'The use of culture to promote imperial agenda did not end after the Cold War'

Eva Golinger discusses the State Department sponsoring the Summit of the Alliance of Youth Movement (Translated from Spanish).

The potential use of these [new] technologies to promote psychological operations and propaganda is unlimited. Its strength is the speed of dissemination of messages and global coverage. [...]

The student movement "white hands" in Venezuela, financed and trained by U.S. agencies, anti-communist protests in Moldova, the demonstrations against the Iranian government and the latest virtual protests against President Chavez are examples of this new strategy. New technologies-Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others, are the main weapons, and traditional media such as CNN and its affiliates, helping to exaggerate the real impact of these movements promoting matrices false and distorted view of its importance and legitimacy.

The Alliance Youth Movement is another chapter in the destabilization plans against sovereign countries that reject imperialist imperial domination. The double standard of Washington reaffirms this fact. While the Department of State encourages, supports and sponsors the training of young people from other countries in the use of new technologies to destabilize their governments, the United States criminalizes using Twitter and Facebook to convene protests against Washington's policies. This was shown three weeks ago when two American citizens were arrested for using Twitter to inform the protesters against the G20 summit in Pittsburgh on the repressive actions of the police.

For information on the US citizens arrested for using Twitter see Democracy Now!

See here for my earlier post about the over-reaction to Twitter as a revolutionary tool of democracy.

THE BALANCE OF POWER

The latest article at Media Lens

Journalists who criticise powerful interests can be attacked for their 'bias', for revealing their prejudices. On the other hand, as we will see in the examples below, almost no-one protests, or even notices, the lack of balance in patriotic articles reporting on the experience of British troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the credibility of British and American elections, or on claims that the West is spreading democracy across the Third World. Then, notions of patriotism, loyalty, the need to support 'our boys', make 'balance' seem disloyal, disrespectful; an indication, in fact, that a journalist is 'biased.'

The media provide copious coverage of state-sponsored memorials commemorating the 50th, 60th, 65th anniversaries of D-Day, the Battle of Britain, the Battle of Arnhem, the retreat from Dunkirk, the Battle of the Atlantic, the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War, and so on. Even the 200th anniversary of The Battle of Trafalgar was a major news item. Remembrance Sunday, Trooping The Colour, Beating The Retreat, the Fleet Review are all media fixtures. The military is of course happy to supply large numbers of troops and machines for these dramatic flypasts, parades and reviews.

On June 11, 2005, senior BBC news presenter, Huw Edwards, provided the commentary for Britain's Trooping The Colour military parade, describing it as "a great credit to the Irish Guards". Imagine if Edwards had added:

"While one can only be impressed by the discipline and skill on show in these parades, critics have of course warned against the promotion of patriotic militarism. The Russian novelist Tolstoy, for one, observed:

"'The ruling classes have in their hands the army, money, the schools, the churches and the press. In the schools they kindle patriotism in the children by means of histories describing their own people as the best of all peoples and always in the right. Among adults they kindle it by spectacles, jubilees, monuments, and by a lying patriotic press.'" (Tolstoy, Government is Violence - Essays on Anarchism and Pacifism, Phoenix Press, 1990, p.82)

Edwards would not have been applauded for providing this 'balance'. He would have been condemned far and wide as a crusading crackpot, and hauled before senior BBC management.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury recently offered the mildest of criticisms of the invasion of Iraq in a sermon in St Paul's Cathedral, the Sun newspaper responded: 'Archbishop of Canterbury's war rant mars troops tribute.' [...]

The Sun's article was archived under "news/campaigns/our_boys". As Tolstoy would have understood, the Sun is in fact a bitter class enemy of "our boys". It is a rich man's propaganda toy parading as a trusty pal of 'ordinary people'.

Read more at Media lens

Twitter & the digital divide

Twitter has been receiving numerous plaudits due to Twitter’s role in the media coverage of the Iranian election protests.

Twitter is a jolt of democratisation to journalism.

To date, the most salient, powerful example of Twitter's influence has been Iranian protesters using the service (among many other methods) to assemble marches against what they feel has been an unjust election.

There is no question of Twitter's power

Many users have become accustomed to clicking on Twitter when news breaks. There, they can find a sea of reaction, commentary and links to actual articles.

There is an obvious weakness in the rapidity and lack of accountability that a more 'democratic' journalism brings

News that circulates on Twitter, re-tweeted from person to person, can spread quickly - often too quickly for it to be verified. False rumours spread daily on Twitter.

However, it is another aspect of Twitter that is troubling me, the power of Twitter and who it serves. Twitter is less democratic than it appears. Rash declarations proclaiming the unambiguously beneficial value of services like Twitter to the larger discourse are over-simplistic. Reality is more complex.

Let us reconsider the Iran protests and Twitter.

It is hard to say how much twittering is actually going on inside Iran. The tweets circulated by expatriates in the United States tend to be in English -- the Twitter interface does not support the use of Farsi. And though many people may be sending tweets out of Iran, their use inside Iran may be low, some say.

This helps explain the almost uniform opposition to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Twitter when he receives strong support in poorer rural Iran. Whilst I welcome greater exposure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime's human rights abuses, people ought to be aware of the bias of Twitter. In the light of the tidal wave of opposition to Ahmadinejad, Twitter was functioning as medium of propaganda for the U.S. State Department without the requirement of their engagement. A fact underscored by the U.S. State Department urging Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance that would have temporarily stopped service to Iran during the protests.

Twitter excludes the disadvantaged. Twitter effectively provides a megaphone to those with access to the required media that can afford to invest the time whilst the vast majority of the world cannot afford to have their voices heard.

Reaction to recent events in Latin America provides a further example. In the face of growing investment in American imperialism in the region, it is the geographically remote from the region that tend to pass comment. In the wake of the Honduras coup, for example, the privileged self-interested few who support the coup were disproportionately loud. The majority of Hondurans, those that were to benefit from the ousted Zelaya's progressive reforms, the poor, seldom tweet.

It seems as though the privileged few continue to have the upper hand.

Honduras & the ultra-conservative mainstream media

I appreciate that I have been going on about the Honduras coup quite a bit. The reason is that the mainstream media has largely ignored the situation, and when they have covered it, they have tended to be misleading. The latest offering from Media Lens is on this topic and is well worth a read. It brings to light the work of many of the best writers on the situation in Honduras whilst castigating The Independent for ultra-conservative opinion pieces on the issue.

Lobbying and the media in the U.S.

The videos speak for themselves.

The power of Public Relations

Consider the case of Gary McKinnon. Bell Yard are litigation PR specialists who represent Gary McKinnon, and do so pro bono. They are terrifyingly formidable, as their track record and McKinnon’s growing media presence demonstrate. Bell Yard previously represented the Natwest 3. Using the example of the Natwest 3, Nick Davies explains how PR companies manage the media (see video below).

I raise the point not to discuss the specifics of the cases but to highlight the role of the PR industry. Even morally ambiguous examples of media management are often insidious. For every example of media management like the case of Gary McKinnon, there are countless examples of the PR industry effecting the news agenda for deplorable motives.

Much of the rightwing press often acts as little more than publishers of press releases by xenophobic and neoliberal lobby groups. Credit is due to those that doggedly expose Migration Watch and The Taxpayers' Alliance for corrupting the news agenda and denounce the media for its willingness to be corrupted.

The influence of the PR industry over news agendas is frightening. The extent of their influence is something that far too few are aware.

Update

Credit is also due to The Other Taxpayers' Alliance.

When an act of courteousness leads to being branded ‘the lecher of the free world’.

The Daily Mail printed a picture in which “Barack Obama was caught out yesterday in a leer worthy of his Italian counterpart Mr Berlusconi” (see bottom story on this page). Only he was not. Barack Obama was in fact being courteous as the first 63 second of the below video demonstrates.

For another example of The Daily Mail’s penchant for making things up see Eric The Fish: King of the Sea’s look at The Mail’s apology for making up that somebody that they do not like is a supporter of Al Qaeda and radical cleric Abu Qatada.

Media Matters - five years old today

Media Matters for America, a non-profit organisation dedicated to scrutinising the media, is five years old today. It is fair to suggest that they have made a few enemies along the way …

For an example of the kind of thing they do, here is a compilation of Fox news’ coverage of the first 100 days of Obama’s presidency.

For more, see their website & youtube profile.

David Mitchell responds to the Daily Mail’s ‘Not in my front yard’ anti-wheelie bin campaign

David Mitchell responds to the Daily Mail’s ‘Not in my front yard’ anti-wheelie bin campaign

Councils issue wheelie bins to make collection and recycling more efficient and effective. They're better than normal bins - they've got wheels and can be emptied mechanically. Because they're bigger, they can be collected fortnightly. Because collections can be fortnightly, recycling collections can be slotted in without doubling the refuse budget. I'm sure the NIMFYs would hate me for saying this, which is why I'm doing it, but it's good, simple, common sense. The bins might not look lovely, but there are more important considerations in play here. […]

Explaining why mid-terrace residents had no option but to keep the unsightly wheelie bins in front of their houses, a Chester resident said: "Otherwise they would have to walk three bins all the way down the street, round the corner and into the backyard. Imagine doing that with three bins? It's just crazy."

I can almost hear the Oxfam advert: "This is Andrea. Every week, she has to walk three bins all the way down the street, round the corner and into the backyard. It's either that or people will see her bins. It's crazy, but you can help."

(Accidental) Honesty vs. Less bad economic management

Conservative Health spokesperson, Andrew Lansley, let slip that the Conservatives plan to ring-fence health and aid spending at the expense of a 10% cut for other departments. Labour jumped at the opportunity to cast the Conservatives as spending cutters.

Brown accused the Conservatives of being out of line with received opinion, “The only party that's proposing a cut in public spending is the Conservative party” said Gordon Brown at PMQs. What’s more, Labour proposed increased spending. (In itself, referring to public spending rather than investment is peculiar for frontbenchers.)

As it turns out Gordon Brown was being very misleading, you might even say that he was lying.

Due to the constraints placed on the treasury by the financial crisis, whoever is in government will have little choice about what to do. Both the Conservatives and Labour will do the same thing - protect healthcare expenditure and cut other departments more or less to the same amount, 10%.

The truth has come out and Brown has egg on his face. Cue George Osborne for a dose of piousness,

“The real dividing line is not ‘cut versus investment’, but honesty versus dishonest […] We should have the confidence to tell the public the truth that Britain faces a debt crisis; that real spending will have to be cut, whoever is elected; and that the bills of rising unemployment and the huge interest costs of a soaring national debt means that many government departments will face cuts in their budgets. These are statements of fact and to deny them invites ridicule.”

To the Times’ credit, they acknowledge, albeit fleetingly, that Osborne “gives no specific Conservative spending plans”.

So, is it a case of honest vs. dishonest?

Firstly, ‘honest’ should be prefixed by accidentally, reluctantly or surreptitiously, depending on which is actually the case. I would opt for accidentally given the way in which the Conservatives initially handled Lansley’s admission.

Secondly, there is more to Labour than dishonesty. As bad as Labour have been on the economy, the Conservative would have been far worse. When Brown acted swiftly to support banking when it was most needed Cameron, Osborne and Co. had little response.

Labour’s press management is appalling. Rather than the media focusing on the bold decisions made by Brown in contrast to the Conservatives' reluctance to do anything, the media are focusing on Brown’s petty lies. Labour have themselves to blame.

UPDATE

The day after this post was published Polly Toynbee offered the following advice to Labour:

Talk about the national debt honestly and turn it against the Tories. If Britain really is coming out of recession, keep telling voters the truth: virtually every penny of debt comes from rescuing the country from depression and the knock-on effect of recession. Saving banks that were hours from shutting ATMs and starving the population, then flooding the economy with money to stop a depression, was action strongly supported by the Financial Times and the Economist. The Tories – alone – opposed it and would have plunged us back to the 1930s. Most of the debt is due to recession – when tax revenues dry up and unemployment costs soar. These costs would be phenomenally higher in a long Tory-induced depression. […]

Voters know the Tories will cut with relish anything they dare, but David Cameron will win on competence if he is the only one who seems to face up to the debt. Labour has the best record on the recession and the best record on public services – but no chance if no one believes a word it says.

A few links & a video

I intended to link articles by Tabloid Watch and Enemies of Reason; however, Angry Mob not only beat me to the punch but also did so with style. I make no apology for this blog-post loop as Angry Mob’s post includes the links and adds substantial value. The topic itself is the media’s lacklustre response to anti-Muslim protests – “rather than being roundly condemned on the front page of every tabloid they are left to small articles and are treated somewhat sympathetically in them.” In response to the, at least, 1451 people who voted in favour of the views of a “fucking moron”, who believed that the violence was “due to Politcal [sic] Correctness”, Angry Mob writes:

Sadly this is the mindset of some people who think that political correctness is somehow stripping people of fundamental rights - and in some ways I guess it is.

For example, if you are the kind of un-evolved, ignorant, shit-kicker that attends this kind of protest then you have been stripped of the right to call a black person a 'nigger' or an Asian person a 'fucking Paki'. You can no longer beat up a person for being a different colour or for being gay. You have lost these rights because we live in a world that is on the whole becoming more tolerant - whatever you or the Daily Mail may think you are merely a noisy minority.

Also by way of Angry Mob, indirectly this time, an illustration by Procrastinationathon.

The video below is an animated music video interpreting the war on terror from the point of view of Leo Blair. Although it is a couple of years old, it still affects. If you can forgive the relatively obscure and pretentious reference, it is like something from Nancy Spero’s War Series in the internet age.



The video came via bloggerheads.

A few links & an explanation

Sorry about the lack of posts of late, unfortunately I have quite a bit of work to do away from this blog – and it will be the case for a couple of weeks.  In the meantime, I shall continue to post links.  Enjoy.

Enemies of Reason looks at the press' reaction to the ruling that British soldiers must be protected by European human rights laws.  'The Human Rights Act is here to save the day!'

 

Mongoose Chronicles reviews Sky1’s new hour-long series called UK Border Force, which observes the operations of the Border Agency. 

[T]hese shows are in danger of encouraging that perspective, (one might argue that the police shows are in similar danger, but that's another post), especially with continuous references to agents being "on the front lines", as if by merely presenting my passport with my brown, foreign hand I represent a potential threat to citizens of the UK.

(Notice too the words to which they've chosen to give prominence on the website graphic: enforcement, asylum seeker, counterfeit, illegal worker, work permit, student visa. Is this the only business of the Border Agency? And what is the association of work permits and student visas with 'counterfeit', 'illegal worker' or even 'asylum seeker', which in these parts might as well be called 'baby eater'? They all fall neatly under the same column, as if we're meant to think, without qualification, that foreign workers and students are threats to security.

Tabloid Watch looks at a biased poll reported in awful newspapers produced on behalf of a right-wing pressure group in think tank’s clothing.  'Deeply flawed poll from Migrationwatch is not questioned by the papers' *

Stephanie Flanders look at the expenses scandal from an economist's point of view. 

[I]f you give someone £100 to buy a chair, you can't say for sure that he bought a chair with your money - even if he shows you the chair, and a receipt. All you can say for sure is that you made him £100 better off, and he has bought a new chair. [...]

If, like so many MPs, your MP has claimed the full amount - around £24,000 in the most recent year, then the point to note is that he or she has had £24,000 a year more to spend. Full stop. [...]

For example, some have said it was unfair that MPs such as David Cameron have escaped criticism for claiming the maximum allowance each year, because their claims were almost entirely made up of mortgage interest and utility bills. Whereas other MPs, possibly with similar necessary expenses, have made much smaller claims, yet faced criticism for the details.

David Cameron could be spending his allowance on underground swimming pools and platinum cycle helmets. All we know is that he has utility bills and mortgage interest to pay of more than £20,000 a year.

I'm sure nobody viewing this site needs reminding but ...

UPDATE

*The comments on the Tabloid Watch are worth a read too. After some further analysis of the figures, which proves them to be even more misleading, Five Chinese Crackers suggests that "they should rename themselves ForeignerWatch, since that's what they're really interested in."

A few links about The Press, Politics & Animal Welfare

Some classic Littlejohn from Five Chinese Crackers

Chicken Yoghurt on the all too often overlooked issue of deportation & the hypocrisy of Gordon Brown in regards to hospices.

Enemies of Reason considers what to do with your BNP leaflet.

The smooth, shiny texture isn't really absorbent enough to wipe your arse with, and there's enough shit in the leaflet already without you needing to add to it. [...]

Incidentally, it was most welcome to see the Daily Mail calling the BNP "vile racists and thugs" today. Unfortunately, their readers appear to have disagreed with this assessment, if you care to have a look at the comments. Oh well, that's the price you pay for telling lies about immigration all the time...

Toynbee links this - but in case anyone missed it, Mark Reckons illustrates that the safer the seat, the more likely the MP is claiming for dodgy expenses.

In Australia there is currently a debate surrounding the welfare of horses involved in Jump Racing. A friend of mine, who is particularly concerned with animal rights, sent me a link to the video below. You might find it distressing.

RSPCA Australia & Animal Liberation have more information.

A couple of recommended links

Angry Mob’s Daily Mail dictionary

Stumbling and Mumbling has a look at the economics of immigration.

In defence of Stephen Fry

I would like to defend Stephen Fry for dismissing MPs' expenses row.

The major issues are what elections should be decided on. Perhaps he overstated the case, but he is neither a politician nor a journalist. He did not seek a platform to express his views. He was interrupted and responded off the top of his head.

I have no complaints with investigating sleaze – what does bother me is that the story eclipses all others. The intense focus on expenses is particularly myopic parochialism. Other stories are overlooked – but who cares about oppression in Burma, or that innocent people were killed in Afghanistan, or that the people protested about it.

UPDATE
For an interesting “let’s get MPs’ expenses in perspective” post see Between the Hammer and the Anvil.

CNN lies & United Nations inquiry into the war in Gaza

It has come to my attention that some readers are visiting The Polemical Report having been directed to an earlier post via the ‘from the blogs’ feature, that Sphere provide, on the CNN international website. The article on CNN, which I reluctantly link, is misleading*. The emphasis of the CNN report seems to be the cost of the damages to United Nations property rather than the deaths of innocent people.

CNN say that the UN report recommends that the IDF should “take better precautions”. This a carefully selected quote that underplays the overriding message of the UN report. CNN’s assessment suggests that the IDF were merely careless rather than wilful. It also repeats the claims made Israel Defence Minister Ehud Barak without questioning the validity. Frankly, they omit important facts and mislead. CNN is guilty of lying by omission.

Here are a few things that CNN neglects to mention.

• CNN neglects to mention finding 16 of the UN report, “The board conclude that the IDF [Israeli Defence Force] carried out a direct and intentional strike in to United Nations premises.” The deliberate actions of the IDF resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians seeking shelter.
  

• CNN neglects to mention the use of white phosphorus.
  

• CNN neglects to mention finding 21 of the UN report, which finds the IDF responsible for deaths within around a school, a well-known designated shelter.

• CNN neglects to mention finding 22 of the UN report which establishes that is no evidence to support the IDF’s claims that Hamas had booby-trapped the school and that Hamas was firing from the school’s grounds.
  

• CNN neglects to mention finding 63 of the UN report, which find that the cause of death and injury of children within another UN designated shelter was the IDF.

• CNN neglects to mention the limited scope of the investigation, which will likely mislead those unacquainted with the facts.

The content of the UN report, which details the bombings of schools, a hospital and deaths of civilians, is merely the tip of the iceberg.

UPDATE
*Since originally posting this, the CNN report has changed. The CNN report now contains quotes from Israeli President Shimon Peres. The statements made by Shimon Peres are false. Peres said, "We’re outraged because they didn't mention Hamas". This is a bald-faced lie. The UN report not only mentioned Hamas but also blamed Hamas for causing damage in one of the incidents that the report looked at. What is more, the statements made by Peres now dominate the CNN report and are largely repeated without contest. CNN is guilty of contextual lies. Misleading the electorate to the extent of Israeli aggression and Palestinian suffering is a harmful and ignoble cause.

If you have not already done so, check out my original post. If you are interested in finding out more about CNN and its reporting of Israel and Palestine then I recommend that you watch Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land.

More posts relating to the United Nations and Israel from The Polemical Report.

To see the 23-page summary that the media coverage is based on, follow the link to ‘Secretary-General’s Summary of the Report of the United Nations Headquarters Board of Inquiry into certain incidents in the Gaza Strip between 27 December 2008 and 19 January 2009’

A few links about death, war, lies, homophobia, and the Media

Robert Fisk reflects on the time that he met Baha Mousa’s father as British operations in Iraq come to an end. ‘Robert Fisk: A historic day for Iraq – but not in the way the British want to believe’.  For Fisk’s first article about meeting Baha Mousa’s father - ‘Robert Fisk: A cry for justice from a good man who expected us to protect his son’.

A good post from Tabloid Watch on racism in the press and crime reporting - ‘How the tabloids cover crime’

Another good post from Tabloid Watch on homophobia in the Sun. ‘Sun's shower of homophobia’

3 good blogs on the evidence presented to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.

• Five Chinese Crackers – ‘Paul Dacre's evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’
  

• Rhetorically speaking…  - ‘paul dacre: the daily mail was never against the MMR vaccine’
  

• Roy Greenslade on Peter Hill’s 'mistakes' as he gave evident to the committee on behalf of the Daily Express - ‘Express editor's catalogue of 'mistakes' in evidence to MPs’ 
  

A few links about The Daily Mail

Two from Tabloid Watch:
One classic Daily Mail storm in a teacup non-story – ‘Sharia law is coming. Oh, no, it isn't’. Another example bitter obsession with Jonathan Ross – ‘Mail - still can't stand Jonathan Ross’.

& one from a month ago by Five Chinese Crackers which deals with Islamophobia and media semantics. ‘You seen what they're doing now?’

**For some reason, people searching for Russia Today are being directed here. For blog posts relating to Russia Today click here. For stories relating to Russia, click here.

Labour & press relations

Andrew Neil’s blog, which on the main criticised what he saw as Darling’s optimistic economic forecasting, made an interesting point about media relations.

One thing is clear to me: this Budget may or may not mark the end of New Labour but it certainly marks the end of the Murdoch newspapers' dalliance with New Labour.

If this is the case, which I suspect it is, then this surely is the end of the Labour government’s reign. The papers’ response to the budget suggests so too.

One thing stands in Brown’s favour, the declining circulation of Murdoch’s papers. Although by even mentioning that I feel that I have overstated the case. Although the might of Murdoch’s press empire might not be what it once was, his influence is still immense.

The not always reliable Russia Today offers a slightly different account of the reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Geneva speech on racism.

The not always reliable Russia Today offers a slightly different account of the reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Geneva speech on racism. – ‘Jews divided over Ahmadinejad ahead of UN Assembly’.

While the majority were denouncing the presence of the Iranian president, there was also a small group of Jewish people that welcomed his message and called for diplomacy.

Members of Jews United Against Zionism demonstrated behind barricades calling for an end to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. They consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a peaceful leader and say he deserves more respect from the West.

“President Ahmadinejad, who I personally spoke to for hours – we met him many times – he insists he has nothing against the Jews. He respects, protects them,” Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss from Jew United Against Zionism said.

Although the reportage of the activities of a minor pressure group, whose membership is estimated to be a few thousand, may well be illustrative of bias if given excessive prominence it nonetheless serves to highlight the complexities of the story. Too few news organisations have clearly delineated the distinctions between Zionism and Judaism. They may well be related, but the two are different. Choosing not to report on the actions of these unrepresentative few may well be justifiable in terms of newsworthiness. Needless and inflammatory exaggeration on the other hand cannot.