J Surman
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I see that 'The Conversation' website has decided to collect and publish regular contributions from now on in for those wanting more to read on this topic:"In four weeks, Scotland goes to the polls in the vote that could end its 307-year-old union with England. The Conversation enters the home straight today with a full text of historian Tom Devine's declaration that he intends to vote in favour of independence for Scotland.The revelation by one of Scotland's most celebrated intellectuals sent shockwaves through the campaign when first reported by The Observer at the weekend. Now Devine's detailed explanation of why he has shifted from intending to vote No, to Yes is published – and it provides a rich journey through the country's cultural and economic history.We will carry alternative interpretations by leading experts of where Scotland, and Britain, stand in coming days. Today also sees the launch of our Scotland Decides section, which brings together all of our referendum coverage. It is the go-to destination for expert reaction and analysis of all the twists and turns leading up to September 18, plus an archive of the informed content we have published so far. Hold on to your hats, it promises to be a lively ending."2 links: http://theconversationuk.cmail2.com/t/r-l-mthddtl-tytrddtydk-t/http://theconversationuk.cmail2.com/t/r-l-mthddtl-tytrddtydk-i/
I pretty much go along with all that Alan has said although I'm a bit nonplussed regarding some aspects I'm unaware of. As one of the regular bloggers, I too have very slow internet access which is a pain in the proverbial. That being the reason that after Yahoo's 'upgrade' or whatever it's called a few months ago I stopped visiting Spopen, Spintcom and WSM forum because it was so painfully slow and time consuming. So, if there has been discussion there on this topic I know nothing about it. But we do have a communal email address which could be used to send round robins.I don't understand the rationale in wanting to limit the blog to one post a day. Don't folks pick and choose which items to read? I think we try to offer a wide spread of subjects, both topical and more general because we live in a capitalist world and there is so much to call attention to.I do wonder how the choice of which post to put up, if it comes down to one a day, would be made. Anyway, Alan has covered it well, so that's enough from me.
Happy to put in my two penn'orth.All done snail mail by the way.Followed up an advert in – can't remember which – Private Eye or New Internationalist, which I found intriguing. I'd requested a bundle of pamphlets. When they arrived I read them through instantly one after the other, couldn't believe what I was reading – well, wanted to believe but why had I never heard such things before? Immediately sent off for everything else that was available and waited impatiently for the post. Then I read the knock out material – socialism would mean getting rid of money!! Really!! What a brilliant idea!!So excited I sent off my letter to join – little did I realise – it's not that simple, but with good reason I realised later. Frustrated at the time I wrote my answers longhand to the membership application committee and sent them off. Another frustrating wait – I live overseas so it takes even longer than internal mail. Bingo! I was accepted and have been learning ever since.Quite frankly I have never understood how I could have lived so long before stumbling across this party. It felt like I'd found my home. I didn't know it but I'd been a socialist for decades – it just took finding the SPGB to confirm it and I'm still flabbergasted.I sent in a piece to the Socialist Standard – my first – soon after. It gives a bit more information about what I was about before:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2005/no-1216-december-2005/my-road-socialism
Coincidence – just posted this: http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com.tr/2014/08/how-much-pentagons-gifts-to-local-police.htmland then came here to find current conversation.
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.
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/
Here's William Blum's Anti-Empire Report:http://williamblum.org/aer/read/131On Cold War 2, the downed Malaysian airplane, Cuba, etc, etc and linked to US foreign policy, US media and unpublished letters to the press. Some say he rants, I find him entertaining and to the point.
And this one – call it 'bias'? – but obviously playing to compliant recipients. http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/08/05/when-meet-the-press-meets-a-palestinian/
and more on language from FAIR:the New York Times (8/6/14) reported this about Israeli opinion:In a survey for the newspaper Haaretz conducted Tuesday after the onset of the cease-fire, about half of the Israelis surveyed said that neither Israel nor Hamas had won. Nearly six out of 10 said the goals declared by the government of destroying the tunnels and dealing Hamas a harsh blow were only partly achieved.The same survey, according to Haaretz, also showed that the "Israeli public…overwhelmingly approves" of the goverment's performance.http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/08/08/do-palestinians-living-in-israel-count/The piece goes on to show the differences if/when Palestinians are includedin the polls.Getting the message across to a wider public about bias in the media is another story in intself!
Hi SP,Do you know http://www.globalresearch.ca/Headed up by Michael Chossodovsky and taking no corporate cash, I've found it informative and pretty reliable on many world topics. There's a good search facility too.
An article from Patrick Cockburn, interesting for the information about how the Israeli spokespersons are trained to respond to suit a US and European audience:Beginning so:Israeli spokesmen have their work cut out explaining how they have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them civilians, compared with just three civilians killed in Israel by Hamas rocket and mortar fire. But on television and radio and in newspapers, Israeli government spokesmen such as Mark Regev appear slicker and less aggressive than their predecessors, who were often visibly indifferent to how many Palestinians were killed.There is a reason for this enhancement of the PR skills of Israeli spokesmen. Going by what they say, the playbook they are using is a professional, well-researched and confidential study on how to influence the media and public opinion in America and Europe.and whole article here:http://www.popularresistance.org/israel-trained-by-republican-pollster-on-how-to-lie-to-us-public/
alanjjohnstone wrote:As a blogger, i am in a quandery of how much coverage should be given to the contesting propaganda.I think it's more about confronting the accuracy and honesty of whatever is broadcast, endeavouring to point out the interests of the broadcaster/publisher/owner/govt. in the background.Here's an interesting one re Facebook's censorship of Naomi Wolf posting in defence of Gaza after walking out of her synagogue in disagreement with those there:http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/08/facebook-censors-author-naomi-wolf-on-gaza/
Here's a good one from FAIR re media hype – I would have to go further and call it lying propaganda, Edward Bernays-style. Bernays (around in the US in the 1930/40s) who felt that 'manipulation of the public was necessary.' Was he called the father of propaganda? http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/07/29/media-hype-and-gazas-terror-tunnels/Trouble is, (nearly) everything's so full of it now that it's difficult sometimes to find the truth. Staying informed takes a lot of time!
Re Finkelstein, I listened to him and 2 others recently on RT's CrossTalk – on TV. You can find it here on line, if you have enough band width: http://rt.com/op-edge/challenging-the-western-media-hegemony/I may be wrong but I seem to remember him saying that it's too late for a 2-state solution and will have to come to a single state, in which the Palestinian Arabs will be the majority.However, one state or two, is not the way to socialism which is what we choose to pursue.Coincidently I caught a few minutes of a discussion this morning on Breaking the Set – also an RT production – with the founder (or one of the founders) of Project Censored talking about bias generally in all US 'big' media. I would say that goes right across the board, probably right around the world. Powerful owners have their own powerful agendas.
