Posted by dereklane
on November 3, 2009, 8:31 pm, in reply to "Re: Would anyone here want to write for a paper that ..."
"2) The others – have been following them. More or less blindly, except for those who might get the paper, or scour the website more diligently than the Eds do."
I'd say that's more than a little unfair, Walter. John Hilley actually had meetings with people in the BBC in relation to establishment bias against Palestine (and the DEC appeal):
http://johnhilley.blogspot.com/2009/01/bbc-glasgow-occupied.html
You can also look at several entire threads filled over the years in the forum, by Hilley and others on establishment bias in the media, I have my own site which is filled with letters I've written to the editors, mostly at the BBC, on issues of impartiality, bias *against* the occupied, and basically a great deal of the essence of medialens' central ideas.
Joe Emersberger, also, writes regularly to many liberal canadian media outlets questioning their slant on issues from Haiti to Honduras to Canadian Aborigines, to Chavez.
"Regarding other media, well the BBC for example is rarely unfairly criticised here. Its miles worse than the Guardian."
Not rarely by any stretch. Helen Boaden used to be a feature of many a post here, including media alerts. Also Reynolds, who is one of the better BBC editorial writers. I've had enough exchanges with him for him to remember me, I think, as have many others. I've also written to, and challenged on media complicity, people from the Guardian, including, but not limited to Monbiot (he now no longer writes back), the Independent, the times and also, once or twice, the metro. I write to my MP (who knows, and very much dislikes me), and I've even written to some BBC television comics taking the accepted [but false] position on Iranian politics, to 'inform' them.
I don't think I'm alone in that regard. Also worth mentioning that most of my letters have been nothing to do with medialens alerts (though one or two have provided the impetus).
The position on 'blindly following' is exactly the response that comes back from the mainstream, as though medialens is a lobby group rather than a dissimiliar agglomerate of individuals with different brains and priorities. I find it more than a little disheartening to hear the same thing from you, Walter.
You ask 'where would we be, NoamS, if everyone insisted their own issue was first? ' (Ok, you asked NS, but I'd like to give an answer myself, if that's OK...).
The thing is, capitalism, and anyone fighting it, is fighting much the same thing. it's one of those top level issues. In fact, you could say that if you could remove the platform that allows capitalism to operate, you'd be free of a corporate media anyway. Or, you could say that if you got rid of the corporate media (arguably easier) it would mean that the base of dissemination of capitalism-friendly thinking would dissolve, making it easier to convince ordinary people of other avenues.
On the other hand, suggesting you get rid of the nuclear weapons, while a nice thought, is probably as safe as anyone could play, because it just isn't going to happen whilst corporatism drives the west. Noone is going to let their guard down while these things still play a very useful role in bellicose bullying of resource-rich nations.
You have to remove the structure to do that. We can, of course, agree on the fact that nuclear weapons are bad, but its still true that its safe language to deploy in the corporate media, because is going to change by saying it (after all, someone or another has been saying it since a few seconds after the US obliterated hundreds of thousands of people in the blink of an eye).
Giving an non-establishment *how* though - that's where the dissidence lives...
"What can you tell me about the Guardian’s “usual” output, from reading this board? Very little, as the Eds only highlight examples one-sidedly"
Well, like NS, I used to buy the paper daily. I could say from what I *used* to read, that it's 'usual' output was about as one-sided as the editors suggest. I generally ended up throwing the paper down in disgust, whether I bought it on a Monday or a wednesday, or any other day. The leaders were nearly all pro-establishment (what gets read first), the editorials were nearly always soft left (not so nasty as those in the MEN, for example), and there was a breath of not-too-stale air here and there, where I didn't curse the journalist as I read.
But not-too-stale and fresh are different things. If you analyse the 'not-too-stales' (and I did, as I read, there was usually nothing new or helpful in them.
If you compare it to, say, the Sun, it's less offensive. But people *expect* the Sun to be offensive. Ordinary working class people read it saying 'can't believe everything you read in the news'.
People who read the Guardian (I know I used to) often think 'You can't believe anything you read in the Sun, but the Guardian on the other hand...'
It's the insidious nature of 'just-left-enough' that then becomes dangerous, especially when you consider that its readership is the facilitators (often) of the nation. Not like the Sun, for example.
Perhaps its worth buying a Guardian, tomorrow, and to the end of the week and going through it for content. Would you agree that to be a rigorous answer to your scepticism? If so, I could probably stomach it for a few days...
cheers,
Derek
Responses: