2 March 2020 — The Electronic Intifada
Myles Holmes, an anti-Muslim and anti-gay pastor, will speak Monday at AIPAC just days after suggesting torture and death for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. (via Facebook)
Pastor Myles Holmes, an anti-Muslim and anti-gay bigot, is scheduled to speak about evangelical support for Israel at the conference of the powerful lobby group AIPAC on Monday.
7 February, 2013
Paris – Opposing genocide has become a sort of cottage industry in the United States.
Everywhere, “genocide studies” are cropping up in universities. Five years ago, an unlikely “Genocide Prevention Task Force” was set up headed by former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former defense secretary William Cohen, both veterans of the Clinton administration.
1 February 2013 — Voice of Russia and Stop NATO
Renowned author Dr. Edward Herman spoke with the Voice of Russia regarding the facts surrounding the Srebrenica Massacre, the pretext for the “humanitarian” invasion of the former Yugoslavia, and takes apart the “official” ; version that has always been promoted by the West.
|
4 April 2012 — Global Research Humanitarian wars, especially under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P),” are a modern form of imperialism. The standard pattern that the United States and its allies use to execute them is one where genocide and ethnic cleansing are vociferously alleged by a coalition of governments, media organizations, and non-governmental front organizations. The allegations – often lurid and unfounded – then provide moral and diplomatic cover for a variety of sanctions that undermine and isolate the target country in question, and thereby pave the way for military intervention. This is the post-Cold War modus operandi of the US and NATO. |
28 September 2011 — Counterpunch
The Guardian: A Thought Police for the Internet Age
There could be no better proof of the revolution – care of the internet – occurring in the accessibility of information and informed commentary than the reaction of our mainstream, corporate media.
2 August 2011 — Media Lens
On June 13, George Monbiot devoted his Guardian column to naming and shaming a ‘malign intellectual subculture that seeks to excuse savagery by denying the facts’. ‘The facts’, Monbiot noted, ‘are the genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda.’
25 November, 2009 — MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
One of our most relentless critics is Oliver Kamm, leader writer and blogger at The Times. Kamm joined the paper in 2008 having been an investment banker and co-founder of a hedge fund. In a 2006 blog, Kamm described us as “a shrill group of malcontents”, an “aggressively simple-minded lobby” guilty of “unprofessional and often comically inept exegesis” whose approach “demeans public life”. An impressive claim to make about one writer living off donations, one writer working in his spare time after finishing full-time work, and a virtually unpaid webmaster. David Cromwell, Kamm added, is “an ignoramus”.
(oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/12/media_lens_vs_h.html)
In another blog, two years later, Kamm described us as a “curious organisation”, operating “in effect as a ‘care in the community’ scheme for numerous species of malcontent on either political extreme”. (oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/01/media-lens-trie.html)
There is an overriding theme to Kamm‘s criticism. We are, he tells anyone willing to listen, “a reliable conduit for genocide-denial”. Indeed, we are responsible for nothing less than “the denial of genocide and the whitewashing of the single greatest war crime to have been committed on European soil since the defeat of Nazism”. (See comments following the Times Higher Education review of Newspeak at:
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409008)
He goes on: “Genocide denial is the organisation’s orthodoxy”. We are “an extreme, unsavoury and unrepresentative organisation whose function is the aggressive and often abusive targeting of working journalists”. (oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/01/media-lens-trie.html)
MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
October 15, 2008
In Part 1 of this alert, we noted how journalists who threaten their employers’ interests – and the interests of their key political and corporate allies – tend to be unceremoniously dumped. We also described how the force of the law can be deployed to silence dissidents seeking to expose chronic media bias.
In Part 2, we hosted journalist Jonathan Cook’s splendid analysis in response. Cook’s main point was that media managers rarely have to take such extreme measures because few journalists “make it to senior positions unless they have already learnt how to toe the line.”
An interesting question arises, then, in the age of the internet: To what extent will these same ultra-sensitive media companies tolerate public criticism? For example, will they allow visitors to their websites to post material that is critical of their journalism, and perhaps even damaging to their interests? Last month, we tested the limits of dissent on the Guardian’s Comment Is Free (CiF) website.
4 November 2005 — Media Lens
Introduction
On October 31, the Guardian published an interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes, ‘The greatest intellectual?’ (The Guardian, October 31, 2005)
The article was ostensibly in response to the fact that Chomsky had been voted the world’s top public intellectual by Prospect magazine the previous week. Continue reading
The New Dark Age 