PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Meta News
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1822

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is Media Lens on the subject matter:

Media Lens: Douma Part 1: Deception in plain sight

Quote:
UK corporate media are under a curious kind of military occupation. Almost all print and broadcast media now employ a number of reporters and commentators who are relentless and determined warmongers. Despite the long, unarguable history of US-UK lying on war, and the catastrophic results, these journalists instantly confirm the veracity of atrocity claims made against Official Enemies, while having little or nothing to say about the proven crimes of the US, UK, Israel and their allies. They shriek with a level of moral outrage from which their own government is forever spared. They laud even the most obviously biased, tinpot sources blaming the 'Enemy', while dismissing out of hand the best scientific researchers, investigative journalists and academic sceptics who disagree.

Anyone who challenges this strange bias is branded a 'denier', 'pro-Saddam', 'pro-Gaddafi, 'pro-Assad'. Above all, one robotically repeated word is generated again and again: 'Apologist... Apologist... Apologist'.

_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Fox



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 662
Location: In the Dark - looking for my socks

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting bit regarding 'Bellingcat' in that MediaLens article...

Quote:
Political analyst Ben Norton noted on Twitter:

'Reminder that Bellingcat is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is funded by the US government and is a notorious vehicle for US soft power'

Norton added: 'It acts like an unofficial NATO propagandist, obsessively focusing on Western enemies.'

And:

'Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins is a fellow at the Atlantic Council, which is funded by NATO, US, Saudi, UAE, etc.


And:

'According to Meedan, which helps fund Bellingcat — along with the US government-funded NED — Bellingcat also works with the group Syrian Archive, which is funded by the German government, to jointly produce pro-opposition "research"'

And:

'The board of the directors for Meedan, which funds Bellingcat, includes Muna AbuSulayman—who led the Saudi oligarch's Alwaleed Bin Talal Foundation—and Wael Fakharany—who was the regional director of Google in Egypt & North Africa (US gov. contractor Google also funds Bellingcat)'


And:

'Bellingcat—which gets money from the US gov-funded NED and fixates obsessively on Western enemies—claims to be nonpartisan and impartial, committed to exposing all sides, but a website search shows it hasn't published anything on Yemen since February 2017.'

Although Bellingcat is widely referenced by corporate journalists, we are unaware of any 'mainstream' outlet that has seriously investigated the significance of these issues for the organisation's credibility as a source of impartial information.


When I first came across them (Bellingcat) a while ago, I was prepared to dismiss/excuse most of their 'findings' as a form of (confirmation) biased apophenia... lately, though, it looks a lot more sinister. Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1822

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More from Media Lens: Part 2: "It just doesn't ring true"

On the smearing of Robert Fisk:
Quote:
A list of Fisk's 'controversies' followed. There was no mention that, among many accolades, the Arabic-speaking Fisk has won Amnesty International press awards three times, the Foreign Reporter of the Year award seven times and the Journalist of the Year award twice.

In an article published by openDemocracy, Philip Hammond, professor of media and communications at London South Bank University, observed that:


'In seeking to close down such dissident thought, Times journalists are acting, not as neutral defenders of truth, but as partisan advocates for a particular understanding of the war.'

A Guardian article by diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour and world affairs editor Julian Borger commented of Douma:


'A group of reporters, many favoured by Moscow, were taken to the site on Monday. They either reported that no weapon attack had occurred or that the victims had been misled by the White Helmets civilian defence force into mistaking a choking effect caused by dust clouds for a chemical attack.'

Not only was Fisk not mentioned by name, he was lumped in with reporters 'favoured by Moscow'. Jonathan Cook's observation said it all:


'They managed the difficult task of denigrating his account while ignoring the fact that he was ever there.'


As for Mehdi Hasan article a brilliant riposte from Paul Larudee:

ICH: Dear Salafist Wahhabist Apologists

Paul Larudee wrote:
Thankfully, MH has spared us the need to deconstruct the absurd accusation that the Syrian armed forces have used chemical weapons. He apparently accepts that they don’t need to, that there is no benefit in using them, so why would they? OK, then who did? Cui bono? Easy answer. The motive of the promoters of destruction in Syria is to create a pretext for the US and its partners to bomb, invade and establish a no-fly zone; i.e., to directly take on the Syrian government and its allies. These war criminals include the neoconservative cabal in the US, the Zionist and Israeli proponents of using the US to fight Israel’s perceived enemies, and the Saudi and Qatari adventurists backing the Project for a New Salafist Paradise. These are the same players who brought us Iraq I and II, Libya, Afghanistan forever, Somalia and Yemen. What more could we wish for?


and

Paul Larudee wrote:
Those of us whom MH accuses of being pro-Assad are nothing of the sort. We believe that Syrian sovereignty and territory should be fully respected (as MH also claims to believe), but we think it is important to counter the fake news and propaganda that are being used to justify the invasion of Syria. MH is in love with fake news. He prefers not to mention the killing of police in the uprisings that he describes as “peaceful demonstrations”. He prefers to cherry-pick the opinions of Syrian refugees in Germany rather than the views of the vast majority of refugees (displaced persons) who evacuated to government areas without leaving Syria. He produces the Human Rights Watch report on 50,000 morgue photos but not the deconstruction by investigator Rick Sterling. And he repeats the al-Qaeda claim and false film footage that Madaya was starving and in need when it was, in fact, sitting on a mountain of aid supplies being denied by the fighters themselves to the population.

If MH can’t see the difference between being pro-Assad and not falling for interventionist propaganda, that’s his problem. What’s astonishing is the number of “leftists” that rail against interventionism but base their views on the drivel purveyed by the interventionists themselves in the mainstream media, and that originates from propaganda mills like the White Helmets, the Aleppo/Ghouta Media Center and other lavishly funded set designers for warmongers. If MH is not an interventionist, he’s nevertheless making their case for them.

_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Fox



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 662
Location: In the Dark - looking for my socks

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Media Lens are doing sterling work.

I'm importing this from the 'Syria Watch' thread, as it's more about our media than about Syria...

Mr. Fox wrote:
>>>11 year old Hassan Diab at the OPCW, The Hague.<<<

Syria, Russia bring 17 eyewitnesses to OPCW HQ in The Hague to prove that the alleged chemical attack in Douma is a fabricated play (SANA)

(Video on RT)

It got reported by the BBC thusly:

BBC wrote:
The UK, US and France boycotted the event, which a UK official dismissed as a "despicable" stunt.

"The OPCW is not a theatre," said Peter Wilson, UK envoy to the watchdog.

"Russia's decision to misuse it is yet another Russian attempt to undermine the OPCW's work, and in particular the work of its Fact Finding Mission investigating chemical weapons use in Syria," he said, ahead of the event...

"The director general (of the OPCW) has asked states to supply information about the Douma attack to his fact finding mission. Russia and Syria should do so, instead of waging a propaganda campaign of misinformation," said Mr Wilson.

The French ambassador to the Netherlands, Philippe Lalliot, said: "This obscene masquerade does not come as a surprise from the Syrian government, which has massacred and gassed its own people for the last seven years."

Automaton wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:
I am not a massive fan of the BBC's reporting and news editing.

However

1. They did report the Russians taking people to the OPCW.

2. The article includes a lot more than the parts you have taken out of it. Those in any event are quotations.


With regard to 1., they reported it to use it as a platform to further discredit Russia and Syria (note for example the perennial reference to the 'history of chemical attacks' as though this is somehow meaningful evidence about this particular event).
With regard to 2., don't forget that they choose which quotes to include (e.g. quoting the French ambassador to the Netherlands? Why? Only because it was inflammatory). The quote from the director general of the OPCW is misleading because it suggests these witnesses were not presented for interview; but in fact they were.

Note too that the article stated Russia delayed the OPCW investigation by 2 weeks - this was not a quotation, just a straightforward lie. The BBC know it to be a lie, as they have stated the real reason in other, more balanced articles prior to this one. But they said it anyway.

It truly saddens and frustrates me that RT seems more reliable these days than the BBC... what a ridiculous situation. No surprise then that RT is under attack...


Automaton wrote:
The quote from the director general of the OPCW is misleading because it suggests these witnesses were not presented for interview; but in fact they were.

I'd actually missed that one (it's Wilson apparently quoting the OPCW DG, so the BBC can claim 'plausible deniability' on that particular lie).

Then there's the line about:
Quote:
..the footage of Diab did not show any symptoms of chemical poisoning, whereas other footage said to have been filmed at the site of the attack appears to show many dead children and adults with symptoms consistent with a chemical attack...
So what exactly are the BBC implying here? That the video of Diab getting hosed was a faked fake?

What's starkly evident in that piece is that the BBC don't give a shit what Syrians either think or do if it gets in the way of an opportunity to demonise Russia...

BBC wrote:
Russia says... Russia has ... "Russia's decision ... Russian attempt..." Russian officials... Russia also ... delayed by Russia... Russia's press conference...


johnhemming2 wrote:
They did report the Russians taking people to the OPCW.


Yes, they did, didn't they. But we know that it was actually Syria and Russia.

'Wanker of the week' prize, though, must surely go to Rupert Evelyn from ITV news, who plumbs new depths with this gem:

Rupert Evelyn wrote:
A question first for our Syrian visitors: How threatened do you have to feel to change your story and deny a chemical weapons attack?

And a question for you ambassador: How low do you have to go to bring a little child all the way here and threaten them?

Video
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 7288
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please refrain from personal insults and name calling.
I have deleted several posts that consisted of insults and quotes thereof and replies thereto.

_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Potemkin Villager



Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: Narnia

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="raspberry-blower"]

On the smearing of Robert Fisk:
Quote:
A list of Fisk's 'controversies' followed. There was no mention that, among many accolades, the Arabic-speaking Fisk has won Amnesty International press awards three times, the Foreign Reporter of the Year award seven times and the Journalist of the Year award twice.

In an article published by openDemocracy, Philip Hammond, professor of media and communications at London South Bank University, observed that:


'In seeking to close down such dissident thought, Times journalists are acting, not as neutral defenders of truth, but as partisan advocates for a particular understanding of the war.'

A Guardian article by diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour and world affairs editor Julian Borger commented of Douma:


'A group of reporters, many favoured by Moscow, were taken to the site on Monday. They either reported that no weapon attack had occurred or that the victims had been misled by the White Helmets civilian defence force into mistaking a choking effect caused by dust clouds for a chemical attack.'

Not only was Fisk not mentioned by name, he was lumped in with reporters 'favoured by Moscow'. Jonathan Cook's observation said it all:


'They managed the difficult task of denigrating his account while ignoring the fact that he was ever there.'


Fisk is one of the few journalists I have much time for and this clearly illustrates the difference between a journalist wishing to report physical reality and weak and compliant arse licking hacks prepared to lie on demand and write any crock of old shit to order. I guess they are only following orders.

I am impressed Fisk is still on the go in war zones when he could have hung up his flack jacket years ago.

From Wikipedia:-

"He has written at length on how much of contemporary conflict has its origin, in his view, in lines drawn on maps: "After the allied victory of 1918, at the end of my father's war, the victors divided up the lands of their former enemies. In the space of just seventeen months, they created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and most of the Middle East. And I have spent my entire career—in Belfast and Sarajevo, in Beirut and Baghdad—watching the people within those borders burn."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Potemkin Villager



Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1129
Location: Narnia

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Confirming a little more about the origin of bottom feeder hacks from Wikipedia, LinkedIn etc.

Julian Borger PPE Oxford 1980-83 whilst Patrick Wintour doesn't own to any Uni but Westminster School made him the great man he is. Oh no not any old oik gets to be a top dog at the splendid superior Grauniad, you have to have to fit a very specific narrow profile.

I wonder if either of their fathers was a bishop?

Wanker of the week Rupert Evelyn is very circumspect indeed about his background and education on the internet for some reason. However if he is spawn of this dynasty he certainly fits the trusted hack mold.

http://www.thepeerage.com/p1572.htm

"He married Marjorie Blackburn Cawtheray, daughter of Herbert Cawtheray, on 5 April 1934. He married Barbara Higgins, ... She married Captain Rupert Evelyn Gresham Leveson-Gower, son of Evelyn Marmaduke Gresham Leveson-Gower and Elo Janet Catherine Farquharson, on 28 July 1956. Her married name became ..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 2159

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There have been differing views about Robert Fisk. I don't have enough information myself to have a view.

It remains, however, that the questions as to whether there was or was not a chemical attack recently is a question to be determined by evidence rather than the question of who the people are who are making particular statements.

People of any age can be pressurised to lie. It will take some time to get any certainty.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Fox



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 662
Location: In the Dark - looking for my socks

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John Hemming wrote:
I don't have enough information myself to have a view.

Thank you for taking the trouble to share your view that you don't have a view, John.

My view of your view regarding your lack of a view is that, viewed through your posts, both your view and your view regarding your view are incorrect, in that you do in fact have a view, but you correctly view that your view is unsupportable, hence you view that stating your view will cause others to view you and your views unfavourably.

But that's just my... erm, how I see it.

-

Moon of Alabama reporting on suspicions regarding a 'D-notice' having been issued over the Skripal saga... also notes some curious 'memory-holing' going on:
Quote:
There is not only a very curious silence in British media about the Skripal case, but there seem to be active attempts to remove certain material about the case from the public.

In 2017 investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhiev reported about massive air transports of weapons to Syrian 'rebels' under diplomatic cover and got fired over it. On April 26 she made another interesting find:Dilyana Gaytandzhiev @dgaytandzhieva - 21:24 UTC - 26 Apr 2018

The #Skripals were allegedly exposed to the drug #Fentanyl, not the #Novichok nerve agent, according to information obtained from the UK Clinical Services Journal https://www.clinicalservicesjournal.com/story/25262/...

The Clinical Services Journal piece Gaytandzhiev had found is from March 5 2018, the day after the Skripal incident in Salisbury. In its original version it read:Salisbury District Hospital declared a 'major incident' on Monday 5 March, after two patients were exposed to an opioid.
...
It followed an incident hours earlier in which a man and a woman were exposed to the drug Fentanyl in the city centre. The opioid is 10,000 times stronger than heroin.

On April 27, a day after the above tweet:Dilyana Gaytandzhiev @dgaytandzhieva - 12:12 UTC - 27 Apr 2018

The #Skripals were exposed to #Fentanyl, not #Novichok. After I published this information yesterday (26.04.) the Clinical Services Journal redacted it today https://www.clinicalservicesjournal.com/story/25262/...

I personally read the CSJ story after Gaytandzhiev's first tweeted it on the 26th. I can confirm that it has been changed.

The top line in the CSJ quote above now reads:Salisbury District Hospital declared a 'major incident' on Monday 5 March, after two patients were exposed to what is believed to be an opioid.

The second line has been changed to:It followed an incident hours earlier in which a man and a woman were exposed to a substance in the city centre.

All reference to Fentanyl as cause of the Skripal illness in a March 5 article has been removed between April 26 and April 27.

Archive.org has the original version as collected on April 26:


bigger

The changed version as now available at the Clinical Services Journal site:


bigger

One wonders why such a tiny magazine would bother to change an old story after some journalist tweeted about it.

The CSJ was not the only outlet which mentioned Fentanyl. The local Salisbury Journal reported it on March 5 and the piece is still up:Police declared a major incident after a man in his 60s and a woman in her 30s were found unconscious on a bench in the shopping centre on Sunday.

Emergency services at the scene suspected the substance may have been a powerful drug called fentanyl, but nothing has yet been confirmed.

They were taken to Salisbury District Hospital where they are in a critical condition in intensive care.

In November 2017 the Salisbury Journal had reported about an unrelated fenatanyl overdose case. In 2016 Salisbury had a spike in Fentanyl OD cases. The local emergency services were surely aware of the symptoms and effects of such a substance.

Another local news site, Devon Live, headlined on March 5: Major chemical incident declared after 10 people vomited fentanyl and two are critically illIt is understood that police suspect fentanyl, a synthetic opiate many times stronger than heroin, may have been involved. A man and a woman are in a critical condition and up to 10 other people are involved.Officers and paramedics were called to The Maltings shopping centre in Salisbury after the man and a woman fell ill. The woman, who was unconscious, was airlifted to Salisbury district hospital at about 4.15pm, while the man was taken by ambulance.
...
It was recently reported that fentanyl has claimed the lives of at least 60 people in the UK over the last eight months.

The Devon Live report is still in its original form. It links to the first Wiltshire Police statement on the case and quotes from it. Curiously the link is dead. The first official police statement on the Skripal case is "currently unavailable".

MoA

I can understand that mistakes are sometimes made in reporting, stories get published based on currently known facts at the time and of course new information comes to light, etc... but isn't the accepted practice to issue a correction, rather than go back and edit the original as if nothing's happened, hoping no one notices?

Or is that a quaint notion that belongs in an era of print media (where retrospective editing isn't possible)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Little John



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 7084
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Fox wrote:
John Hemming wrote:
I don't have enough information myself to have a view.

Thank you for taking the trouble to share your view that you don't have a view, John.

My view of your view regarding your lack of a view is that, viewed through your posts, both your view and your view regarding your view are incorrect, in that you do in fact have a view, but you correctly view that your view is unsupportable, hence you view that stating your view will cause others to view you and your views unfavourably.

But that's just my... erm, how I see it.....


This.... Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 2159

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Fox wrote:

My view of your view regarding your lack of a view is that, viewed through your posts, both your view and your view regarding your view are incorrect, in that you do in fact have a view, but you correctly view that your view is unsupportable, hence you view that stating your view will cause others to view you and your views unfavourably.

But that's just my... erm, how I see it.

Lots of people have strong views about how good Robert Fisk is as a reporter. I have not studied the issue so I don't have a view. I don't see any reason why I have to have a view about everything.

It would take me some looking at and in the end I am only interested in truth. Hence if Robert Fisk is a good reporter, but writes something wrong then what matters to me is that what he says is wrong. If he is an unreliable reporter and writes something that is true. Then what matters is what he has said that is true.

It is a mistake to see people as being either perfect or awful. For example I think Craig Murray has done a number of good things in his life, but that does not mean I automatically agree with him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raspberry-blower



Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 1822

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johnhemming2 wrote:
Mr. Fox wrote:

My view of your view regarding your lack of a view is that, viewed through your posts, both your view and your view regarding your view are incorrect, in that you do in fact have a view, but you correctly view that your view is unsupportable, hence you view that stating your view will cause others to view you and your views unfavourably.

But that's just my... erm, how I see it.

Lots of people have strong views about how good Robert Fisk is as a reporter. I have not studied the issue so I don't have a view. I don't see any reason why I have to have a view about everything.

It would take me some looking at and in the end I am only interested in truth. Hence if Robert Fisk is a good reporter, but writes something wrong then what matters to me is that what he says is wrong. If he is an unreliable reporter and writes something that is true. Then what matters is what he has said that is true.

It is a mistake to see people as being either perfect or awful. For example I think Craig Murray has done a number of good things in his life, but that does not mean I automatically agree with him.


More weasel words there Mr Hemming. Robert Fisk and Craig Murray are both old school - in Fisk's case he did what reporters are supposed to do - namely go to the site and ascertain what he believed actually happened - by talking to relevant people on the ground and weigh up for himself what he has seen. By questioning or attacking the integrity of reporter you are attacking the messenger and not engaging with the message. Which is that there is scant to no evidence to support that a gas attack occurred in Douma.



Jonathan Cook wrote:
The response from the US, UK and France to a briefing on Thursday at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the Hague was perverse, to say the least. Russia had brought 17 witnesses from Douma who stated that there had been no chemical weapons attack there earlier this month – the pretext for an illegal air strike on Syria by the three western states.

The witnesses, a mix of victims and the doctors who treated them, told accounts that confirmed a report provided last week from Douma by British reporter Robert Fisk – a report, it should be noted, that has been almost entirely blanked by the western media. According to the testimony provided at the OPCW, the victims shown in a video from the site of the alleged attack were actually suffering from the effects of inhaling dust after a bombing raid, not gas.


also:

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Testimony from witnesses is surely a crucial part of determining what actually happened. The US, UK and France are surely obligated to listen to the witnesses first, and then seek to discredit the testimony afterwards if they think it implausible or coerced. The evidence cannot be tested and rebutted if it is not even considered.


and

Jonathan Cook wrote:
But who is really proposing the more fanciful conspiracy here: those wanting evidence, or those creating an elaborate series of revisions to maintain the credibilty of their original story?

If there is one thing certain in all of this, it is that the video produced as cast-iron evidence of a chemical weapons attack has turned out to be nothing of the sort.


Jonathan Cook: The West closes its ears to Douma testimony
_________________
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Fox



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 662
Location: In the Dark - looking for my socks

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^ Good article. ^^^

C J Hopkins writes in counterpunch:

Quote:
..In an atmosphere of mass hysteria and paranoia (like the one we’re living in at the moment), the authorities’ narratives do not have to make sense, or stand up to any type of real scrutiny.

Their primary purpose is not to deceive, but rather, to demarcate an ideological territory of acceptable belief, expression, and emotion to which “normal” people are expected to conform.

Beyond the boundaries of that territory lies the outer darkness of “abnormality” and “extremism,” which no “normal” person wants anything to do with. To avoid being cast into this outer darkness, people will conform to the most absurd and paranoid nonsense you can possibly imagine.

The global capitalist ruling classes know this, which is why they don’t care if you disprove their narratives on Twitter or some “disreputable” website they’ve rendered virtually invisible anyway.

They are not debating the facts or the truth … they are marking the boundaries of that “normal” territory, and herding frightened people into it...


-

On another thread, RB made the observation:

raspberry-blower wrote:
Mr. Fox wrote:
BBC HARDtalk (Stephen Sackur) | Fares Shehabi, Syrian MP for Aleppo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQApnriV0kw

Cool


Stephen Sackur reminds me a lot of Chris Morris on The Day Today. It's War!!!! Twisted Evil


Exactly the same thought struck me a few seconds into the 'Hard Talk' title sequence... this shit's gone beyond parody. Amazing to think that Morris and Iannucci etc. came up with that 25 years ago. Shocked

Quote:
The theme tune is deliberately overdramatic and self-important and the opening sequence of each episode is lengthy and complicated, a parody of the overuse of computer-generated credit sequences on news programmes

Wiki - The Day Today... but describes 'Hard Talk' perfectly. "Fact x Importance = News!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnhemming2



Joined: 30 Jun 2015
Posts: 2159

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raspberry-blower wrote:
By questioning or attacking the integrity of reporter you are attacking the messenger and not engaging with the message.

Where was I questioning or attacking his integrity.

I said I didn't have a view.

I have just re-read his article.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

I think it is a reasonably balanced article that highlights some of the conflicting claims about Douma.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mr. Fox



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 662
Location: In the Dark - looking for my socks

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did anyone catch this God-awful piece in the Guardian?

Revealed: UK’s push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance

A few choice lines:

Quote:
“The areas the UK are most likely to pursue are countering Russian disinformation and finding a mechanism to enforce accountability for the use of chemical weapons.”...

..the UK is arguing that Russian denials over Salisbury and Douma reveal a state uninterested in cooperating to reach a common understanding of the truth, but instead using both episodes to try systematically to divide western electorates and sow doubt.

Alicia Kearns, who ran the Foreign Office’s strategic counter-terrorism communications in Syria and Iraq, argues that Russia is seen as nearly unique in its willingness to conceal the truth.

“When we are dealing with most malign states or even terror groups, an element of truth is expected to increase the efficacy of their disinformation, but with Russia there is no commitment, or adherence, to the truth,”...

..“Putin is waging an information war designed to turn our strongest asset – freedom of speech – against us. Russia is trying to fix us through deception,”...

..British politicians are not alone in claiming Russia’s record of mendacity is not a personal trait of Putin’s, but a government-wide strategy that makes traditional diplomacy ineffective.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, famously came off one lengthy phone call with Putin – she had more than 40 in a year – to say he lived in a different world...


Utter hysterical drivel. It's starting so sound desperate.

MoA picks up that last point (amongst many others) regarding Merkel's 'famous' phone call. It's 'famous' for being a lie propagated by the NYT...

Welt.de - via Google Translate wrote:
Finally, the American " New York Times " also quoted Merkel from her telephone conversation with Obama: "Putin has lost touch with reality," Merkel said, saying that the Russian president "lives in another world."

The picture of a chancellor who was indignant over Putin and determined to react violently to counter-reactions was perfect - and spread internationally.

However, it does not correspond to reality. So one is not happy in the chancellery over the report of the "New York Times". Merkel did not want to express that Putin behaved irrationally. Instead, she told Obama that Putin had a different perception of the situation in Crimea.
welt.de

MoA concludes:

Quote:
The claims of Russian disinformation these authors make [d]o not hold up to scrutiny. Meanwhile their pieces themselves are full of lies, distortions and, yes, disinformation.

The bigger aim behind all these activities, demanding a myriad of new organizations to propagandize against Russia, is to introduce a strict control over information within 'western' societies.

Anything that may not confirm to the 'truth' as prescribed from above must be overwhelmed with an onslaught of more lies or, if that does not work, be discredited as 'enemy' disinformation.

That scheme will be used against anyone who deviates from the ordered norm. You dislike that pipeline in your backyard? You must be falling for Russian trolls or maybe you yourself are an agent of a foreign power. Social Security? The Russians like that. It is a disinformation thing. You better forget about it.


The Russian Embassy in London read the Guardian article, too... They commented:

Quote:
Judging by the publication, the main current challenge for Whitehall is to preserve the anti-Russian coalition that the Conservatives tried to build after the Salisbury incident. This task is challenging indeed. The “fusion doctrine” promoted by the national security apparatus has led to the Western bloc taking hasty decisions that, as life has shown, were not based on any facts.

No traces of chemical weapons have been found in Douma. This means that not only the US/UK/French airstrikes were illegal under international law but even their political justification was inherently flawed. Similarly, in the Salisbury affair, no evidence of Russian involvement has been presented, while the two myths on which the British case was built (the Russian origin of the chemical substance used and the existence of proof of Russian responsibility) have been shattered.

Given the lack of facts, the Tory leadership seems to be adopting a truly Orwellian logic: that the main proof of Russian responsibility are … the Russian denials! It is hard to see how they will be able to sell this to their international partners. Self-respecting countries of G20 would not be willing to risk their reputation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> News All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group