2012 - Afghanistan - "Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars" - And NATO-CIA Propaganda

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html 2012 Article Relates to Amnesty International USA. Former USA Executive Director 2012-2013: Suzanne Nossel Suzanne Nossel: currently executive director of PEN American Centre largest of the 144 centres that form a loose federation that comprise PEN International Current USA Executive Director appointment: Steven W. Hawkins Steven W. Hawkins: American social justice leader & litigator http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html Huffington Post - 2012 Coleen Rowley Former FBI Special Agent Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars Posted: 20/06/2012 00:50 AEST Updated: 18/08/2012 19:12 AEST By Ann Wright and Coleen Rowley The new Executive Director of Amnesty International USA -- Suzanne Nossel -- is a recent U.S. government insider. So it's a safe bet that AI's decision to seize upon a topic that dovetailed with American foreign policy interests, "women's rights in Afghanistan," at the NATO Conference last month in Chicago came directly from her. Nossel was hired by AI in January 2012. In her early career, Nossel worked for Ambassador Richard Holbrooke under the Clinton Administration at the United Nations. Most recently, she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at the U.S. Department of State, where she was responsible for multilateral human rights, humanitarian affairs, women's issues, public diplomacy, press and congressional relations. She also played a leading role in U.S. engagement at the U.N. Human Rights Council (where her views about the original Goldstone Report on behalf of Palestinian women did not quite rise to the same level of concerns for the women in countries that U.S.-NATO has attacked militarily). Nossel would have worked for and with Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, and undoubtedly helped them successfully implement their "Right to Protect (R2P)" -- otherwise known as "humanitarian intervention" -- as well as the newly created "Atrocity Prevention Board." This cornerstone of President Barack Obama's foreign policy (which has served mainly to rationalize the launching of war on Libya) is now being hauled out to call for U.S.-NATO military intervention in Syria. "Smart Power" = smart wars? In fact, Nossel is herself credited as having coined the term "Smart Power," which embraces the United States' use of military power as well as other forms of "soft power," an approach which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced at her confirmation as the new basis of State Department policy. An excerpt from Nossel's 2004 paper on "Smart Power," published in the Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs magazine, sounds a lot like Samantha Power's (and also traces back to Madeleine Albright's) theories: To advance from a nuanced dissent to a compelling vision, progressive policymakers should turn to the great mainstay of twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy: liberal internationalism, which posits that a global system of stable liberal democracies would be less prone to war. Washington, the theory goes, should thus offer assertive leadership -- diplomatic, economic, and not least, military [our emphasis] -- to advance a broad array of goals: self-determination, human rights, free trade, the rule of law, economic development, and the quarantine and elimination of dictators and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Following the CIA Red Cell Perhaps the AI's hiring of a State Department shill as executive director of its U.S. affiliate was merely coincidental to how/why its "NATO Shadow Summit" so closely mimicked the CIA's latest suggested propaganda device, but.... The "CIA Red Cell," a group of analysts assigned to think "outside the box" to anticipate emerging challenges, was right to worry in March 2010 when the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) found that 80 percent of French and German citizens were opposed to continued deployment of their countries' militaries in the U.S.-NATO war in Afghanistan. Even though public apathy had, up to that point, enabled French and German politicians to "ignore their voters" and steadily increase their governments' troop contributions to Afghanistan, the CIA's newly-created think tank was concerned that a forecasted increase in NATO casualties in the upcoming "bloody summer ... could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal." In a confidential memo, the "Red Cell" wrote: The Afghanistan mission's low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments, according to INR polling in fall 2009. Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters ... Only a fraction (0.1-1.3 percent) of French and German respondents identified 'Afghanistan' as the most urgent issue facing their nation in an open-ended question, according to the same polling. These publics ranked 'stabilizing Afghanistan' as among the lowest priorities for US and European leaders, according to polls by the German Marshall Fund (GMF) over the past two years. According to INR polling in the fall of 2009, the view that the Afghanistan mission is a waste of resources and 'not our problem' was cited as the most common reason for opposing ISAF by German respondents and was the second most common reason by French respondents. But the 'not our problem' sentiment also suggests that, so for, sending troops to Afghanistan is not yet on most voters' radar. But Casualties Could Precipitate Backlash If some forecasts of a bloody summer in Afghanistan come to pass, passive French and German dislike of their troop presence could turn into active and politically potent hostility. The tone of previous debate suggests that a spike in French or German casualties or in Afghan civilian casualties could become a tipping point in converting passive opposition into active calls for immediate withdrawal. The CIA "Special Memorandum" went a step further, inviting "a CIA expert on strategic communication and analysts following public opinion" to suggest "information campaigns" that State Department polls showed likely to sway Western Europeans. The "Red Cell" memo was quickly leaked, however, furnishing a remarkable window into how U.S. government propaganda is designed to work upon NATO citizenry to maintain public support for the euphemistically titled "International Security Assistance Force" (ISAF) waging war on Afghans. Here are some of the CIA propaganda expert's suggestions: ...messaging that dramatizes the potential adverse consequences of an ISAF defeat for Afghan civilians could leverage French (and other European) guilt for abandoning them. The prospect of the Taliban rolling back hard-won progress on girls' education could provoke French indignation, become a rallying point for France 's largely secular public, and give voters a reason to support a good and necessary cause despite casualties... Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission...Media events that feature testimonials by Afghan women would probably be most effective if broadcast on programs that have large and disproportionately female audiences. Amnesty International struck similar themes in announcements posted online as well as billboard advertisements on Chicago bus stops (like the one above). Telling "NATO: Keep the Progress Going!", the ads beckoned us to find out more on Sunday, May 20, 2012, the day thousands of activists marched in Chicago in protest of NATO's wars. The billboard seemed to answer a recent Huffington Post blog post, "Afghanistan: The First Feminist War?" The feminist victory may be complete in America, but on the international stage it's not doing so well with three quarters of the world's women still under often-severe male domination. Afghanistan is an extreme case in point in what might be termed the first feminist war ... a war that now may not be won even if Hillary Clinton dons a flack jacket and shoulders an M16 on the front lines. Still, since the Bush Administration to the present America 's top foreign policy office has been held by women ... women who have promised not to desert their Afghan sisters. Our curiosity was further piqued because we consider ourselves to be women's rights and human rights proponents and also due to our own prior federal careers in intelligence and military. (Colonel Wright is retired from the State Department/US military and Rowley is from the FBI.) So along with a few other anti-war activists, we packed into a taxi to head to the Chicago hotel where Amnesty International's "Shadow Summit" featuring former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other female foreign relations officials was being held. We happened to carry our "NATO bombs are not humanitarian"; "NATO Kills Girls" and anti-drone bombing posters that we had with us for the march later that day. As we arrived, an official-looking black car dropped off Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues, who was to be a main speaker (on the first panel, along with former Secretary Albright; U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois; and Afifa Azim, General Director and Co-Founder, Afghan Women's Network; along with Moderator Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, Deputy Director of the Council on Foreign Relations' Women and Foreign Policy Program). Verveer cast a cold glance at us and would not answer Ann Wright's questions as she scurried into the hotel with her aides surrounding her and us following behind. At first the hotel security guards tried to turn us away but we reminded the registration desk the Summit was advertised as "Free Admissions" and that some of us were members of Amnesty International. So they let us register and attend as long as we promised to leave our signs outside and not disrupt the speakers. The hotel conference room was about half full. We stayed long enough to hear the opening remarks and the moderator's first questions of Albright and the other speakers on the first panel. All generally linked the protection and participation of Afghan women in government as well as the progress made in educating Afghan women to the eventual peace and security of the country as envisioned by the new strategic "partnership" agreement that Obama had just signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Ms. Verveer said Afghan women do not want to be seen as "victims" but are now rightfully nervous about their future. When we saw that audience participation was going to be limited to questions selected from the small note cards being collected, we departed, missing the second panel as well as kite-flying for women's rights. We noted, even in that short time, however, how easy it was for these U.S. government officials to use the "good and necessary cause" of women's rights to get the audience into the palm of their collective hand -- just as the CIA's "strategic communication" expert predicted! But Why Ms. Albright? Not everyone was hoodwinked however. Even before the "Summit" was held, Amnesty realized it had a PR problem as a result of its billboard advertisement touting progress in Afghanistan. An Amnesty official tried to put forth a rather lame defense blaming an accidental poor choice of wording. But many readers (and AI members) posted critical comments and questions, including concerns about Albright's involvement given her infamous defense of Iraqi sanctions in the 1990s, which were estimated to have caused the deaths of a half million Iraqi children, with the comment "we think the price is worth it." Under the blogger's explanation: "We Get It / Human Rights Now," there were comments like these: ...Could someone from AI please explain why Madeleine Albright was invited to participate in this event? We (and especially those of us who are familiar with AI) should all be able to understand that the wording on the poster was a genuine, albeit damaging, mistake. But why Ms. Albright? The posters are pro-NATO and play into prevailing tropes about so called "humanitarian intervention" via "think of the women & children" imagery. The posters & the forum that includes Albright are neither slight slips nor without context. AI is coping heat because they have miss-stepped dramatically. There is NOTHING subtle about either the imagery nor the message! It is not a case of "oh sorry we didn't realize it it could be interpreted that way! They used pro Nato imagery & slogans ahead of & during a controversial summit that has thousands protesting in the streets. Tell me again how that is not taking sides? They asked a notorious apologist for mass murder of children to speak on the right of women and children...tell me again: how is that not taking sides. So it is absolutely reasonable for past supporters (and board members like myself) to be asking how it is that Amnesty USA so lost its bearings they could make a critical SERIES of errors like this? Of course the defensive AI blog author never answered the numerous questions asking why Amnesty had chosen Madeleine Albright as their main speaker. So we will venture an answer that probably lies in the fact that all of the powerful feminist-war hawks who have risen to become Secretary of State (or are waiting in the wings) are now taking their lead from the ruthless Grand Dame who paved the way for them, Madeleine Albright -- (see Coleen Rowley's recent blogs: "Obama's New 'Atrocity Prevention Board': Reasons for Skepticism" and "Militarization of the Mothers: You've Come a Long Way, Baby, from Mother's Day for Peace"). It's also possible the highest ranks of the feminist wing of military interventionism (i.e. Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, et al.) are so passionate and hubristic about the nobility of their goal and "Amercan exceptionalism" that some have simply succumbed to a kind of almost religious (blind faith) type fervor. The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions Nossel's and Albright's theories are flawed in many ways but suffice it to say that democracies are actually not less prone to war. A long list of "democracies" -- including Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, the United Kingdom, France and the United States itself -- disprove this assertion. In any event, the U.S. has been terribly hypocritical in its support of "democracies" in foreign countries, often toppling or attempting to topple them (i.e. Iran's Mossadeqh, Guatemala's Arbenz, Chile's Allende) in order to gain easier control of a foreign country through an allied dictatorship. No one is going to argue that the goals of humanitarianism, preventing atrocities and furthering women's rights around the world are not "good and necessary" (in the words of the CIA strategic communications expert). We would go so far as to say these ARE truly noble causes! Testimonials about human rights' abuse are often true and fundamentalist regimes' treatment of women seems to vary only in degrees of horrible. But while it's true that many women lack rights in Afghanistan, some would argue that it's conveniently true. And that the best lies are always based on a certain amount of truth. The devil, however, lies in the details of promoting equality and accomplishing humanitarianism. Most importantly the ends, even noble ends, never justify wrongful means. In fact, when people such as Samantha Power decide to bomb the village (Libya) to save it, it will backfire on a pragmatic level. It must be realized that it is the nobility of the U.S.-NATO's motivation that -- as CIA propaganda department has advised -- should be relied upon to convince otherwise good-hearted people (especially women) to support (or at least tolerate) war and military occupation (now known to encompass the worst of war crimes, massacres of women and children, torture, cutting off body parts of those killed, as well as increasing mental illness, self-destructive behavior and suicides among U.S. soldiers and the corresponding cover-ups of all such horrible means). In the decades after Vietnam, a number of military scholars identified declining American public support for that war as the main factor responsible for the U.S. "losing" Vietnam. One lesson learned and quickly implemented was to get rid of the military draft and put the wars on a credit card so fewer citizens would pay attention. Some control also had to be gained over the type of free media (that led to trusted TV anchor Walter Cronkite broadcasting his public souring on the Vietnam War). A whole series of war propaganda systems, from planting retired generals as "talking heads" on TV to the assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deciding to "embed the media," have worked pretty well to maintain the necessary level of war momentum in mainstream media and amongst public opinion. But now, with American polls approaching the same problematic levels as those in Europe cited by the "CIA Red Cell," we suddenly see major human rights organizations like Amnesty International (as well as others) applauding Obama's (and the feminist war-hawks') "Atrocity Prevention Board." Such sleight of hand seems to work even better amongst political partisans. By the way, it should be noted that Congress may allow these Pentagon propagandists to target American citizens through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Should we connect the dots? There are some clear lines where the laudable need to further human rights should not be twisted into justifying harsh economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of children or, even worse, "shock and awe" aerial bombing that takes the lives of the women and children the "humanitarian" propagandists say they want to help. Madeleine Albright's response about the deaths of a half million children on 60 Minutes, that "the price was worth it," illustrates the quintessential falsity of what ethicists call "act utilitarianism" or concocting fictional happy outcomes to justify the terrible wrongful means. It also seems that a human rights NGO, in this case Amnesty International, which had gained a solid reputation and hence the trust of those it has helped through the years, will be jeopardized in aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO. This is exactly how the Nobel Peace Prize got corrupted, aligning itself with the U.S. Secretary of State and NATO, which is why Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire withdrew from the Nobel Peace forum held in Chicago during NATO. Good NGOS and non-profits that want to maintain the trust in their humanitarian work tend to be very careful to maintain their independence from any government, let alone any war-making government. When NGOs, even good ones, become entwined with the U.S./NATO war machine, don't they risk losing their independent credibility? Ann Wright is a 29-year U.S. Army/Army Reserve Colonel and a 16-year U.S. diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq war. She returned to Afghanistan in 2007 and 2010 on fact-finding missions. Coleen Rowley, a FBI special agent for almost 24 years, was legal counsel to the FBI Field Office in Minneapolis from 1990 to 2003. She wrote a "whistleblower" memo in May 2002 and testified to the Senate Judiciary on some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures. She retired at the end of 2004, and now writes and speaks on ethical decision-making and balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation. (Originally posted on Consortiumnews.com) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/amnestys-shilling-for-usn_b_1607361.html RECOMMENDED FURTHER READING (POSTS) CIA Propaganda - Selling War in Afghanistan LINK | here 'CIA’s Hidden Hand in ‘Democracy’ Groups' | Robert Parry LINK | here Mainstream Media - Concentrated - Big-6 Corporate Control - Lies & Indoctrination LINK | here Modern Art As CIA Weapon LINK | here Other Interesting: British Broadcasting Corporation Syria: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) - Fraud LINK | here Summary US-NATO War Machine Humanitarian NGOs Shilling for US-NATO Wars Entwined with US/NATO War Machine Title: "Amnesty's Shilling for US-NATO Wars" Link | Post US-NATO / CIA PROPAGANDA SELLING AFGHANISTAN WAR USA UNSIGNING ROME STATUTE USA THREATENING MILITARY ACTION RE BRINGING USA BEFORE ICC CIA PROPAGANDA & MEDIA CONTROL - GENERAL Page | Link ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Feel like I've maybe read and posted this before. It's a pain tracking anything on this blog, so I've not looked to see if I've covered this. Memory's shocking, so it's all like new to me.   lol Anyway, I really enjoyed this article.  Even though it dates back to 2012, everything is applicable today in terms of how government, military, foreign policy, NGOs, humanitarian organisations etc operate. ꕤ

War - Sanitisation & Maintenance of Illusions

ꕤ idea source observing state investment War Machine Sideshow of 'Humanitarian Relief' A Branch of Modern Warfare The Sanitisation of War | Maintenance of Illusions Investment (organisational, diplomatic and other fronts) and enormous expenditure of this kind (compared to economic punishment of the vulnerable and disempowered on the domestic front) indicates to me that the 'humanitarian' face of the state is merely for the sake of maintaining the illusion that the state acts for 'humanitarian reasons', that the state (representing interests of private enterprise & private profits) must expend on military and so on, because of 'external factors' (rather than state-directed factors in the service of private profits:  ie pillaging foreign resources); and, also, that the state acts to maintain these illusions so that the lower classes believe they must accept burdens placed on them. The war machine's 'humanitarian relief' sideshow is a part of modern warfare:  it is both the ambassador of war and it is a shield of the privileged and powerful; it distracts, it diverts attention, it is sleight of hand, it provides a pretext, it provides ample material for propaganda and for self-congratulation.  All the whitewashed surface 'goodness' of this branch of warfare blinds witnesses to the silent evil that is just beyond sight, even as the damage of foreign policy, war, and the modern sanitisation of war, spreads to domestic populations, taxing the already vulnerable and the economically disadvantaged -- and even as damage extends to societal and cultural consequences:  for which there is no remedy. The 'humanitarian relief' branch of warfare perhaps also allays the guilt of the weaker among the ranks of those in the business of war, who otherwise may not have the stomach solely for direct forms of war, and would otherwise defect in some way. It also may give neighbouring or general onlookers a reason not to engage or oppose:  it perhaps disarms those that otherwise might have cause to become embittered or present opposition. But those are secondary considerations.  The primary purpose of the 'humanitarian relief' branch of warfare is the sanitisation of warfare and the maintenance of illusions that the: (a)  warring empire is benign; (b)  empire's wars are good; (c)  empire is merciful; (d)  empire grants relief; (e)  empire represents rebirth from the ashes. The  'humanitarian relief' branch of the empire's war machine is the new, secular, 'Christ' and its followers are missionaries of sanitised warfare. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Above is just a developing idea that arose from an earlier post. ꕤ

CLARIFICATION: Alistair Campbell Steve Coogan interview - Angelina Jolie

[ALSO REFERRED TO:  TOKYO ROSE BLOG POST - HERE.]

CLARIFICATION

Alastair Campbell on Steve Coogan - a clarification

by Alastair Campbell 11 July 14


Given some of the press and social media comment about my interview with Steve Coogan, and in particular the suggestion that he attacked Angelina Jolie's campaigning on rape, I would like to clarify.

Whilst the printed transcript is accurate in literal terms it does not reflect the fact that I was interjecting some words as an extra question into an answer he was in the middle of giving. It was I not he who raised Angelina Jolie and William Hague. He was not responding to that second question but continuing his previous answer. So his remarks were not directed towards Angelina Jolie.

I should also make clear that:

His comments about celebrities being off putting when campaigning on policy issues were a light-hearted dig at himself, while making the point that what is irritating is "people who are in the public eye for something else who suddenly start voicing opinions about everything else" rather than get stuck in properly to a particular issue.

His comments about celebrities not standing up for unpopular causes were directed at those who refused to comment on press abuses and excesses out of fear of unflattering future coverage.

And that he certainly did not put Angelina Jolie in that bracket, because he admires her work. 

I like the Q&A format but this is an example of how sometimes the words on the paper fail to capture tone and context. I am happy to do that and hope it might help stop the unfair comments being directed his way.

The exchange in full:

Alistair Campbell: How does your mind work? Where is the creativity coming from?
Steve Coogan: I am quite driven by work. Sometimes I am passionate about things I believe in. Though I have been involved politically, I find people who are in the public eye for something else who suddenly start voicing their opinions about everything else quite irritating.

What? Like Angelina Jolie going out campaigning with William Hague?
I do find it a bit off-putting. If you are trying to do something charitable there is always a double-edged sword, because it is good PR for the celebrity. Better to do it than not to do it, but I have much more respect for a celebrity that goes out [campaigning] about something really difficult.

----------------------------------------
COMMENT

The Tokyo Rose blog post linked to above, refers to an article that was run by the Independent (links contained in original blog post etc.) and is based on the Independent's article regarding Coogan.

The original Independent headline was:

Steve Coogan brands Angelina Jolie’s humanitarian efforts 'off putting': 'I have more respect for a star that does something difficult

The independent headline associated with the link to the Independent has since been amended to take into account the following:

"Alastair Campbell insists his interview fails to capture tone and context" 

 Phew!  I hope I've got that straight & I hope you're following. 

If I have it straight, Alistair Campbell's Steeve Coogan interview was misunderstood by the media outlets that picked up the story.

------
ADDENDUM - see the GQ CLARIFICATION - here.

DAILY MAIL & George Clooney (actor, humanitarian, civil rights activist, US Democrats supporter & UN messenger of peace)

George Clooney rejects Daily Mail’s apology for ‘fabricated’ article he claimed ‘incited violence’ towards fiancée’s family in second column
Friday 11 July 2014

George Clooney has refused to accept the Daily Mail’s written apology for publishing a ‘fabricated’ article claiming that the actor's mother-in-law was opposed to his forthcoming marriage to Amal Alamuddin on religious grounds.

Clooney claimed that the article “incited violence” and addressed a number of “inaccuracies” in a column he wrote for USA Today.

The MailOnline, the website of the Daily Mail which ran the story, issued a written statement in response to Clooney’s piece, in which they apologised and vowed to launch an investigation into the incident.

Clooney has since written a second column for USA Today, in which he rejected the MailOnline’s statement and accused them of “lying” by denying the piece was “fabricated”.

“There is one constant when a person or company is caught doing something wrong,” he began. “The cover-up is always worse.   ...


FULL article - Indpendent
 -------------------------------

Exclusive: Clooney responds to 'Daily Mail' report

George Clooney, Special for USA TODAY 10:14 a.m. EDT July 9, 2014

 ...

First of all, none of the story is factually true. ...

But this lie involves larger issues. The irresponsibility, in this day and age, to exploit religious differences where none exist, is at the very least negligent and more appropriately dangerous. We have family members all over the world, and the idea that someone would inflame any part of that world for the sole reason of selling papers should be criminal.

I'm the son of a newsman; I accept the idea that freedom of speech can be an inconvenience to my private life from time to time, but this story, like so many others, is picked up by hundreds of other outlets citing the Daily Mail as their source, including Boston.com, New York Daily News, Gulf News, Emirates 24/7 and so on.

The Daily Mail, more than any other organization that calls itself news, has proved time and time again that facts make no difference in the articles they make up. And when they put my family and my friends in harm's way, they cross far beyond just a laughable tabloid and into the arena of inciting violence. ...

EXTRACT ONLY -- FULL - USA Today - here.

 --------------------------------

George Clooney: A correction and an apology

PUBLISHED: 07:30 AEST, 10 July 2014 | UPDATED: 07:30 AEST, 10 July 2014
DAILY MAIL

On Monday MailOnline carried an article which alleged that the mother of George Clooney’s fiancée Amal Alamuddin would prefer her daughter to be married to a member of the Druze religious group.

Yesterday Mr Clooney said the story was 'completely fabricated' and exploited 'religious differences where none exist.'

In a statement MailOnline said: 'The story was not a fabrication but supplied in good faith by a reputable and trusted freelance journalist.

'She based her story on conversations with a long standing contact who has strong connections with senior members of the Lebanese community in the UK and the Druze in Beirut.

'We only became aware of Mr Clooney’s concerns this morning and have launched a full investigation.

'However, we accept Mr Clooney’s assurance that the story is inaccurate and we apologise to him, Miss Amal Alamuddin and her mother, Baria, for any distress caused.

'We have removed the article from our website and will be contacting Mr Clooney’s representatives to discuss giving him the opportunity to set the record straight.'

Source:  DAILY MAIL

-------------------------------- 

Exclusive: George Clooney rejects 'Mail' apology

George Clooney, Special for USA TODAY 12:04 a.m. EDT July 11, 2014

There is one constant when a person or company is caught doing something wrong. The coverup is always worse.

In this case, the Daily Mail has printed an apology for insinuating religious tensions where there are none. In the apology, managing editor Charles Garside claims that the article was "not a fabrication," but "based the story on conversations with senior members of the Lebanese community."

The problem is that none of that is true. The original story never cites that source, but instead goes out of its way to insist on four different occasions that "a family friend" spoke directly to the Mail. A "family friend" was the source. So either they were lying originally or they're lying now.

Furthermore, they knew ahead of time that they were lying. In an article dated April 28, 2014, reporter Richard Spillett writes in the Mail that "Ramzi, (Amal's father), married outside the Druze faith," and a family friend said that "Baria, (Amal's mom), is not Druze." The Mail knew the story in question was false and printed it anyway.
...
What separates this from all of the ridiculous things the Mail makes up is that now, by their own admission, it can be proved to be a lie. In fact, a premeditated lie.

So I thank the Mail for its apology. Not that I would ever accept it, but because in doing so they've exposed themselves as the worst kind of tabloid.

One that makes up its facts to the detriment of its readers and to all the publications that blindly reprint them.

— George Clooney

Source:  USA Today - here.

--------------------------------

COMMENT

The story caught my attention for a couple of reasons.

The antennae went up because it seems a press issue that may conceivably impact in some way on UK press freedoms, in a climate where there is a push from some quarters for restricting press freedoms (in the aftermath of the News of the World hacking scandal).

The story also happens to involve a Hollywood entertainer, and appointed UN messenger of peace, who has been active in broader humanitarian causes as well as domestic civil rights causes; a celebrity who may well also be described as a 'political activist' (or at least 'politically active'), by virtue of (1) the cross-over between the humanitarian and political arenas; (2) the cross-over between documentary and political message making (Clooney has been involved in documentary film making on humanitarian/political causes/issues (narration, production involvement & appearance/s in such films); and (3) by virtue of the actor's support of:

"Barack Obama's campaign in the 2008 presidential election and in the 2012 presidential election." [wikipedia]

Judging by the Daily Mail published apology (above), Daily Mail asserted therein that their story was published in good faith.

Is 'good faith' in sources of stories a good enough standard in journalism?  Unfortunately, I don't answer that question, as I'm not familiar with the common standards journalists abide by.

Clooney rejected Daily Mail's apology and:

1. Implied (as I read it), that the Daily Mail was involved in a cover up;
2. Stated the original story does not cite the source;
3. Asserted that Daily Mail "knew the story in question was false and printed it anyway";
4. And, finally, stated that:"now, by their own admission, it can be proved to be a lie. In fact, a premeditated lie".

Clooney then rebuked Daily Mail for exposing themselves "as the worst kind of tabloid".

Well, Daily Mail certainly received a very public flogging.
It remains to be seen if any action ensues.

[Apologies for the inclusion of a string of articles.  Find it very difficult not to have the subject articles before me as I type.  Even then, it gets confusing with a string of stories to keep straight while gathering thoughts.  LOL]

Steve Coogan on Angelina Jolie's humanitarian efforts

CLARIFICATION - ALISTAIR CAMPBELL - STEVE COOGAN INTERVIEW - see Tokyo Rose current post - for interview clarification particulars - here.  GQ clarification - here.
-------------------------------------

Steve Coogan brands Angelina Jolie’s humanitarian efforts 'off putting': 'I have more respect for a star that does something difficult

Wednesday 09 July 2014


Angelina Jolie’s humanitarian efforts have been the subject of high praise by most of her peers.

Most recently, the actress was honoured with the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award at the Governor's Ball in November 2013 – a renown accolade she earned for her work as the co-founder of the Prevent Sexual Violence Initiative and as a special envoy for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

But not all are as impressed by her charity work. In discussion with Tony Blair’s former Director of Communications Alastair Campbell – published by British GQ – Steve Coogan called Jolie’s effort’s "off-putting" and called for "celebrities" to butt out of international affairs and stick to their day jobs.

"Though I have been involved politically, I find people who are in the public eye for something else who suddenly start voicing opinions about everything else quite irritating," Coogan is quoted as saying.

"What? Like Angelina Jolie going out campaigning with William Hague?" Campbell added, referencing Jolie’s tireless campaigning to address the issue of rape in war zones.

"I do find it a bit off-putting," Coogan responded.

"If you are trying to do something charitable there is always a double-edged sword, because it is good PR for the celebrity.

"Better to do it than not do it, but I have much more respect for a celebrity that goes out [campaigning] about something really difficult."

Elsewhere in the interview, Coogan also voiced his opinion on the controversial Scottish Independence debate. His vote in the September referendum, if he had one, would resolutely be a "no".

"I don't want them to become independent," he said. "The reason I don't like Ukip is because I think we should be pro-European, a more not less cohesive world. Insularity isn't good."

source:  Independent
-------------------------------------
COMMENT

Coogan's an entertainer/producer.

The issue isn't whether or not the PR benefits the celebrity.

The issue is the worldwide platform and PR machinery that these celebrities command; the degree of influence on public perception; and the political (or other) agendas behind the emotive issues and causes etc that celebrities endorse.

The celebrity-politico-humanitarian aspect of Hollywood (and beyond) deserves its own study.

So he's bought into the notion of 'European' and 'cohesive' identity, while nationalism is now considered 'insularity'?






Wow.


MATERIAL REFERRED TO IN THIS POST IS AFFECTED BY FOLLOWING:

THERE'S BEEN A CLARIFICATION OF INTERVIEW WITH STEVE COOGAN BY ALISTAIR CAMPBELL.

ALISTAIR CAMPBELL'S GQ - CLARIFICATION ... HERE.