It takes a flight to UK to read the other version of the newspaper and examine the ethics of media
By Iqbal Tamimi • Sep 20th, 2008 at 15:33 • Category: Analysis, Internet and Communication, Newswire, Opinions and Letters
After eight years of working on production of current affairs programmes and the news at a TV station in the Middle East, and subsequently an ample number of press and media episodes and articles, I found what I have worked on was built on only half the truth.
The nature of working on press related TV programmes depends heavily on the online versions of newspapers, since the news on the internet travels faster than the flight carrying the paper over the oceans, only to reach its destination outdated by the end of the flight.
I used to work the night shift so that I could work like an engine at the moment the websites update their contents, scanning every update after midnight to get all the interesting articles and comments ready for the early news summaries and the press reviews.
While working in the Middle East I had an illusion about the UK press. I used to think that their newspapers always stick to the ethics of journalism with up-to-the-minute details. Its content was unquestionable. We were brought up since an early age to trust only BBC radio and British newspapers. Should we have any doubts about anything, we would immediately rush towards British media for a fair perspective.
But much later in life I moved to the UK to get the biggest shock of my life, British media is not the saint I used to believe carried the truth in every single word. I found out lots of bias, most of the time the content is treated as a business only, a machine that has to yield the biggest revenue possible, regardless of how balanced or fair it might be. Most newspapers are hens that lay golden eggs for the shareholders, never mind if they were edible for history or not. Many times I discovered the media is conspiring to hide a great deal of the truth, or to overexpose some isolated incidents. When I talked to many colleagues of mine working in UK newspapers, they were extremely humane and very professional. Many even disagreed with the policies of their own establishments. I have been told many times that they are told what they should write about and how the whole work should be constructed, leaving them with a very negligible margin of self expression or personal views. They are simply the fingers of their establishments, not the brains.
After arriving in the UK, my first step was to start a blog because I was addicted to writing, and I was suffering withdrawal symptoms. I used to think that any newspaper is good enough, that’s why when I started my first blog. I never doubted that I can write anywhere. And since it was easy to start a blog on the Daily Telegraph I had just done so for technical reasons. All the people who used to know me as a human rights activist showered me with looks of shock. Every time I was asked about my new blog and I answered ‘The Daily Telegraph’, people would gasp sucking all the air in the room. I never understood their response; I thought they must be mistaken. I never knew that the general policy of a newspaper is reflected on the magnet that draws certain people to start their blogs there. I thought ‘mistakenly’ that I would be welcomed as a new voice with a different point of view; I was even naive enough to think that a journalist from the other side of the spectrum might add something that would shed some light on another spot, thus bringing more understanding, enriching the content, and would encourage healthy debate. But again I was mistaken.
I was so proud and so stupid maybe to add to my profile my picture wearing Hijab, and I was even more naive to brag about being Palestinian. I was immediately attacked heavily; my original picture was taken off and then after awhile reinstalled leaving a hazy image. One of my most active posts about me being attacked racially was deleted even though there was nothing in the content breaking the rules at all. Besides, this was almost the only post that attracted sympathizers who felt the stings of being discriminated against. The feedback was extremely helpful to a point that it eased my pain. The Daily Telegraph left the controversial title but removed my post after it had become one of the most read articles – without informing me. Such action would give readers the impression that I must have written something that contradicts the publishing policies or caused harm to someone, which was not the case at all. The page was left with the screaming title ‘How often do you use the F word?’ with the word NUL next to it, and no article? Inspiring act of freedom of speech, isn’t it?
During my short experience of blogging on that website I discovered how many racist people are active on that website, and how many are ignorant of some issues happening in other parts of the world, and how stubborn they are in defending their points of view even though they have never been in the country where they claim more knowledge than the people who came from there. The discussion clearly shows that they never read anything about the matter discussed, but still they would argue for days. It was more like an organised attack on the contributor. One lady insisted that I should drive the Lebanese out of my country before talking about the atrocities of Israel against my people. I tried to tell her many times that, in no period of Palestinian history has there ever been any Lebanese invasion of Palestine, thus no Lebanese people invaded my country, and there is no single Lebanese in Palestine, but still she was so stubborn and satisfied by the information she heard from a friend of one of her relatives. Others were abusive and aggressive regardless of the content of the article. A very limited number was fair or willing to debate in a sensible way. Others took advantage of my limited knowledge of English then to flex their muscles to hurt me even more by using medieval texts and phrases where it would be very difficult for me to understand the meaning or context. And even though the website gave itself the right to tamper with my picture and delete one of my posts, and redeem it NUL, no action was taken to deal with the unreasonable aggressive attack on me. I guess they choose when they can say that their policies are never to interfere with the public point of view and when to enjoy the crowd shredding a new shade of media colour to small ribbons.
In general I found out that the participants of the blogs on the Daily Telegraph were almost all from the same shade, there were no other colours of views to enhance a construction of a rainbow of views. I later found that this was encouraged by the same policy the newspaper adopts. The bloggers have an almost identical voice tinted with discrimination, looking down on others.
When I started comparing the print version of the newspaper with the one online, I found a striking clear policy of publishing some articles on its print edition that were different from those published on the same issue at the online version. The online version missed those articles that I would describe as containing hidden discrimination towards certain groups like Arabs, immigrants and Palestinians.
Why would that happen? I guess they knew well enough that they need the revenue they receive from published ads and business that bring money through the website that is read in most oil-rich Arab countries, even though it was obvious that the newspaper does not hold respect or admiration for them. Most of the time, Arab figures are described as an appendix to their wealth, never mentioned as individuals with accomplishments to be proud of. So they kept the online version balanced. But looking at the paper version that is distributed in UK you will find what satisfies the people who thrive on stories of discrimination, and ignite their hatred even more.
I would like to put few examples here. The Daily Telegraph published the following articles in the newspaper lately, but has not published them on its website… I wonder why? Maybe someone else can detect the common denominator of such articles, concealed from some people who receive the online version only and contribute to the newspaper’s piggy bank by advertising on it.
By the way, the article that described the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi who invested in Manchester City team as a Sheikh who has deep pockets did not appear online… What a coincidence.
On 1/9/2008
Muslim woman quits hospital job over hygiene rules
"A Muslim woman quit her job at a hospital after refusing to bare her arms in order to comply with new hygiene rules."
(not available online)
Female Islamists 'radicalise women at UK mosque'
"Hardline female Islamists are attempting to radicalise Muslim women at one of Britain's most influential mosques."
(not available online)
Lesbians on beach jailed in Dubai
"Two foreign women have been jailed in Dubai for kissing and engaging in "indecent acts" on a public beach."
(not available online)
Sheikh with a deep love of sport – and deeper pockets
“He may be an unknown on the Hyde Road, but Manchester City fans will soon come to recognise Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan – the real tycoon behind yesterday's extraordinary takeover”
(not available online).
I would like to thank whoever invented online journalism. From my humble point of view as a journalist, I would crown the Guardian as the Queen of online newspapers in the UK for many reasons, but most important of all, its decency and unbiased views that would offer every citizen a platform to express his views. Next to it comes the Independent.
Every single day there are projects, forums, discussions, debates, conferences… all of which are trying to conjure the perfect recipe for a loving society of all backgrounds. People of all colours, faiths and political affiliations are working hand in hand to build the international village. But still no one has succeeded 100%, because the media has never been independent, and rarely gives them the opportunity to act outside the lines of its own agenda.
It took me a trip to UK to find out how many times I have introduced to my viewers half the truth because I did not compare the newspaper with its online version, and because I was not living within that society victimized by such small doses of manipulation. I dare say the majority of my colleagues are humane and sensitive towards issues touching the lives of others, but their establishments that distribute the roles and hold the strings are not. The price they pay for their bread must go through the kitchen that lost its original message of journalism, and stripped them from their choice of showing compassion.
The link that shows my picture after being tampered with at the Daily Telegraph blog
On the same link you can read on the right side some of my previous blogs, amongst them How often do you use the F WORD? The rest of my posts were deleted by the DT without informing me or mentioning why.
Another post they have tampered with without any obvious reason was the following:
St George the Palestinian Hero
Even my own commenting back was deleted while other comments from other readers were still there, you can find on the following link:
|
you say and I quote you June 08, 2007 |
The DT deleted the quote that would make my point valid
On the same blog you can read one of the contributors own testimony
|
Looking at some of the aggressively hostile comments on this blog I see visions of ganging up against one person – someone perhaps who has a point just as valid as our own but may lack the ability to put it over quite so lucidly. It is a pity, as I have seen this happen on other blogs too. June 08, 2007 |
If you try to read the comments on this link, you will find that they filtered and removed all the indecent verbal attacks on me, which they were happy with for a long time, leaving the comments to give an impression of half told truth, and a very weak argument. You can see that the same comments from the same person follow right after his or her other comment, which does not make any sense. People used to comment and get comments back. But by removing a large number of some aggressive comments without mentioning that, they produced something far from being ethical and really have nothing to do with journalism or even common sense.
I would like to also say that they totally removed most of my posts on my blog after I became part of EJN and my articles everywhere where signed as a Media Freedom Press Officer for EJN… would that be a coincidence? Does that mean as long as an individual is not backed up by a journalist body that can question them, they will pay disregard to a person’s human right of freedom of expression. The manipulations were quite far from being accidental.
So long balanced journalism for all, and so long democracy and freedom of speech, and so long claiming there are ethics in the present media. Manipulation of the media on line by deleting, obscuring and tampering with pictures and the sequence of the comments…tells a good story.
Iqbal Tamimi is a Palestinian journalist and poet from Hebron. She is the creator of a vibrant and important activists' network Palestinian Mothers, open to all who share the vision of peace and justice, men and women alike. She is working now in UK.
Email this author | All posts by Iqbal Tamimi
[...] Source: Palestinian Think Tank [...]
[...] It takes a flight to UK to read the other version of the newspaper and examine the ethics of media |… – An unhappy Telegraph blogger writes… [...]
More on the 'ethics' of media:
Watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E&feature=PlayList&p=181923B27C885CDF&index=0
What was edited out of the CBS broadcast was that President Ahmadinejad called for Democracy, Free and Fair Elections and a Durable Peace.
At the request of President Ahmadinejad, the FULL UNEDITED version was shown on C-SPAN and what CBS edited out was:
MR. WALLACE: You are very good at filibustering. You still have not answered the question. You still have not answered the question. Israel must be wiped off the map. Why?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, don't be hasty, sir. I'm going to get to that.
MR. WALLACE: I'm not hasty.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met.
So we said that allow the people of Palestine to participate in a referendum to choose their desired government, and of course, for the war to come an end as well. Why are they refusing to allow this to go ahead? Even the Palestinian administration and government which has been elected by the people is being attacked on a daily basis, and its high-ranking officials are assassinated and arrested. Yesterday, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament was arrested, elected by the people, mind you. So how long can this go on?
We believe that this problem has to be dealt with fundamentally. I believe that the American government is blindly supporting this government of occupation. It should lift its support, allow the people to participate in free and fair elections. Whatever happens let it be. We will accept and go along. The result will be as you said earlier, sir.
MR. WALLACE: Look, I mean no disrespect. Let's make a deal. I will listen to your complete answers if you'll stay for all of my questions. My concern is that we might run out of time.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, you're free to ask me any questions you please, and I am hoping that I'm free to be able to say whatever is on my mind. You are free to put any question you want to me, and of course, please give me the right to respond fully to your questions to say what is on my mind.
Thanks for posting your views, it makes depressing reading for me. My country has sunk so low over the years in the standards that I still hold dear, honesty, fairness, respect for others, to name but three. I'm sure you know very well of the expression "an English promise". What does that mean now? If I gave my word on anything you can be sure I will honour it, come what may. But who would trust anyone from the West these days? George W Bush and Tony Blair went before world opinion and told blatant lies. Even I don't trust them. So should we be surprised at standards of reporting in the UK media? No, as you rightly point out, it is just another business now, and look how well we run our businesses! But if you want to see real bias, look at the American media, watch Fox News as I do a lot. For balance you should also watch the Daily Show. For balance in the UK media you should also read Private Eye.
And finally, of your experiences blogging on the Daily Telegraph site, at least we made our acquaintance there, so it can't all be bad! Each of the newspaper sites have bloggers and allow readers to post comments to their own stories, and I think generally they each attract a predictable crowd of followers. And thus the cycle is self-perpetuating. The paper wants to maximise its revenue, so it knows it must pander to its core readership. The only one that seems immune is the BBC which seems to reflect the biases of its own journalists. There is very little objective journalism to be found. I'm sure there are lots of objective journalists, however, but they aren't allowed to *be* objective when writing for their employers. I also remember how respected the BBC used to be, the days when a BBC reporter could gain access to anywhere just by saying he was a BBC reporter. I used to listen to the World Service too when I lived abroad.
The truth is everything. We have no liberty if we don't have the truth.
The Telegraph has long been considered, The Torygraph in some circles but here's an interesting article on press freedom with lots of links to media monitoring sites. You have to go on the Reporters Without Borders link to find the UK is ranked 24th this year:
Do We Have A Free Press?
Reporters Without Borders compiles a Free Press ranking each year and last year, the US ranked 48th. We are not the best or worst, but somewhere in the middle.
The top fourteen were European, and though G8 countries had showed improvement, only two G8 members made the top 20 – Canada (18th) and Germany (20th). The Netherlands fell from number one to 12th via locking up two journalists who would not reveal their sources. France (31st) had its record marred by concerns about labor/demonstration coverage, and journalist confidentiality. Italy (35) had too much mafia influence over the press. Japan (37th) improved slightly, as quarrels between the press and militant nationalists died down. In the US (48th), a blogger (Josh Wold) spent 224 days in prison and a cameraman from Sudan was detained at Guantanamo (since 2002), which brought down our score. Bulgaria (51) and Poland (56) were Europe's low players, as journalists were attacked or given harsh sentences.
http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2008/05/do_we_have_a_fr.html
My dear Iqbal i to once looked toward the BBC for fair unbiased reporting but alas…..I learnt this was not so.Now if i want to learn something I go to as many differing news sources as I can…to even get at least a glimpse of the truth.
I was once told by a news paper editor that his reporters did not have the time to check out all the facts.To which my reply was…"so what do you write…fairy tales."
I think while global corporate interests own and control what is said,…. then we will never have an unbiased media.The last time I read about it, apparently 93% per sent of the media was owned by 6 companies that had strong zionist leanings.
It obvious that new paper blogs are also controlled by the same media corporate so do not reflect truly what people think. And why should you have to post anonymously, you should be able to say I am a woman, I am Palestinian, I am Muslim surely that helps people to understand the perspective that you are writing from.
I think the only way to counteract this is by educating the public…… to search more broadly for new sources and to encourage the growth of independent new sources on the net reporting fairly and with no bias
.
Dear Iqbal
Thank you for such an honest and frank article, it makes a frustrating yet enlightening read
As a blogger myself I empathise with your experience and agree with your analysis, as I have been through it myself
The media for us –who are oppressed and marginalized- is yet another battlefield that we have to overcome and challenge constantly, to make our muted voiced heard
To console you, I say, you are not alone in your frustration and outrage, I have been banned even from the Guardian, and if it wasn’t for some good people who protested and wrote to the Guardian I would have disappeared from the scene without even being noticed
My poems and many of my comments were also deleted despite the protest of many readers
Even in the Independent many of my comments were deleted
On many other “liberal” websites such as “Common Dreams”, I was also banned, and every single comment of mine over the many months of participating was “ethnically cleansed”
Furthermore, a friend of mine who tried to post a letter on my behalf to explain my absence was banned and his comment was deleted
Dear Iqbal, we are dealing with a powerful and manipulative establishment, for whoever controls the media, controls the world
To put it bluntly, what the manipulators of the media are doing is a WAR AGAINST TRUTH and against genuine voices who speak the truth, because they know very well that:
Whoever control this battlefield controls people’s minds and hence their votes in their mythical hypocritical democracy
.
Iqbal,
The problem of media bias is widespread in the UK as elsewhere. Newspapers are bound to honest, accurate reporting as much as TV and radio media. They can however have an editorial ‘slant’ – but this ‘editorial opinion’ should be obvious to all. And of course, they only need include those articles that confirm their political bias.
Reporting of inaccurate facts does occur – but more subtle and perhaps more worrying – is omitting to report relevant information. In the majority of reports about Palestine/Israel – the facts may be accurate – but there is uaually the glowing omission of not making the audience aware that one side is in control and the under is under occupation.
Your experience is particularly upsetting as your posts appear to have been deliberately manipulated.
Another common angle, often used in TV news, is using a reporter as an expert analyst. More and more, we see the newsreader (a journalist) asking for a detailed analysis from another journalist. These analysis are often just the reporters personal opinions but are expressed as though they have expertise in the field.
An article I came across by Peter Wilby in the Guardian, points to another worying trend in journalism. He asks whether journalism can truly reflect all areas of society when 45% of the top leading UK journalists were Ox-Bridge graduates. Due to the changes in journalists’ training and how we fund it, the profession is now recruiting from an ever narrowing social and ethnic base.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/07/pressandpublishing4
No longer can the public believe British journalism is without bias or wholly ethical – depressing!
The article is magnificently written.
About the material of the article — Britain has had some of the worst of the anti-Muslim hysteria.
You have my deepest apologies and regrets on behalf of my culture.
Iqbal,
The problem of media bias is widespread in the UK as elsewhere. Newspapers are bound to deliver honest, accurate reporting as much as TV and radio media. They can however have an editorial ‘slant’ – but this ‘editorial opinion’ should be obvious to all. And of course, they only need include those articles that confirm their political bias.
Reporting of inaccurate facts does occur – but more subtle and perhaps more worrying – is omitting to report relevant information. In the majority of reports about Palestine – the facts may be accurate – but there is usually the glowing omission of not making the audience aware that one side is in control and the under is under occupation.
Your experience is particularly upsetting as your posts appear to have been deliberately manipulated.
Another common angle, often used in TV news, is using a reporter as an expert analyst. More and more, we see the newsreader (a journalist) asking for a detailed analysis from another journalist. These analysis are often just the reporters personal opinions but are expressed as though they have expertise in the field.
Media is now big business and is open to all the abuses that corporate globilisation has to offer!
An article I came across by Peter Wilby in the Guardian, points to another worying trend in journalism. He asks whether journalism can truly reflect all areas of society when 45% of the top leading UK journalists were Ox-Bridge graduates. Due to the changes in journalists’ training and how it is funded , the profession is now recruiting from an ever narrowing social and ethnic base.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/07/pressandpublishing4
No longer can the public believe British journalism is without bias or wholly ethical – if it ever could!
dear Iqbal, Your article is quite intresting yet
>in my eyes to point so clearly to the european
>media is a mistake as I detect myself that our
>arabic media's are not much more worth. If you
>take for exemple Al Jazeera, we'll have complete
>news of palestine we have details of what is
>happening in the world with always the bad
>judeo-american culture and the poor arabic
>victims. We never hear anything of there HQ based
>country Qatar? Why?! If you claim to give exact
>and correct information, you should to fight all
>levels , even the countries where your offices are
>based ( they don't mind to speak of morocco
>eventhough the journalist there are getting
>harrassed by the moroccon police and secret
>services). What you experienced with the DT blog
>is something that I experience everyday with any
>kind of media. After my first palestinian travel I
>started to go around in all possible events to
>explain what I saw in Gaza and in the rest of
>Occupied Palestine, but couldn't speak of a " anti
>islam" situation in Palestine as aswell christians
>as muslims are suffering ( my best friend who is
>christian was almost beaten to death when he was
>13 years old.. what saved him is an outdoor
>attack.. ) when I started to speak this way..
>doors get closed in front of me as this is not the
>kind of stories we need to hear. We need to hear
>that our muslim brothers are dieing everyday as
>martyrs and that they are the biggest victims. But
>NO , not all palestinians are victims, you have
>the ones working with the ennemy, you have 50% of
>our palestinian men who don't care of the
>situation and are going from west bank to
>jerusalem.. not to pray on al aqsa, but to sleep
>with SHOSHANA or ORIT!!! It's the palestinian
>reality. The palestinian reality is that the
>palestinian women have hard life not only due to
>the occupation but from the almost prehistorical
>traditions where women's value is less than the
>cow's value!!! I am maybe importing myself but,
>where your article reach thousands of exact point
>and how information is detourned to the majority's
>opinion or state opinion is not the proper of
>europe, but the proper of journalism. Thats why if
>you need a "clean" information you need to turn
>yourself to the short independant media's done by
>non professional journalist BUT who dare to speak
>of things that can go against their values and or
>feelings. You can't give correct information if
>the victim stay's centuries long the victim, cause
>aswell you as me know that today's victims are
>tomorrows killers!!
>
>Hope didn't hurt any of your feelings but this is
>my point of you for the great article you send
It is important to research who actually owns and controls the media you work with. The Daily Telegraph was very much involved in the war against Iraq because it was then owned by Conrad Black and the Hollinger Group (now Sun-Times Media Group).
These are the people who "found" documents implicating Galloway as having a sweetheart deal with Saddam Hussein in exchange for being "pro-Muslim". These "documents" were fabricated and planted.
So what was the Daily Telegraph? Please read these stories. They are only the tip of the iceberg.
First: Who is Conrad Black?
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1039.html
Conrad Black, an erstwhile media mogul closely connected to rightist political factions in the United States, was convicted in July 2007 for defrauding shareholders of his Hollinger International newspaper empire out of millions of dollars. He was sentenced to 6.5 years in prison in December 2007 for his conviction on three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice (Associated Press, December 10, 2007). Black, a Canadian-born member of the British House of Lords who counted among his associates many high-profile neoconservatives like Richard Perle, was initially charged in 2005. When his trial started in Chicago in March 2007, the original federal charges brought against Black included racketeering, mail and tax fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. U.S. prosecutors alleged that Black cheated stockholders out of some $80 million in assets, largely through the inappropriate sales of company holdings (Associated Press, March 11, 2007). The estimated loss to Hollinger shareholders was eventually reduced to $6 million (Associated Press, December 10, 2007). After his conviction in July 2007, the New York Times reported: "The verdict represents a remarkable turn in fortune for Mr. Black, the son of a wealthy Canadian businessman and society fixture who once commanded a far-flung media empire that included the Daily Telegraph in London, the Jerusalem Post, and the Chicago Sun-Times, as well as scores of other papers in the United States, Canada, and Australia" (July 14, 2007). Before the trial got under way, Black all but shrugged off the charges. Portraying himself as "an underdog in the crosshairs of the U.S. government, the most powerful institution in the world," Black wrote in a letter to a friend: "I have never had the slightest doubt of the outcome of a fair trial, knowing that the judgment of the legality of my actions will lie in the hands of 12 American citizens, in one of that country's greatest cities." He added: "After all that has happened in the past four years, and no longer having much to do with the media, we will be ready for a quieter life. Being falsely accused may be character-building, but it is not much fun" (Associated Press, March 11, 2007). During the two weeks that jurors deliberated his fate, Black did not seem to lose confidence, e-mailing reporters that " I feel like a soldier conscripted for a foreign war. You fight till you win, and then you come home" (Globe and Mail, July 16, 2007). At one time, the Chicago-based Hollinger International, of which Black was founder and CEO, ranked as one of the world's largest media empires, owning hundreds of newspapers and magazines. But in 2002, Black and others were accused by shareholders of illegally profiting in a massive sell-off of Hollinger newspapers. Black brushed off the allegations, writing to the company's investor relations officer: "Two years from now, no one will remember any of this." Commented journalist Colin Campbell: "That statement, outlined in evidence prosecutors plan to present when Black goes on trial … surely falls into that unfortunate category of famous last words" (Macleans, March 12, 2007). On November 18, 2005, Patrick Fitzgerald, the Chicago-based federal prosecutor who led the successful perjury investigation into former Bush administration official I. Lewis Libby, issued arrest warrants for Black and several other Hollinger executives on a series of fraud charges involving more than $2 billion. Fitzgerald accused Black additionally of abusing corporate benefits. Said Fitzgerald: "All in all, what has happened here has been the grossest abuse by officers or directors and insiders. … By lining their pockets they went about a course of conduct where they … never told the audit committee of the board of directors, or through them the shareholders, what was going on and how they were self-dealing and taking money from the shareholders for themselves" (Global and Mail, November 18, 2005). Black's downfall began much earlier, in November 2003, when Hollinger's board ousted him as CEO after an investigation turned up evidence that he and several partners had paid themselves millions of dollars without company approval. Two months later, Black was stripped of his chairmanship, and the company filed suit against him in Chicago, seeking $200 million in damages. Hollinger Inc., the Toronto-based parent company of the publishing company, also filed lawsuits. In 2001, after being nominated by Margaret Thatcher to the House of Lords, Black gave up his Canadian citizenship and became Lord Black of Crossharbour. According to his attorney, Eddie Greenspan, Black disputes that he renounced his Canadian citizenship, arguing instead that "it was stolen from him" by "spiteful" former Prime Minister Jean Chretien (Toronto Sun, January 3, 2006). Lord Black has close ties to a number of influential conservative figures and think tanks. He is a close of associate of Perle and Henry Kissinger, both of whom served on Hollinger's board, and has served on the board of trustees of the Hudson Institute and of the Nixon Center. Regarding his numerous corporate connections and institutional affiliations, his outdated bio page on the Hudson Institute website, which notes that Black is "on leave of absence," reports: "Lord Black is a director of Sotheby's Holdings, Inc., Brascan Corporation, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, CanWest Global Communications, and the Jerusalem Post Limited, and serves on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Meetings and is chairman of the Advisory Council of the National Interest in Washington, DC. He has also been a member of the Trilateral Commission, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Chairman's Council of the Americas Society, a trustee of the Malcolm Muggeridge Foundation, the Nixon Center, and the Hudson Institute in Indianapolis, Indiana, and a director of the Centre for Policy Studies in London, a member of the International Advisory Board of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York." Reportedly a polymath, Black has published books on a number of topics, including the 2003 biography Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom, described by Publishers Weekly as "not only the best one-volume life of the 32nd president but the best at any length, bound to be widely read and discussed." Affiliations· Hudson Institute: Former Member, Board of Trustees · Nixon Center: Member, Board of Directors · Trilateral Commission: Former Member · Council on Foreign Relations: Former Member of the International Advisory Board · National Interest: Member, Advisory Council Private Sector· Hollinger International: Former Chairman-CEO · Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce: Former Director · Sotheby's Holdings: Former Director Education· Carleton University (Canada): 1965 · McGill University: 1973
Conrad Black as fellow traveler of Richard Perle. Let's remind ourselves who Richard Perle is. The last paragraphs are especially important.
Richard N. Perle (born 16 September 1941 in New York City) is an American political advisor and lobbyist who worked for the Reagan administration as an assistant Secretary of Defense and worked on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004. He was Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2003 under the Bush Administration.
He is a member of several neoconservative think-tanks, such as Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Board of Advisors, and (as a resident fellow) the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He is also a Patron of the Henry Jackson Society. Perle has written extensively on a number of issues; his cited research interests including defense, national security, and the Middle East. Aside from these engagements, Perle is the former co-chairman and director of Hollinger, Inc., a partner of Trireme Partners and a non-executive director of Autonomy.
Contents[hide]· 1 Education and early career o 1.1 Office of Senator Henry Jackson o 1.2 Opposition to nuclear arms reduction · 2 War with Iraq o 2.1 Pre-2003 invasion o 2.2 Iraq policy regret and Bush criticism o 2.3 On Iraq Study Group proposals · 3 Other views on foreign policy o 3.1 On the United Nations o 3.2 On Israel o 3.3 On defense · 4 Disputed role in Bush Administration · 5 Business interests and controversies o 5.1 Bribery Accusations and Alleged Conflicts of Interest o 5.2 Unresolved Legal Issues o 5.3 Seymour Hersh and 'Lunch with the Chairman' o 5.4 Iraq oil deal · 6 Works · 7 References · 8 External links
[edit] Education and early career
Perle was born in New York to a Jewish family. His family moved to California, and Perle attended Hollywood High School in Los Angeles (his classmates included actor Mike Farrell and singer Ricky Nelson) and later, the University of Southern California, earning a B.A. in International Politics in 1964. As an undergraduate he studied in Copenhagen at Denmark's International Study Program. He also studied at the London School of Economics and obtained a M.A. in political science from Princeton University in 1967.
[edit] Office of Senator Henry Jackson
From 1969 to 1980, Perle worked as a staffer for Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington. As a staffer, Perle drafted the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1972 International Grain Agreement (IGA), or "Russian Wheat Deal" negotiated by Richard Nixon and the Soviet Union which made for the first time by law a trade agreement contingent upon the fundamental human right of Soviet Jews to emigrate. [2] He was considered as an extremely knowledgeable and influential person in the Senate debates on arms control. By his own admission, Perle acquired the reputation of an influential figure who preferred to work in the background, a reputation that has followed him through the years in both the public and private sectors. At some point (usually said to be during his time in the Reagan Administration) Perle acquired the nickname "The Prince of Darkness", which has been used both as a slur by his critics and as a joke by supporters. (Time, 23 March 1987, "Farewell Dark Prince") However, he has been quoted saying that; "I really resent being depicted as some sort of dark mystic or some demonic power…. All I can do is sit down and talk to someone…." (The New York Times, 4 December 1977, Jackson Aide Stirs Criticism in Arms Debate, Richard L. Madden)
[edit] Opposition to nuclear arms reduction
Perle was considered a hardliner in arms reduction negotiations with the Soviet Union and has stated that his opposition to arms control under the Carter administration had to do with his view that the US was giving up too much at the negotiation table and not receiving nearly enough concessions from the Soviets. Perle called the arms talks under negotiation in the late 1970s "the rawest deal of the century".
Perle's objection to the arms talks between the Carter administration and the Soviet Union revolved primarily around Carter's agreement to halt all cruise missile development. Perle is widely credited for spearheading opposition to the treaty, which was never ratified by the Senate.
[edit] War with Iraq
[edit] Pre-2003 invasion
Like many in the neoconservative movement, Perle had long been an advocate of regime change in Iraq. He was a signatory of the 26 January 1998 PNAC Letter sent to US President Bill Clinton that called for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. He also linked Saddam to Osama Bin Laden just a few days after 9/11, proclaiming in an interview on CNN on Sept 16, 2001: "Even if we cannot prove to the standards that we enjoy in our own civil society that they were involved, we do know, for example, that Saddam Hussein has ties to Osama Bin Laden…" [1]
Perle argued that what he referred to as terrorist Abu Nidal's "sanctuary" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was justification for the U.S. military invasion of Iraq. Perle states this in the recent PBS documentary series "America At A Crossroads", and refers to President Bush's 9/11 speech in which Bush stated: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
Perle came into further prominence due to his role in backing the 2003 invasion, and continues to support the military presence there.
In an interview for "Saddam's Ultimate Solution", the 11 July 2002 episode of the PBS series Wide Angle, he said:
"Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily. We know he's got about a third of what he had in 1991. But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. Now, it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
The US-led coalition defeated the Iraqi military within less than a month of the invasion [2] and the Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the military and removed Ba'ath party members from authority positions, essentially dissolving the government, as well. Critical government positions were appointed by the CPA[3].
In the leadup to the war, Perle also complained that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials were so hostile to defectors brought out of Iraq by the Iraqi National Congress that they refused to interview them and even tried to discredit them. The defectors and the head of the INC, Ahmed Chalabi were discredited not only by the CIA, but by the State Department at the time that Perle was supporting them. Later, the US military raided INC offices and stopped funding to the organization. [4]
Perle advocated invading Iraq with only 40,000 troops, and complained about the calls by then Gen. Eric Shinseki to use 660,000 troops. He preferred a strategy similar to that used in the Afghan war, in which the U.S. would insert SOF (Special Operations Forces), along with some two divisions, to assist native Kurdish and Shi'ite rebels, much as the United States had done with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. [5] Nevertheless, in an interview he gave Vanity Fair that was excerpted in an article appearing in the 4 November 2006 Los Angeles Times, he denied having a role in the planning of the war. He is reported to have told Vanity Fair, "I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. This is not congruent with his signing of the PNAC letter in 1998. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that." The same Los Angeles Times article reports that Perle now believes that his advocacy of the Iraq war was wrong.
Perle was the subject of extensive study in the April 2007 PBS miniseries America at a Crossroads, in which he made a retrospective defense of the Bush administration's decisions concerning the invasion of Iraq.
In April 2007, Perle was featured on VPRO's Tegenlicht miniseries The Israel Lobby. Perle denied that the Israel Lobby particularly AIPAC was involved in the case to go to war with Iraq. However, he did suggest that AIPAC is heavily influential in United States elections. Further hinting at if any sponsored legislation is challenged in the US Congress the likelihood of re-election is minimal.
[edit] Iraq policy regret and Bush criticism
In a Vanity Fair article that was first published online in November 2006, Perle expressed regret of his support of the invasion and faulted the "dysfunction" in the Bush administration for the troubled occupation. "I think now I probably would have said, 'Let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists'. The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible." [6][7][8]
[edit] On Iraq Study Group proposals
In a December 2006 interview with Die Zeit, Perle strongly criticized the Iraq Study Group proposals, saying: "I have never seen such a foolish report. … A report that begins with false premises ends with nothing." [9]
[edit] Other views on foreign policy
[edit] On the United Nations
Perle is a frequent critic of the United Nations, stating that it is an embodiment of "… the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions…." [10] He has also attacked the United Nations Security Council veto power as a flawed concept, arguing that the only time the U.N. utilized force during the Cold War was when "…the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it". [10]
Furthermore, shortly after the invasion of Iraq Perle stated that; "in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing" [11]. He also argued that there was "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein". At the time, these comments provoked controversy among critics of the war, who argued that they contradicted the U.S.'s official stance on the legality of the invasion. [11]
[edit] On Israel
Perle chaired a study group that included Douglas Feith and David Wurmser that produced a strategy paper for the incoming Likud Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The paper's main recommendations revolved around steering Israel away from Socialist principles, making efforts to become more self-reliant, "nurturing alternatives to Arafat's exclusive grip on Palestinian society", and working more closely with countries such as Jordan and Turkey. It also stated the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq should be a key objective for the Israeli state, advocated armed incursions into Lebanon, and suggested Arab states should be challenged as undemocratic. Perle has on occasion been accused of being an Israeli agent of influence. It has been reported that, while he was working for Jackson, "An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the Defense Department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm." Perle's view on Israel might be influenced by the fact that he has a sister living there.
[edit] On defense
Perle advocates pre-emptive strikes, such as in Iraq, as an extension of America's right to self defense. For example, Perle has expressed support for a theoretical first strike on North Korean and Iranian nuclear facilities.[12]
[edit] Disputed role in Bush Administration
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (April 2008)
Conservative commentator David Brooks has said that, in his opinion, Perle's influence in the Bush administration is exaggerated. In a 2004 New York Times article, Brooks wrote that; "There have been hundreds of references … to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. If he's shaping their decisions, he must be microwaving his ideas into their fillings". 'The Neocon Cabal and Other Fantasies', 2004 New York Times Co.
[edit] Business interests and controversies
[edit] Bribery Accusations and Alleged Conflicts of Interest
From 1981 to 1987, Perle was Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration. In a New York Times article Perle was criticized for recommending that the Army purchase an armaments system from an Israeli company that a year earlier had paid him $50,000 in consulting fees. Perle acknowledged receiving the payment the same month he joined the Reagan administration, but said the payment was for work done before joining the government and that he had informed the Army of this prior consulting work. Perle was never indicted for anything related to the incident. (New York Times, 17 April 1983, "Aide Urged Pentagon to Consider Weapons Made by Former Client", Jeff Gerth. See also New York Times, 21 April 1983, "On buying weapons and influence", Editorial.).
In March 2004, another New York Times article reported that, while chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Perle had contracted with the troubled telecommunications giant Global Crossing to help overcome opposition from the FBI and the Pentagon to the sale of its assets to Hong-Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa. Since the military employed the company's fiber optics network for communications, the brass argued that sale to a foreign-owned, especially Chinese, corporation would compromise national security. Perle was to be paid $125,000 to promote the deal, with an extra $600,000 contingent fee on its approval. [13] This controversy led to accusations of bribery, and Perle resigned as chairman on March 27, 2003, though he remained on the board. [14]
Perle is also known to have demanded payment for press interviews[15] while he was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a practice that has raised accusations of not only ethical, but legal impropriety. [16]
[edit] Unresolved Legal Issues
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (April 2008)
Perle has served as a Director of Hollinger International since June 1994. He is also Co-Chairman of Hollinger Digital Inc. and a Director of Jerusalem Post, both of which are subsidiaries of the Company. He has served as a director of GeoBiotics. On August 31, 2004, a special committee of the Board of Directors investigating the alleged misconduct of the controlling shareholders of Hollinger International submitted the 512-page Breeden Report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In the report, Perle is singled out as having breached his fiduciary responsibilities as a company director by authorizing several controversial transactions which diverted the company's net profit from the shareholders to the accounts of various executives. Perle received over $3 million in bonuses on top of his salary, bringing the total to $5.4 million, and the investigating committee called for him to return the money.
Top Hollinger executives dismissed the report and have filed a defamation lawsuit against the head of the investigating committee, former SEC chairman Richard C. Breeden. However, in 2005, Perle publicly acknowledged he had been served a 'Wells notice'[17], a formal warning that the S.E.C.'s enforcement staff had found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to bring a civil lawsuit.
On 28 March 2003, Judicial Watch filed a complaint to the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of the Defense Department Inspector General, the Office of the Homeland Security Inspector General, United States Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller in the matter of Former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard N. Perle, Former President Bill Clinton, Former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Global Crossing.[citation needed] He has also been accused of spying for the Israeli government[18].
[edit] Seymour Hersh and 'Lunch with the Chairman'
In July 2001, George W. Bush appointed Perle chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, which advises the Department of Defense. On March 9, 2003, journalist Seymour Hersh published an article in The New Yorker titled "Lunch with the Chairman", accusing Perle of a conflict of interest, claiming Perle stood to profit financially by influencing government policy. Hersh's article alleged that Perle had business dealings with Saudi investors and linked him to the intelligence-related computer firm Trireme Partners LLP, which he claimed stood to profit from the war in Iraq.
That same day, Perle was being interviewed on the issue of Iraq by CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Shortly before the interview ended, Blitzer quoted "Lunch with the Chairman" and asked for Perle's response. Perle dismissed the premise of the article and argued that it lacked "any consistent theme". Added Perle; "Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly." [19].
On March 11, Perle told the New York Sun as regards Hersh's article that "I intend to launch legal action in the United Kingdom. I’m talking to Queen’s Counsel right now", [20]. He claimed it was easier to win libel cases in England, and that therefore made this a better location. In the end, Perle did not file any legal case. Instead, on March 27, 2003, he resigned as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, although he still remained a member of the board.[citation needed]
[edit] Iraq oil deal
In July 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported that Perle had made plans to invest in oil interests in Iraq, in collaboration with Iraqi Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq.[21]
I have witnessed what appears to be organized attacks on writers and posters on many web-sites since George Bush stole the White House in 2000. If you monitor the rabidly Zionist American web-sites, like the ZOA (Zionists of America), et al., you can see the direct correlation between what they are telling their sympathizers to do on the Internet with the attacks on specific web-sites.
About three years ago (I think–it's quite a blur), the ZIonist plants on progressive chats began attacking Pakistan out of the blue. I went to some of the Zionist sites to see what they were encouraging their people to do on the Web. Sure enough: Attack Pakistan, discredit Pakistan.
Now, with the very slanted coverage of events of Pakistan recently, and increasing bombings in a country that has not had bombings for many years, it is clear that Pakistan is in the Zionists' rifle (or nuclear weapons) sights.
To understand what the media is doing, and how you fit into it, you need to monitor a wide variety of media and think about what you see, connecting the dots, so to speak, about what is likely going on behind the scenes.
At this point, I think it is impossible (or highly, highly impropable) to get unbiased coverage of Palestinian (or Middle Eastern or even Muslim) issues in any American or British media. The Zionists in the U.K. have been busy little bees and the U.S. and U.K. have become very alike vis a vis Israel.
So…you still need to publish in these media. But be prepared for an assault and all manner of dirty tricks. They will censor responses to your work to make it appear you are isolated and alone. But you are not. I know several people who have been BANNED by the BBC and the Guardian. These are ordinary, sensible, intelligent, reasonable people.
The situation is very bad for writers, journalists, and those who care about honoring the objective truth. The only "truth" you will find in most media is subjective–i.e. opinion colored by a few "facts" that serve that opinion while leaving out really significant facts.
Just assume all media are heavily censored and controlled by the Zionst lobbies. Chances are, they are.