 | ||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| | ||||||||
Western Media - Who is Good, and Who is Not?
|
And Origin of 92% of all the Lies in the World Americans are unique in that 50% of the population are above-average in intelligence, which is coincidentally the same percentage that cannot find their own country on a map of the world. And 75%, according to all recent polls, can't find Canada. They are also unique in that, while the rest of the world is reading about Japan's tsunami or listening to Hillary Clinton tell them the 9-11 terrorists were Canadian, Americans are engrossed in the details of how Shurman's flower shop on main street was vandalised by (probably) Hispanics. Most US media content is curiously and overwhelmingly local, often in content that most of us would consider trivial. In the "Home of the Free" we can forget about freedom of the press. What's needed is freedom from the press, at least on anything with political content. Americans appear to have been brainwashed into some kind of jingoistic stupor. Their government and media fill their heads with "democracy, freedom, human rights", and they blindly repeat this mantra regardless of the facts of an international situation. All Americans know their government lied to them about Iraq and the reasons for the invasion, but most Americans will tell you they invaded Iraq to "liberate" it and give Iraqis "democracy". Most Americans know that their CIA plotted an overthrow of Iran's democratic government and installed a brutal dictator who would let them pillage the country's petroleum. And they know that the Iranians overthrew that dictator after many painful years and that they now have no love for the US. But if you ask, most Americans will tell you that the Iranians "hate us for our freedoms". Fox News, CNN, MSNBC What's there to say? White trash. Racist, bigoted, fabricated, spun, distorted, insulting white trash. With 80% of the population hanging on every word. The Washington Post Possesses excellent investigative reporting staff and produces some high-quality journalism. But they follow the Right-Wing party line when it comes to China. Constant praise of the Dalai Lama, criticism of Tibet and most things Chinese. Maybe a little too close to Hillary Clinton and the State Department. A useful tool for spreading politcal misinformation and especially for helping to demonise whomever is the next US military target. The Wall Street Journal I don't know what to make of this paper. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch, another aggressive Right-Wing Zionist extremist, but the WSJ doesn't seem to reflect his mental shortcomings. I'd always thought of the WSJ as a strong Right-Wing, push the CIA/State Department Line kind of paper, but I seem to be changing my opinion. Many articles on China, many well-balanced. There does seem to be a bit of an anti-China bias in the sources chosen to contribute to articles, but still a sense of fairness and honesty seems to prevail in much of the China news. In part, the WSJ seems to be able to avoid politicising things which are not political. An article on clean energy will discuss clean energy, and will not likely be prefaced by a comment such as "China, which has a one-party authoritarian Communist government, is investing huge sums on clean energy sources..." The New York Times - the Champions of Journalistic Fraud One of the nice things about CNN or Fox News is that they know they're trash, you know they're trash, and we all just live with it. Not the NYT. They are the king of the journalistic jungle, with the highest standards, the loftiest ideals, the most renowned and respected columnists. Fair and trustworthy reporting at its best. Yes, I'm just kidding. The NYT is a rat's nest of fraudulent journalism, a true Zionist extremist Right-Wing rag - though I'd be hard-pressed to know whether to emphasise the Zionism, the extremism, the Right-Wingism, or the rag part. The mother's nest of opinion-based journalism, driven by ideology and with a frightening disregard for truth. The NYT can fabricate, twist, mislead, and just plain lie, with the best of them. NYT Zionist Anti-Chinese Propaganda The entire paper, from Sulzberger to the executives, editorial staff, columnists like Kristoff, Friedman, Krugman, Cohen, is like a Who's Who of New York Jewish journalistic society and most would form a perfect Christmas list of Zionist Extremist China-Bashers. I have no idea why this combination should co-exist so happily at the NYT, but co-exist it does. Many of their China articles are so outrageously twisted or downright dishonest that it's difficult to fathom the mentality of these people. I'm sorry to say this, but of the mass of China-bashing that appears in the Western press, the bulk of the most vicious attacks, the most venomous, the most racist, bigoted, twisted, unfair and just plain wrong, comments about China originate with Jewish Zionists. I have no explanation for that. China-bashing doesn't seem to appear in the English-language press in Israel; comments on China appear generally dispassionate and even-handed, so why it would be so virulent in the North American (and other Western) Jewish-owned media is a puzzle. I am unaware of any reason American Jews and Zionists should have such a vicious disposition toward the Chinese. Nicholas Kristoff, who in my view is just a complete dolt, wrote a column that many of us will never forget. Chinese companies were trading with Darfur (as was the US, but he forgot that), a country enmeshed in a kind of civil war. And Kristoff, being the good Christian he is (well, a Jew, but still . . .) informed us with a tear in his eye that we must, "sadly", label the 2008 Beijing Olympics as the "Genocide Olympics". What a nice man. To me, Kristoff is a striking example of how early termination of breast-feeding can cripple one's judgment in later life, and is way up there on my list of people who would benefit from a lobotomy. And Thomas Friedman, in my view, qualifies mostly as an insufferable pompous ass, presuming to judge China matters he clearly does not understand but yet is arrogantly competent to advise upon - in the smug, self-satisfied manner that only he can manage. Krugman is no better when it comes to economics and international finance; his writings simply stink with bias, half-truths, false allegations, misstatements. I have written before that I can assume only that someone is either paying him a lot of money to compromise his integrity, or he is one of the CIA favorites for demonising China. Perhaps both. Nothing else would explain it. Readers may not be aware that the CIA regularly engages legitimate news reporters in foreign countries as agents (spies), will sometimes send agents to a newspaper for basic training, then have the media outlet place that person in a bureau of usefulness, and will often simply pay reporters (legitimate or otherwise) to collect intelligence while pretending to look for stories. One of these people is the NYT's Andrew Jacobs in Beijing (another Jewish Zionist), who has been described by our friends in Beijing media circles as a neo-con anti-China zealot and "a CIA-sponsored punk", keeping contact with those who interfere in China's Tibet issues, and who seems to continue the NYT practice of smear campaigns to demonise China. The NYT also appears surprisingly selective as to which reader comments can be posted. Generally, comments critical of Israel are refused posting while China appears held to a different standard. On one of Kristoff's articles on China's Sichuan earthquake, a reader noted that the event "was just nature's way of telling us there are too many Chinese in the world." That comment remained, even over the objection of other readers. But I suspect any similar comment about Jewish deaths from a bomb would not likely see the light of a journalistic day. In any case, if you want to know the truth about any topic with the slightest hint of political content, this is not a paper to read. The NYT followed the Bush line on all the lies told about Iraq, long after we all knew they were lies, and this is true for all US foreign policy issues - Iran, China, North Korea, Israel . . . The NYT, in addition to having its own Zionist agenda, definitely appears to be the mouthpiece of the US government, the CIA and the State Department. NYT Pro-Israel Propaganda The NYT recently published an article on Gaza, that would have to take some kind of world prize for blatant dishonest journalism - written by another Jewish reporter, Ethan Bronner. The extent of the lies was simply staggering. This wasn't a matter of exaggerating or of telling only one side of a story. It was an unconscionable, obscene attempt to twist the reality of Gaza - just nicely in advance of the sailing of the second flotilla. The article went so far as to tell us that even during the full blockade, "more than 3,000 tons per day" of goods were brought or smuggled in from Egypt. That would mean that each 12 people in Gaza were sharing a metric ton of food and supplies each month. What an incredible, stunning capacity to lie. You can read the article "The New York Times: Taking Journalistic Fraud to a New Level" Here. We are all Accustomed to Governments Lying, but the People too . . .? This is an aside, but an interesting one. Most of us will try to present our best side, or the best side of our story, especially if we're under attack. But few of us will resort to the wholesale fabrication of facts, of history, of events, of people, to change public perception of us. We may go so far as to say, "I didn't do it" when we really did, but that isn't quite the same thing. But I have discovered that Jews - or at least Zionists, I assume most of whom are Jews - will do that to defend Israel from the indefensible. They have no truths to assist them, so they simply fabricate them. During the past 6 months I have read numerous published articles related to Israel and Palestine, and was shocked to read both the articles, and the defensive comments from pro-Israel readers, so many of which were simply fabricated lies, making up historical events that never happened, creating imaginary facts, making claims that were patently false. The Jews have no valid historical claim to Palestine, having lived in that area for only about 400 years, during which time they shared it with many other races. But Jewish writers and readers making posts, manufacture endless fake facts to justify to the gullible and lazy their invasion and hijacking of the entire country of Palestine - claiming the Jews lived there for "thousands of years", and that in the 20th century Palestine was "empty" of people so the Jews just kind of moved in. In one article on Israel's technical achievements or some such, one commenter informed us that Israel's arms manufacturing and trade were a totally insignificant part of the economy and the military. And further, that Israel's one major industry was the manufacture of generic medicines - of which Israel was the largest in the world - and that if not for Israel, all the world would be paying much higher prices for medication. Totally false; every word, presumably hoping readers were too gullible or lazy to do their own research. In another, the commenter claimed that Gaza was rich because it receives more than 3 billion dollars in aid each year - but chooses to spend it on weapons. An incredible lie, just incredible. And made shamelessly. I mention this only because I have never seen this before on what appears to be an immense scale - not with any country, race, religion, topic or industry. And yes, the American government lies, often seemingly about everything. But I never see floods of Americans posting on newspaper sites all over the world with totally fabricated facts about their government's activities. And of course Ideology interferes with reason, and some Americans will jump to the defense of their country in the belief it is pure and clean. But they don't usually claim that Nicaragua invaded them, instead of the other way around, or that they bombed Hiroshima to rubble because there was a pest infestation and Japan asked for their help. And yet it's precisely this kind of incredible false claims I constantly see made in defense of Israel. Canada: The National Post As is true for most countries, half of the people in Canada are below average in intelligence. I believe that's the half that reads the National Post. It is owned and managed by the Jewish Asper family, is virulently Zionist, blindly Right-Wing, almost bankrupt, and has never to my knowledge made a profit. It was created by the (also Zionist and Right-Wing) Conrad (Lord) Black who is now in prison in the US for stealing money from shareholders who were virulent but not blind. Prior to his becoming a Professor of Journalism at Coleman Federal Prison in Florida, Lord Black sold his newspaper holdings, including the National Post, to the (also Zionist and Right-Wing) Asper family. That's the same family that we're told convinced Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (also Zionist and Right-Wing, with the added attractions of being (at least in my view) a religious extremist, and a George Bush "look, I"m a poodle too"), to build, at taxpayer's expense, a Canadian "Human Rights Museum" - which is actually a Jewish Holocaust museum, the name change becoming necessary when polls revealed that Canadians preferred a Gypsy holocaust museum to a Jewish one. Conrad still writes articles for the National Post, which proves that Zionism is thicker than prison walls. But in any case, the National Post is just a Right-Wing rag. It is so slanted as to be offensive to at least some thinking people, and it publishes the most astonishing trash on China. One that I'll never forget was an astonishingly hateful treatise by David Matas, the senior legal counsel of B'nai Brith Canada, about China performing illegal organ transplants. He produced a report of several hundred pages based on the proposition that absence of proof of innocence is equivlalent to proof of guilt. Really. "You don't seem able to prove you didn't do it, so that almost certainly means you did do it." On that one, we need only follow the money to find the right conclusions. Canada: The Globe & Mail The Globe & Mail used to be a highly-respected paper but has lost much of that by the infiltration of . . . I don't rightly know - zombies, flakes, the gay undead, unemployed actors from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. . . It seems to be improving of late, with intelligent articles on most foreign affairs topics - with the exception of China. The G&M retains some dolt named Mark MacKinnon in Hong Kong who appears to be yet another blindly Right-Wing China-basher. If Mackinnon had to say a kind word about China, or even write an unbiased story, he would probably choke. It's not that MacKinnon is stupid, though I have no independent confirmation of that, but he seems to see his purpose in life as one of looking for bugs to squash. All of his China articles appear to stem from an attitude of "There must be something else wrong with China. How can I find it?". But on the other hand, the G&M is of late being irrepressibly courageous in its articles about Israel and Palestine, and for that I would almost forgive them for MacKinnon. Almost. On the courage aspect, I'll tell you a short story. In the mid-1980s when Israel was conducting its savage pogrom of Palestinian towns, the G&M ran an article that was fairly critical of Israel, earning great praise from at least some of us. But a day or two later, centered on the top front page of the G&M was a large photo of a Jewish soldier giving candy to a (supposedly) Palestinian child. You don't need an imagination to tell you what happened behind a closed door somewhere. The financial power of the Jewish lobby. Anyway, the G&M is being brave today and gaining increased support from readers. Now, if only we can get MacKinnon fired . . . The UK is special in that a full 82% of the population is below average in intelligence - which accounts for the football hooligans, the veneration of the Royal Family, the fact that sheep in Scotland can hear a zipper a mile away, and the wild attraction of their domestic gutter journalism - as typified by the World News and the Economist. The same 82% believe their country is still of world significance and that they possess unusual powers of discernment and analysis that qualify them to comment on world affairs. Unfortunately, the British seem selective about the world affairs on which they choose to comment. For example, one might see an article on the deaths during China's civil war, but never on the millions of callous deaths they caused in India by routing all rural food to the cities so they could eat while the Indians all starved to death. Nor do they seem interested in dicussing how their then Prime Minister, the Great Winston Churchill, declared that these starvation deaths were "a good thing". They also seem to have an aversion to discussing the fact that they didn't want to trade their good gold and silver for Chinese tea so they decided to pay for it with opium. Nor how they granted the exclusive opium distributorship to the Jewish Sassoon family, and then grabbed Hong Kong so the Sassoons could have a distribution center. Nor how the opium trade was so obscenely profitable that it needed a bank - yes, the HSBC - the choice of drug dealers everywhere. At least apparently at that time. However, they are not reluctant to comment at length on China. I believe there is something here about the regrets of a failed empire and bitter resentment at seeing one's former slave surpassing the master. The bitterness for sure is there. Readers may not be generally aware of the behind-the-scenes negotiations in London that preceded the return of Hong Kong to China. The "Iron Lady" (perhaps referring to the chastity belt, and perhaps not) Margaret Thatcher, decided at the last minute she wasn't returning Hong Kong to anybody. The word is that her ministers panicked and browbeat her into concession, for fear of starting World War III. Many, if not most, of the Brits get their news from "National Enquirer" sources like the Economist or the News of The World - which really just engage in cheap mud-slinging and an exceptional level of smart-assed, flame-baiting journalism. The British do have their way. The British once believed they were the best, the strongest, the smartest, in the world. The best and strongest are long gone, and the smartest seems to have disappeared as well. But they're still the snottiest, as you will note from their media. The London Times Part of a huge media conglomerate owned by Jewish interests, in this case Rupert Murdoch, who knew The Times Online was of an exceptional standard for which people would pay real money for access. He then initiated fees for access to this outstanding intellectual property, upon which online readership immediately dropped by 82%. But, no great loss. The times is, like Canada's National Post, Zionist and Right-Wing, and revels in China-bashing. We just ignore them. The UK Guardian This one is a bit of a puzzlement, a bit like doing a lab exam of a man with two brains. Sometimes the Guardian seems true to its roots and reports news factually without bias or unwarranted opinion, and then sometimes it seems to be a Right-Wing flake. The Guardian used to be a respected media platform that tended to tell things as they really were, even though the power structure might object. Today, that reputation is in question, and I have difficulty knowing where they stand. But, China-bashing is up there. The UK Telegraph This one is a puzzlement too, because the Telegraph is definitely a Right-Wing paper, but often not a rag, and sometimes not even so Right-Wing. Another man with two brains. Seemingly less China-bashing than the Left-Wing Guardian. Maybe undergoing a metamorphosis and reverting to the real world. And, maybe not. The Economist - The Most Elite Gutter-Journalism Publication in the World In my view, this one is the worst of all English-Language publications in the known universe. The Economist is not only virulently anti-China, but often publishes articles that have no news value and appear intended only to be deprecating, insulting and inflammatory. Many, if not most, of the articles on China show a surprising lack of depth and understanding, and appear to have been written by clones with a fresh diploma in ideology 101. I did a search on the Economist site and found 159 recent articles on the Three Gorges Dam - all damning, all inflamatory, all critical. Can you believe that? 159 articles on the same topic, within a couple of years. Don't these people have anything to do? It's the same with all China topics; they can't leave China alone, and cannot say anything nice. Even crappy countries have 'governments', but China has a 'regime'. Everybody else has political 'candidates', but China has 'princelings'. All the good words saved for the West and all the bad ones for China. Mostly just cheap mud-slinging. The Economist is blindly acting as the US poodle, something about the special relationship between a dog and his tail. When the news of Abu Ghraib and the torture deaths first broke, the Economist's comment about the US was, "shame on them". Shame on them? The Americans are secretly torturing people to death all over the world, and that's all you can say? Jesus. This foolish magazine, owned by Pearson and the Rothschilds, is also virulently Zionist and blindly Right-Wing; all of the articles on Israel are pap-fed pandering of the worst sort, extolling Israel's scientific achievements (and no, not on ways to kill more Palestinians faster) or some such nonsense. Shameless boot-licking. And fairly shameless deleting of anti-Israel comments, too. Readers attack the Economist writers and editors mercilessly in the comments sections, but to no apparent avail. Der Spiegel - English This is one newspaper that does really annoy me. And it's disappointing, because Spiegel tends to contain interesting and well-researched articles on many topics, but those referring to China are blind Right-Wing China-bashing. The sense of detachment and impartiality that seems evident in all other articles simply disappears when it comes to China. Der Spiegel recently published a brief interview with Kissinger on China, that took the following format: Der Spiegel: So, Mr. Kissinger, do you agree that China is a shitty country? Kissinger: I'm not sure it's helpful to categorise countries in that manner. Der Spiegel: Well, do you think we should nuke them anyway? Kissinger: We normally look for less dramatic solutions to current events. Der Spiegel: How do you feel about China poisoning your grandson with melamine? Kissinger: My grandson doesn't eat dog food. You get the idea. Norway and Sweden Little Right-Wing Nobel war-mongering wannabes, colonies of the US. Forget them. The media, the Nobel Committee, Bofors and the other arms dealers, all firmly in the US "Let's hate China, let's hate Iraq, let's hate Libya" camp. Both countries publish fake stories about China, about riots or revolutions that never occurred - with fake photos to match - but thankfully are not a force in the media world. If the citizens of those two countries don't mind being led down the path, we needn't mind either. Most of the Rest of Europe Aside from the Irish Times, which appears to be rabidly anti-Chinese for reasons I can't imagine, there is nothing Special to Report. News is news, and the Europeans don't usually bash anybody. Except maybe themselves, and occasionally each other, but it's gentle. (5) Reuters I check Reuters frequently but don't often find inflammatory or inaccurate articles on topics that interest me, in the sense that they seem to publish business and financial news, topical interest stories, without resorting to the opinion-based journalism that infects much of the Western media. I don't find much that contains political commentary presented as news or fact. I don't recall many articles on China, nor anything that was particularly inflammatory. I tend to save all articles that might be of interest later, and I have almost nothing from Reuters - it seems to be just normal news . . . Now, Reuters have several versions of their news site. I typically refer to Reuters.com, but they have a US version, a Canada version, and 16 in total, including a Chinese site in Chinese. These sites don't carry the same content. Still, I frequently check several of the sites and my conclusion is unchanged. Some Extra Reading Here are some articles related to the Western media, journalistic fraud, misuse of press freedom, fabricated articles and fabricated supporting photos, the political use of public media to further (primarily US) foreign policy objectives, use of the media to demonise countries as a prelude to invasion. To return to Page 1: News and Propaganda, Truth and Fiction Click Here. To return to Page 2: Some Basic Flaws in the Western Media Click Here. | |||||||||||