Meta News

[Mr. Fox]

Heh... cheers - sorry if that came across a bit 'schoolmasterish'!

I was just reading a blog post (by the guy who wrote the Skripal/Monty Python thing) from a couple of years back that covers much of which I'd wanted to look at on this thread... I think his words are well chosen, so I thought I'd share it here:

..the ‘media plurality’ visible on our news-stands is as every bit as fraudulent as the range of pseudo-choices facing us everywhere from the shopping centre to the voting booth.

The absolute dominance of elite interests means that the essential difference between a vicious hate-comic like The Sun and a cynical purveyor of pseudo-liberal pablum like The Guardian lies merely in the style of delivery: one of them will exult maniacally in the West’s imperial violence and neoliberal larceny; the other will delicately wrap the very same crimes in a cloak of regrettable necessity.

As a result, our so-called ‘mainstream’ press actually constitutes a ministream: the spectrum of allowable opinion is narrowed to the point where the interests of concentrated private capital and the corporate state are presented as the only realities — and the range of political possibility thereby shrinks to encompass nothing beyond different flavours of compliance.

Thus it is that our press, supposedly existing to provide its readers with the information they require in order to be thoughtful citizens and responsible voters, is actually engaged in precisely the opposite activity. Simultaneously power-seeking and power-serving, this branch of the state-corporate media operates by way of what appear — at least to me! — to be three different varieties of falsification, which I will enumerate here...

https://markdoran.wordpress.com/2015/11 ... -over-9-2/

He goes on to give plenty of good examples to illustrate his 'three varieties of falsification'.

The rest of his blog seems to continue the theme... one for the bookmarks.

(..and yes, I did have to look up the word 'pablum'... it means what you probably think it means).

[raspberry-blower]

Craig Murray: This is an extremely boring video. Do not watch it

have managed to get hold of a copy, which you can see here, of my lengthy interview with Sky News about the Skripals yesterday, which Sky refused to put online because they allege I was boring. With the warning you might therefore be very bored, you may watch it if you wish.

[Mr. Fox]

^^^ - Craig Murray looks more like Mark Williams every time I see him... I like the way he didn't miss the opportunity to prop his new book up in the background. He let the point go regarding the Aitkenhead interview that Sky omitted the word 'probably' from their (text) reporting, despite it being clear in the 3 min version! The rest of the media then reported that Aitkenhead had said that 'Only a state actor...'

..unless they edited it out?

Anyway... Quiz time!

Who wrote this?

n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

Spoiler

[Mr. Fox]

A couple of good pieces on 'Off-Guardian' dissecting some of the Guardians recent output:

The Guardian, “Russian bots� and the dehumanisation of dissent

Heather Stewart, The Guardian’s [chief stenographer] political editor, has [copied and pasted a press release] written a new article all about “Russian bots�. The trouble is she doesn’t seem to know what either of these words actually means...

She cites only two examples of “Russian bots� in her article, a revelation tainted only by the fact that neither of them are Russian and neither of them are bots...

it is the ultimate irony, people who have thrown away their individuality and sacrificed their analytical mind to the government backed “truth�, labelling those who disagree as “bots�. There’s only one party in this situation who “performs simple repetitive tasks� to order, there’s only one group of people who automatically believe their programming and follow it without question. There’s only one automaton here.

If anyone is a “bot�…it’s them, not us.

Also this one, which looks at some of the tricks that are routinely used, such as the mistranslation of a single word to alter the meaning of a statement, usually to trigger an 'emotional payload' in the mind of the reader.

The Guardian as George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth

the Guardian’s ‘journalist’ had substituted the word “clear� by the word “purify� and did this after having already asserted but not documented, that the Government had just completed “a two-month campaign that killed nearly 2,000 civilians.�

When the Syrian Government announces that an area has been “cleared of terrorists (or of terrorism),� the U.S.-allied propagandist uses the word “purify,� such as “purified the region of eastern Ghouta� or “the purification of eastern Ghouta, including all its towns and villages, of armed terrorist organisations.�

But by the time that the reader gets there to “purification … of armed terrorist organisations,� the reader has already been doctrinated to believe that Syria’s Government is trying to “purify� land, or perpetrate some type of ethnic-cleansing.

That’s professional propaganda-writing; it is not professional journalism.

The Guardian is a disgrace.

[johnhemming2]

It is important to note that at times journalists get things wrong simply because they are not perfect, not necessarily because they intend to write things that are inaccurate.

[woodburner]

I am sure they generally write things they believe to be accurate. When they report inaccurately, this could be because they do not bother to research what they are about to present as “facts�, or because they are expected to present a case as required by the people that are funding them. Such persons as Brian Deer, or Cathy Newman, who will present a total distortion of the truth, because they have an angle. The inaccuracies could also be because they regurgitate the crap they have picked up from elsewhere, which I notice is common across many websites.

[Potemkin Villager]

I have come across a small number of inspiring, talented and honest journalists. However my experience of hacks generally from within and without the meedya is not overwhelmingly positive.

I have seen stuff cut and pasted from wire service feeds as if it is deus ex machina and I have seen press releases I have put out in another capacity regurgitatedf verbatim. complete and unchecked with deliberate original spelling and puctuation, errors uncollected.

IMHO a large number of hacks are lazy and self satisfied and often do not really understand what they are "writing" about, or care, as long as the management keep patting them on the back.

[johnhemming2]

I have seen stuff cut and pasted from wire service feeds as if it is deus ex machina and I have seen press releases I have put out in another capacity regurgitatedf verbatim. complete and unchecked with deliberate original spelling and puctuation, errors uncollected.

Back in 1978 I was the press officer for my local Liberal Party and the local newspaper used to print my press releases verbatim because that was easiest for them.

If you write a really well written release it is more likely to be used. Journalists today have much less time for writing than they used to.

IMHO a large number of hacks are lazy and self satisfied and often do not really understand what they are "writing" about, or care, as long as the management keep patting them on the back.

I think this is unfair.

They do vary and there are a small amount of journalists (I can remember two) that I won't deal with. I deal with a lot of human interest stories and ask that the journalists respect the people I am helping and one journalist maltreated some people because her priority (she was freelance) of selling their story was so overwhelming in comparison to their interests. The other one made things up about me.

[Mr. Fox]

To be fair, John, you've featured in a few 'human interest stories', too. I'm shocked that a journo felt the need to make stuff up about you, though - it's not as if your antics need much embellishment to make a good 'story'.

I don't really think Potemkin Villager is being unfair. I wish I could say that it's only been in more recent times that the standards of journalism have declined to such a low level - what with falling advertising revenues and 'new media' eroding circulation, etc - but I don't think the standards had that far to fall.

Throughout my life, whenever I have been witness to or had first hand experience relating to 'newsworthy events', a yawning chasm between what I know to have actually happened and what was subsequently reported to have happened has been apparent.

I think it started when I was 10 or 11... a bus I was travelling on was involved in a minor collision with a car (so minor, there were no injuries, the passengers barely felt it). The next day, the local rag ran a story on a major crash which saw passengers rushed to hospital by ambulance! I was like; 'Wait, what? Were there two bus crashes in the same place on the same day?'

Since then, I've been highly sceptical of all reporting - but now much more so that which supports a particular narrative.

-

There is one fun trick I've taken to using to make the barrage of hysterical propaganda more readable - if you use the 'firefox' browser, you can try it too.

There's a simple add-on called FoxReplace which allows you to create a list of words or phrases and alternative words or phrases with which to replace them where ever they appear on a website or page.

For example, with a few entries in the add-on's filter list, the Guardian piece mentioned earlier changes from this offensive pile of horse-shit:

Russia spread fake news via Twitter bots after Salisbury poisoning – analysis

Russia used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the Salisbury poisoning, according to fresh Whitehall analysis. Government sources said experts had uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Russia-based accounts since the attack,– many of which were identifiable as automated bots.

Theresa May highlighted the cyber-threat from Russia in her Mansion House speech earlier this year, telling the Kremlin: “I have a very simple message for Russia. We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed.�

But civil servants identified a sharp increase in the flow of fake news after the Salisbury poisoning, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.

..to this far more accurate version:

Evil Goblins spread truth via Twitter bots after magic pixie-dust incident – fairy story

Evil Goblins used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the magic pixie-dust incident, according to fresh Whitehall fairy story. Government bloke down the pubs said someone really clevers had uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Evil Goblins-based accounts since the attack,– many of which were identifiable as automated bots.

The Wicked Witch of the West highlighted the cyber-threat from Evil Goblins in her Mansion House speech earlier this year, telling the Goblin HQ: “I have a very simple message for Evil Goblins. We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed.�

But snivelling subservients identified a sharp increase in the flow of truth after the magic pixie-dust incident, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.

There. That's much better.

[Potemkin Villager]

Evil Goblins used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the magic pixie-dust incident, according to fresh Whitehall fairy story. Government bloke down the pubs said someone really clevers had uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Evil Goblins-based accounts since the attack,– many of which were identifiable as automated bots.

The Wicked Witch of the West highlighted the cyber-threat from Evil Goblins in her Mansion House speech earlier this year, telling the Goblin HQ: “I have a very simple message for Evil Goblins. We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed.�

But snivelling subservients identified a sharp increase in the flow of truth after the magic pixie-dust incident, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.

AMEN

[woodburner]

I have important, authenticated, information which should be read by everybody. It originated from a trusted source and has been thoroughly fact checked. Evil Goblins used trolls and bots to unleash disinformation on to social media in the wake of the magic pixie-dust incident, according to fresh Whitehall fairy story. Government bloke down the pubs said someone really clevers had uncovered an increase of up to 4,000% in the spread of propaganda from Evil Goblins-based accounts since the attack,– many of which were identifiable as automated bots.

The Wicked Witch of the West highlighted the cyber-threat from Evil Goblins in her Mansion House speech earlier this year, telling the Goblin HQ: “I have a very simple message for Evil Goblins. We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed.�

But snivelling subservients identified a sharp increase in the flow of truth after the magic pixie-dust incident, which continued in the runup to the airstrikes on Syria.

[raspberry-blower]

Moon of Alabama: The media war on truthful reporting and legitimate opinions

The new communication networks allow everyone to follow the war on Syria as diligently as George Orwell followed the war in Spain in which he took part. We no longer have to travel to see the differences of what really happens and what gets reported in the main stream press. We can debunk false government claims with freely available knowledge.

The governments, media and their stenographers would love to go back to the old times when they were not plagued by reports and tweets from Eva, Vanessa, Ian, Maram and Sarah or by blogposts like this one. The viscous campaign against any dissenting report or opinion is a sorry attempt to go back in time and to again gain the monopoly on 'truth'.

It is on us to not let them succeed.

[Mr. Fox]

That is a very thorough article, RB, thanks. A good quote at the top of the page, too...

Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie.

I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed.

I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.

Looking back on the Spanish War, Chapter 4

All too apt.

[Mr. Fox]

Owen Jones (who I think is a bit of a twat, but I'm not 100% sure why) set off a shit-storm amongst the UK media a couple of days ago when he twote:

The main thing I've learned from working in the British media is that much of it is a cult. Afflicted by a suffocating groupthink, intolerant of critics, hounds internal dissenters, full of people who made it because of connections and/or personal background rather than merit.

The pack then demonstrated it's tolerance of criticism by hounding him for his dissenting views, etc. etc...

He then went on to point out that:

Just 7% of the British population are privately educated. But according to the Sutton Trust in 2016, 51% of Britain’s top journalists are privately educated. Just 19% attended a comprehensive school — unlike nearly 90% of the population.

According to the ‘Elitist Britain’ report — published by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in 2014, 43% of newspaper columnists are privately educated; just 23% went to comprehensives. Two thirds of new entrants to journalism came from managerial and professional backgrounds: more than twice the level of the rest of the population.

According to another government study, journalists are second only to doctors when it comes to the dominance of those from professional or managerial parental backgrounds. In other words: journalism is one of the most socially exclusive professions in Britain.

The issue is not just class. A study in 2016 suggested that 94% of journalists are white and 55% are men. While 5% of Britons are Muslims and 3% are black, just 0.4% of journalists are Muslim and 0.2% are black. Women are paid considerably less, and men dominate senior roles.

Well, now. Who'd have thought?

Apparently not content to leave the job of weeding out undesirables to such mechanisms, details have recently come to light regarding MI5 vetting job applicants at the BBC.

One file note, dated March 1, 1985, states: “Keep head down and stonewall all questions.�

The BBC denied vetting was taking place for decades but it began as early as 1933 when both MI5 and the BBC agreed the broadcaster was in need of “assistance in regard to communist activities�.

In 1985 The Observer exposed some of the political vetting at which point it began to be wound down but even then some staff were kept on the vetting list on the pretext they had access to restricted government information.

The BBC has refused to reveal if any staff are still vetted.

“We do not comment on security issues,� said a spokesperson.

The National

What makes the 'Observer' having exposed the practice in 1985 somewhat ironic is this* current story on the subject, which is (I shit you not) entitled:

Russian-Sponsored Media Is Alleging MI5 Unfairly Vetted BBC Employees

It's more about 'how dare RT report on this', together with 'MI5 clearly weren't vetting hard enough (since the BBC employed Guy Burgess, before he went to work for MI6).

As if that's not enough, the author of this classic piece of 'Reds under the bed' hysterical propaganda:

John Schindler is a security expert and former National Security Agency analyst.

Filed Under: Politics, National Security, Russia, Vladimir Putin, FBI, John F. Kennedy, BBC, Cold War, kgb

SEE ALSO: Social Media Is Helping Putin Kill Our Democracy

Putin is Killing Our Democracy!!! Social Media is HELPING HIM!!! The MONSTERS!!!!

[*Edit: Not the 'real' Observer, but some synonymously-named, similarly styled imposter - the 'real' Observer/Guardian have apparently declined to report on this]

[fuzzy]

I see craig murray is now being noted on zerohedge:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04- ... functional