Our blogs about
America's Wars
War on Iraq
War on Drugs
War on Afghanistan
War on Columbia
War on Philippines
War on Venezuela

More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World Events
US News
Science & Health
Earth News
Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Matrix Masters'
SUPPORTERS

Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

 

Giving it to you straight ... the Internet war
(The Guardian, March 27, 2003)
With its combination of intelligence gathering and live pictures, the net has come of age as a news source . . . The readership of their online versions, including this paper's, has increased dramatically since the start of hostilities. With multiple journalists filing frequent reports from the battlefield, the only outlet wide enough, and fast enough to keep up is the net. . . . The weblogging community is proving adept at compiling and filtering news in a way never seen in previous conflicts. By comparing and contrasting reports from every news source in the theatre, the war-bloggers' adage that they will "fact-check your ass" is being played out with enthusiasm from both writer and reader. . . . the output of the armchair correspondents can provide, at its best, a more rounded perspective on the events. . . . There is also a great change in the way the military and the media and the general public are related: for the first time ever, the same tools are being used to both fight and report the war. The GPS positioning units, the satellite internet connections, and the tiny digital video cameras used by the press depend on exactly the same infrastructure as that used by the military.

posted by Lorenzo 10:54 AM

 

Why al-Jazeera was right to show those terrible pictures
(John Peacock, The Independent, 29 March 2003)
Whilst media coverage may not in itself represent governmental propaganda, it inevitably distorts, not least when it imposes upon itself selective self-censorship.
Politicians, soldiers and journalists have agreed this week that certain images are not for public consumption because they depict the barbaric consequences of war. Under this category have come gruesome shots of civilians killed and maimed by Allied bombs, but also shots of dead British soldiers and US troops taken prisoner by the Iraqis. . . . The problem is that barbarism is one of the realities or "truths" of war. Such images may be harrowing or stomach-churning but they tell a truth about what occurs when violent warfare is engaged in. There is an "honesty" in the Arab television station al-Jazeera's televising the consequences of war in the form of a young child with the back of its head blown off. It reminds us of what lies behind anodyne talk of "collateral damage" or "civilian casualties". . . . Being "truthful" does not, it should be stressed, mean putting troops in jeopardy by revealing their strategic disposition. It does, however, mean presenting a true picture of tragic human consequences of war. . . . Since however we are now engaged in conflict there should at least be a perspicuity to what is occurring � affecting, as it does, our very humanity. Even so, the truth is that none of us will escape being brutalised in some way by this conflict.

posted by Lorenzo 10:36 AM

 

Bloggers spearhead offscreen opposition
(The Observer, March 30, 2003)
A friend of mine has just returned from a week in New York, during which time she encountered nobody who was in favour of the war. Nobody. . . . One could watch the US television networks around the clock for a week and not realise the extent of public opposition and disquiet about Dubya's military adventure. Instead, viewers are fed a constant diet of football-type commentary about the campaign, complete with panels of experts and pundit-babble about 'results' and 'outcomes' and 'regime meltdown'. . . . It's the same for US radio, dominated as it is by neo-Fascist 'talk jocks' mouthing hysterical, semi-racist, kick-ass jingoism. . . . Why is the unease and disaffection of the American public so invisible? The answer is that it's only invisible if you're looking for it in the mainstream media. It's there all right - but it's on the net. . . . But visiting news sites is essentially a passive activity. Even more interesting is the astonishing proliferation of public discussion enabled by web-logging software. . . . The internet, said a US judge in a landmark judgment, 'is a never-ending global conversation'. So it is: and, boy, do we need it just now.

posted by Lorenzo 9:58 AM

 

Peace T-shirt ban lands school in court
DETROIT (Reuters) - A Detroit-area school has been hit with a lawsuit for prohibiting a student anti-war protester from wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a picture of President George W. Bush and the words "International Terrorist."

The American Civil Liberties Union said the suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the constitutional rights of Bretton Barber had been violated by Dearborn High School when it ordered him to either wear the T-shirt inside out or go home on February 17.

posted by West 7:04 PM

 

War Photos Cause Yellowtimes.Org To Be Shut Down
(Firas Al-Atraqchi, Rense.com, March 25, 2003)
Someone wants you, the reading public, to only gather one-sided, monotone, Orwellian dispatch. News the way they "fashion" it. Or as CNN will have you believe, the "most reliable source for news." . . . And so, once again, the staff at YellowTimes.org was threatened with a shutdown: "We are sorry to notify you of suspending your account: Your account has been suspended because [of] inappropriate graphic material." Within hours, the site was shut down. What's next? Martial law? . . . An e-mail hours later was more explanatory: "As 'NO' TV station in the US is allowing any dead US solders or POWs to be displyed (sic) and we will not ether (sic)." Of course, at the time of this e-mail, TV stations across the U.S. were allowing the images of U.S. POWs to be brought to the public's attention. . . . There was public outrage in the U.S., citing the Geneva Convention on treatment of Prisoners of War, which forbids the broadcast of any footage or graphic depiction of POWs. . . . However, the outrage follows on the heels of extensive, and I repeat, extensive footage of Iraqi POWs, sometimes with cameras panning in for extreme close-ups of blank-staring Iraqi soldiers, dishevelled and fatigued as they were. . . . I was tongue-tied at the MSNBC broadcast of a mother of one of the U.S. POWs as she shed tears for her son. It gripped me and moved me and I wanted to cry with her. I also wanted to cry for the parents of the Iraqi civilian child, the top part of his skull torn off; an innocent child caught in a war he did not understand. . . . So, here we have it, war affects us all. It affects Americans and Iraqis, as well as the rest of the world. . . . Here, at YellowTimes.org, we did not want these stories to go untold. We wanted to bring the horrors of war inflicted on all sides. We condemn killing, we condemn war, and we certainly condemn persecution and torture. We also condemn the intentional absence of truth. . . . However, there are some who would prefer we did not publish and inform the public. . . . Consequently, as of this afternoon, March 24, 2003, we were shut down. . . . I do beg your pardon, no, we weren't shut down -- we were censored -- pure and simple.
Firas Al-Atraqchi can be contacted at: firas6544@rogers.com
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00228.htm

posted by Lorenzo 12:19 PM

 

Michael Moore: I'd like to thank George for making me angry
(Caroline Overington, The Sydney Morning Herald, March 25, 2003)
If you were watching the Oscars last night, you would have seen the writer, actor and filmmaker Michael Moore deliver a short, explosive speech against the war. . . . On his way up to the stage, he tapped his fellow documentary nominees and asked them to join him on stage for what he explained would be an "anti-Bush" speech. Once there, he said he was speaking for all of them. . . . "We are against this war, Mr Bush," Moore said and, then, as cheers, jeers and the band started to drown him out, he shouted: "Shame on you, Mr Bush!" . . . Moore said he did not hear the jeers. "I was extremely grateful for the response," he said. "I mean, that's not what I saw. I saw the entire place stand up and applaud. I mean, don't report that. Don't say there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed. Do your job and tell the truth. This is how this town feels, and the majority of Americans did not support getting into this war." . . . Moore was one of several award winners who used the Oscars to make statements against the war. Chris Cooper, who won for Best Supporting Actor for Adaptation, said: "In light of all the troubles in this world, I wish us all peace," which seemed to go over quite well. . . . Later, when Adrien Brody won Best Actor for his performance in the Holocaust epic The Pianist, he would not let the producers cut him off before he had talked about war. . . . "One second, one second, one second," he said, as the band tried to play over his words. "Cut it out. I'm sorry. But you know, making this film made me very aware of the sadness and dehumanisation of people at times of war. And the repercussions of war. And whatever you believe in, if it's God or Allah, may he watch over you, and let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution." . . . Pedro Almodovar dedicated the Oscar he won for Original Screenplay (for Talk to Her) to "all the people who are raising their voice in favour of peace, human rights, democracy, and international law, things that have been violated recently". He added that he was embarrassed that his own president, Jose Maria Aznar, supported the war.

posted by Lorenzo 12:25 PM

 

The Web at war
(The Independent, 17 March 2003)
Faced with the jingoism of the cable news stations CNN and Fox, rabid right-wing views on talk radio and the hesitancy of the liberal print media to criticise the government, millions of Americans are using the net to tap in to overseas news sources. . . . Larry Pryor, the executive editor of Online Journalism Review, says the internet has become the essential tool in America for promoting alternative viewpoints about the war. "The mainstream press is timid and seems to be going along with the [Bush] administration almost as a reflex," he says. "The public want a broad range of views and reflections � and are roaming out of the US's boundaries to get them." . . . Google won't divulge its methods for selecting stories. But according to Pryor, the very fact that so many international pieces are featured proves that this is what the audience wants. Google's algorithms, he explains, continually check stories' popularity. "The traffic dictates the algorithm, and it effectively allows the audience to control the selection," he says. . . . A glance at US television makes it obvious why people are seeking an alternative. On Fox and CNN, reporters extol the hi-tech weapons in the US arsenal. Former generals lead the pundits, and anchors talk routinely of the ease with which the troops will sweep through Iraq. In the back rooms, executives rub their hands at the improved ratings that war (with pictures channelled from the front by the Pentagon) will bring. Network TV is little better: ABC showcased its latest reality TV series, Profiles From the Frontline, which looked like an hour-long recruitment ad for the US military. . . . . "Compared with their foreign counterparts, the 'liberal' US media are strikingly conservative � and in this case hawkish," the commentator Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times. "US cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media." . . . Not just geeks are logging on. A poll by the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) showed that more than 70 per cent of Americans regularly use the internet and regard it as their most important information source. "Incredible as it may seem, for the vast majority of America that uses online technology, the internet has surpassed all other major information sources in importance" . . . With so many alternative views aired on the web, Pryor believes it is just a matter of time before the mainstream US media are forced to take notice. "The US media is in the grip of war fever," he says. Now, as polls show the public increasingly hesitant about President Bush's policies, "editors are starting to have second thoughts". . . . Pentagon chiefs are aware of the implications of this change. . . . It will be up to non-US journalists to tell the more balanced story. And the web will get those versions round the world. The Pentagon may win on the ground and on TV, but the war on the web will be very different.

posted by Lorenzo 3:49 PM

 

Appellate Court Rules Media (FOX News) Can Legally Lie
(Mike Gaddy, SierraTimes, February 28, 2003)
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast. . . . On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. . . . Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

[Comment: EVERYTHING reported on the Fox Fantasy Network should be suspect. IMHO they are nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Bush-Cheney junta and their Zionist masters.]

posted by Lorenzo 10:47 AM

 

Echelon Watch
Echelon is perhaps the most powerful intelligence gathering organization in the world. Several credible reports suggest that this global electronic communications surveillance system presents an extreme threat to the privacy of people all over the world. According to these reports, ECHELON attempts to capture staggering volumes of satellite, microwave, cellular and fiber-optic traffic, including communications to and from North America. This vast quantity of voice and data communications are then processed through sophisticated filtering technologies.

This massive surveillance system apparently operates with little oversight. Moreover, the agencies that purportedly run ECHELON have provided few details as to the legal guidelines for the project. Because of this, there is no way of knowing if ECHELON is being used illegally to spy on private citizens.

[The link above will take you to a site that] is designed to encourage public discussion of this potential threat to civil liberties, and to urge the governments of the world to protect our rights.

posted by Lorenzo 12:42 PM

 

PENTAGON THREATENS TO KILL INDEPENDENT REPORTERS IN IRAQ
(Fintan Dunne, GuluFuture.com, 10 March 2003)
The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned." . . . "I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," . . . She also warned that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves. . . . Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side."

posted by Lorenzo 11:06 AM

 

Oops journalism - Or how they learned to take the handouts and never apologize for the lies
By Bev Conover - Online Journal Editor & Publisher
March 6, 2003�The corporate-controlled media's employees�who falsely call themselves journalists�breathlessly feed the American people a daily diet of lies, distortions and disinformation packaged as news. The weekend fare was the alleged capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, billed by White House Press Propagandist Ari Fleischer as "one of Osama bin Laden's most senior and significant lieutenants, a key al Qaeda planner and the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks." The New York Times Monday dutifully reported, "Tom Ridge, the secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security, agreed that Mr. Mohammed's capture was a significant blow to al Qaeda, and that Mr. Mohammed had been keeping tabs on a potential terrorist operation unfolding in the United States. An impressive catch? Maybe. Maybe not. Asia Times reported last Oct. 30 that Mohammed was shot and killed in a police raid on his Karachi apartment last Sept. 11. If Asia Times is correct, Mohammed would have had to been raised from the dead. Now George W. and John "The Crisco Kid" Ashcroft may be fanatical born-again Christians, but the last person said to have raised anyone from the dead was Jesus. So that leads to two possibilities: Asia Times is wrong or the Bushies are telling another whopper. And they have been telling a pile of whoppers�an elephant dung heap of them as high as the World Trade Center. Since the dung heap has grown quite ripe, we'll spare you the litany of lies that run from George W dodging whether he used drugs, the stolen elections of 2000 and 2002, the official lines (lies) about 9/11 and the "evil" Saddam Hussein, to Colin Powell's "Miss Cleo" performance before the UN Security Council�when he told the members Al-Jazeera would soon play an alleged Osama audio tape which it hadn't yet received.

Investigative reporter Greg Palast, who ironically flat out denies that the George W. Bush or his administration had any foreknowledge of or involvement in the 9/11 attacks, said that Dan Rather of CBS, a guest on Palastﾒs BBCﾒs Newsnight, told him that, in the wake of 9/11, US journalists "are simply too afraid to ask the uncomfortable questions that could kill careers." Rather is worried about killing careers when it is the country that is being killed? He and his colleagues are fearful of being labeled "unpatriotic" for asking the questions the First Amendment of the Constitution empowers them to ask in their roles as the people's watchdogs? Are these men less courageous than Edward R. Murrow, who exposed Senator Joseph McCarthy for what he was; than Walter Cronkite who, after going to Vietnam for a first-hand look, turned on the war and thus ended Lyndon Johnson's aspirations for a second term as president; than Helen Thomas who refuses to be bowed by the Bushistas?

****Yeah, they are - it's amazin' how money and power makes it easier to be cowards...but that's just this old curmudgeon's opinion*****

posted by An Old Curmudgeon 12:41 PM

 

Man Arrested for Saying Bush is "Out of Control
(William Rivers Pitt, truthout, 4 March 2003)
Mr. O'Conner, a former public defender from Santa Fe, was arrested in a public library and interrogated by Secret Service agents for five hours on February 13th. His crime? He said "Bush is out of control" on an internet chat room, and was arrested for threatening the President. . . . Upon her detention in Chicago last month, McAliskey was fingerprinted and photographed. One of the men holding her told her that he was going to throw her in prison. When she snapped back that she had rights, she was told not to make the boss angry, because he shoots people. "After 9/11," said one officer, "nobody has any rights." . . . Hard-right conservatives spent the entirety of the Clinton administration baying to anyone fearful enough to listen that the President was coming for their freedoms, that it was only a matter of time before the Bill of Rights was destroyed. . . . When you murder peaceful dissent in America, you murder America itself. When you harass innocent people for their past and present views, you spread fear within an already terrified nation. This is not about some fool of a Secret Service agent jumping the gun on an innocuous online comment, or an airline security officer with a penchant for bullyragging 55 year old women. This is a failure from the top down, an empowerment - by the man charged with defending our constitution - of lesser jackasses with large badges who do not understand nor care for the importance of their positions. This is about failed leadership, and the despoiling of everything that makes this place precious and unique and sacred. . . . In other words, Bush is out of control. Bush is out of control. Bush is out of control. Come and get me.

posted by Lorenzo 3:32 PM

 

U.S. Media Acts Like a Bush Family Propaganda Office
(Danny Schechter, Globalvision News Network, March 6, 2003)
War dances or not, there clearly is a pattern of coverage that is beginning to attract more dissection and complaint. Andrew Tyndall, who analyzes every U.S. TV newscast, has been keeping track of the tilt in the coverage. USA Today found his research newsworthy, reporting: . . . "Of 414 stories on the Iraqi question that aired on NBC, ABC and CBS from Sept. 14 to Feb. 7, Tyndall says that the vast majority originated from the White House, Pentagon and State Department. Only 34 stories originated from elsewhere in the country, he says. . . . More than two dozen journalism school deans and professors, independent editors, journalists and authors, major media editors, publishers, producers and reporters have signed a letter to the major media indicting the tendency of many media organizations to become a megaphone for the Bush Administration. . . . Influential newspapers like the Washington Post seem to be leading the charge to war. . . . We would say that the Post editorial pages have become an outpost of the Defense Department � except that there is probably more dissent about the pending war in Iraq in the Pentagon than there is on the Post editorial pages." . . . Even as it appears the bulk of the coverage has joined the march towards war, the public still has not fully enlisted. This points to a growing gap between what the polls are showing about popular attitudes, and even support for anti-war views, and the mainstream media's enchantment with the spin of the Washington consensus. In an intensifying media war, alternative sources flood the internet as anti-war articles from European media circulate in the American heartland.

posted by Lorenzo 3:19 PM

 

Little Bush Establishes Propaganda Directorate
The Bush Administration understands the importance of responding to the global explosion in anti-Americanism. . . . Improved coordination of our international propaganda will help prevent the global populace from focusing on President Bush's actions during this crucial period of laying the foundations for America's thousand-year Capitalist Empire. The President knows we need to creatively package his policies and values in such a manner as to camouflage their true nature to the world. Created by Executive Order of the President, this new office within the White House coordinates strategic global propaganda, concealing the President's agenda within innocuously palatable messages to lesser nations around the world. . . . The Office assists in the development of communications programs that disseminate a few simple, powerful, and seemingly truthful messages about America's current government. These will be aimed not only to convince foreigners to keep their place, but also to reassure Americans that their President has not single-handedly made them the object of unprecedented mass derision and hatred. . . . Last year's successful deflection of inquiries into the widespread killing of women and children during the war in Afghanistan is a prime example. . . . This new office assists the President in communicating his message to the world -- fear me, obey me, and don't call my daddy a "wimp" or a "pussy." America's non-negotiable demand for cheap, abundant petroleum and the National Security Strategy's focus on curtailed civil liberties and mushrooming xenophobia are US Government policy, but they are also Bush family aspirations. As such, they provide a God-given framework with which OGC will coordinate a variety of exciting new propaganda efforts whose battle-worthiness will be initially tested abroad, then ultimately set loose upon our own unsuspecting electorate in the form of patriotic "news" segments on FOX, campaign-ready pictorials in TIME, and all manner of corporate media emotional pornography.

posted by Lorenzo 3:13 PM

 

Lawyer Arrested For Wearing A Peace T-Shirt
(Reuters, March 5, 2003)
A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall. . . . Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York . . . "I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs. . . . When Downs refused the security officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read.

posted by Lorenzo 2:45 PM