On Forthcoming Opinion Piece
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
Above is hot off the press, or near enough. Guessing this 'opinion' piece is destined to be an anti-Assange propaganda piece of some kind. Notably, Assange has been denied a right of reply. In my opinion, the latest offering most probably amounts to a pre-arranged, 'trojan' press assault 'opinion' piece, much like those 'independent' NGO opinion pieces the propaganda churning Western press runs whenever they wish to especially smear official enemies. It shall be presented as a suitably emotive (and divisive) ... but delicately, 'gift-wrapped' appeal to dominant ideology and to 'justice,' one would guess. Aside from casting doubts and aspersions, the PR job will light up more of the same extraneous 'issues' debate that the public never seems to tire of. Most likely this will be a further attempt to divert attention to the official narrative (Hey, how dare Ecuador grant political asylum to a politically persecuted journalist!). Suspect that the aggressive British media campaign is a lead-up to some official assault on the rights of Assange. Somebody's got out what I suspect must be the go-to propaganda big guns in any scenario such as this. The Guardian 'opinion' piece writer is ... "Jessica Valenti is a columnist and staff writer for Guardian US. She is the author of four books on feminism, politics and culture, and founder of Feministing.com" Oh, dear. So the intended target is probably about to become the recipient of a double-barrelled public assault. Guessing there's a portrayal of 'female victimhood' - perhaps blended with 'courage' - that's championed by a feminist writer calling for 'justice', that's coming up for public consumption? I could be wrong, but I'm going to carry on with my predictions and see how I go at guessing the 'news'. Taking a wild guess, this 'opinion' piece is going to be the unseen power behind the 'female victim'-shield equivalent of holding up a vial of water at the United Nations Security Council (or, The Guardian readership court of public opinion), and declaring: Assange has weapons of mass destruction & we must act! ... or something like that. Yes, I can just see it now: for the sake of world security, democracy, freedom, justice, womanhood, God, and apple pie – we must invade the Ecuador embassy. The trojan (containing the potent 'female victim' championed by feminist payload) will be used by whoever has arranged this, to further the government agenda - ie the interests of the powers that Assange and WikiLeaks have challenged. Presumably the government agenda is shepherding public opinion in the direction of acceptance and approval of the politically motivated, 5 year de facto imprisonment of Julian Assange or, at least, distracting from the glaring evidence that this is a blatantly politically-motivated detention of a truth-telling journalist by a sociopathic, totalitarian government, that has shown nothing but contempt for democracy and the law. Whoever has arranged this coming media hatchet job will be manipulating public attention and opinion. It's worth considering that over the last 5 years the media has largely presented, and often repeated, the government narrative: while failing to address inconsistencies in that narrative. So it's not like the aggressive British media campaign is coming from a necessity to redress media imbalance. Nope. It's an aggressive campaign aimed at pulling the wool over the public's eyes, when the public just may be in danger of waking up to what the 5 years of no charge detention is really for and why there's been millions of pounds/euros/dollars spent on this Embassy siege. In wider terms, this isn't merely an assault on Assange: this is also an assault on justice (and a trial by media); it is an assault on international law (Assange has been granted political asylum); an assault on freedom of press; and an assault on civil liberties ... aided and abetted by corporate media hyenas. So, where Sweden has seen fit to avoid interviewing Assange regarding their flimsy 'allegations,' he is now to be tried by the media - without charge. Through sleight of hand and in the guise of acting in the interests of: 'female victimhood' and 'feminism,' the latest media performance piece is most likely aimed at smearing Assange and putting across an impression that seeks to 'validate' the government narrative, while potentially dividing public opinion and, with any luck, eroding public support. The divide and conquer method of dealing with political targets is probably as old as society itself. But it does smack of the manipulation, disinformation, and disruption style government-run 'social engineering' campaigns we've learned of more recently from the Snowden documents. The forthcoming PR job probably aims to shift or divert attention away from what has become apparent after 5 years of no charge detention amid Swedish long-term inaction to the point of Sweden failing to question Assange prior to the arrival of statute of limitation lapse: ie. the fact that the Swedish and British government narrative is unsound. British, Swedish, & US powers are practically joined at the hip in terms of political agenda, trade, military, and intelligence sharing. Thus they represent a close political and practical alliance within the broader US-Anglo coalition. And it is this very coalition's war crimes, wrongdoings, lawlessness, hypocrisy, and contempt for justice and democracy, that were exposed by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. Julian Assange is the target of powers he has challenged. I don't believe for one moment that he has sexually assaulted anyone, irrespective of would-be claimants to the 'victim' title that the authorities line up PR 'advocates' for. The Anglo-American and Swedish coalition is capable of stooping to just about anything:
No amount of corporate press hyena 'opinion' presentations or plays on public emotion (seeking to sow misplaced sympathy, doubt, confusion etc), will ever fool anyone who looks at the facts. Meanwhile, the life of Julian Assange hangs in the balance, as Britain and Sweden grimly press for extradition that would will see a journalist who exposed US and allied war crimes delivered by war criminals to war criminals. So where is this 'pillar of democracy', the 'free press'? It is silent and in the service of powerful interests.
'Right of Reply' Denied
[ source | slate | here ]
Please Support Under Siege Ecuador embassy
ꕤ
|
TOKYO MASTER BANNER
MINISTRY OF TOKYO
|
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Guardian. Show all posts
August 19, 2015
Assange is the Target of Powers he has Challenged
July 15, 2015
GREECE - Pilger Article - "The problem of Greece is not only a tragedy. It is a lie."
ARTICLE
An historic betrayal has consumed Greece. Having set aside the mandate of the Greek electorate, the Syriza government has willfully ignored last week's landslide "No" vote and secretly agreed a raft of repressive, impoverishing measures in return for a "bailout" that means sinister foreign control and a warning to the world.
--------------------- COMMENT Another good article re Greece. Favourite bits: |
September 20, 2014
ASSANGE - News Talk (Ireland) Article & Audio Interview
ASSANGE
COMMENT
|
July 13, 2014
ATTACK ON FREE PRESS - CHEAP SHOT AT 'DAILY MAIL'
Made-up stories, old photos: behold a free press lifting the lid on scandal
The Mail shouts about a free press, but used that freedom to run two celebrity stories that were either false or pointless
The Observer, Sunday 13 July 2014
The Daily Mail runs another resounding editorial: "Only a free press can lift the lid on scandal."
Though a few dossiers short of a load, this is at least a good point. The Mail plays a bravura role whenever press freedom is threatened, including the supposed right to be forgotten. But do ordinary readers judge by deeds as well as by words alone? Did they choke when, that selfsame day, a story about George Clooney's fiancée and her family was withdrawn apologetically after an irate George dismantled it? And did they gag over half a front page given to "hollow-eyed, pock-marked … Angelina Jolie, the junkie, captured on camera"?
Captured, that is, in 1999 by a convicted drug dealer who dished his old dirt to the US National Enquirer, which seems to have done a deal with the Mail. Thrill to her "emaciated frame" and "dirt-encrusted fingernails". Wonder how this young, troubled actor went on to have six children with Brad Pitt and travel the charitable world with William Hague. It would all be utterly surprising – if Ms Jolie hadn't talked frankly, years ago, about the "heavier, darker times" in her life. "I didn't die young, so I'm very lucky".
None of this was new, then. Even the drug dealer has peddled his memories before. "Watch the astonishing footage on Mail Online." No thanks. There's no remote scandal here, just grubby leftovers in Jolie's long march (on a suddenly kindlier day two) from "heroin to heroine".
Perhaps UK print Mail and worldwide Mail Online dance to different tunes. Perhaps there isn't a right to be forgotten, any more than American privacy rights can survive moral transfer, via the National Enquirer, to Britain. But there is, surely, an opportunity for redemption, a chance to make a new, better life. You might even call it a human right to be treated with humanity by a free but humane press?
Source - The Guardian - here. -----------------------------------
COMMENT
An attack on free press by The Guardian, calling for a 'free' but, ehem, 'humane press'.
'Humane' and Truth cannot be bedfellows. By extension, nor can 'humane press' and democracy.
The Guardian, as you may recall, published material from the the Edward Snowden stolen data cache that broke the NSA scandal and, as I understand, 'partnered' with other select news sources (rather than a broad range of media outlets), when it began to look as if the data was under threat from UK authorities. The Guardian's data was eventually destroyed, but data in the hands of other news sources appears to still be under the control of those respective sources; and it appears as if the US government has not sought redress.
The Guardian, as a member of the press, ought to be upholding the freedoms of press in the UK and elsewhere around the world, instead of looking to undermine important freedoms with a cheap shot at the Daily Mail.
As far as I am aware, Daily Mail has not publicly stated that they have (a) lied or (b) covered up anything in relation to the Clooney article (they did, however, apologise and state that third-party information was relied on in good faith); action (if any) that may ensue regarding this matter is yet to take place.
In those circumstances -- if this is all there is to the matter at this stage -- it's beyond me how The Guardian can lower itself to cast aspersions merely on the grounds of a 'false' story (that is the subject of a 'source' issue & subject to publication in good faith) and a 'pointless' story, as designated by The Guardian.
Dear me, how inconsiderate of Daily Mail publish a story The Guardian deems 'pointless'!
The right to be forgotten? Biggest con ever thought up. What kind of press gets behind the preposterous UN 'right to be forgotten' censorship of the press, of the internet and of broader freedom of information?
As for 'pointless' celebrity stories? Aren't all celebrity stories pointless; which is the whole point of celebrity stories. LOL.
It seems to me that The Guardian's issue is with the 'quality' of the press (as defined by The Guardian), but The Guardian cannot expect to impose their lofty notions of what is or is not suitable as a topic in the way of celebrity press coverage -- or any other coverage -- upon the press as a whole or, indeed, upon the entire nation.
Whether trashy, 'unimportant', trivial, 'old' news, unsavoury news, embarrassing news -- or whatever kind of news sectors of the press choose to present to their readership -- we should all stand and defend the right of news sources to print as they will (subject to truth and the laws as they stand) and we should also vehemently defend the right of readers to read as much lurid 'tabloid journalism' as they desire.
That's the poster's take on this.
----------------end comment-----------------
ADDENDUM
"Though a few dossiers short of a load ..."
It is actually the UK government that is currently short of a dossier:
The Mail shouts about a free press, but used that freedom to run two celebrity stories that were either false or pointless
The Observer, Sunday 13 July 2014
The Daily Mail runs another resounding editorial: "Only a free press can lift the lid on scandal."
Though a few dossiers short of a load, this is at least a good point. The Mail plays a bravura role whenever press freedom is threatened, including the supposed right to be forgotten. But do ordinary readers judge by deeds as well as by words alone? Did they choke when, that selfsame day, a story about George Clooney's fiancée and her family was withdrawn apologetically after an irate George dismantled it? And did they gag over half a front page given to "hollow-eyed, pock-marked … Angelina Jolie, the junkie, captured on camera"?
Captured, that is, in 1999 by a convicted drug dealer who dished his old dirt to the US National Enquirer, which seems to have done a deal with the Mail. Thrill to her "emaciated frame" and "dirt-encrusted fingernails". Wonder how this young, troubled actor went on to have six children with Brad Pitt and travel the charitable world with William Hague. It would all be utterly surprising – if Ms Jolie hadn't talked frankly, years ago, about the "heavier, darker times" in her life. "I didn't die young, so I'm very lucky".
None of this was new, then. Even the drug dealer has peddled his memories before. "Watch the astonishing footage on Mail Online." No thanks. There's no remote scandal here, just grubby leftovers in Jolie's long march (on a suddenly kindlier day two) from "heroin to heroine".
Perhaps UK print Mail and worldwide Mail Online dance to different tunes. Perhaps there isn't a right to be forgotten, any more than American privacy rights can survive moral transfer, via the National Enquirer, to Britain. But there is, surely, an opportunity for redemption, a chance to make a new, better life. You might even call it a human right to be treated with humanity by a free but humane press?
Source - The Guardian - here. -----------------------------------
COMMENT
An attack on free press by The Guardian, calling for a 'free' but, ehem, 'humane press'.
'Humane' and Truth cannot be bedfellows. By extension, nor can 'humane press' and democracy.
The Guardian, as you may recall, published material from the the Edward Snowden stolen data cache that broke the NSA scandal and, as I understand, 'partnered' with other select news sources (rather than a broad range of media outlets), when it began to look as if the data was under threat from UK authorities. The Guardian's data was eventually destroyed, but data in the hands of other news sources appears to still be under the control of those respective sources; and it appears as if the US government has not sought redress.
The Guardian, as a member of the press, ought to be upholding the freedoms of press in the UK and elsewhere around the world, instead of looking to undermine important freedoms with a cheap shot at the Daily Mail.
As far as I am aware, Daily Mail has not publicly stated that they have (a) lied or (b) covered up anything in relation to the Clooney article (they did, however, apologise and state that third-party information was relied on in good faith); action (if any) that may ensue regarding this matter is yet to take place.
In those circumstances -- if this is all there is to the matter at this stage -- it's beyond me how The Guardian can lower itself to cast aspersions merely on the grounds of a 'false' story (that is the subject of a 'source' issue & subject to publication in good faith) and a 'pointless' story, as designated by The Guardian.
Dear me, how inconsiderate of Daily Mail publish a story The Guardian deems 'pointless'!
The right to be forgotten? Biggest con ever thought up. What kind of press gets behind the preposterous UN 'right to be forgotten' censorship of the press, of the internet and of broader freedom of information?
As for 'pointless' celebrity stories? Aren't all celebrity stories pointless; which is the whole point of celebrity stories. LOL.
It seems to me that The Guardian's issue is with the 'quality' of the press (as defined by The Guardian), but The Guardian cannot expect to impose their lofty notions of what is or is not suitable as a topic in the way of celebrity press coverage -- or any other coverage -- upon the press as a whole or, indeed, upon the entire nation.
Whether trashy, 'unimportant', trivial, 'old' news, unsavoury news, embarrassing news -- or whatever kind of news sectors of the press choose to present to their readership -- we should all stand and defend the right of news sources to print as they will (subject to truth and the laws as they stand) and we should also vehemently defend the right of readers to read as much lurid 'tabloid journalism' as they desire.
That's the poster's take on this.
----------------end comment-----------------
ADDENDUM
"Though a few dossiers short of a load ..."
It is actually the UK government that is currently short of a dossier:
The UK Home Office has admitted that it can’t find 114 “potentially relevant files” relating to the pedophile scandal engulfing Westminster, in which there are allegations that senior political figures were involved in, or covered up, child sex abuse.
The lost files were part of a dossier compiled in the 1980s by the now deceased Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens and which was passed to the then-Home Secretary Leon Brittan, British media reports.
SOURCE - RT News - here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)