An extraordinary posting on Medialens by someone calling themself Plus Ultra, in which he/she/it claims I said a number of things I absolutely did not say. Either Plus Ultra is so stupid it faces imminent extinction, or this is a case of deliberate misconstruction. But to what end?
BEGINS
Murray’s reaction to the ‘rebel’ takeover of Tripoli is deplorable. He makes several undetermined and ‘wishful’ points:
1. That there has been not as much bloodshed as he previously thought there would be
2. That the NATO bombing – which is a blatant violation of 1973 – has been justified in achieving the aim of 1.
3. There is a great deal of support for the rebels – which is as yet unproven given that no elections have been held!
4. That the west’s attempt at getting rid of ‘a bad government’ is somehow ok
5. That NATO can proceed to attack Bahrain.
His Article:
Fall of Tripoli:
“It seems that Gadaffi’s regime has collapsed very quickly at the end. It is difficult to be sure as yet, but it seems there may have been mercifully less further bloodshed than might have been feared. Thank goodness the NATO bombing campaign will now end.
It is plain that there is a great deal of support from ordinary citizens of Tripoli for the rebellion. Whether that translates into specific support for the leadership of the Transitional National Council is quite a different question. Getting rid of a bad government is difficult, but not as difficult as establishing a good one. The next few weeks will be very interesting.
The mainstream news media will move on in a few days, as it has moved on from Egypt. Not all pro-democracy demonstrators arrested under Mubarak have yet been released under the new military government there. However it is good to see anti-Israeli demonstrations are allowed. That is a major advance on the Mubarak years. NATO may yet find it equally difficult to hijack the Libyan people to their agenda.
Now of course NATO are free to move on to oust the despotic, torturing regime of Bahrain. Or not.”
Pass me the bucket…
END QUOTE
It seems extraordinary I have to ask this, but if someone can explain my article to Plus Ultra in the comments, that would be good.
@ Mary
I believe it is. Although I just used google and that was the name connected to the Dissident93 blog. I could be wrong. Are you a fan of his work?
Mary: No, dissident93 has nothing to do with me.
.
Jon: Calling people like “Plus Ultra” a fuckwit and then moving on to something more interesting is a course of action that I’m proud to support. His later claim on the ML Board that this was a device employed by Craig to deflect criticism is comedy gold that was no doubt lost on a readership that is famous for it’s lack of humour.
Just noticed this – my site stats show many hits from here.
Medialens has built a following – people looking for a UK version of FAIR. But Medialens uses this “position” to launch long-running grudge campaigns against people it dislikes: George Monbiot, Nick Davies (and in the past, Seumas Milne, IBC, etc).
The Medialens editors write provocative (but “polite”) rhetoric attacking, insinuating, suggesting things about their targets. Then they leave the really dirty work to their followers, who post nasty bile in emails and all over the Medialens message board (including, for example, the claim that George Monbiot is “fighting a proxy war on behalf of the military/industrial/gangster caball(sic)” – which was part of a message posted by the ML eds in January 2008 – originating from one of their froth-mouthed disciples).
But to really get an idea of the ineptitude of the Medialens editors, see this ZNet article, which catalogues their errors and misrepresentaions – from one of their earlier smear campaigns: http://tinyurl.com/ml-errors
@George Field, Most definitely not!
@George Field: “I believe it is. Although I just used google and that was the name connected to the Dissident93 blog. I could be wrong.”
Yes, you “could” be wrong. And you are. Ask the Medialens editors – they know both G33KThug and myself, since they banned us both years ago (along with several others) for unapologetically challenging their numerous, serious errors over IBC.
Whenever someone from the left criticises Medialens, it’s blamed on me. I’m apparently omnipresent and dangerous. Medialens has even banned people because of their “strong suspicion” (their words) that it might be me (eg people who link to my site or express similar opinions to myself).
It’s deeply paranoid. And it’s ironic given that Medialens’s own supporters mostly sound identical in their opinions (and even in their style of writing). They’re like clones, without original thoughts of their own.
Well, I am open to views on ML, and in general I think banning people from a community is wrong (I might be biased, but the openness here is much better!). But I think you go too far in criticising MediaLens’ supporters as being “mostly … clones” and being “famous for [their] lack of humour” – both are sweeping generalisations that we’ll just have to disagree on.
.
Still, hope you’re both still writing to journalists. I would fully support more autonomous media criticism groups – ML can’t do it on their own, and of course plurality is better anyway (as I am sure you’ll agree).
Jon – yes, generalisations, acknowledged as such, and not taken too seriously.
.
Medialens, on the other hand, uses sweeping (and empirically unsupportable) generalisations as the *premises* for its ideology. Here are two:
.
“professional rigour” in the Western media “does not exist”.
.
“mainstream academics and journalists are deeply and unconsciously biased”
.
Sources of Medialens generalisations:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php
http://tinyurl.com/6g95k35
@ Dissident93
Oh lord, is this the guy that believes in the irrefutable evidence from Iraq Body Count over the Lancet? Who actually places his faith in the corporate media to report on civilian deaths and then to send information about those deaths to IBC? Give it a break Shone. You sound like a broken bloody record.
.
As for your slur, that media lens followers are ‘like clones’, all I can say is that you incredibly mistaken. Because you see some semblance of unity on a single point – namely that the corporate media often misreports wars and the civilian casualties created by such wars – does not mean to say that everyone is of like mind. One can make a posting on medialens only to receive constructive criticism in return. There is no sacrosanct hymn-sheet from which media lens supporters sing from. They evaluate the evidence they read, cross-reference it with independent reading of their own, and form an opinion about ‘how’ an event is being reported. There may well be one or two who mindlessly parrot the opinions of the editors, but many more are concerned with exposing the inconsistencies in mainstream media reporting – without reference to such parroting.
.
Why you have built a career out of attacking media lens in particular is baffling, and not a little sad. Certainly an organization like media lens gets it wrong on occasion, but the mission statement behind it ‘is’ a worthy one.
@Craig
I too think that Plus Ultra has something to say in relation to his first two points. And I say that as someone who is a devoted follower to your work! Surely it’s worthy redressing whether Plus Ultra’s points are valid or not? I’ll leave that up to you.
@ Mary
Sorry. Thought you were a fan. I don’t know anything about him. Judging by your reaction you’ve come across his work before?
Robert, thanks.
.
On the first point, yes, that is a sweeping generalisation. But in practise – and in my humble opinion – it is only as flawed as the Propaganda Model is it based on, which I still think is reasonably sound. Perhaps it would be best to say “there is insufficient professional rigour amongst Western journalists” or some similar formulation; that would allow us to acknowledge the existence of truth-seeking professionalism whilst explaining how the US-UK establishments got away with their audacious lies over the invasion of Iraq, for example. (Of course, such a position depends on your interpretation over the facts of that case, but I maintain that most left/liberals in the West are unaware how blatantly they have been hoodwinked).
.
So I guess I don’t see the first generalisation as ultimately harmful, though I accept the wider point that it pays to be careful with words. But such is the problem with political debate of any kind: articles can be pored over at length and fault can always be found with statements in isolation.
.
On the second statement, I think I would be inclined to disagree. I think unconscious bias is very powerful, and goes to the heart of MediaLens’ raison d’etre. But I would credit Jeff Schmidt (author of Disciplined Minds), rather than Chomsky or MediaLens, for expounding on this in detail. You probably know of it already, but in his book Schmidt looks at how an interaction between capitalism and the education system shapes people, in the main, to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy – which may go some way in explaining people’s general aversion to social change. I don’t see this second statement as much of a generalisation, since it allows for the existence of a non-mainstream category that is less biased.
.
I don’t want to start a debate on the number of deaths attributable to the Iraq invasion, but did have mixed views about the interactions between ML and IBC. On the one hand, it felt like the left attacking the left, as is often the case! But on the other hand, I accept as a basic premise that even liberal journalists will baulk at horrifying mortality figures caused by “their side”, and I consider that the widespread perpetuation of IBC stats – despite their stated limitations – vindicates the existence of media analysis groups willing to tackle basic errors of group bias.
.
Summing up: in the same vein as my concerns about the ML/IBC spat, I wouldn’t think it would be the best use of your time to concentrate your guns entirely on ML. Do you think (subconscious biases again!) that your position on ML might in part by motivated by your ejection from their forums? Do you think you could you put that frustration aside, and start your own media analysis group having community rules that are more open?
.
All the above criticisms meant in the best possible way, of course :). I assume we come from the same basic premise that the mainstream media is substantially and systemically flawed, and can be (somewhat) corrected by non-corporate activism. (Relevant side note – I wonder where the Guardian’s coverage of Wikileaks has got to? 😉 ).
@ImmanuelS
.
I don’t think Craig is interested in responding, for whatever reason. He’s more than likely busily writing away on other matters. Like you, I’d like to know where he stands on Plus Ultra’s response; but, as the Rolling Stones sing, ‘You Can’t Always Get What You Want.’ 🙂
.
@Robert Shone
What is wrong with the figures concerning Iraqi deaths gathered by the Lancet? Surely a peer-reviewed group of experts can provide a better overall analysis than that garnered by the IBC? Seems to me – as one less wise – that the IBC’s numbers are tremendously low. I know they do not account for unreported deaths, and rely on NGOs (and media outlets) to garner information. Is there something wrong with the Lancet’s sampling technique versus IBC? Would be interested in your opinion.
@ImmanuelS –
No, I’m not the guy you’re talking about. None of what you’ve said accurately represents my opinions. You should follow Noam Chomsky’s sound advice: cite what you’re criticising (as I have done above, quoting people’s actual words).
.
And perhaps if Plus Ultra had done that, we wouldn’t all be wasting our time with this stuff.
@George Field –
Perhaps, like ImmanuelS, you should read what I’ve written before you ask me questions about what you *imagine* I’ve written. And then cite what you’re questioning. It saves time for everyone.
@ Robert Shone
You clearly do seriously champion the IBC against the Lancet at the below address:
http://www.zcommunications.org/media-lenss-errors-on-iraq-body-count-by-robert-shone
And dismiss the work of Lancet’s Les Roberts here:
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/sloppy-les-roberts/
I’e actually found numerous articles on your site slating media lens and the ‘drones’ they presumably encourage. In fact, I’d argue that a great deal of the site is dedicated to rubbishing the attempts of medialens editors to challenge corporate gatekeepers working in the media. This ‘is’ a tremendously important job and I see little writing of your own that aims to provide a similar service.
I also managed to come across two crass and patronising picture attached to your website. Clearly it comes easy to you to destroy the criticism of the ‘little guys’. Evidently it’s much more difficult to chase up the big fish.
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/medialens/
You wrote: “perhaps if Plus Ultra had done that, we wouldn’t all be wasting our time with this stuff.”
From what I can see PU called Murray out on two important points and actually quoted substantially from his website. So this sentence is just meaningless drivel.
What a disgruntled individual you really are.
@ Robert Shone
.
“No, I’m not the guy you’re talking about. None of what you’ve said accurately represents my opinions. You should follow Noam Chomsky’s sound advice: cite what you’re criticising.”
.
I was referring to the source that you linked to yourself:
.
http://www.zcommunications.org/media-lenss-errors-on-iraq-body-count-by-robert-shone
.
You also diminish the work of Les Roberts from the Lancet here:
.
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/sloppy-les-roberts/
.
Moreover, you include three crass pictures on the ‘medialens undone’ one of which is a picture of the two editors – David Cromwell and David Edwards – in hell. How very mature! Surely the absolute apogee of genuine dissidence!
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/medialens/
You aim to attack a small group of well meaning individuals attempting to hold the corporate media to account. Anyone can see this from a quick glimpse of your site. Perhaps in future you’ll aim to attack the big fish; you know, those outlets which actually promote, condone and fetishize the reality of war. If you did so, you’d be providing a worthy service.
.
“perhaps if Plus Ultra had done that, we wouldn’t all be wasting our time with this stuff.”
.
In fact Plus Ultra called Murray out on two important points – which he has yet to come back on. Moreover, he quoted ‘substantially’ from Murray; and admitted any errors proceeding from his work. This is a sign of intellectual honesty, and should be praised not denigrated.
.
So it becomes clear that you have only turned up here because you want to put the boot into medialens. Congratulations. Your work here is done!
@ Robert Shone
But I read the article you attached above? Does that not count?
@George Field –
The article you say you’ve read was specifically about Medialens’s errors. If you want to question my views about the Lancet study methodology, then it’d be a good idea to first familiarise yourself with what I’ve written on that topic:
http://tinyurl.com/lancet-etc
Shone: “No, I’m not the guy you’re talking about. None of what you’ve said accurately represents my opinions. You should follow Noam Chomsky’s sound advice: cite what you’re criticising.”
.
He (Immanuel) was referring to the source that you linked to yourself:
.
http://www.zcommunications.org/media-lenss-errors-on-iraq-body-count-by-robert-shone
.
You also diminish the work of Les Roberts from the Lancet here:
.
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/sloppy-les-roberts/
.
Moreover, you include three crass pictures on the ‘medialens undone’ one of which is a picture of the two editors – David Cromwell and David Edwards – in hell. How very mature! Surely the absolute apogee of genuine dissidence!
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/medialens/
You aim to attack a small group of well meaning individuals attempting to hold the corporate media to account. Anyone can see this from a quick glimpse of your site. Perhaps in future you’ll aim to attack the big fish; you know, those outlets which actually promote, condone and fetishize the reality of war. If you did so, you’d be providing a worthy service.
.
Shone: “perhaps if Plus Ultra had done that, we wouldn’t all be wasting our time with this stuff.”
.
In fact Plus Ultra called Murray out on two important points – which he has yet to come back on. Moreover, he quoted ‘substantially’ from Murray; and admitted any errors proceeding from his work. This is a sign of intellectual honesty, and should be praised not denigrated.
.
So it becomes clear that you have only turned up here because you want to put the boot into medialens. Congratulations. Your work here is done!
I merely asked a well-meaning question: what is wrong with the Lancet report and why does it have less credibility than the evidence produced by the IBC? I felt, given that you provided a link to your article, that you could answer this question in greater detail – that’s all. I have no idea why you are so defensive. My goodness. Lighten up!
“No, I’m not the guy you’re talking about. None of what you’ve said accurately represents my opinions. You should follow Noam Chomsky’s sound advice: cite what you’re criticising.”
He (Immanuel) was referring to the source that YOU linked to!
You also diminished the work of Les Roberts here:
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/sloppy-les-roberts/
Moreover, you include three crass pictures on the ‘medialens undone’ section of your website, one of which is a picture of the two editors – David Cromwell and David Edwards – in hell. How very mature! Surely the absolute apogee of genuine dissidence
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/medialens/
You aim to attack a small group of well meaning individuals attempting to hold the corporate media to account. Anyone can see this from a quick glimpse of your site. Perhaps in future you’ll aim to attack the big fish; you know, those outlets which actually promote, condone and fetishize the reality of war. If you did so, you’d be providing a worthy service.
Moreover, you include three crass pictures on the ‘medialens undone’ section of your website, one of which is a picture of the two editors – David Cromwell and David Edwards – in hell. How very mature! Surely the absolute apogee of genuine dissidence!
You aim to attack a small group of well meaning individuals attempting to hold the corporate media to account. Anyone can see this from a quick glimpse of your site. Perhaps in future you’ll aim to attack the big fish; you know, those outlets which actually promote, condone and fetishize the reality of war. If you did so, you’d be providing a worthy service.
@George Field –
The link I provided addresses (in some detail) reported problems with Lancet study. I don’t make any direct comparisons between IBC and Lancet study (since they are two very different types of study). If you have any questions specifically about what I’ve written, please feel free to ask (by email if you prefer).
@ImSoldz –
You’re not Soldz, and there’s no picture of anyone “in hell” on my website. There is however an outstandingly hilarious album-cover showing two Christian evangelists:
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/medialens/
ML Wars II – Attack of the clones…
But was Glenn’s membership approved?
Did his criticism of the fuckwitted Plus Ultra make it to the Media Lens message board?
@’ImmanuelS’/’Immanuel’/’iSoldz’/’ImSoldz’ – you seem to be one individual who keeps repeating more or less the same post.
.
Les Roberts (Lancet Iraq study author) is not some antiwar saint. He has written that the Iraq shock-and-awe bombing was “very careful”. Here’s what he wrote in full:-
.
“Our data suggests that the (March 2003) shock-and-awe campaign was very careful, that a lot of the targets were genuine military targets.” http://www.dailylobo.com/index.php/article/2008/01/qa_les_roberts
.
Les Roberts also ran for congress in the US. You’d have thought he’d use his 2006 political campaign to publicise the Lancet study findings. But he barely mentioned it. The following is the sole reference to Iraqi deaths in his withdrawal speech:
.
“… the lives of thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians lost as a result of the preemptive and deceptive invasion of Iraq”.
.
Only “thousands”? Here’s another gem from Les Robert’s 2006 campaign website: “Some things have gone well in Iraq. Over the first months of occupation, the availability of water and electricity in the areas outside of Baghdad improved; foreign goods became more plentiful and inexpensive. The last round of elections was by most measures more successful than the first.”
.
Am I “rubbishing” your sacred cow? No, I’m simply quoting what he said. Am I “rubbishing” his work? No, I’ve written two pieces which criticise a couple of little studies that he conducted with his students – very specific criticisms of cited claims. Also, the BBC published my response to some demonstrable falsehoods of Les Roberts regarding Wikileaks Iraq War Logs.
.
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/les-roberts-new-study/
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/sloppy-les-roberts/
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/bbc-les-roberts/
Not unlike a roving chattering host/knot of sparrows you come here and rewarm arguments over figures of dead Iraqi civilians?
What matters is that that war was started under false pretences, was the worst ever prepared for war, that it was conducted with the specific aim to create a chaotic dependent society, an abomination for any country that calls itself decent and law abiding.
people on media lense have plenty of time to argue the proverbial whimsical toss, all day long.
Now consider seeing all this latent energy applied to practical solution to this coalition currently screwing us some more, what if these so called progressive individualists would be preparing for some sort of pragmatic political alternative, research a ward or two or three, start canvassing real people and stand for local elections as Independents, would that not bring tears to your eyes? would that not be a brilliant moment?
Never mind the debate over PR, AV, work at it for a few years and get yourself known, trying to persuade or conjoin with a political dogmatic party is utter futility. So don’t talk yourself sad and silly, together we all can make a difference.
These fora are merely a gathering of individual minds, some glued to their keyboards in perpetual darkness for hours on end, collectively not achieving very much.
Have we lost the ability to put up and fight for a better society? don’t discuss.
Have we got too much salt on our butter, have we become too phlegmatic? don’t discuss.
@ImSoldz – if your comment does not appear, it is best not to post again – often if you add links it gets stuck in moderation. It will get released by someone at some point. It is also a good idea (on all blogs everywhere) to select-all-copy before you submit, in case you need to resubmit for any reason. I do so as a matter of course now, everywhere I comment. The web is fickle!
.
@Robert, if you’re still around, I’d love to read a response from you to my earlier post. I think each of us examining our motivations is useful, and more so if we can share these things with each other. None of us is infallible.
.
@GeekThug – surely “clones” and “fuckwit” is not all you have to offer in terms of debate and intellectual engagement? I thought Plus Ultra’s response was excellent, and suspect Craig – who in general has my warm support – over-reacted with his initial language. Clearly P/U got some things wrong, but he/she is self-evidently not a fuckwit.
Jon, it is all I’ve got to offer. I too thought Plus Ultra’s response was excellent — this bit of it anyway:
.
“Perhaps my gest-o-meter ain’t up to scratch these days…”
.
Yeah. Just like the rest of the humourless fuckwits on the MediaLens Message Board. I can see from this thread the dangers of debating anything with nasty little authoritarian groups. It doesn’t take long for the usual MO to become clear — people Googling for your affiliations, complaining about the way you express yourself, fantasising about your mental state, sock puppet attacks and relentless smearing.
.
I don’t support that sort of thing — no matter how worthy the mission statement of the organisation that inspires it.
@g33kThug, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Are *all* the people on the ML message board “fuckwits”? No. *All* of them humourless? No. *All* of them authoritarian sock-puppeteers? No.
.
So I say the same as I did to Robert: sweeping generalisations appear to encourage you to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is some good that comes out of ML reader activism, even if you have been treated poorly by ML staff. Furthermore, neutral third parties cannot judge whether ML have been unfair to you, or whether your forum ejection was justified.
Jon, I don’t need to agree with you on anything.
.
What’s your problem with generalisation? And since when did anybody need to prove that every contributor was humourless before being allowed to conclude that a specific message board was marked by it’s lack of humour?
.
I’m not looking for your arbitration or understanding. I dislike Media Lens because I dislike authoritarians, dislike passive aggression, dislike spin and dislike mobs.
.
But, more than that, I dislike laziness. The sort of intellectual and physical laziness that makes people think that they can Google and email their way to success. The laziness that sees revealing hypocrisy as the summit of achievement — because it’s the easiest option. That’s why Media Lens are so selective about their targets — the BBC or “liberal press” like The Guardian or Independent. Their methods only work when the targets have a high degree of self-imposed accountability.
.
Personally, I pick fights with adversaries that are a bit more formidable: the Met Police, tabloid newspapers, multinational corporations, Government departments and the law. The sort of adversaries that require hard evidence, rational argument and diligent research.
.
Not smears, threats and Chomsky quotes parroted by a couple of hundred emails.
> Jon, I don’t need to agree with you on anything.
.
No, but I am within my rights to register my disagreement.
.
> What’s your problem with generalisation?
.
Err… well, it lacks nuance. I think you’re seeing things in black and white because you are hurt that you were kicked out (as I read Plus Ultra’s response piece, I am quite sure a neutral observer would not regard it variously as “authoritarian”, “spin”, “intellectually lazy” etc). As I say, since no-one who was not involved in your disagreement can judge whether you were ejected fairly, you’ll find it hard to foment an ML-supporter uprising (and that’s not your fault – just a feature of schisms in political groupings generally).
.
> I’m not looking for your arbitration or understanding.
.
I find that hard to believe. You are here, I think, because you want observers to be converted to your position. Which you are within your rights to do.
.
Your list of people with whom fights should be picked is quite right, but should not be an exhaustive list. But I think you are quite wrong about why the liberal media are targeted; Media Lens’ reason is that the liberal media represent a subconscious limit of Left opinion, and thus unwittingly form a propaganda mechanism that “illustrates” we have a free press. Guardian and BBC journalists are of course not immune from Establishment bias, while papers on the Right have no attenuating force that could be regarded as its opposite.
.
I sense that you’ve gone to the trouble of writing all sorts of negative adjectives to apply to Media Lens because, again, you want some of it to stick. But, if you think they’re wasting their time with liberal media criticism anyway, why bother attacking them with such vehemence and effort? Let them do what they do, and it’ll give you more time to go after the targets you believe are more important.