Media Frenzy About Palin: Nauseating

The media frenzy around republican VP nominee is just nauseating. Again and again the media are irresponsibly falling in the trap, and many citizens are being brain-washed by this frenzy and distracted from the real issues.

Let's talk about the hunger in Gaza in the Life and Style section.

The Guardian has an article about the daily struggle of Palestinians against hunger, due to the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Guess where they featured the article ? In the Life and Style section, Food and Drink subsection.

Bombs, bullets & our daily bread.

A Conversation with Seymour Hersh

Link found on Angry Arab.
It Will All Fall Down: A Conversation with Seymour Hersh
From Adbusters #73, Aug-Sep 2007

DC: With your story on Lebanon about the US and Saudi Arabia supporting Sunni jihadists, including Fatah al-Islam, we then see the Lebanese army start to fight Fatah al-Islam in a refugee camp in Lebanon. What happened there?

SH: Look, I’m not being querulous but it doesn’t matter what I think. What obviously happened is that, assuming I was right, there’s a pattern here. If you go back two decades, when the war against Russia was being fought in Afghanistan, the Saudis convinced us that they could control the Salafis – Osama Bin Laden, etc. – and we overtly and knowingly aided them and it ended up biting our ass. So it’s not illogical to conclude that one of the things that happened is that people we thought we could control, we could not control. So, right now we are helping the Lebanese army fight people that we indirectly helped support. As usual, it’s complete madness.

DC: You met Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon some time ago. Is fear of him and his popularity their reason for supporting Sunni jihadists at this point?

SH: Sure. Of course.

DC: He’s been branded as a terrorist by the West and the media. What was your impression of him?

SH: I think in Europe he is seen much differently. The Germans certainly negotiated with him; the French do. In fact, Hezbollah was invited by the French government to a conference that may or may not take place on the whole Lebanese crisis. I hear it was delayed because of American protests. So basically this is an American point of view. I think the Brits even have a difference of opinion. And I don’t think there’s any question that, whatever he may have done two decades ago, today he’s certainly playing it responsibly, and his response to the crisis most recently has been pretty interesting, supporting the Lebanese army, etc. So his record speaks for itself. He’s also probably the most influential man in the Middle East right now.

DC: More so than [Iranian president] Ahmadinejad?

SH: Oh my God yes. I don’t think there’s any question. All the popularity polls show, particularly after the war against the Israelis, he was number one in the hit parade. I don’t know if this is true, but I think Ahmadinejad even wanted Hezbollah to come visit him publicly in Tehran at one point in the last six months. He wouldn’t do it, maybe for reasons as simple as his own security. But, he’s quite an imposing figure. And he’s somebody that, were we in the real world, we’d be dealing with. But we’re not in the real world here in Washington DC.

...DC: How do you see the media environment changing since that point (since the My Lai massacre story ) ?

SH: That’s a big question. Basically, it’s a little shocking to me that the mainstream press has so completely missed the story of this war in Iraq and this presidency. I think when we look back on this era we’re going to be very critical of the press. They really missed one of the great moral issues of our time, just as they missed Vietnam for many years. So it’s really pretty sad.

DC: Where do you see some good journalism happening right now?

SH: Dana Priest in the Washington Post did some good stuff. There’s a kid named Nir Rosen who does some good stuff and has spent a lot of time out there. There are a lot of good journalists out there doing stuff, not all of them necessarily where we can see it. My old newspaper, the New York Times, is basically a huge disappointment to me, not only because of Judith Miller but because they continue to flack for the war. And that’s sort of depressing. After all those years I spent there I am a little astonished that they haven’t figured out a way to be more critical of Bush.

Free Spirits, Free Minds

They are one of the few professional journals worth reading and they need your support through subscriptions.

Corporate and political interests have already changed the way the news are made and delivered. Across the world, civil society is paying the price. From the Iraq lies to the color coded alerts, fear, and warmongering, the citizen is the prime target of large scale disinformation for purposes of orienting and influencing the democratic process to legitimise failed policies and attacks on Human Rights. Not one day goes by without a government or a country flexing its muscles at journalists who are becoming more and more subserviant and helpless. Take this example of the day from this wonderful country that Lebanon has become under the Hariri-Bush doctrine.

More than ever, we need reliable, independant, and state of the art news and analyses on the world we live in and on our future and the future of the planet. Le Monde Diplomatique is such a journal. I have been an avid reader since the 80s and it rarely disappointed me.

Introducing our first print issue in September 1998, Ignacio Ramonet wrote a leader called “Taking a stand”. In it, he said: “We believe that we are at a turning point in the business of providing news. Our readers are proof of this; they demand greater rigour, more seriousness and greater reliability. They also want guidance on how to achieve real solutions to some of the world’s problems.”

Since then, those needs and expectations have grown. Across the world, major newspapers are being bought up by private interests (The Wall Street Journal in the United States and the economics daily La Tribune in France), provoking fresh doubt about the objectivity of the media. The internet has become central to the provision of news and information, but its sources are often unmediated – and unedited for accuracy or brevity.

This rearrangement of the media landscape is happening as the world is becoming more complex, diverse and hard to decipher. The rise of China, India, Brazil and the Gulf states demonstrates these changes. One country can no longer decide global politics and economy. China invests in Africa (and in a major British bank’s bid for a Dutch bank), India develops relations with Latin America, the Gulf states invest in southeast Asia. Russia, China and Saudi Arabia seek to play a greater role in politics; this may in time limit the manoeuvrability of the United States or even of what we like to call the West. Le Monde diplomatique wants to give its readers a way to decode the new arrangements and understand the new realities.

La haute main de Sarkozy sur les médias

Un troublant constat. Enquête des journalistes Raphaël GARRIGOS, Catherine MALLAVAL, Isabelle ROBERTS, de Libération.
C'est sans doute sur Paris Match que les interventions de Nicolas Sarkozy ont été les plus directes et les plus pressantes. Témoin, l'incroyable limogeage de l'ancien patron de Paris Match, Alain Genestar. Témoin aussi, depuis, le chouchoutage du candidat. Ah ! ce titre «Un destin en marche», dont a bénéficié Sarkozy en décembre dernier (sans parler des huit pages lui étant dédiées). Mais si c'était tout. Très déboussolant aussi, le tout récent «outing» de Joseph Macé-Scaron, actuellement directeur adjoint de la rédaction de Marianne (1) , dans l'émission On refait le monde du 16 avril sur RTL : «J'ai été démissionné du Figaro Magazine [en juin 2005], tout simplement parce que j'ai refusé de tailler des pipes à M. Nicolas Sarkozy.» Direct. Autant que les coups de fil de Sarkozy à Edouard de Rothschild (actionnaire de référence de Libération ) pour se plaindre... L'intégralité de l'enquête