Balance in the media – BBC

[J Surman]

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) gets respect from the mainstream because it speaks for the money interests. To many of those outside its golden circle, the commentary of its writers is generally suspect, occasionally frightening, and often unintentionally humorous…..so begins an article pointing out some of these 'anomalies':http://www.popularresistance.org/the-wall-street-journal-the-funny-papers-of-modern-journalism/

[J Surman]

Here's the beginning of a long article by Kieran Kelly :After 10 years as a business reporter, Anthony Reuben is now the BBC News inaugural “Head of Statistics”. True to the spirit of 1984 he seems to take his role as being to remind people of such numerical truths as “2 + 2 = 5 fanatical Islamist terrorist Hamas militants”. In a report on what the statistics tell us about the recent fatalities in Gaza, he highlights the fact that a disproportionate number of young men are being killed. Another BBC report on Gaza casualties is quite shocking, but its impact is diminished by a link to Reuben's article with the words “If the Israeli attacks have been 'indiscriminate', as the UN Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed so many more civilian men than women”Someone else has already written an email to Reuben which is posted at the Media Lens message board. It covers some of the territory that I have, but I felt that I needed to add a few things in a missive of my own. I got a little bit carried away, but the result is heartfelt…His 'open letter' is here: http://www.countercurrents.org/kelly130814.htmWell worth a read.

[J Surman]

Washington Post – this from Peter Hart on FAIR'S blog here: http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/08/29/washington-post-editorial-page-meet-noam-chomsky/"I was recently reading a Noam Chomsky lecture from 2004 where he speaks about terrorism, human rights and the concept of universality:One moral truism that should be uncontroversial is the principle of universality: We should apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others–in fact, more stringent ones.Chomsky's point is that Western elites carve out an obvious exception for themselves–they deem their own countries "to be uniquely exempt from the principle of universality…. The crimes of enemies take place; our own do not, by virtue of our exemption from the most elementary of moral truisms."I thought of this as I read the Washington Post's editorial (8/29/14) condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions in Ukraine, which the Ukrainian government and other observers are calling a military invasion:If any international norm can still be called uncontroversial, it is the stricture against cross-border aggression by one sovereign state against another. Certainly any failure to enforce it in one place invites violations elsewhere.The paper cannot possibly mean this to be taken literally, for it amounts to a call for someone to stop the United States.Of course, their words are not to be taken literally. The paper has been highly critical of the White House's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan (most recently last week); they would prefer prolonging those conflicts. The paper's advocacy for US wars during the Bush years is well-documented; it ran a couple dozen editorials in support of the Iraq invasion, which one should agree was an act of  "cross-border aggression."The other US wars of the moment, waged via drones and airstrikes, receive enthusiastic support from the Post. And it has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of striking Syria. The record–of which one could say plenty more–speaks for itself.It is difficult to find a coherent explanation for the Post's apparent position that Putin's aggression so obviously violates "international norms" that are "uncontroversial," but US warmaking is, if anything, insufficiently aggressive. Unless you accept that the kind of people who edit the Washington Post are the kind of people who do not believe that "universal norms" apply to everyone."Thing is, what he's talking about swamps us daily – unsubstantiated trash and downright lies from all around. Yes, we can choose to stay away from it but that then cuts us off from much of which we choose to contradict. Does anyone else ever feel so angry, indignant or so weighed down with it that they almost lose the will to live? Arghhhh! 

[J Surman]

Coming back to this topic, here's a site, new to me, that has relevant comment to make.eg –   BBC News at Ten relayed, uncontested, this ideological assertion from Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen:'Surrounded by an arc of crisis, our alliance, our transatlantic community, represents an island of security, stability and prosperity.'In fact, the truth is almost precisely the reverse of Rasmussen's assertion. Nato is a source of insecurity, instability, war and violence afflicting much of the world. True to form, BBC News kept well clear of that documented truth. Nor did it even remind its audience of the awkward fact that Rasmussen, when he was Danish prime minister, had once said:'Iraq has WMDs. It is not something we think, it is something we know.Their latest post can be found here: http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=777:the-comic-book-simplicity-of-propaganda&catid=52:alerts-2014&Itemid=245http://tinyurl.com/nuazvzo 

[Anonymous]

It is most important thing that should must be kept in mind before writing any news for a online sources that is "Examines whether the current online newspaper meets the needs of an independent media justice" so that newspaper meets the needs of the people or fulfill the audience criteria. We should must remain update from our surrounding so that we can participate in the development of our nation or country in a well manner. The best source For this purpose (awareness) is online news. By online reading we not only remain update but our knowledge also increase. BBC News Headlines (http://bbcnewsplanet.com/).

[Author]

Posts