{"id":198468,"date":"2015-11-09T01:12:20","date_gmt":"2015-11-09T01:12:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=198468"},"modified":"2015-11-09T14:38:06","modified_gmt":"2015-11-09T14:38:06","slug":"no-matter-how-well-russian-media-expose-western-lies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/no-matter-how-well-russian-media-expose-western-lies\/","title":{"rendered":"No Matter How Well Russian Media Expose Western Lies …"},"content":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Screen<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=p54hHhlLjRk<\/b><\/a><\/span> <\/b>*<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Western \u2018news\u2019 media simply refuse to report the lying that\u2019s done by Western \u2018news\u2019 media and their governments.<\/span><\/p>\n

Western media didn\u2019t even report \u2013 and more than a decade after the fact, they still are not reporting \u2013 that George W. Bush was lying when he said on 7 September 2002 that the IAEA had just issued a report saying that Saddam Hussein was six months away from having a nuclear weapon \u2013 when he said this even though the IAEA repeatedly denied having ever issued such a report<\/span><\/a>. (And: largely because Western media still<\/i> <\/span>don\u2019t report that he had lied<\/i> <\/span>there, the Gallup Poll, on 20 June 2014<\/span><\/a>, found that former President George W. Bush was continuing to be well-regarded by the American public: he still had an approval rating of 53%, and only 44% of Americans disapproved of him. His approval-rating within his own Republican Party continued to be an astronomically high 88%. His failure to have acted on pre-9\/11 intelligence about Al Qaeda, the massive needless bloodshed from foreign invasions, trillions of dollars wasted, millions of needless Iraqi refugees produced, tortures and \u2018renditions\u2019 in violation of international law, and the explosion of financial fraud and its resulting economic crash, all failed to cause him to be generally unpopular amongst the American people, whose nation he had actually almost wrecked. Such is the power of a constantly lying press, which claims that all these catastrophes were \u2018well-intentioned\u2019 by the \u2018democratically\u2019 \u2018elected\u2019 President.)<\/span><\/p>\n

And, more than a decade later, the media are still not reporting that Barack Obama lies saying<\/span><\/a> that the August 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria was from Assad\u2019s forces and not from the rebel side \u2013 which it actually was. (Obama repeats this lie every time he \u2018justifies\u2019 his invasion of Syria. He\u2019s actually supporting the people who did<\/i> <\/span>that sarin attack \u2013 and\u00a0he knows<\/i> it<\/span><\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n

When will Western \u2018news\u2019 media start behaving as if they\u2019re actual news-media in an authentic democracy, instead of mere propaganda-outlets for their government against the various nations that the local aristocracy (the Western aristocrats who also own the \u2018news\u2019 media) want to take over or else destroy \u2013 first, Libya, then Ukraine<\/span><\/a>, now Syria \u2013 all allies of Russia (as had been Saddam Hussein\u2019s Iraq<\/span><\/a>), which Russia is the American aristocracy\u2019s actual ultimate target here<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s like George Orwell’s\u00a01984<\/i>, in \u201cthe West.\u201d It\u2019s no real\u00a0democracy<\/span><\/a> here. It\u2019s fake. It\u2019s built on lies. (Just as all U.S. Presidents since the end of the Soviet Union have been lying about Russia.<\/span><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

And it has been going on like this for decades in the United States. For example, farther on, in that same video (at 3:17) which is linked here at the top of this article, is also the 1990 Congressional testimony of \u201cNurse Nayirah\u201d about Saddam Hussein\u2019s atrocities in her country Kuwait, which testimony was used in Congress to \u2018justify’ Bush Senior\u2019s war against Saddam\u2019s army in Kuwait. That \u2018evidence’ too was\u00a0a U.S. government hoax, engineered with the assistance of Kuwait\u2019s U.S. Embassy and the PR firm Hill and Knowlton.<\/span><\/a>\u00a0(And a fuller description of that PR campaign can be found\u00a0here<\/span><\/a>. And also\u00a0here<\/span><\/a>.) It wasn\u2019t publicly revealed, that Nayirah was a member of Kuwait\u2019s royal al-Sabah family<\/span><\/a>, she was the daughter of Kuwait\u2019s Ambassador to the United States, Saud Nasser Al-Saud Al-Sabah. The al-Sabah family<\/span><\/a> plus the National Parliament, own Kuwait (they jointly control the country and own its oil wells), and the al-Sabahs had hired Hill and Knowlton for this propaganda-operation. None of that was revealed to the public when \u201cnurse Nayirah\u201d was shown crying on U.S. television<\/span><\/a> as she testified lying<\/span><\/a> in Congress. What the al-Sabah family were actually crying about was the theft of Kuwait from them, after they had (centuries earlier) largely stolen Kuwait from the Kuwaiti public and privatized it largely to themselves. For this theft from the al-Sabahs and from the National Parliament, the Bush family, long allied with the Saud family (friends of the Sabah family) sent America\u2019s soldiers in to kill, and be killed, in Kuwait.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We know why the Bushes did this. Why is Obama doing it? Who are his<\/i> <\/span>friends?<\/span><\/p>\n

And, above all: When will the Western \u2018news\u2019 media start<\/i> reporting about their own fakeness? Isn\u2019t that the pre-condition for any intelligent<\/i> <\/span>consumer of news to start to take them seriously? (Perhaps Western \u2018news\u2019 executives don\u2019t think so; perhaps they think that, instead, hiding<\/i> their fakery is the only way to keep<\/i> \u00a0their \u2018dumb\u2019 audience\u2019s trust.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Here<\/a><\/span> and here<\/span><\/a> are two Western news-reporters who have gone public about those individual journalists\u2019 personal refusals of demands by management to deceive the public. (Both of them were fired and then blackballed for doing this. Journalists are actually trapped.)<\/span><\/p>\n

PERSONAL NOTE:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

No one pays me to write this sort of thing. I offer my news reports and commentaries free to all American and many other Western news-media, in order to persuade them that they should start to become honest \u2013 and also in order to encourage readers to support the few that already are<\/i> <\/span>honest enough to report the truth about what has actually happened to the media in the Western world (google the headline to this report between quotation-marks, and see who published this and who didn\u2019t).<\/span><\/p>\n

The reason that I do this is that the biggest news-story of all, to me, is actually about the press itself. (Incidentally: America\u2019s self-styled \u2018critics\u2019 of the press, such as MediaMatters, FAIR, and AIM, don\u2019t report this particular news-beat either \u2013 they too are mere propaganda-vehicles.) And, in fact, the biggest scandal is that there is no market for honesty in the journalism-profession in the West.<\/span><\/p>\n

The West is all that I know about and have investigated; so, I can\u2019t say whether this corruption is the same elsewhere, and I won\u2019t speculate about that. My concern is the corruption here, not there. And I have found lots of that corruption, such as: here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a> and here<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Until the Western press starts reporting its own corruptness, democracy will be impossible in the West. Wars and other catastrophes can be the result. Criminal invasions such as of Iraq in 2003, or perhaps even of Russia itself yet to come, can result from a lying press. That\u2019s why I am concerned about this.<\/span><\/p>\n

* \u00a0<\/span>Regarding the RT investigative news report that starts this article, the BBC even had the nerve to headline, after it was telecast, a \u2018news\u2019 report supposedly exposing the RT news report as false, while not identifying anything in it to be<\/i> <\/span>false. On 21 September 2015 they headlined, very misleadingly, \u201cUK regulator Ofcom backs BBC in Russian TV case,<\/span><\/a>\u201d and opened (also misleadingly saying what had allegedly been affirmed in what they had \u2018won\u2019): <\/i>\u201cThe BBC has won a case against Russian TV channel RT, which claimed the corporation faked a report on Syria. The station [RT] said the BBC had \u2018staged\u2019 a chemical weapons attack for a news report, and digitally altered the words spoken by an interviewee. The BBC complained to Ofcom, saying the \u2018incredibly serious\u2019 allegations struck \u2018at the heart\u2019 of its obligations to accuracy and impartiality.\u201d (At least that much from the BBC was honest: this RT report really did strike at the heart of the BBC\u2019s trustworthiness.) However, only at the end of this BBC \u2018news\u2019 article, after a lot of misdirection and side-tracking in the BBC\u2019s article, was the actual decision from Ofcom quoted from, or even summarized, when it finally said: \u201cIt [Ofcom] ruled: \u2018We did not consider that viewers would have clearly understood that the ‘massive public investigation’… was a complaint by a member of the public to the BBC which had been responded to in detail by the BBC and that it was also based on a number of online articles detailing individuals’ opinions.\u2019 RT has been directed to broadcast a summary of Ofcom’s decision that its programme was misleading.\u201d Nothing was identified in this BBC \u2018news\u2019 article as having been \u2018misleading\u2019 in the RT news report. And, specifically, RT\u2019s allegation that the BBC had staged and \u201cfaked a report on Syria\u201d wasn\u2019t actually denied in the BBC\u2019s article (though the opening of the BBC \u2018news\u2019 article misleadingly suggested that the charge that the BBC had engaged in fakery there had been found by Ofcom to be a false allegation by RT as the BBC was alleging \u2013 which wasn\u2019t at all true). However, in order for RT to retain its license in UK, they had to comply with the British regulatory agency\u2019s command. And Britain doesn\u2019t have a censored \u2018news\u2019 media? The UK is a \u2018democracy\u2019? The Home Team (BBC) can use the home-nation\u2019s media-regulator to punish a foreign competitor that has exposed the Home Team\u2019s lies, and this is supposed to be \u2018democracy\u2019?<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is what Ofcom\u2019s actual report on this case<\/span><\/a> actually said:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOfcom has not taken forward [i.e., accepted] the BBC\u2019s complaint of due accuracy under Rule 5.1 as this rule applies to news reports and is therefore not applicable to the Programme which was an investigative current affairs programme. However, Ofcom considered that the [RT] Programme raised issues warranting investigation under Rule 2.2 of the Code which states: \u2018Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words: Whereas the BBC\u2019s \u2018news\u2019 story here had opened by alleging that, \u201cThe BBC has won a case against Russian TV channel RT, which claimed the [BBC] corporation faked a report on Syria,\u201d that statement by BBC was false. Ofcom\u2019s report had clearly stated that, \u201caccuracy \u2026 is \u2026 not applicable to the program.\u201d Furthermore: elsewhere in Ofcom\u2019s report, there was also this: \u201cOfcom\u2019s functions do not extend to regulating the provision of the BBC\u2019s services in so far as they concern the accuracy or impartiality of the content of any programme included in the BBC\u2019s UK public broadcasting services.\u201d In other words: As regards the BBC itself, accuracy isn\u2019t required, not only in \u201can investigative current affairs program\u201d but in anything at all<\/i> <\/span>which comes from the BBC. Wow! Why would Ofcom \u2013 supposedly the BBC\u2019s (and all news-media\u2019s) regulator, say such things? The reason is obvious once one reads the rest of Ofcom\u2019s report. The BBC in its complaint to Ofcom, which had sparked this ruling by Ofcom, provided no documentation disproving or in any way contesting the truth of what the RT news-report had reported<\/i>. For this reason, Ofcom instead applied a different, totally vague and therefore pliable standard, namely that \u201cfactual matters must not materially mislead the audience.\u201d Even if the given \u201cinvestigative current affairs programme\u201d is 100% \u201caccurate,\u201d it must not \u201cmaterially mislead\u201d (unless it\u2019s the BBC, which is free to falsify. The BBC is allowed to be entirely inaccurate anywhere, but RT isn\u2019t allowed even to merely \u201cmaterially mislead\u201d \u2013 whatever that\u2019s supposed to mean).<\/span><\/p>\n

So: what was the basis for Ofcom\u2019s ruling that this RT program did \u201cmaterially mislead\u201d? Ofcom presented details of where the progam was \u201cmisleading.\u201d Most of them consisted of arguments to the effect that the private person who had investigated the BBC\u2019s report, Robert Stuart, and who was quoted at several points in the RT report, had produced no \u2018massive public investigation,\u2019 though it was, in fact, massive and had, in fact, been made public on the Web, at https:\/\/bbcpanoramasavingsyriaschildren.wordpress.com\/<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Ofcom report said that: \u201cThe BBC said that the \u2018extremely disturbing findings\u2019 of the \u2018massive public investigation\u2019 referred to and relied on in the [RT] Programme were in fact the complaints of Mr Stuart and that the statement of Mr Stuart which is read out in the Programme is portrayed as the \u2018outcome of an official public investigation\u2019. The BBC said that these assertions are false and \u2018un-evidenced\u2019.\u201d Ofcom there stated the BBC\u2019s accusation, using BBC\u2019s original complaint from BBC.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, in fact, Mr. Stuart\u2019s investigative report was \u201cmassive,\u201d and it was \u201cpublic\u201d in the sense of its being online; and, as far as \u201cofficial\u201d<\/i> <\/span>is concerned, that three-word phrase \u201cofficial public investigation\u201d employed by the BBC in their complaint against RT, used by BBC in their charge filed at Ofcom against RT, describing RT\u2019s references to RT\u2019s investigation, that it was an \u2018official public investigation,\u2019 was a fabrication by the BBC:<\/i> Not once in the RT news-report was that three-word phrase actually used<\/i>. Never was Mr. Stuart\u2019s report being referenced there as an \u201cofficial public investigation,\u201d nor was it referred to there as any \u201coutcome of an official public investigation.\u201d (You can easily confirm this fact by examining the transcript of the segment<\/span><\/a> \u2013 you\u2019ll need to click there on \u201cRead the full transcript.\u201d) The BBC lied there to Ofcom, and Ofcom simply took their lie on that as being the Gospel Truth.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ofcom concluded its finding: \u201cFor the reasons stated above, Ofcom was of the view that the Programme, in stating that the BBC was the subject of a \u2018massive public investigation which made some extremely disturbing findings\u2019 presented the audience with a materially misleading fact, and therefore, within the context of the Programme which was a current affairs programme, had the potential to cause harm to viewers.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

As if the BBC\u2019s faked chemical-weapons attack by Assad\u2019s forces hadn\u2019t caused real harm to the BBC\u2019s viewers \u2013 and to democracy itself? That\u2019s right; that\u2019s Ofcom.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, (p. 124) \u201cOfcom found that the Programme as broadcast resulted in unfairness to the BBC. [Oh? It\u2019s not \u2018harm to viewers\u2019 that Ofcom was actually concerned about here, after all?] Therefore, Ofcom has upheld the BBC\u2019s complaint of unjust or unfair treatment in the Programme as broadcast.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Clearly, by Ofcom\u2019s phrase there, \u201cunjust or unfair treatment,\u201d they were referring to the BBC as being their client \u2013 not the BBC\u2019s viewers, at all.<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, RT, afraid that their license will be revoked if any further complaints against them by the BBC are filed at Ofcom, did whatever they were told.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Britain\u2019s pro-imperialist New Statesman<\/i> <\/span>magazine, RT is \u201cPutin\u2019s Mouthpiece\u201d<\/span><\/a> and is thus a threat. So: this is how Britain deals with that alleged situation \u2013 by imitating the Soviet Union.<\/span><\/p>\n

A nation doesn\u2019t need to be communist in order to be a dictatorship. Just ask Julian Assange, involuntarily imprisoned for years in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London because he runs an operation (wikileaks) that exposes dictatorships that call themselves \u2018democratic\u2019 though they aren\u2019t. Perhaps the most-successful dictatorships are the ones that (like<\/span><\/a> the U.S.<\/span><\/a>) deny that this is what they are.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s a lot easier to lead the herd to slaughter if they don\u2019t know what is happening behind the wall at the front of the line<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ofcom\u2019s real message to the British public: Get in line, herd!<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/span><\/p>\n

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Eric Zuesse https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=p54hHhlLjRk * Western \u2018news\u2019 media simply refuse to report the lying that\u2019s done by Western \u2018news\u2019 media and their governments. Western media didn\u2019t even report \u2013 and more than a decade after the fact, they still are not reporting \u2013 that George W. Bush was lying when he said on 7 September 2002 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":198470,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487,461,1622],"tags":[115,30,27,32,96,535,1034,59,1017,753,804,526,986,524,49,76,40,1024],"class_list":{"0":"post-198468","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-breaking-news","8":"category-editorials","9":"category-featured","10":"tag-barack-obama","11":"tag-big-brother","12":"tag-bush","13":"tag-cia","14":"tag-cover-up","15":"tag-global-news","16":"tag-independent-media","17":"tag-military","18":"tag-news","19":"tag-police-state","20":"tag-politics-2","21":"tag-propaganda","22":"tag-rt","23":"tag-russia","24":"tag-usa-news","25":"tag-warfare","26":"tag-white-house","27":"tag-ww3"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198468","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198468\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/198470"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}