VIDEO: Boston Resident Blasts Reporter Over Marathon Bombing Coverage

21st Century Wire says… Dan Bidondi did what any vigilant citizen should do — to ask questions and demand answers. He physically cut through the US media information firewall, breaking the government’s monopoly on narratives…

Huffington Post

Infowars Confrontation: Boston Resident Blasts Dan Bidondi Over Marathon Bombing Conspiracy Theories (VIDEO)




What do you do when you encounter a man who’s been interrupting press conferences about the Boston Marathon bombings with questions about conspiracy theories? Apparently launch into a tirade against him as a crowd records the encounter on their cell phones.

A video of the verbal clash between an unseen Boston resident and Dan Bidondi, a “correspondent” for Infowars was uploaded to YouTube.

“…What you say is dangerous and people like you shouldn’t be able to drive a car much less espouse your opinions in public,” the Boston resident said. “But we have a First Amendment. We gotta protect it. But you’re an asshole and so’s Alex Jones.”

TruthRadio on FacebookConspiracy theorist Alex Jones is the host of the conservative radio talk program “The Alex Jones Show,” and the founder of the Infowars website. In the past decade he has made a name for himself by accusing the U.S. government of being behind the Oklahoma City bombing, the Sept. 11th terror attacks and the most recent bombing in Boston. He also claims the shooting deaths of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., was a hoax.

Since the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, Infowars has published numerous articles featuring conspiracy theories about the attack. The Associated Press later revealed that Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a fan of the website.

Click above to watch the entire encounter. (WARNING: Graphic language.)

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

Is Al-Jazeera Fair And Balanced ?


Washington Post
Micheal Peel


ABU DHABI — Qatar’s al-Jazeera television station 
provided a great ringside seat for the “day of rage” in Cairo almost two years ago that offered the first clear sign of the threat to the rule of then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.



While many western media organizations were scrambling to ramp up coverage of Egypt’s nascent revolution, al-Jazeera had gripping reports of an extraordinary protest that ended with the ruling party headquarters ablaze and the army on the streets.

Yet, mirroring the progress of the Arab uprising itself, the 16-year-old Doha-based broadcaster’s Cairo triumph has since given way to a more complicated life, as it seeks to extend its international influence by buying into the U.S. television market.

Long recognized in the Middle East for its daring and sometimes groundbreaking reporting in a politically repressive region, al-Jazeera described its purchase this week of former vice president Al Gore’s Current TV network as a “historic development” in a market where it has long coveted expansion. The station, which has a respected English language arm and is already seen in more than 260 million homes in 130 countries, plans to start a U.S.-based news channel available to 40 million American households.

While al-Jazeera is celebrating its U.S. plans, it faces tough questions about its coverage and whether it is as independent of Qatar’s autocratic ruling monarchy as it claims to be. The broadcaster is partly funded by the government of Qatar, and the country’s increasingly prominent political role in the region’s turmoils has intensified scrutiny of al-Jazeera’s coverage.

“With the Arab Spring, al-Jazeera’s reach and credibility have grown in the West,” said Jane Kinninmont, a senior research fellow in the Middle East division of Chatham House, the London-based think tank. “But certainly, it has become more criticized in the Arab world – or, at least, become seen as more politicized.”

Although the popular revolts that swept the Arab world and brought down regimes from Tunisia to Yemen have presented al-Jazeera with an extraordinary opportunity to expand its audience, they have thrown up growing problems of perception.

And while the English channel is seen as enjoying a high degree of leeway, some analysts say Doha’s foreign policy positions — including support for armed rebels in Libya and Syria — are reflected in the tone of coverage, particularly on the flagship Arabic channel. Critics say Islamist movements with which Qatar has tried to achieve good relations have received over-sympathetic attention, with airtime given to wild allegations that opponents of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, are agents of foreign powers.

Some observers say al-Jazeera is cautious about reporting sensitive stories in Qatar, such as the fire at a Doha nursery last year that killed 13 children and six adults, although the channel denies it was slow to cover the tragedy.

“Al-Jazeera is generally a free network, but it works within the political constraints as understood in Qatar,” said Michael Stephens, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute Qatar think tank.

Al-Jazeera dismisses suggestions its coverage shows any bias, including toward fellow Persian Gulf states allied to Qatar. The broadcaster says that, far from following official agendas, it often sets them. “We were covering Syria, for example, long before outside governments took great interest,” it said.

It says that — while it takes a “good portion” of its funding from the Qatari state — it is a private not-for-profit company with other sources of income, such as advertising. And though Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al Thani, al-Jazeera’s director-general, is a member of Qatar’s ruling clan, the broadcaster says he has “no definable relationship” to the country’s ruler and is part of a “professional management who have steered Al Jazeera to success regardless of their nationalities or surnames”.

Perhaps the most unpredictable tension now facing al-Jazeera springs from Qatar’s political scene, which appears increasingly at odds with the broadcaster’s preferred image as a fearless network “dedicated to telling the real stories from the Arab street.” The Qatari authorities sentenced a poet to life imprisonment in November for insulting the emir in a widely-circulated work about the Arab Spring that criticized the “repressive elite”.

But al-Jazeera gives short shrift to the notion that its reputation might be threatened by the Qatar government’s intolerance of opposition at home. “Our journalists have never been told to cover or not cover a story due to pressure from outside this organization,” the broadcaster said.

Abeer Allam of the Financial Times in Cairo contributed to this story.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

Is Al – Jazeera Fair And Balanced ?


Washington Post
Micheal Peel


ABU DHABI — Qatar’s al-Jazeera television station provided a great ringside seat for the “day of rage” in Cairo almost two years ago that offered the first clear sign of the threat to the rule of then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

While many western media organizations were scrambling to ramp up coverage of Egypt’s nascent revolution, al-Jazeera had gripping reports of an extraordinary protest that ended with the ruling party headquarters ablaze and the army on the streets.

Yet, mirroring the progress of the Arab uprising itself, the 16-year-old Doha-based broadcaster’s Cairo triumph has since given way to a more complicated life, as it seeks to extend its international influence by buying into the U.S. television market.

Long recognized in the Middle East for its daring and sometimes groundbreaking reporting in a politically repressive region, al-Jazeera described its purchase this week of former vice president Al Gore’s Current TV network as a “historic development” in a market where it has long coveted expansion. The station, which has a respected English language arm and is already seen in more than 260 million homes in 130 countries, plans to start a U.S.-based news channel available to 40 million American households.

While al-Jazeera is celebrating its U.S. plans, it faces tough questions about its coverage and whether it is as independent of Qatar’s autocratic ruling monarchy as it claims to be. The broadcaster is partly funded by the government of Qatar, and the country’s increasingly prominent political role in the region’s turmoils has intensified scrutiny of al-Jazeera’s coverage.

“With the Arab Spring, al-Jazeera’s reach and credibility have grown in the West,” said Jane Kinninmont, a senior research fellow in the Middle East division of Chatham House, the London-based think tank. “But certainly, it has become more criticized in the Arab world – or, at least, become seen as more politicized.”Although the popular revolts that swept the Arab world and brought down regimes from Tunisia to Yemen have presented al-Jazeera with an extraordinary opportunity to expand its audience, they have thrown up growing problems of perception.

And while the English channel is seen as enjoying a high degree of leeway, some analysts say Doha’s foreign policy positions — including support for armed rebels in Libya and Syria — are reflected in the tone of coverage, particularly on the flagship Arabic channel. Critics say Islamist movements with which Qatar has tried to achieve good relations have received over-sympathetic attention, with airtime given to wild allegations that opponents of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, are agents of foreign powers.

Some observers say al-Jazeera is cautious about reporting sensitive stories in Qatar, such as the fire at a Doha nursery last year that killed 13 children and six adults, although the channel denies it was slow to cover the tragedy.

“Al-Jazeera is generally a free network, but it works within the political constraints as understood in Qatar,” said Michael Stephens, a researcher at the Royal United Services Institute Qatar think tank.Al-Jazeera dismisses suggestions its coverage shows any bias, including toward fellow Persian Gulf states allied to Qatar. The broadcaster says that, far from following official agendas, it often sets them. “We were covering Syria, for example, long before outside governments took great interest,” it said.

It says that — while it takes a “good portion” of its funding from the Qatari state — it is a private not-for-profit company with other sources of income, such as advertising. And though Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim al Thani, al-Jazeera’s director-general, is a member of Qatar’s ruling clan, the broadcaster says he has “no definable relationship” to the country’s ruler and is part of a “professional management who have steered Al Jazeera to success regardless of their nationalities or surnames”.

Perhaps the most unpredictable tension now facing al-Jazeera springs from Qatar’s political scene, which appears increasingly at odds with the broadcaster’s preferred image as a fearless network “dedicated to telling the real stories from the Arab street.” The Qatari authorities sentenced a poet to life imprisonment in November for insulting the emir in a widely-circulated work about the Arab Spring that criticized the “repressive elite”.

But al-Jazeera gives short shrift to the notion that its reputation might be threatened by the Qatar government’s intolerance of opposition at home. “Our journalists have never been told to cover or not cover a story due to pressure from outside this organization,” the broadcaster said.Abeer Allam of the Financial Times in Cairo contributed to this story.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

The Truth About Media Ownership

So you think your media is free and unbiased? So you think that the internet and independent media are dangerous? Consider this fact… facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A CRACK DEALER TURNS THE TABLE ON DESTINY

By Patrick Henningsen 21st Century Wire Editorial August 20, 2011 Following two weeks of news mired in rioting, social strife and crime in throughout the UK, it’s little wonder that some of our readers have been hit with “doom fatigue”. The London riots were not pretty. For those among us who were unlucky enough to be caught in the middle of it, even the best spin doctors have struggled to find something positive to report. A few readers have asked us, “why all the negative news, where are the feel-good stories?”, and in all honesty, I’ve been hard pressed to find those nuggets in the pan, but alas, one did turn up this week… To be sure, 21st Century Wire  is an alternative news agency whose primary function is to act as an early warning system, delivering information and analysis that enables our readers to achieve a better level of awareness about what’s happening in the world and to identify trends that will have a significant impact on society. Admittedly, positive news is not our core function- this is a job better left to other media outlets. As London is being ripped apart by the clash of right-wing and left-wing ideologies, ‘no alternative’ police state measures, and as politicians attempt to dress the city’s fresh riot wounds with more cheap, off-the-shelf, divisive language of class-warfare, at least one gold nugget has come along to remind the doubting masses that there are individuals out there who can, and have- “flipped the script” of this otherwise muddy debate. Quince Garcia is one such nugget, an individual whose vision and creativity are chronicled in the featured story below. If you haven’t heard of him, you should definitely listen to his story. It’s a story we all have a stake in, whether we are aware of it or not. And something tells me that he is not alone in his exploits- it’s highly, highly likely that there are many, many more people like him existing in communities throughout the UK… -

EX-CRACK DEALER “FLIPS THE SCRIPT”

Reformed hustler now runs a media firm encouraging young people into film

By Juliana Lucas THE VOICE AN EX-CRACK dealer is transforming lives with a media project he developed to engage young people and keep them off the streets. Quince Garcia, 32, spent up to seven years pedalling hard drugs on the streets of south London, but left the game after becoming a father and seeing the error of his ways.
QUINCE: Turned the situation around, now moving forward in life and art.
He later set up Road Works, a media centre in Kennington, south London to provide opportunities for teenagers to get into the film industry. It also teaches them skills such as how to write scripts, film production, post production and editing.”
SCREENPLAY Garcia revealed how he first got interested in the media while serving a 12-month prison sentence. When he was in jail, he started to pen a screenplay about the life of a gangster. He told The Voice: “When I was selling drugs I started writing a lot of the script at the same time as a form of escapism, but when I went to prison I wrote even more. When I came out I thought rather than go to places to get it funded, I will use my own initiative to get it out there.” With the help of business partner Julien Bernard-Grau, Road Works was launched in 2009.
INSPIRATIONAL STORY: Former prisoner, now award-winning film maker Quince Garcia with business partner Julien Bernard-Grau.
Garcia, who recently received an award at the House of Lords for his project said: “We offer people a programme that will teach them a skill and a programme that teaches people how to become their own boss. This way we are trying to discourage them from joining gangs by providing another option. We are setting up a journalism centre, mentoring and a music programme that will deter them from crime. But I believe the Government should do more. They should create an atmosphere that lets teenagers know it does care about them.”
Although he spent time in prison, Garcia believes the experience helped him to shape a more positive future for himself. “Prison helped me escape it all. I spent seven years of my life selling crack in south London, although it was a constant battle because it never really sat well with me. I never ever used to go home and think what I was doing was great. At the same time, I felt trapped. I didn’t have great social skills and I had a low self confidence and esteem.” MEETING When Garcia met Bernard-Grau at an event, they bonded over a shared interest in films. From that first meeting, they started to discuss plans to set up a media company. Both were raised in south London but in very different settings: Bernard-Grau attended the prestigious Brits school while Garcia attending a local secondary school in Camberwell. However they shared a belief that young people need opportunities to channel their talents in a positive direction. “Bad care, bad living standards and a lack of opportunity are all the reasons why people turn to crime” says Bernard-Grau. “England has the highest child poverty rate in Europe and that’s why the Government needs to increase the minimum wage in order for people to avoid crime.” In 2006, Garcia became the first person in his family to attend university and achieve a degree in film production, an experience which he said changed his life. He added: “The drug lifestyle is over-glamorised especially by film and television. It’s not what it is like in real life, and that’s why we need to tell our children to stick to education. I know the implications of drugs. I am not trying to save the world but I want people to know there are alternatives out there. I see people like the late Amy Winehouse and I think it is really sad. I hope people recognise her talent and what drugs can do to them.” This story originally appeared at THE VOICE. -facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

NEWS CORP PHONE HACKING: Is this the tipping point for Murdoch’s empire?

Rupert Murdoch in Sun Valley, Idaho

Rupert Murdoch in Sun Valley, Idaho, on Thursday – the day the News of the World was axed (PHOTO: Julie Jacobson/AP)

For decades the US mogul has held sway over British media and political life – but last week all that seemed to change

 and  in New York Guardian July 11, 2011

Shortly before nine o’clock on a Saturday evening last month an elderly man wearing a woollen jumper and slacks escorted a flame-haired woman to the back of a dining room in a Cotswolds pub. The sun was emerging after a day of rain and the jolly mood in the Oxfordshire gastropub was shared by the couple. Laughing, they settled side by side behind a stripped pine table and examined their menus. Fellow diners scrutinising the couple attentively could have been forgiven for mistaking them for father and daughter, such was their age gap and the way they seemed to be extremely comfortable in each other’s company. Whatever their relationship, clearly they were close. At one stage the woman could be seen wiping fluff off her companion’s jumper. They were still at their table, chatting casually to locals, two hours later. If they had pressing matters on their minds, they did not betray them. Only the chauffeur-driven car waiting outside the honey-stoned pub might have given a clue that they were a little out of the ordinary. That Rupert Murdoch had chosen to spend a rare evening in the UK outside London with Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of his News International UK subsidiary, says much about the relationship between the two. While many of their friends and colleagues, including Brooks’s racehorse-training husband, Charlie, were attending George Osborne’s 40th birthday party, Murdoch had chosen to spend his evening with his most loyal lieutenant, who lives close to the Kingham Plough pub, near Chipping Norton. Murdoch, who can expect presidents and prime ministers to fly all the way round the world to court him, was dropping in on his employee. The mountain was coming to Muhammad. Although, only two days earlier, Brooks had been at Murdoch’s annual summer party in London, where she had rubbed shoulders with David Cameron and the Labour leader Ed Miliband, the two would still have had much to talk about. That party was notable for the fact that several Tory ministers, including culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, had opted not to attend, concerned about being seen to be too close to Murdoch at a time when his holding company, News Corp, was seeking a full takeover of satellite broadcasterBSkyB, a deal that rival media companies warned would cripple competition. The putative takeover was framed by the backdrop of never-ending allegations of phone hacking at Murdoch’s News of the Worldnewspaper, which had given the media mogul’s enemies plenty of ammunition to use against his BSkyB bid. How could the government endorse such a deal when one of the jewels in the crown of the Murdoch empire had been engaged in such criminality, critics asked. How could Brooks apparently have not known what was going on? The same questions were repeated vociferously last week as evidence emerged that the phone of murdered teenager Milly Dowler had been hacked, as well as those belonging to the families of the 7/7 victims. But Murdoch would not give his critics what they wanted: Brooks’s head. For a man often labelled ruthless, it was an extraordinary defence of an employee. It was also costly. News Corp’s share price dropped as analysts warned the Sky deal might be delayed. The saga was spiralling out of control, threatening not only the Sky deal but also long-term damage to Murdoch’s US interests such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. According to one insider, the crisis has dismayed Prince Alwaleed bin Talal whose Saudi-based Kingdom Holdings sovereign fund owns 7% of News Corp. In a belated attempt to show how seriously it was taking the allegations, News Corp revealed that Brooks has been replaced as the head of a team investigating the phone hacking. Instead, two experienced lawyers, Joel Klein and Viet Dinh, who both sit on News Corp’s board in New York, will lead the inquiry. But it was not nearly enough. Murdoch, who was attending a conference of media bigwigs in Sun Valley, Idaho, found himself surrounded by reporters last Thursday, baying for answers. Flanked by his wife, Wendi, the ageing mogul cut a diminished figure, battling through the throng and belligerently saying he had nothing to add to a statement he made earlier in the week. With shareholders and politicians vying to express their fury, it was left to Murdoch’s son, James, News Corp’s chief operating officer, to deliver the coup de grâce. But, astonishingly, it was not to be Brooks’s head on a plate. Instead it was the newspaper she edited between 2000 and 2003. The News of the World, Britain’s bestselling Sunday paper, was to be axed after 168 years, Murdoch Junior revealed in an email sent to all News International staff. A fleeting visit from Brooks to the paper’s newsroom, in which – soft-voiced, dry-eyed and rambling – she spoke of her affection for the paper, confirmed its demise to the few shell-shocked staff who were there to hear her. As a damage limitation exercise, it was as brutal as it was unprecedented. But in sacrificing its massively profitable Sunday title, the Murdoch empire has triggered more questions than answers. Questions that will now dismantle what became an unholy alliance of politics, press and police. Talk to former News of the World journalists and ask where it all went wrong and they are likely to start with Phil Hall. The combative hack, who now runs his own PR company, started his career on the Dagenham Postand became the News of the World editor in 1995. Hall inherited a paper with a circulation above four million that enjoyed a formidable reputation as a gutsy breaker of big stories. Some were famously salacious, but many involved exposés of the great and the not-so-good, big league criminals, dodgy politicians and corrupt officials. “It was a proper paper 20 years ago,” one former employee told theObserver. “We turned over drug dealers, immigration rackets, things like that. Really good, hard-hitting stories. It also made people laugh; there was lots of fun stuff in it. Sure, there was a touch of spin to it all, but the stories were genuine. We were not saints. We bent things, but it was only to get the guys who deserved to be got.” Part of the paper’s success lay in the near symbiotic relationship it enjoyed with the police, the two institutions swapping tip-offs and working together on major stories that ensured a win-win for all involved: the cops got the glory; the paper the headline. But after Hall came in things went in a different direction. Journalists were under increasing pressure to bring in stories. “The focus became celebrity and then all the other papers followed and so it became even more competitive,” the former hack said. Andy Coulson, who took over as editor in 2003, was cut from the same cloth. The man who would go on to become Cameron’s spin doctor, and was arrested on Friday in relation to allegations of phone hacking and corruption, appeared to be a firm believer in the macho politics of the newsroom. A 2008 industrial tribunal found he had presided over a culture of bullying at the paper that forced one his reporters to go on long-term sick leave because of stress-related depression. Coulson had cut his teeth on the Sun’s Bizarre column, another high-octane environment. “People were having nervous breakdowns left, right and centre,” recalls one former employee. “There were people crying in the toilets. Every day you put your body on the line.” Little changed when Coulson arrived at the News of the World. “Everyone felt that pressure from the executives down,” said one News International employee. “Conference could be incredibly tense sometimes and maybe that pushed some people to do stupid things, but it was never overt. It was never something that people talked about it. If it was happening, and I suppose it clearly was, then people were going off to do it somewhere on their own. Andy was a really good editor and wanted good stories. He was passionate. It was tough.” Some of the staff may have felt uncomfortable, but the culture reaped dividends with the News of the World bringing in scoop after scoop that left rivals trailing in its wake well into the new millennium, when Brooks took over, editing the paper for three years before moving to the Sun. Even if, in common with other papers, its circulation was declining, the sensational stories ensured about 7.5 million people continued to read the paper, of whom 2.7 million were the wealthy ABC1s beloved of advertisers. The News of the World was a cash cow for Murdoch, who used its profits to help shore up his other newspaper interests such as the Times and the Sunday Times, which gave him huge political leverage. What has now become clear is that the provenance of a large number of those stories can be traced to private investigators employed by News International, several on six-figure contracts. At the outset, in the 1980s, much of their work – such as obtaining ex-directory numbers or helping find addresses – was relatively routine. Sometimes it involved covert surveillance, even though it was not always for reasons that could be justified in the public interest. An outside agency was employed to establish that Freddie Mercury had HIV. One former journalist told how the bar belonging to the brother of a television personality was bugged. “Half the dressing rooms on [the television soap] Eldorado were also done,” he said. But the arrival of the mobile phone added a new dimension. “It used to be much easier to listen to live phone calls when it was the old analogue cell system,” one former journalist said. “In the early 1990s there used to be an advert in the Exchange and Mart from a mobile shop in Bridgend which offered for sale an old Motorola carphone-type phone which had been doctored with a serial cable that could be connected to your PC. With the software provided you could use it as a live scanner showing people’s numbers and listen in to calls via the PC.” Soon journalists across Fleet Street were well versed in how to listen in to the new phones and to access their voicemails. “It became more of a question of journalists listening in to other journalists’ phones from rival papers,” the ex-journalist said. “One journalist would deliberately leave false messages to throw people off the track of where he was and what he was doing.” Some private detectives on contract to the paper were like Glenn Mulcaire, the former footballer at the centre of the hacking scandal and a newcomer to Fleet Street. “Working for the News of the World was never easy,” Mulcaire said last week. “There was relentless pressure. There was a constant demand for results. I knew what we did pushed the limits ethically, but at the time, I didn’t understand that I had broken the law.” Many others were like Sid Fillery, a former member of Scotland Yard’s flying squad, who worked for a private detective firm, Southern Investigations, run by his friend Jonathan Rees. The two men were accused of being involved in the unsolved murder of Rees’s business partner, Daniel Morgan, but walked free after the case against them collapsed earlier this year, with the police accused of misconduct by the judge. It is this type of complicated relationship between the police, the papers and private investigators that is likely to yield further scandal as the three sides turn on each other. Fillery, who now runs a pub in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, confirmed to theObserver that the agency had worked with the News of the World on a string of legitimate stories while he was in the Met. But, in a development that promises to throw more fuel on the fire, he said he intends to sue his former force. A spokesman for his solicitors, Pannone, said: “We can confirm that a partner at the firm is advising Mr Fillery on an action against the Metropolitan police for malicious prosecution.” The Met, meanwhile, is scouring all the evidence it has accumulated on Rees to establish if his firm was also involved in carrying out illegal activities on behalf of newspapers. There are said to be at least 11,000 pages of material relating to Rees in the Met’s possession, none of which has yet been disclosed and some of which is thought to relate to key public figures who so far have been mentioned only on the periphery of the scandal. Significantly, while it is confirmed that Rees was paid by the News of the World, the Observer understands other newspaper groups used his services far more extensively. The names of other investigation agencies are likely to emerge soon as Operation Weeting, the Met’s investigation into phone hacking, continues. “There were lots of other agencies working for the papers; I know of at least three more,” one private investigator said. So far the arrests have been confined to reporters and editors, but how did the investigators obtain the mobile phone numbers to hack into in the first place? One obvious line of inquiry is the illegal accessing of the police national computer, suggesting corrupt officers were involved. The paper has already confirmed that several Met officers were paid for information. But there will be others outside the force. “I should imagine there are some ex-BT engineers that have done extremely well over the years performing dark arts via third parties,” said one former News of the World employee. A News International insider said that claims an estimated 4,000 phones may have been targeted could tell only part of the story. There are suggestions that the paper was interested in as many as 80,000 phone numbers over the past decade. How many were hacked or bugged is a subject for the police investigation, but by the mid-1990s it appears hacking had become endemic and no one was considered out of bounds. From the families of 7/7 victims to Milly Dowler, all were targets. John Cooper, a barrister who represents the families of soldiers killed in the Nimrod disaster in Afghanistan and the RAF Hercules explosion in Iraq, as well as those who died at Deepcut barracks, confirmed on Saturday night that his clients were concerned that they may have been the victims of telephone hacking. Even the nearly dead were apparently fair game. In the winter of 2004, when his most famous client, George Best, was dying of liver failure, agent Phil Hughes could not understand how the press appeared to be outside the right hospitals at the right time. “Somehow the News of the World always seemed to understand who was visiting and would always have photographers there,” said Gerald Shamash, Hughes’s solicitor, who has asked the Met to hand over any information it has relating to his client. “Phil is convinced his phone was substantively hacked by the News of the World. The situation became very difficult, particularly in the latter months of George’s life. It was very upsetting for both of them.” As the story switched last week from hacked celebrities to vulnerable members of the public, the mood noticeably shifted. In the City, BSkyB’s shares took a pounding as Ofcom, the media regulator, said it would consider whether News Corporation would make a “fit and proper” owner of BSkyB. By the end of the week the shares were down nearly 12%, wiping £1.8bn off BSkyB’s market value as hedge funds bet the deal would be bogged down for months to come. The fit and proper person test applies to any owner of a TV station in the UK. The regulator indicated it would invoke the test only if a director of BSkyB were to be charged with criminal offences, such as phone hacking. But other legal concerns are brewing. There is speculation that illegal acts by company executives in London could potentially be prosecuted in America under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which is aimed at stopping US firms from engaging in bribery abroad. At the same time, the idea has been floated that News of the Worldjournalists, or those working at News Corp organisations in the US, might have broken the law in pursuit of stories across the Atlantic. The US has extremely strict laws on phone hacking and many ambitious prosecutors might like to make a name for themselves by pursuing such a case. In the face of massive public opprobrium and a City backlash, James Murdoch’s decision to kill off the title was portrayed as a kneejerk reaction, an emergency amputation to keep the News International patient alive. But this may not be true. One well-placed source has suggested Murdoch has had a team working on plans to replace the News of the World with a Sunday Sun for at least three months. This belief is shared by former journalists on the paper. “What happened on Thursday was a cynical exercise to save Murdoch money, sack staff and turn the Sun into a seven-day operation,” said one. “Thirty years ago this would have been a trade union issue, but Murdoch did for that.” Analysts were quick to pronounce that closing the News of the World was a small price for Murdoch to pay. True, the paper is highly profitable, making an estimated £12m of profit in 2010 and generating almost £50m in advertising revenue. But Sky, in which News Corp owns a 39% stake, is forecast to make more than £1bn profit in 2011-12. On Wall Street, Richard Greenfield of US broker BTIG said Murdoch’s other media interests in cable television – Fox News and his numerous other operations – were far more valuable in the eyes of investors than print. Greenfield spoke for his fellow analysts when he said: “Many of us believe newspapers are a sunset industry and wouldn’t give a damn if Murdoch decided to get rid of them.” Murdoch’s audacious overnight transfer of his newspapers to Wapping, east London, in 1986 proved he hated the trade unions, but what he likes is more difficult to pinpoint. In an interview with the Village Voicenewspaper in 1976, seven years after he bought the News of the World, he gave a rare insight into his psychology. He painted himself as an outsider, someone who rubbed up against the grain. “I just wasn’t prepared to join the system,” he said. “Maybe I just have an inferiority complex about being an Australian… you join the old school-tie system and you’re going to be dragged into the so-called social establishment somehow. I never was.” His status as an outsider was confirmed shortly after he acquired the News of the World when it published the diaries of Christine Keeler at a time the shamed minister, John Profumo, was trying to put the scandal behind him. However, it was Murdoch’s purchase of the Times, waved through by Margaret Thatcher in 1981, and the paper’s subsequent move to Wapping that saw him become a member of the establishment he professed to loathe. Murdoch and Thatcher were ideological soulmates who espoused free markets, loathed Europe and were impatient to dismantle the UK’s creaking old institutions. For once, Murdoch seemed to have genuine affection for a politician, usually seeing them as useful allies in his quest to expand his interests. This political pragmatism plays to Murdoch’s advantage, allowing him to back winners – and oppose losers. It was only in 1992, when John Major won a surprise election victory over Neil Kinnock’s Labour party, that the full extent of Murdoch’s influence became evident. Kinnock had looked on course for victory but the Murdoch press led a strident campaign against him in the final days. On the morning of election day the Sun front-page requested that, “If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights”. As he licked his wounds amid the wreckage of a fourth consecutive general election defeat for Labour, Kinnock blamed the media and the Murdoch stable in particular for turning the tide against him. “It’s The Sun Wot Won It” ran the paper’s triumphant headline. From that moment, Labour’s modernisers – Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Gordon Brown, Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell – knew that if the party was to break the Tory stranglehold on power there no more important task than to get Murdoch and his papers onside. Lance Price, a journalist and ex-spin doctor who worked at No 10 as Campbell’s deputy, recounts how Blair and Campbell took to heart the advice of the Australian prime minister, Paul Keating, on how to deal with Murdoch. “He’s a big bad bastard and the only way you can deal with him is to make sure he thinks you can be a big bad bastard too,” he said. “You can do deals with him, without ever saying a deal is done. But the only thing he cares about is his business and the only language he respects is strength.” Throughout his years in power, Blair had regular secret meetings with Murdoch, many abroad, and was in regular telephone contact. Price has gone as far as to claim that Murdoch “seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet”. Blair insisted no record was ever kept of the meetings or calls, so they were totally deniable. Cherie Blair has said that her husband’s decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 was a “close call”. So it was – and there is evidence that the final decision was taken only after Murdoch’s encouragement was received and his blessing given. Blair talked to the media tycoon three times on the telephone in the 10 days before the US-led invasion. Details obtained under freedom of information show Blair called Murdoch on 11 March, 13 March and 19 March 2003. British and US troops began the invasion on 20 March, with the Times and Sun voicing total support. The Murdoch penetration into the heart of political life has accelerated under Cameron. His links to the Murdoch empire are arguably even closer than those of Blair or Gordon Brown, whose wife, Sarah, helped to arrange Brooks’s 40th birthday party. The contact between the Tory leader and the likes of Michael Gove, the education secretary and an ex-Times journalist, are not merely professional but also social. They mix in the Oxfordshire political and media set. Cameron, who has been a guest at Brooks’s Cotswolds home, made his own visit to see Murdoch in August 2008 on his yacht off the coast of Greece. But after last week’s momentous events some are questioning whether the umbilical cord between Murdoch and Britain’s politicians has been snapped. Some commentators wonder whether, in an era of declining sales, the hegemony of the press, and in particular that of Murdoch, has been overstated. The rise of new media is allowing politicians to convey their message without needing newspapers as an intermediary. Advertisers are shifting their spending from conventional media brands to social networking sites. MPs, who last year were accused by Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes of being “too scared” of Murdoch’s News International to testify in court that their phones had been hacked, are lining up to denounce the mogul. “We are in a totally new world now,” said one shadow minister. “This is unbelievable. The Murdoch empire, in a matter of hours, has gone from being one which politicians wanted to do everything they could to please, to one they were desperate to disown and condemn. Murdoch has turned from asset to liability.” The replacement of the Press Complaints Commission with an independent regulator, after the watchdog was roundly criticised for failing to get to grips with the scandal, will further curtail the power of newspapers. Two official inquiries, one into phone hacking, the other, with a wider remit into press ethics, promise uncomfortable headlines for Fleet Street over the coming months. So too does Scotland Yard’s continuing investigation, the results of which will extend far beyond the News of the World and phone hacking to other newspapers and criminal acts like bugging and email interception. Brooks herself hinted there was much more bad news to come, telling staff they would only understand why the plug had to be pulled on their newspaper a year down the line – presumably when criminal investigations have concluded. Last Thursday evening, stunned News of the World staff made their way to the Cape bar in Wapping where they watched constant updates of their demise flash up on large television screens. It must have been a strange feeling. Used to making the news, they were the news. A ripple of applause from the table occupied by staff on the paper’s Fabulous magazine greeted an announcement on Sky News that subeditors at the Sun had briefly walked off the job in protest at their sister paper’s closure. Most of the anger was saved for a solitary figure – Brooks. Picture editors vied with subs and young reporters to say the same thing: they had been sold down the river by the Murdoch family to save her skin.”There are young people with families,” one said. “What are they going to do?” Their mood is unlikely to be helped by the disclosure, presumably made by a disgruntled, recently unemployed member of staff, that Brooks regularly enjoys the services of a helicopter to fly her from Battersea heliport to her Cotswolds home. Her use of a private jet for a breakfast meeting in Venice is also the subject of discussion by Wapping veterans. “This is about what happened under the old regime,” volunteered a senior reporter gesturing to the pub’s television screens. “Look at most of these people. They weren’t even around when all this happened. Colin Myler [the paper's editor] might have his faults but he was trying to turn it round. We’ve all been sacrificed to save Rebekah Brooks.” Their anger raises an important question. How will reporters and editors of other Murdoch titles such as the Sun and the Times feel about continuing to work under Brooks, especially after Cameron in effect called on her to stand down, saying: “It’s been reported that she had offered her resignation in this situation, and I would have taken it.” His comment again threw into question Murdoch’s increasingly quixotic desire to protect Brooks. As the seasoned media commentator Raymond Snoddy observed on the MediaTel Newsline Bulletin: “Her famed political access will be no more. You can hear the doors already slamming in her face.” But her weakened stature will mean little to the 250 staff on the paper now out of work at a time when none of its rivals is hiring. In an email to staff yesterday, Myler said: “You have made enormous sacrifices for this company and I want you to know that your brilliant, creative talents have been the real foundation for making the News of the World the greatest newspaper in the world.” On Saturday night, as Murdoch prepared to fly in to Wapping to tackle a crisis that refuses to die, the News of the World was doubling its print run to five million, anticipating a surge in demand from readers keen to buy a piece of history. Whatever plans he has for its replacement, it was a curtain coming down. Not just for the News of the World but for all of Fleet Street. To comment on this story or any other about phone hacking, visit ouropen thread from 9am

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

News anchor claims BBC has become a propaganda machine for climate change

By PETER SISSONS January 25, 2011 Institutionally biased to the Left, politically correct and with a rudderless leadership. This is Peter Sissons’ highly critical view of the BBC in his new memoirs, in which he describes his fascinating career over four decades as a television journalist. Here, in the latest part of our serialisation, he reveals how it was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change . . . My time as a news and ­current affairs anchor at the BBC was characterised by weak leadership and poor ­direction from the top, but hand in hand with this went the steady growth of political correctness. Indeed, it was almost certainly the ­Corporation’s unchallengeable PC culture that made strong leadership impossible.

Peter Sissons climate skeptic?

"It was heresy at the BBC to question claims about climate change."

Leadership — one person being in charge, trusting his or her own judgment, taking a decision and telling others what to do— was shied away from in favour of endless meetings of a dozen or more ­people trying to arrive at some sort of consensus. At the newsroom level it became impossible to discipline someone for basic journalistic mistakes — wrong dates, times and numbers, inaccurate ­on-screen captions and basic political or geographical facts — for fear of giving offence. You’d never see anyone, to use a technical term, get a b*****king. There’d be whispers about them. They might even get a black mark at the annual appraisal with their line manager. Sometimes, they might even be ­promoted to a position in which they could do less harm. But what really concerned me was when the culture of political correctness began to influence what appeared on the screen. Soon after I started on News 24 in 2003, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal returned from the Gulf to a traditional welcome from families and friends at Portsmouth. TV reporters closed in to interview crew members, the vast majority of whom were men. Of the five vox-pops that featured in the BBC News, four were with women sailors. During my stint of presenting that day I complained about this and asked if we could have some more ­balanced interviews, but in vain. I have always been in two minds about the value of vox-pops. They can give texture and interest to a story, but unless they are selected with scrupulous impartiality by a conscientious producer, they are worse than a waste of time — the viewer is deceived, as they were that day. For me, though, the most worrying aspect of political correctness was over the story that recurred with increasing frequency during my last ten years at the BBC — global warming (or ‘climate change’, as it became known when temperatures appeared to level off or fall slightly after 1998). From the beginning I was unhappy at how one-sided the BBC’s coverage of the issue was, and how much more complicated the climate system was than the over-simplified two-minute reports that were the stock-in-trade of the BBC’s environment correspondents. These, without exception, accepted the UN’s assurance that ‘the science is settled’ and that human emissions of carbon dioxide threatened the world with catastrophic climate change. Environmental pressure groups could be guaranteed that their press releases, usually beginning with the words ‘scientists say . . . ’ would get on air unchallenged.

On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid.

Al Gore: Convenient Lies...

Convenient Lies: Gore's film was once heralded by the media as 'proof' of man-made global warming.

On one occasion, after the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in 2009, the science correspondent of Newsnight actually informed viewers ‘scientists calculate that he has just four years to save the world’. What she didn’t tell viewers was that only one alarmist scientist, NASA’s James Hansen, had said that. My interest in climate change grew out of my concern for the failings of BBC journalism in reporting it. In my early and formative days at ITN, I learned that we have an obligation to report both sides of a story. It is not journalism if you don’t. It is close to propaganda. The BBC’s editorial policy on ­climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’. The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus. But the Trust continued its ­pretence that climate change ­dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority ­opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’ In reality, the ‘appropriate space’ given to minority views on climate change was practically zero. Moreover, we were allowed to know practically nothing about that top-level seminar mentioned by the BBC Trust at which such momentous conclusions were reached. Despite a Freedom of Information request, they wouldn’t even make the guest list public. There is one brief account of the ­proceedings, written by a conservative commentator who was there. He wrote subsequently that he was far from impressed with the 30 key BBC staff who attended. None of them, he said, showed ‘even a modicum of professional journalistic ­curiosity on the subject’. None appeared to read anything on the subject other than the Guardian. This attitude was underlined a year later in another statement: ‘BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man-made.’ Those scientists outside the ‘consensus’ waited in vain for the phone to ring. It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to ­prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it. Anyone who does this with a mind not closed by religious fervour will find a mass of material by respectable scientists who question the orthodoxy. Admittedly, they are in the minority, but scepticism should be the natural instinct of scientists — and the default setting of journalists. Yet the cream of the BBC’s inquisitors during my time there never laid a glove on those who repeated the ­mantra that ‘the science is settled’. On one occasion, an MP used BBC airtime to link climate change ­doubters with perverts and holocaust deniers, and his famous interviewer didn’t bat an eyelid. Meanwhile, Al Gore, the former U.S. Vice-President and climate change campaigner, entertained the BBC’s editorial elite in his suite at the Dorchester and was given a free run to make his case to an admiring internal audience at Television Centre. His views were never subjected to journalistic scrutiny, even when a British High Court judge ruled that his film, An Inconvenient Truth, ­contained at least nine scientific errors, and that ministers must send new guidance to teachers before it was screened in schools. From the BBC’s standpoint, the judgment was the real inconvenience, and its ­environment correspondents downplayed its significance. At the end of November 2007 I was on duty on News 24 when the UN panel on climate change produced a report which later turned out to contain ­significant inaccuracies, many stemming from its reliance on non-peer reviewed sources and best-guesses by environmental activists. But the way the BBC’s reporter treated the story was as if it was beyond a vestige of doubt, the last word on the catastrophe awaiting mankind. The most challenging questions addressed to a succession of UN employees and climate ­activists were ‘How urgent is it?’ and ‘How much danger are we in?’ Back in the studio I suggested that we line up one or two sceptics to react to the report, but received a totally negative response, as if I was some kind of lunatic. I went home and wrote a note to myself: ‘What happened to the journalism? The BBC has ­completely lost it.’ A damaging episode illustrating the BBC’s supine attitude came in 2008, when the BBC’s ‘environment ­analyst’, Roger Harrabin, wrote a piece on the BBC website reporting some work by the World ­Meteorological Organization that questioned whether global ­warming was going to continue at the rate ­projected by the UN panel. A green activist, Jo Abbess, emailed him to complain. Harrabin at first resisted. Then she berated him: ‘It would be better if you did not quote the sceptics’ — something Harrabin had not actually done — ‘Please reserve the main BBC online channel for emerging truth. Otherwise I would have to conclude that you are insufficiently educated to be able to know when you have been psychologically manipulated.’ Did Harrabin tell her to get lost? He tweaked the story — albeit not as radically as she demanded — and emailed back: ‘Have a look and tell me you are happier.’ This exchange went round the world in no time, spread by a ­jubilant Abbess. Later, Harrabin defended himself, saying they were only minor changes — but the sense of the changes, as specifically sought by Ms Abbess, was plainly to harden the piece against the sceptics. Many people wouldn’t call that minor, but Harrabin’s BBC bosses accepted his explanation. The sense of entitlement with which green groups regard the BBC was brought home to me when what was billed as a major climate change rally was held in London on a ­miserable, wintry, wet day. I was on duty on News 24 and it had been arranged for me to ­interview the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas. She clearly expected, as do most environmental activists, what I call a ‘free hit’ — to be allowed to say her piece without challenge. I began, good naturedly, by observing that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment, and that we were having a particularly cold winter while carbon emissions were powering ahead. Miss Lucas reacted as if I’d ­physically molested her. She was outraged. It was no job of the BBC — the BBC! — to ask questions like that. Didn’t I realise that there could be no argument over the science? I persisted with a few simple observations of fact, such as there appeared to have been no warming for ten years, in contradiction of all the alarmist computer models. A listener from one of the sceptical climate-change websites noted that ‘Lucas was virtually apoplectic and demanding to know how the BBC could be making such ­comments. Sissons came back that his role as a journalist was always to review all sides. Lucas finished with a veiled warning, to which Sissons replied with an “Ooh!”’ A week after this interview, I went into work and picked up my mail from my pigeon hole. Among the envelopes was a small Jiffy Bag, which I opened. It contained a substantial amount of faeces wrapped in several sheets of toilet paper. At the time no other interviewers on the BBC — or indeed on ITV News or Channel Four News — had asked questions about climate change which didn’t start from the assumption that the science was settled… Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html#ixzz1CEdHjymX    facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest