A study of newspaper reports demonstrates: intent & planning ofmedia lies

Borba100 at SPAMaol.com Borba100 at SPAMaol.com
Wed Oct 13 22:12:45 MDT 1999



In a message dated 10/13/1999 11:14:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jgperez at freepcmail.com writes:

<<  think people who've covered wars and revolutions for a living will tell
 you that most often, reports of massacres are exaggerated. That's precisely
 the effect that massacres, especially of civilians, are intended to create.
>>

This puts things upside down.  Irrelevant of what most people who cover these
things for a living tell one, all massacres are NOT exaggerated; some go
entirely unreported, some are vastly underreported, some are invented, some
are reversed, with victims being portrayed as perpetrators and some are
exaggerated.  And amazingly we find  a connection between the approach and
the interests of US hegemony. Examples abound in the former Yugoslavia; just
for instance, every rumor of Serbian atrocities is spread all over the press
(exaggerated) whereas atrocities against Serbs go unreported.  Virtually no
one would know (I bet only a few on this list know) that for two months it
has been a life-threatening offense to speak Serbo-Croatian on the streets of
Pristina. Here is a a running massacre that has gone unreported.  Can it be
claimed that failure to report murder for speaking the wrong language is not
news worthy?  Yet, despite an amazing story by any standards, virtually no
one was aware. (In fact, reports from Serbia have been that the
racist-secessionists' technique is to yell something in Albanian to a
stranger to see if he responds; if he does not, he is subject to attack.)
Yesterday's murder of a UN employee for using a Slavic language is being
portrayed as a weird, vicious result of Serbian/Albanian hostilities -- as
opposed to a tactical disaster committed by KLA pogrom dogs who rule the
streets the city.

"That's precisely the effect that massacres are intended to create."  Heh?
What is the intended effect?  And by whom?  The KLA terror in Kosovo IS
intended to terrorize Serbs, Roma's, Egyptians, Jews - but is NOT intended to
inform Western readers; hence no publicity outside of Kosovo.  The false
stories of Serbian atrocities ARE intended to create an effect with Western
readers (hence massive publicity).  Is all this accidental?

Re: your post yesterday: I have been doing a study of media, not based on the
opinions of newsmakers - who may be honest, or corrupt, or ill-informed, or
self-deluding - but on analysis of the actual structure of news stories.  I
find consistent patterns which can be divided into around 18 clearly
recognizable methods of distortion.  I wrote a piece last year (see CREDIBLE
DECEPTION at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html )
which examines the use of a few of these techniques in the NY TIMES cover-up
of the Sudan bombing.  I would be most interested in a refutation of my
argument, which is made there based on painstaking analysis: the techniques
uncovered and documented in that article cannot be accidental.  (I document
lying by position, lying by omission, lying by use of labels, lying by
suggestion, lying by self-evidence (assumption). There are many, many more
techniques I didn't recognize at that point.

Since the effect of these techniques is always to support US foreign policy
and since the lengths gone to are quite amazing, intent is indicated. I do
not believe you can explain the extent of lying documented in that article
based on anything but planning, and highly organized (that is, centralized)
planning at that.  (That doesn't mean indoctrination, lazinesss, easy
availablity of government sources, etc., don't play a part - but none of that
contradicts intent.)

And the Sudan coverage is nothing compared to the selective application of
techniques of disinformation in the case of Yugoslavia - where entirely
opposite methods are employed, depending on the relation of the subject to
the interests of the US elite.

How do they do it? I have some ideas, but I believe that's secondary to
proving based on actual analysis that the dirty deed is being done.  To
compare: we are in the position of Mendel; we see the evidence of genes but
don't yet know about DNA.

-- jared israel









More information about the Marxism mailing list