web analytics

REPEAT AFTER ME…

By David Vance On February 12th, 2013

image (3)#

This equally applies to the BBC.

30 Responses to “REPEAT AFTER ME…”

  1. ‘Journalism’ is in dire straits and is now fully-owned by the corporate media. For real journalism – exposure of facts, investigation, checking etc. only the internet can provide that. Here’s an example of how bad corporate journalism has become as shown by The Society of Professional Journalists:

    http://www.spj.org/divguidelines.asp

    — Newswatch is a site dedicated to diversity in journalism, with commentary on media performance. It is a project of the Center for Integration and Improvement of Journalism of San Francisco State University and a collaboration between the Native American Journalists Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the National Association of Black Journalists, the Asian American Journalists Association and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. -

    No National Association of White Journalists? Where’s whitey?

  2. You need to harvest from many sources. Read what they say, what they emphasize and deemphasize, notice what they leave out.

    Even government controlled media like RT will report the truth once in a while, as Pravda used to, once in a while.

    If the media is all lies, then why does everyone here quote the NY Times / BBC / other major media all the time?

  3. A government-controlled source like RT reports reality (outside Russia) far more accurately than the corporate media matrix. As for everybody quoting NY Times/BBC all the time, I don’t.

  4. I find RT very useless in discussing the US or EU. Its all reportage of trendy anti corporateism, the Occupy movement nonesense, etc. etc.

    Their only value is that once in awhile they report something about Russia and east Europe.

    And it is noted that the NY Times does have a pretty long record of publishing articles that embarrass US presidents and the US govt. RT will never do that to Putin.

  5. Here’s a real-time example of corporate control and suppression of news in the US.

    http://rt.com/news/israel-censorship-prisoner-x-088/

    ­The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) shed new light on the top-secret case about a man previously known only as ‘Prisoner X.’ It was reported that the man was 34-year old Australian-born Ben Zygier from Melbourne, who was recruited by Israel’s secret service Mossad.

    After ABC’s broke the news, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office summoned the Editors Committee, consisting of all of the editors and owners of major Israeli media outlets, for an emergency meeting with security officials to ask them not to report on the story – effective implementing a nationwide publishing ban.

    The ban was justified over fears that publishing further details on the case would be “very embarrassing to a certain government agency,” Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported. After the meeting, the mention of ABC’s report disappeared from all Israeli news media.

    Now I put ‘Ben Zygier death CBS CNN NBC’ into an internet search and found nothing – none of the US corporates are reporting this, but the internet is.

  6. The most important US corporate media outlet is reporting it. Found it in 30 seconds.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/world/middleeast/israel-australia-prisoner-x.html

  7. If people want their media to be unbiased then militant is the correct term. There is a blatant value judgement involved in using terrorist. Militant is more neutral.

    For all the whining about the media on ATW, almost every blog post here is a short paragraph of text and a link to an article in the mainstream media!

  8. The term Militant is no good. It gives the terrorist a humanity that he does not deserve.

    Those who blow up rush hour subways in London are a fundamentally different type of creature than someone who confronts the armed army or police in some way. They’re not in the same universe.

    If you attack civilians and only civilians, and don’t attack armed men / arms creating facilities / you’re a terrorist. Or perhaps a terrorist militant.

  9. What about someone who sits in a tailor in Arizona with a joystick in his hand and kills unarmed people in Pakistan?

    Not trying to start an argument, just pointing out that when reporting, terrorist is almost always the wrong word. In opinion pieces, blog posts etc. anything goes, but if we’re complaining that the media’s reporting is biased, while at the same time insisting they label everyone we don’t like terrorists… well, it just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

  10. //. It gives the terrorist a humanity that he does not deserve.
    Those who blow up rush hour subways in London are a fundamentally different type of creature //

    If someone blows up subway trains, how can a name give him some additional degree of humanity?

    Petr is right “militant” is the neutral word for people fighting in some clear political context. Well over 90 percent of the uses of “terrorist” on this site, for example, are purely for propaganda uses. They have, as far as Im concerned, totally destroyed the use and meaning of the word.

    Phantom, would you call the Taleban fighters militants or terrorists?

    Allan, Ben Zygier most probably became an Israeli national, so the Israeli govt wasn’t obliged to inform Australia when he was arrested.
    He also probably leaked some state secrets, Israel has been known to “disappear” people for this before.

  11. *trailer

  12. Lasering out an Al Queda actor by means of a drone is about as moral an act as anyone can perform. I am aware that there are and will be innocents killed in such attacks but this is about the most civilian friendly approach that I can think of.

    Taliban would not necessarily be terrorist – though they certainly terrorize their own Pashtun population, and they certainly do support real terrorists – Al Queda.

  13. Lasering out an Al Queda actor by means of a drone is about as moral an act as anyone can perform. I am aware that there are and will be innocents killed in such attacks but this is about the most civilian friendly approach that I can think of.

    That is a perspective, and one you’re entitled to. Reporting is supposed to be neutral.

  14. That’s my point.

    There is such a thing as terrorism, and blowing up trains in London is about as perfect an example of it as any.

    These are not acts meant to destroy an enemy or to reduce his capacity to make war, they are meant to terrorize a population.

  15. “If you attack civilians and only civilians, and don’t attack armed men / arms creating facilities / you’re a terrorist. Or perhaps a terrorist militant.”

    Does that make Dresden, Hiroshima etc terrorist acts? (Genuine interest, not just stirring)

  16. You can certainly make the case for that.

    They were justified at the time I believe by the fact that there were defense industries in those places, or that they were transportation hubs, etc.

    In the case of Dresden, the allies would have had in mind the indiscriminate German bombings of Britain. In the case of Hiroshima, there was a racial aspect at play, and also the wish to avoid an invasion of the Japanese mainland that was estimated to have cost a million US and allied lives.

    But yes, that case can be made.

  17. Phantom – I showed you my search and I didn’t put in NY Times but CNN, CBS, NBC. They didn’t have it but RT did. Oh well – at least one ‘mainstream’ corporation reported this case in the US.

    The term ‘militant’ is applicable for activists. As Petr would know,in the 80′s – 90′s, a loony-marxist sub-group in Liverpool called itself Militant: they chose not to call themselves Terrorist for reasons which should be self-evident even to members of Militant.

  18. Allan calling others loony. That’s a good one.

  19. https://www.google.com/news?q=Ben+Zygier&lr=English&hl=en

  20. Didn’t we have this discussion recently? Somebody, might have Petr, came up with a definition by someone Laquer?
    I thought it was a pretty good one.
    Worth repeating if it was you Petrkin.

  21. This is Laqueur’s definition:

    terrorism is the use or the threat of the use of violence, a method of
    combat, or a strategy to achieve certain targets. . . . [I]t aims to induce
    a state of fear in the victim, that is ruthless and does not conform with
    humanitarian rules. . . . [P]ublicity is an essential factor in the terrorist
    strategy

    More here.

  22. Petr.
    To me a terrorist is someone who within his/her liberal democratic society puts aside the ability to argue/debate their cause and resorts to violence and intimidation to impose their will on the majority.
    In non democratic countries where an ethnic/religious minority is oppressed it would seem right to say they are fighting for a cause.

  23. “In non democratic countries where an ethnic/religious minority is oppressed it would seem right to say they are fighting for a cause.”

    So those fighting against a state where only one political party has a realistic ability to form the government and where 95% of government ministers are part of a religious supremacist organisation wouldn’t be terrorists?

  24. “To me a terrorist is someone who within his/her liberal democratic society puts aside the ability to argue/debate their cause and resorts to violence and intimidation to impose their will on the majority.”

    Seamus.

    If the majority want to go one way, then the minority are faced with a choice.
    As I have said before, I would rather move away than live out my life in fear, frustration or inequality of opportunity.
    Using violence to get your own way (especially as a minority) means that violence IS the way for minorities to get what they want.
    Is anyone stopping emigration? Is anyone freezing assets and freedom of movement?
    Then either agitate for change peacefully or leave.
    Obviously no one wants to uproot themselves or their family, but lots of us have had to do something similar.
    Violence brutalises the instigator as well as the victim.
    Resorting to violence is not the answer.

  25. Why should a people who have been there for centuries leave their homelands?

  26. Seamus,
    They don’t HAVE to.
    They could stay and argue their case through the democratic process.
    If there is no democratic process that is another matter,
    Each situation has to be assessed individually.
    If you were talking about Israel for example, we have been there and done that. We have argued back and forth, and the situation is what it is. At the moment the fact that Palestinian political activists are using violence against the Israelis is achieving little except death and destruction.
    One could argue that there is no moral difference between either side in terms of respect for human life.
    As I have also said before if you look across the world where is most of the violent unrest coming from?

  27. “They don’t HAVE to.
    They could stay and argue their case through the democratic process.”

    Or they could defend their rights and fight for their freedoms militarily?

  28. “If there is no democratic process that is another matter,
    Each situation has to be assessed individually.”

  29. And what if they don’t want to leave but can’t gain their rights and freedoms from the democratic process?

  30. We’re dancing here Seamus!
    Forgive me, but I am not sure which situation you have in mind.
    Let’s say it’s Northern Ireland.

    For whatever right or wrong historical reasons, there is a majority who wish to remain part of the UK.
    So democratically the decision is made.

    Have Catholics/Republicans been treated right?
    No. But still the majority want to remain part of the UK.
    Are Republicans barred from moving to the RofI?
    Does the Republic want to absorb Northern Ireland into itsself?
    Morally and ethically does the use of violence, bombs, intimidation, punishment beatings place the users on the same moral plane, or higher or lower than their “oppressors”?

    It could of course all change over time, but would you say the reasons to change are based on a fairer future for all regardless of background?
    That the fear of violent coercion if you disagree has disappeared?
    Are those who wish for Northern Ireland to become part of the Republic and have used violence morally superior, the same as, or worse than them others?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.