filed in 2013.)

Dangerous Tensions

In 1983, the escalating tensions with the Soviet Union over the SS-20s and the deployment of U.S. cruise missiles in Europe led to what became known as “the New Cold War,” with Reagan rapidly expanding the U.S. military budget and engaging in extreme anti-Soviet rhetoric.
In a March 23, 1983 speech to the nation about the supposed Soviet threat, Reagan did release a few satellite images but they were of facilities in Cuba and Central America, not eastern Europe and the SS-20s. “I wish I could show you more without compromising our most sensitive intelligence sources and methods,” Reagan said.
CIA historical review in 2007 revealed that the Reagan administration in the early 1980s was intentionally raising tensions with the Soviet Union, in part, by mounting provocative military exercises near its borders. In response, Moscow raised its nuclear alert levels fearing a possible U.S. first strike, a hair-trigger risk for an accidental nuclear conflict that was not well understood in Washington at the time.
The CIA study reported: “New information suggests that Moscow … was reacting to US-led naval and air operations, including psychological warfare missions conducted close to the Soviet Union. These operations employed sophisticated concealment and deception measures to thwart Soviet early warning systems and to offset the Soviets’ ability … to read US naval communications.”
The Soviets were also spooked by Reagan’s harsh “evil empire” rhetoric and weapons build-up, prompting “Soviet officials and much of the populace to voice concern over the prospect of a US nuclear attack,” the CIA study said. “Moscow’s threat perceptions and Operation RYAN [a special intelligence operation to collect data on the U.S. threat] were influenced by memories of Hitler’s 1941 surprise attack on the USSR (Operation BARBAROSSA).”
As a major global publisher with close ties to Thatcher’s government, Murdoch saw himself as part of this ideological struggle and volunteered his news outlets to support hard-line Thatcher-Reagan policies against the Soviets. Documents previously released by Reagan’s presidential library in Simi Valley, California, revealed the key role played by Cohn in connecting Murdoch with the top echelon of the Reagan administration.
Both Roy Cohn and Ronald Reagan got their starts in politics during the anti-communist purges in the 1950s, Cohn as Sen. Joe McCarthy’s chief counsel and Reagan as a witness against alleged communists in Hollywood. Cohn, a hardball political player, built his reputation as both an anti-communist and anti-gay crusader who aggressively interrogated witnesses during the Red Scare and the Lavender Scare, claiming that the U.S. government was infiltrated by communists and homosexuals who threatened the nation’s security.
Cohn’s high-profile role in the McCarthy hearings ultimately ended when he was forced to resign over charges that he targeted the U.S. Army for an anti-communist purge because it had refused to give preferential treatment to one of his close associates, G. David Shine. Though Cohn denied he was romantically involved with Shine – and a homosexual relationship was never proven – Cohn’s own homosexuality became publicly known after he underwent treatment for AIDS in the 1980s, leading to his death in 1986.
However, in Cohn’s final years, he enjoyed close personal ties to the Reagan administration and exchanged warm notes with Reagan himself. But, more significantly, Cohn, as one of Murdoch’s lawyers, brought the influential publisher into the Oval Office on Jan. 18, 1983, to meet with Reagan and Wick. A photograph of that meeting – also released by the Reagan library – shows Cohn leaning forward, speaking to Reagan who is seated next to Murdoch.
“I had one interest when Tom [Bolan, Cohn’s law partner] and I first brought Rupert Murdoch and Governor Reagan together – and that was that at least one major publisher in this country … would become and remain pro-Reagan,” Cohn wrote in a Jan. 27, 1983 letter to senior White House aides Edwin Meese, James Baker and Michael Deaver. “Mr. Murdoch has performed to the limit up through and including today.”
The letter noted that Murdoch then owned the “New York Post – over one million, third largest and largest afternoon; New York Magazine; Village Voice; San Antonio Express; Houston Ring papers; and now the Boston Herald; and internationally influential London Times, etc.” [For more details on Cohn’s role, see Consortiumnews.com’s “How Roy Cohn Helped Rupert Murdoch.”]

Financing Propaganda

Following the Jan. 18, 1983 meeting, Murdoch became involved in a privately funded propaganda project to help sell Reagan’s hard-line Central American policies, according to other documents. That PR operation was overseen by senior CIA propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. and CIA Director Casey.
By late 1982, the Reagan administration was gearing up for an expanded propaganda push in support of the President’s aggressive policies in Central America, including support for the Salvadoran and Guatemalan militaries – both notorious for their human rights violations – and for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who also were gaining an unsavory reputation for acts of terrorism and brutality.
This PR campaign was spearheaded by CIA Director Casey and Raymond, one of the CIA’s top covert operation specialists who was transferred to the National Security Council staff to minimize legal concerns about the CIA violating its charter which bars influencing the American public. To further shield the CIA from possible fallout from this domestic propaganda operation, Casey and Raymond sought to arrange private financing to pay for some activities.
On Jan. 13, 1983, NSC Advisor Clark noted in a memo to Reagan the need for non-governmental money to advance the PR project. “We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding,” Clark wrote, as cited in an unpublished draft chapter of the congressional Iran-Contra investigation. Clark then told the President that “Charlie Wick has offered to take the lead. We may have to call on you to meet with a group of potential donors.”
Five days later, on Jan. 18, 1983, Roy Cohn accompanied Rupert Murdoch into the Oval Office for a face-to-face meeting with President Reagan and USIA Director Wick. Nine days later, in the Jan. 27, 1983 letter to Meese, Baker and Deaver – written on the letterhead of the Saxe, Bacon & Bolan law firm – Cohn hailed the success of Murdoch’s “warm meeting with the President and the goodwill created by Charlie Wick’s dinner.”
But Murdoch was also thin-skinned. Cohn complained about what Murdoch saw as a presidential snub when Reagan bypassed the Boston Herald during a late January 1983 trip to Boston. Michael McManus, the deputy assistant to the President, offered an effusive apology to Cohn: “we were all sorry about the confusion surrounding a possible Presidential visit to the Boston Herald. …
“I also called Mr. Murdoch as you suggested, explained the situation to him and apologized for any confusion. I am sure you are aware of our continued high regard for Mr. Murdoch personally and our appreciation of the importance of what he is doing.”
Despite Cohn’s complaint about the slight to Murdoch, the Australian media magnate appears to have pitched in to help the CIA-organized outreach program for Reagan’s Central American policies. Now declassified documents indicate that Murdoch was soon viewed as a source for the private funding.
On May 20, 1983, longtime CIA propagandist Raymond, who was overseeing the “perception management” project aimed at both domestic and foreign audiences, wrote that $400,000 had been raised from private donors brought to the White House by USIA Director Wick.
Raymond said the funds were divided among several organizations including Accuracy in Media, a right-wing group that attacked reporters who deviated from Reagan’s propaganda themes, and the neoconservative Freedom House (which later denied receiving White House money, though it made little sense that Raymond would lie in an internal memo).
As the White House continued to cultivate its ties to Murdoch, Reagan held a second Oval Office meeting with the publisher — on July 7, 1983 — who was accompanied by Charles Douglas-Home, the editor of Murdoch’s flagship UK newspaper, the London Times.
President Ronald Reagan meets with Charles Douglas Home, editor of London Times, and its publisher Rupert Murdoch in the Oval Office on July 7, 1983. (Photo credit: Reagan presidential library)
President Ronald Reagan meets with Charles Douglas Home, editor of London Times, and its publisher Rupert Murdoch in the Oval Office on July 7, 1983. (Photo credit: Reagan presidential library)
In an Aug. 9, 1983 memo summing up the results of a Casey-organized meeting with five leading ad executives regarding how to “sell” Reagan’s policies in Central America, Raymond referred to Murdoch as if he were one of the benefactors helping out.
In a memo to Clark, Raymond said the project would involve a comprehensive approach aimed at persuading a majority of Americans to back Reagan’s Central American policies. “We must move out into the middle sector of the American public and draw them into the ‘support’ column,” Raymond wrote. “A second package of proposals deal with means to market the issue, largely considering steps utilizing public relations specialists – or similar professionals – to help transmit the message.”
To improve the project’s chances for success, Raymond wrote, “we recommended funding via Freedom House or some other structure that has credibility in the political center. Wick, via Murdoch, may be able to draw down added funds for this effort.” Raymond included similar information in a separate memo to Wick in which Raymond noted that “via Murdock [sic] may be able to draw down added funds” to support the initiative. (Raymond later told me that he was referring to Rupert Murdoch.)
In a March 7, 1984 memo about the “‘Private Funders’ Project,” Raymond referred to Murdoch again in discussing a request for money from longtime CIA-connected journalist Brian Crozier, who was “looking for private sector funding to work on the question of ‘anti-Americanism’ overseas.”
Raymond wrote: “I am pursuaded [sic] it is a significant long term problem. It is also the kind of thing that Ruppert [sic] and Jimmy might respond positively to. Please look over the stack [of papers from Crozier] and lets [sic] discuss if and when there might be further discussion with our friends.”
Murdoch’s News Corp. has not responded to several requests for comment about the Reagan-era documents.

Murdoch’s Rise

With these close ties to Reagan’s White House and Thatcher’s 10 Downing Street, Murdoch’s media empire continued to grow. To meet a regulatory requirement that U.S. TV stations must be owned by Americans, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1985. Murdoch also benefited from the Reagan administration’s relaxation of media ownership rules which enabled him to buy more TV stations, which he then molded into the Fox Broadcasting Company, which was founded on Oct. 9, 1986.
In 1987, the “Fairness Doctrine,” which required political balance in broadcasting, was eliminated, which let Murdoch pioneer a more aggressive conservatism on his TV network. In the mid-1990s, Murdoch expanded his political reach by founding the neoconservative Weekly Standard in 1995 and Fox News on cable in 1996. At Fox News, Murdoch hired scores of prominent politicians, mostly Republicans, putting them on his payroll as commentators.
Last decade, Murdoch continued to expand his reach into U.S. mass media, acquiring DirecTV and the financial news giant Dow Jones, which included The Wall Street Journal, America’s leading business news journal.
As his empire grew, Murdoch parlayed his extraordinary media power into the ability to make or break political leaders, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. In December 2014, the UK’s Independent reported that Ed Richards, the retiring head of the British media regulatory agency Ofcom, accused British government representatives of showing favoritism to Murdoch’s companies.
Richards said he was “surprised” by the informality, closeness and frequency of contact between executives and ministers during the failed bid by Murdoch’s News Corp. for the satellite network BSkyB in 2011. The deal was abandoned when it was discovered that journalists at Murdoch’s News of the World tabloid had hacked the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and others.
“What surprised everyone about it – not just me – was quite how close it was and the informality of it,” Richards said, confirming what had been widely reported regarding Murdoch’s access to powerful British politicians dating back at least to the reign of Prime Minister Thatcher in the 1980s. The Reagan documents suggest that Murdoch built similarly close ties to leading U.S. politicians in the same era.
These glimpses behind the curtain also reveal how these symbiotic – or some might say incestuous – relationships have developed between media magnates and likeminded politicians. Though Murdoch might argue that he was simply following his ideological beliefs – and putting his news outlets behind his political goals – it’s also clear that his commitment to right-wing causes proved very profitable as well.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.



dinsdag 2 maart 2010

De Commerciele Massamedia 238

Nieuws over de pro-Israel lobbyist Murdoch. “The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government.” (Ibid)

http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/search?q=murdoch


Murdoch krijgt BBC op de knieƫn

De BBC gaat twee radiostations opdoeken en de helft van haar website wegsnijden. De Britse openbare omroep hoopt zo de commerciƫle zenders en mediamagnaat Rupert Murdoch gunstig te stemmen.
  • DeWereldMorgen.be -

    James, de zoon van Rupert Murdoch, voert al een tijd een kruistocht tegen de BBC. “De uitbreiding van gesubsidieerde journalistiek is een bedreiging voor het pluralisme en de onafhankelijkheid van de nieuwsvoorziening. Het dumpen van gratis gesubsidieerd nieuws op de markt, maakt het bijzonder moeilijk voor journalistiek om te bloeien op het internet”, zei James Murdoch vorig jaar in een toespraak.

    Het was dan ook niet toevallig Murdoch's Britse vlaggenschip The Times dat het nieuws uitbracht over de snoeiplannen van de BBC. In een begeleidend editoriaal echoĆ«n de woorden van Murdoch na. “De websites [van de BBC] hebben jobs vernietigd door gratis nieuws te dumpen op de markten terwijl de concurrenten geen toegang hebben tot overheidssubsidies”, schrijft The Times.

    Berlusconi?

    Nu Murdoch zoete broodjes bakt met Tory-leider David Cameron groeit het gevaar voor de BBC. Cameron maakt een grote kans om de nieuwe premier van Groot-Brittanniƫ te worden. En als hij het haalt van Labour-leider Gordon Brown zal hij dat voor een groot stuk te danken hebben aan de steun van Rupert en James Murdoch.

    Andy Coulson, de communicatiedirecteur van David Cameron, is een intieme vriend van Rebekah Brooks. Zij was de eerste vrouwelijke hoofdredacteur van The Sun en leidde daarvoor de krant News of the World (twee tabloids uit de stal van Murdoch). Andy Coulson volgde Brooks op als hoofdredacteur van News of the World. Nu staat Brooks aan het hoofd van News International, het vehikel dat Murdoch's Britse kranten uitgeeft. Via Coulson en Brooks slaagde Cameron er eindelijk in om in de buurt te komen van Murdoch.

    The Sun schaarde zich vorig jaar achter Cameron, nadat de tabloid 12 jaar lang trouw Labour had gesteund. Voor wat hoort wat en David Cameron beloofde prompt om de BBC af te slanken. Het verleidde en commentator van The Guardian tot de commentaar: “Berlusconi's ItaliĆ« is niet zo'n verre nachtmerrie.”

    De plannen van BBC-topman Mark Thompson moeten vermijden dat de politiek het heft in handen neemt om de BBC af te slanken. Vergeefse moeite zo blijkt nu al. Volgens The Times gaat Mark Thompson lang niet ver genoeg. “Als hij het echt meent met de hervormingen, moet hij veel meer wegsnijden dan enkele radiostations waar niemand naar luistert en enkele websites die weinigen ooit hebben bezocht”, aldus The Times. De krant stelt voor dat de openbare omroep zich totaal terugtrekt uit de popmuziek.

    De BBC kan elk jaar rekenen op een dotatie van 3,6 miljard pond. Volgens The Times mag daar flink in gesnoeid worden.

    Deredactie.be

    Bij de VRT zullen ze die discussie met argusogen volgen. Ook in Belgiƫ woedt het debat over de taken van de openbare omroep. Zowel de Belgische mediamagnaat Christian Van Thillo als hoofdredacteur van De Standaard/Het Nieuwsblad Peter Vandermeersch hebben al meermaals laten weten dat ze de 'oneerlijke' concurrentie van de VRT-site deredactie.be niet pikken.

    In de berichtgeving in De Standaard over de besparingen bij de BBC horen we een echo van Vandermeersch: “Benieuwd wanneer de eerste voorstellen komen om te snoeien in deredactie.be en om Canvas meer geld te geven”, schrijft de DS-journalist.

    Alan Rusbridger, de verlichte hoofdredacteur van The Guardian – een krant die nochtans ook 'last' heeft van de BBC-website – zei onlangs dat het dom zou zijn om een model dat wel ernstige journalistiek oplevert (de openbare omroepen) op te geven om het falend businessmodel van de kranten te redden. Kijk naar de VS, zegt Rusbridger. Daar hebben ze geen last van openbare omroepen en toch kampen alle kranten er met zware problemen.

    donderdag 11 maart 2010

    John Pilger 30



    Welcome to the World's First Murdochracy

    by: John Pilger, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

    photo
    (Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted:World Economic Forum, vladstudio,GrungeTextures)

    Adelaide is Australia's festival city. Its arts festival is currently in swing. Polite debate, aesthetics and high-octane wine are putting the world to rights. With one exception. Adelaide is where Rupert Murdoch began his empire. The voracious trail starts here. No statue stands; his is a spectral presence, controlling the only daily newspaper, even the printing presses. Across Australia, he owns almost 70 percent of the capital city press and the only national newspaper and Sky Television and much else. Welcome to the world's first murdochracy.

    What is a murdochracy? It is where the fealty and augmentation of Murdoch's editors and managers are undisguised, an inspiration to his choir on seven continents, where even his competitors sing along, and wise politicians heed the Murdochism: "What'll it be? A headline a day or a bucket of shit a day?"

    While the veracity of this celebrated remark is sometimes disputed, its spirit is not. Stricken with pneumonia, the former Prime Minister John Howard dragged himself out of bed to pay obeisance to the man to whom he owed many empty buckets. His successor, Kevin Rudd, scurried to an obligatory audience with Murdoch in New York prior to his election. This is standard across the planet. Before he took power, Tony Blair was flown to an island off Queensland to stand at the blue Newscorp lectern and pledge Thatcherism and media deregulation to the jowled figure nodding in the front row. The next day, the Sun lauded Blair as one who "has vision [and] speaks our language on morality and family life."

    Murdoch knows that little separates the main political parties in Australia, Britain and America. He plays the man. In 1972, he backed Australia's Gough Whitlam, who revealed a radical reformer, even threatening to expose America's spy bases. A furious Murdoch swung his newspapers against Whitlam with stories so outrageously skewed that rebellious journalists on The Australian burned their newspaper in the street. That has never been repeated.

    Dominant themes in the Australian murdochracy, sport and celebrity gossip aside, are the promotion of war and jingoism, American foreign policy, Israel and a paternalism toward Aborigines, the world's most impoverished indigenous people, according to the UN. This antiquated cold warring is not due entirely to the Murdoch press, of course, but the agenda is. When the Indonesian tyrant General Suharto was about to be overthrown by his own people, the Editor in Chief of The Australian, Paul Kelly, led a delegation of editors of most of Australia's principal newspapers to Jakarta. With Kelly at his side, the mass murderer, whom the Murdoch papers promoted as a "moderate," accepted the tribute of each.

    Murdoch's most unabashed, if entertaining retainer is Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian. On one of his adoring trips to the United States, home of Murdoch HQ, Sheridan wrote, "The US is the greatest possible argument for media deregulation. Every morning, I flick between Fox, CNN and MSNBC as I eat my cereal ... why did it take so long for pay TV to get to Australia? ..." He was referring, as if instinctively, to his master's pay TV company, Foxtel. As for terrorism, Sheridan blames "Pilgerist Chomskyism" for "ideologically fuelling the followers of Osama bin Lenin, sorry Laden."

    One of the most effective campaigns in the Australian murdochracy has been the whitewashing of a bloody, colonial past, including a series of attacks on the distinguished chronicler of the Aboriginal genocide, Professor Henry Reynolds, and the Director of the National Museum of Australia, Dawn Casey, for having dared to present the truth about indigenous suffering. Australia's great maverick historian, the late Manning Clark, was smeared by Murdoch's Courier-Mail as a Red agent, then as a fraud, in much the style that Murdoch's London Sunday Times smeared the Labour member of Parliament Michael Foot as a Soviet agent.

    Something similar awaits those who question the manipulation of the remembrance of Australia's blood sacrifice for imperialism, old and new. Aimed at the young, a maudlin "new patriotism" reaches an annual climax on April 25, the anniversary of the first world war disaster at Gallipoli known as Anzac Day. The message is undisguised militarism promoting the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus, Prime Minister Rudd says, absurdly, that the military is Australia's highest calling.

    Such false flags are flown constantly for Israel, which sees a stream of Australian journalists sponsored and paid for by Zionist groups. The result is apologetic reporting of murderous actions that evokes the great appeasers like Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times in the 1930s. The debate about state war crimes has all but bypassed Australia. That a former and current British prime minister have been summoned before the Chilcot inquiry in London is viewed with bemusement as nothing like it would happen here. Yet, John Howard, who also invaded Iraq, holds something of a record for having claimed 30 times in one speech that he knew Saddam Hussein had a "massive programme" of weapons of mass destruction.

    The national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has long been intimidated by the Murdoch press in the obsessive manner of the campaign waged against the BBC. Funded directly by governments, the ABC has none of the nominal independence and protection of Britain's system of a TV license fee as the resource for public broadcasting. Last year, HarperCollins, owned by Murdoch, was awarded a lucrative "partnership" with the ABC's publishing arm, ABC Books.

    In 1983, there were 50 major corporations dominating the world's media. By 2002, this had been reduced to nine. Rupert Murdoch says that eventually there will be three, including his own. If we accept this, media and information control will be the same, and we shall all be citizens of a murdochracy.

    John Pilger, Australian-born, London-based journalist, film-maker and author. For his foreign and war reporting, ranging from Vietnam and Cambodia to the Middle East, he has twice won Britain's highest award for journalism. For his documentary films, he won a British Academy Award and an an American Emmy. In 2009, he was awarded Australia's human rights prize, the Sydney Peace Prize. His latest film is The War on Democracy.

    woensdag 23 mei 2012

    Media Lens 12



    May 23, 2012

    'A Private Conversation - The Leveson Inquiry, Corporate Journalism And Elite Collusion

    Advertising revenue is almost the life-blood of the press. Although the figure has fallen in recent years, today it constitutes around 60 per cent of newspapers’ total income, including 'quality' titles like the Guardian and the Independent.
    This obviously has profound implications for media performance, as even the corporate media are sometimes willing to accept. Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson notes in the Financial Times:
    ‘Behind their journalistic missions, most news organisations have always been commercial operations that sell audiences to advertisers.’ (‘News industry can survive in the digital age’, Financial Times, March 21, 2012)
    Media corporations are also typically owned by wealthy individuals or giant conglomerates, and are legally obliged to subordinate human and environmental welfare to maximised revenues for shareholders. (See Joel Bakan, ‘The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power’, Constable, 2004.)
    The consequences for democracy are normally ignored. But again, the truth sometimes pops up. After giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry in April 2012, the owner of the Independent, Evgeny Lebedev, tweeted:
    ‘Forgot to tell #Leveson that it's unreasonable to expect individuals to spend £millions on newspapers and not have access to politicians.’
    Even a Guardian report had to note:
    ‘It was a funny and refreshingly honest message after all the recent humbug and hypocrisy from media magnates about not wanting to influence the political class.’
    A less refreshingly honest morsel was served up by Brian Leveson himself when he said:
    ‘The majority of journalism is people doing their job honourably with dedication, fearlessly and entirely in the public interest.’ (our emphasis)
    Imagine if Leveson had noted that the majority of journalism is fearlessly doing its job ‘in the corporate interest’. It would have elicited mayhem among the politico-media classes.
    Perhaps we’re being a tad unfair to Leveson, given that he appeared to let slip that he supports media activism. He said that internet-based scrutiny is ‘leading to greater accountability for journalists. People will study them, and I think there's no reporter - no decent reporter - in the land who would not welcome this extra scrutiny.’ 
    Or so one would like to think. Alas, it is not quite our experience over the last eleven years of being blanked, blocked, abused and dumped beyond the pale of media ‘respectability’; even by people who very much like what we're doing but who would rather not be tarred with the same brush.

    The Thumb-Sucking 5-10 Per Cent Rule

    The Leveson inquiry has exposed the profound influence of corporate owners on media reporting. The Guardian’s Nick Davies, whose reporting of the Milly Dowler phone-hacking scandal has been justly praised, claimed in his book, ‘Flat Earth News’, that the cumulative effect of owners and advertising was no more than 5-10 per cent:
    ‘Journalists with whom I have discussed this [i.e. what Davies calls “the retreat from truth-telling journalism”] agree that if you could quantify it, you could attribute only 5% or 10% of the problem to the total impact of these two forms of interference.’ (‘Flat Earth News’, Chattus & Windus, 2008, p. 22)
    As we have pointed out, these numbers are contradicted even by the fact that so many aspects of the modern newspaper have evolved in response to the demands of advertisers and corporate owners.
    Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian journalist, has been keeping a beady eye on the Leveson inquiry evidence challenging Davies’ 5-10 per cent claim. For example, Harold Evans, a former Rupert Murdoch editor at the Sunday Times, described to Leveson how, in 1981, Murdoch rebuked him for reporting gloomy economic news and ‘not doing what he [Murdoch] wants, in political terms’. Evans says that Murdoch came to his home and the two ‘almost ended up in fisticuffs over a piece on the economy.’
    Evans added:
    ‘Murdoch would also haul in senior staff for meetings to tell them to alter their coverage, including the editorial line of the leader columns and telling the foreign editor to “attack the Russians more”.’
    No wonder former Sun editor David Yelland described how editors ‘go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything Murdoch says … “What would Rupert think about this?” is like a mantra inside your head’. 
    Cook also pointed out two articles ‘that as good as admit the obvious: that Murdoch decided what parties his papers would back in return, of course, for political support for his business interests.’
    The first described how, in 2009, James Murdoch, deputy chief operating officer of News Corp, had told David Cameron, then Tory leader of the Opposition, that the Sun would switch its support in the upcoming general election from Labour to the Conservatives. This announcement was made shortly after Jeremy Hunt, then the Tory’s shadow culture secretary, had visited News Corp offices in the US.
    second article reported that Murdoch was ‘attracted by the idea’ of Scottish independence and thought that Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, was a ‘nice guy’. Murdoch ‘cleared the way’ for the Scottish edition of the Sun to endorse Salmond's Scottish National Party at the Scottish elections in spring 2011, ‘just as [Salmond] was promising to lobby for News Corporation to take control of BSkyB.’ The SNP won a landslide victory in the Scottish parliamentary elections on May 5. Salmond admitted that he had been ‘happy’ to make a direct call to culture secretary Jeremy Hunt to support Murdoch’s controversial attempt to take complete control of the satellite broadcaster.
    But this wasn’t just a one-off; it was - and remains - a crucial part of the political process. As Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin told Leveson, News International bosses ‘could be very demanding’. Referring to then Sun editor Rebekah Brooks, charged last week with conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice:
    ‘If you are on the same side as her, you have to see her every week. This was how it worked.’
    Letwin added:
    ‘The realpolitik is that you have to get on with people who run newspapers. Labour did the same.’
    Indeed, in 1995, opposition leader Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to curry favour with Rupert Murdoch at the luxury Hayman Island resort in Queensland, Australia. Addressing senior News Corporation executives, the Labour leader pledged an end to the ‘rigid economic planning and state controls’ of the ‘Old Left’ and declared that ‘the battle between market and public sector is over.’ Two years later, after 18 years of supporting the Tories, Murdoch used the Sun to officially endorse Blair and New Labour who then won a landslide victory at the 1997 general election. In 2011, Blair even became godfather to Murdoch’s youngest child.
    And Murdoch isn't alone in casting a shadow over the political process. Prime Minister David Cameron admittedthat ‘he and other politicians became too close to too many newspaper proprietors and executives.’ So politicians have been bending to the will of media owners, and media owners have been influencing, and even directing, what their own editors and journalists do.
    Jonathan Cook told us why he believes it’s important to document examples of senior journalists revealing the extent of proprietorial interference:
    ‘Davies’ book [‘Flat Earth News’] was so influential, especially with other journalists, because it propped up the lie journalists like to tell themselves and others that the problem of the “profession” is essentially a lack of funding and proper care from media owners. They prefer that assessment for two obvious reasons: first, journalists want more money invested in their papers because they hope it means promotions and wage rises; and second, it helps to avert their gaze from the reality that editorial independence is, and always was, a myth.’ (Email, April 26, 2012)
    Cook also told us:
    ‘It's really about time Davies retracted that bit of nonsense from his book. The problem is that, were he to do so, he could no longer justify his argument that media failure is the result chiefly of economic pressures rather than structural flaws.’ (Email, April 25, 2012)

    A Private Conversation Between Elite Groups

    Peter Oborne, chief political commentator at the Daily Telegraph, is no raving leftie. But as a political conservative, he had some astute observations to make to Leveson on the corrupt state of politics and media in this country.
    Oborne said that when he arrived on the political reporting ‘scene’ he was ‘staggered’ by the closeness of politicians and journalists:
    ‘It was ceasing to be a conversation between activists and politicians but between the media and the politicians. The News International annual party at the Tory and Labour conference was an extraordinary power event to which people were excluded. Unfortunately I never got in, but you got the entire cabinet and all the influence brokers and the senior members of the media class, and it was a very important statement I felt about how Britain was being governed.’
    He continued:
    ‘And then you got the astonishing business of the senior News International people sitting just behind the Cabinet. They were the VIPs in the chamber, I believe really important media types were there as well, they were brought into the inner sanctum. I felt this was a perversion of our democracy, it was starting to become a private conversation between elite groups rather than a proper popular engagement.’
    He described the politico-journalism collusion as a ‘conspiracy against their [newspapers’] readers’. When challenged by Leveson to justify such a blunt assertion, Oborne responded:
    ‘That's exactly what was going on. [...] In order to report during that time you had to get close to the people who ran new Labour, there were very few of them. [...] People who tried to report objectively and fairly were bullied and victimised and not given access to information. People who were part of the circle were favoured and of course there was a price for that. Very hard to be an independent observer, to keep your integrity in those circumstances.’
    Political reporting, he said, had become ‘private deals, private arrangements, between media and politicians.’ Collusion between politicians and the media helped to explain why the public was so ‘grievously misinformed’ about Iraq in the run-up to war. And we would add that it also helps explain why the public has been grievously misinformed about the post-invasion death toll in Iraq which likely exceeds one million, with four million refugees, in a country that has been utterly devastated.

    SUGGESTED ACTION

    The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
    Please write to:
    Nick Davies, special correspondent for the Guardian
    Twitter: @Bynickdavies
    Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor
    Twitter: @arusbridger
    On campaigns for democratic media, see:
    Dan Hind, author of 'The Return of the Public'
    Twitter: @danhind
    This Alert is Archived here:
    Share this media alert:
     |  | 
    Follow us on Twitter, on Youtube and on Facebook
    The second Media Lens book, 'NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century' by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto Press. John Pilger writes of the book:
    "Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth." Find it in theMedia Lens Bookshop

    Donate...

    In July 2011, we reached our tenth anniversary. We would like to thank all those who have supported and encouraged us along the way. Media Lens relies on donations for its funding. If you currently support the corporate media by paying for their newspapers, why not support Media Lens instead?
    The email address we have for you is stan10@planet.nl, you can change it here
    Had enough of the Alerts? Unsubscribe here >>

    donderdag 30 september 2010

    The Mainstream Media 4





    Why Murdoch and the BBC Are on the Same Side


    by: John Pilger, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

    photo
    Rupert Murdoch. (Photo: World Economic Forum)


    Britain is said to be approaching its Berlusconi moment. That is to say, if Rupert Murdoch wins control of Sky he will command half the television and newspaper market and threaten what is known as public service broadcasting. Although the alarm is ringing, it is unlikely that any government will stop him while his court is packed with politicians of all parties.
    The problem with this and other Murdoch scares is that, while one cannot doubt their gravity, they deflect from an unrecognized and more insidious threat to honest information. For all his power, Murdoch's media is not respectable. Take the current colonial wars. In the United States, Murdoch's Fox television is almost cartoon-like in its warmongering. It is the august, tombstone New York Times, "the greatest newspaper in the world," and others such as the once-celebrated Washington Post, that have given respectability to the lies and moral contortions of the "war on terror," now recast as "perpetual war."
    In Britain, the liberal Observer performed this task in making respectable Tony Blair's deceptions on Iraq. More importantly, so did the BBC, whose reputation is its power. In spite of one maverick reporter's attempt to expose the so-called dodgy dossier, the BBC took Blair's sophistry and lies on Iraq at face value.
    This was made clear in studies by Cardiff University and the German-based Media Tenor. The BBC's coverage, said the Cardiff study, was overwhelmingly "sympathetic to the government's case." According to Media Tenor, a mere two percent of BBC news in the build-up to the invasion permitted anti-war voices to be heard. Compared with the main American networks, only CBS was more pro-war.
    So, when the BBC Director-General Mark Thompson used the recent Edinburgh Television Festival to attack Murdoch, his hypocrisy was like a presence. Thompson is the embodiment of a taxpayer-funded managerial elite, for whom political reaction have long replaced public service. He has even laid into his own corporation, Murdoch-style, as "massively left-wing." He was referring to the era of his 1960s predecessor Hugh Greene, who allowed artistic and journalistic freedom to flower at the BBC. Thompson is the opposite of Greene; and his aspersion on the past is in keeping with the BBC's modern corporate role, reflected in the rewards demanded by those at the top. Thompson was paid £834,000 last year out of public funds and his 50 senior executives earn more than the prime minister, along with enriched journalists like Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce.

    Murdoch and the BBC share this corporatism. Blair, for example, was their quintessential politician. Prior to his election in 1997, Blair and his wife were flown first class by Murdoch to Hayman Island in Australia where he stood at the Newscorp lectern and, in effect, pledged an obedient Labour administration. His coded message on media cross ownership and deregulation was that a way would be found for Murdoch to achieve the supremacy that now beckons.
    Blair was embraced by the new BBC corporate class, which regards itself as meritorious and nonideological: the natural leaders in a managerial Britain in which class is unspoken. Few did more to enunciate Blair's "vision" than Andrew Marr, then a leading newspaper journalist, and today the BBC's ubiquitous voice of middle-class Britain. Just as Murdoch's Sun declared in 1995 it shared the rising Blair's "high moral values" so Marr, writing in the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister's "substantial moral courage" and the "clear distinction in his mind between prudently protecting his power base and rashly using his power for high moral purpose." What impressed Marr was Blair's "utter lack of cynicism" along with his bombing of Yugoslavia, which would "save lives."
    By March 2003, Marr was the BBC's political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the "shock and awe" assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised "to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right" and as a result "tonight he stands as a larger man." In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities like Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a "model."
    So, it was entirely appropriate that Blair, in hawking his self-serving book, should select Marr for his "exclusive TV interview" on the BBC. The headline across the Observer's review of the interview read, "Look who's having the last laugh." Beneath this was a picture of a beaming Blair sharing a laugh with Marr.
    The interview produced not a single challenge that stopped Blair in his precocious, mendacious tracks. He was allowed to say that "absolutely clearly and unequivocally, the reason for toppling [Saddam Hussein] was his breach of resolutions over WMD, right?" No, wrong. A wealth of evidence, not least the infamous Downing Street Memo, makes clear that Blair secretly colluded with George W. Bush to attack Iraq. This was not mentioned. At no point did Marr say to him, "You failed to persuade the UN Security Council to go along with the invasion. You and Bush went alone. Most of the world was outraged. Weren't you aware that you were about to commit a monumental war crime?"
    Instead, Blair used the convivial encounter to deceive, yet again, even to promote an attack on Iran, an outrage. Murdoch's Fox would have differed in style only. The British public deserves better.


    http://www.truth-out.org/why-murdoch-and-bbc-are-same-side63710

    zaterdag 16 juni 2012

    Chris Kijne van de VPRO 55




    Al in de tweede helft van de negentiende eeuw beschreef een van de grootste historici van de VS, Henry Adams, telg van een aristocratische familie die presidenten en vooraanstaande intellectuelen had voortgebracht, uitgebreid hoe de Amerikaanse democratie dermate gecorrumpeerd was geraakt dat ‘de waarheid in de politiek veronachtzaamd kan worden als een waanidee.’ De politiek van de Verenigde Staten was niet meer dan ‘de systematische organisatie van haat.’ Hij toonde overtuigend aan dat het een illusie is te denken dat de mens handelt op grond van een waar inzicht in de betekenis van zijn daden. De blinde veronderstelling dat de massa gedreven zou worden door rationele Verlichtingsidealen was, volgens hem, ronduit levensgevaarlijk in een tijd dat de techniek de mens in toenemende mate oppermachtig maakte. Adams waarschuwde voor het volgende:

    ‘The assumption of unity which was the work of human thought in the middle ages has yielded very slowly to the proofs of complexity,’

    waardoor

    ‘Law, in that case, would disappear as a theory or a priori principle, and give place to force. Morality would become police. Explosives would reach cosmic violence. Disintegration would overcome integration.’

    Dit schreef hij in 1905, aan de vooravond van het massale geweld en de rechteloosheid die de twintigste eeuw zouden kenmerken en negen decennia voordat de 21ste eeuw startte met de grootscheepse westerse verwoestingen in het Midden Oosten. Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan en wat nog komen gaat onderstrepen het gelijk van Henry Adams. Bij gebrek aan een moreel kompas is wereldwijd de politiek failliet. Misschien wel het meest duidelijk komt de continuiteit van de terreur tot uiting in het feit dat Duitsland nu onderzeeboten levert aan Israel die de duikboten gaat uitrusten met kernwapens waarmee de hele wereld kunnen worden bedreigd.

    Ik meldt dit omdat binnen deze context journalisten hun werk doen. Gisteren berichtte ook de Nederlandse commerciele media dat
    De Britse premier David Cameron donderdag [is] verschenen voor de commissie die het gedrag van de Britse pers onderzoekt. De regering van Cameron ligt onder vuur door onthullingen over haar nauwe banden met het media-imperium van Rupert Murdoch. Cameron gaf in zijn verklaring toe dat de verhoudingen tussen pers en politiek te hecht waren.’
    De Volkskrant voegde onder de kop ‘Camarons geheugen zit vol gaten’ hieraan toe:
    “Ik steun je van harte, niet alleen als een vriendin, maar ook omdat we in professioneel opzicht aan ƩƩn kant staan! Toespraak van je leven? Yes, he Cam!” David Cameron moet in zijn sas zijn geweest toen hij, aan de vooravond van het partijcongres in 2009, deze sms van Rebekah Brooks ontving. Een stuk minder leuk vond de premier het toen deze steunbetuiging van Rupert Murdochs luitenant donderdag werd voorgelezen tijdens zijn getuigenis bij het Leveson-onderzoek naar de ethiek van de Britse media.’
    Letwel, het betreft hier een onderzoek ‘naar de ethiek van de Britse media,’ dus niet in eerste instantie naar de ethiek van de politieke leiders die hun opwachting maken bij een machtige mediamagnaat alvorens ze premier konden worden. Tony Blair vloog zelfs naar de andere kant van de wereld om zijn zegen van Murdoch te krijgen. Hoe dan ook, ditmaal zijn de nauwe banden tussen politici en pers uitgelekt. Maar dat is een incident. Normaal weten alleen de betrokkenen van deze corruptie ervan en een kleine kongsi erom heen die angstvallig blijft zwijgen. Het is de wereld van de spindoctors, de adviseurs, de communicatiespecialisten, die politici zelfs adviseren om bepaalde zaken buiten de democratische controle te houden, zoals de televisiejournalist Chris Kijne deed toen hij GroenLinks voorstelde niet ‘teveel bezig’ te zijn met ‘principes... transparantie en zo,’ en dat de partij er beter aan deed een ‘spindoctor’ in te huren die geen ‘groter moreel besef’ heeft dan  het verkopen van een of ander ideologisch product zodat de ‘vrije pers’ en haar publiek niet te weten kwam wat er zich achter de schermen afspeelde. U merkt dat ik dit voorbeeld blijf gebruiken en wel niet omdat Chris Kijne een slechte dan wel goede journalist is, want dat is hij niet. Kijne is een modale journalist, die vanuit het veilige midden opereert. Juist omdat hij tot de doorsnee behoort is hij een helder voorbeeld van de corruptie binnen de journalistiek en politiek, want wat dat betreft verschilt de situatie in het Verenigd Koninkrijk geenszins van die in Nederland. Ook hier zijn de banden tussen politiek en pers zo nauw dat de parlementaire pers bijvoorbeeld de opkomst van het fenomeen Pim Fortuyn totaal niet opmerkte, en vervolgens bij Wilders volstrekt niet weet hoe ze journalistiek op dit verschijnsel moet reageren. De parlementaire pers in de polder is  haar houvast kwijt, ze weet niet precies meer voor welk karretje ze zich moet laten spannen en vooral ook: wanneer dit moet gebeuren.  Journalisten worden gebruikt door politici. Vorige maand gaf de Independent het volgende voorbeeld:
    The former Number 10 communications director Alastair Campbell said today that David Cameron did not want to set up the Leveson Inquiry…. Mr Campbell was questioned about three telephone conversations which took place between Tony Blair and Mr Murdoch in the run-up to the Iraq war. Asked why Mr Blair made time for the calls during a frantic period of diplomacy, Mr Campbell pointed out that Mr Murdoch was a "very significant figure in the media landscape". "What I think was going on is that Rupert Murdoch has placed a call and Tony Blair has taken that call, and Rupert Murdoch is just wanting to have a chat about what is going on," Mr Campbell said… He added: "I think it is a combination of Rupert Murdoch trying to find out what is going on and also probably saying, 'You know, we're going to support you on this."' 
    Waarom sprak Tony Blair nu juist met Ruppert Murdoch over een grootscheepse aanval op Irak? Waarom raadpleegde dus een minister president met een mediamagnaat die onder andere 'jointly invested with Rothschild in a 5.5 percent stake in Genie Oil and Gas, which did shale gas and oil exploration in Israel.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch


    Ik werp die vraag tevens op omdat de toenmalige Britse premier middels een aperte leugen zijn collega Balkenende overhaalde Nederland te laten deelnemen aan het illegale geweld tegen Irak.
    Al lang geleden is onthuld dat de Nederlandse inlichtingendiensten grote twijfels hadden, zowel over de Iraakse ‘ massavernietigingswapens’ als over de juistheid van de Amerikaanse beweringen daarover. Balkenende beriep zich in het parlement op geheime informatie die hij ‘ persoonlijk’ van premier Blair had gekregen Daarom kon hij er niets over zeggen.
Afgezien van het feit dat dit een politiek uiterst dubieus argument was, is achteraf gebleken dat Tony Blair heeft gelogen: hij beschikte niet over bewijzen dat Saddam Hoessein  ‘massavernietigingswapens’ had.”
    Daar komt nog bij dat
    ‘volgens het rapport van de commissie-Davids gaven de VN-Veiligheidsresoluties over Irak geen volkenrechtelijk mandaat voor de Amerikaans-Britse inval in dat land in het voorjaar van 2003. De tekst van de resolutie 1441 gaf geen vrijbrief aan landen om met geweld in te grijpen.’
    De reden dat premier Blair, als een van de felste pleitbezorgers van de illegale inval, Murdoch belde is simpel, deze mediamagnaat is een actieve en buitengewoon invloedrijke zionist.

    Murdoch's Media empire is a pillar of the Zionist Empire media. It has been used to advance the Zionist Empire agenda: Staunch defense of the Israeli apartheid occupation regime, incitement against Arabs and Muslims, and blackmail of politicians in US-EU (through character assassination, smearing campaigns, and scandals) to keep them in line with regard to the Zionist global agenda.’

    Zonder de steun van deze zionistische mediamagnaat zou Blair cum suis veel meer moeite hebben gehad om de toch al sceptische westerse bevolking te mobiliseren. De massamedia zijn in staat om via propaganda het beeld van de werkelijkheid zo effectief mogelijk te vervormen. De macht van de zionistische lobby kan daarbij moeilijk overschat worden. De ‘Joodse natie,’ die voor het westen functioneert als een huurlingenstaat, speelt een centrale in de Amerikaanse en Europese politiek zoals ook duidelijk wordt uit de berichtgeving van de ‘JTA, The Global News Source of the Jewish People.’ 

    ‘Pro-Israel myopia on Murdoch. by Philip Weiss on July 20, 2011 14.

    Is Murdoch's reversal good for the Jews/Israel? is the only question for the JTA. And no it isn't! Murdoch who has made philo-semitism a great principle of action, who said that the world can't survive without Israel... “'Is this curtains for pro-Israel Murdoch?' the London Jewish Chronicle asked in a column last week." Etc. (Thanks to Ali Gharib and Jeff Blankfort)’ http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/pro-israel-myopia-on-murdoch.html
    Tegen deze achtergrond moet u het advies van Chris Kijne aan politici zien om niet ‘teveel bezig’ te zijn met ‘principes... transparantie en zo.’ Het is volgens deze televisiejournalist beter een ‘spindoctor’ in te huren die geen ‘groter moreel besef’ heeft dan  het verkopen van een of ander ideologisch product.
    Het was Henry Adams die al in de negentiende eeuw zag hoe Amerikaanse politieke leiders keer op keer democratische principes uitverkochten om zo politieke successen te boeken, hoe eens gerespecteerde burgerlijke normen en waarden bezweken onder machiavellistische drijfveren, hoe de plutocratie van 'robber barons' de politieke macht had veroverd, en hoe die macht de moraal vernietigde. Binnen dat raamwerk opereert de ‘vrije pers’ van Chris Kijne die bereid is 'een hoger belang' te dienen dan 'de waarheid niets dan de waarheid,' om Kijne zelf te citeren. En dit is allang geen enkel onderwerp van gesprek meer, ons systeem is dermate corrupt dat de corruptie onbespreekbaar is geworden.

    De Nederlandse Mainstream Media

      https://www.facebook.com/reel/1824234998748621 Ze zijn terug! Vanaf 6 januari presenteren Mieke van der Weij en Peter de Bie elke zaterdag...