COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN RUSSIA INSIDER
It does not require a defense.
Just spend a bit of time with any mainline Western newspaper
- The Guardian, The Times, The Washington Post, etc. - and, if you are an
educated and reasonably informed person, you will soon see there is a serious
problem.
Let me offer just one recent example. I could come up with
many more, especially where Russia or Syria or Ukraine is concerned. This one
involves a British politician.
I saw in The Independent today that a recent poll showed
that the British people felt that their press had been biased in their coverage
of Jeremy Corbyn, embattled leader of the British Labour Party.
My response was as follows:
"Biased” is
really not an adequate word to describe what we've seen.
Just look back at The
Independent and The Guardian over the period since Corbyn's first election.
What you will find is
a long and complex propaganda campaign against the man and his associates. From
trivial news items to calculated attack columns.
At times, it has been
genuinely vicious, as with the unforgivable witch hunts for anti-Semitism.
At times, it has been
downright silly, as with columns about his clothing.
I feel it fair to say
these newspapers came close to ignoring the standards of journalism, making not
even an attempt at fairness or objectivity.
Of course, pretty
close to the same treatment by the same publications has been extended to
Donald Trump.
I actually do not see
how you can expect people ever to credit the integrity of your words on such
matters in future.
How is the controlled
press of an authoritarian government much to be distinguished?
______________________
The New York Times, often regarded without much reflection
as the American newspaper of record, has been more aptly described as the house
organ for America's establishment.
It contains enough good writing and general information to
give it the "feel” of a credible information source.
But it marches in lockstep with establishment interests
without exception.
It beats the drum for every war.
It regularly practices deliberately incomplete reporting and
even censorship, it being learned only recently that all of its stories about
Israel are passed under the scrutiny of Israeli censors before printing.
There have been a number of times that CIA plants have been
discovered on staff, too, some having worked for years.
There never was a story that the CIA's "giant Wurlitzer
organ" wanted placed that wasn't. And ditto for the FBI, the paper several
times running actual campaigns against individuals with no basis in fact, just
FBI gossip.
We saw this in the case of Wen Ho Lee, American nuclear
scientist, accused of spying for China some years ago, but never convicted of
anything of substance despite having his name dragged through the mud.
Richard Jewell, a simple decent security guard, was hounded
over the Atlanta Olympics bombing of 1996, until it was finally discovered to
be the work of anti-abortion fanatics. Jewell proved actually to have been
something of a hero.
There is a long list of such events.
The Times also plays big favorites with establishment
friends. For example, some years back when a Kennedy relative was accused of
rape, The Times did all it could to build him up and even violated journalistic
ethics by identifying the woman victim in print.
Of course, The Times regularly publishes the world's most
irresponsible and unfair big-name journalist, a man by the name of Thomas
Friedman, whose entire output for years has castigated Muslims, praised some unpleasant
Israeli figures, and put out floods of pro-Pentagon stories.
You'll find entertaining stuff on Mr Friedman here:
and here:
