MD Understanding Quality And Power

From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 00:16:29 GMT

  • Next message: Phaedrus Wolff: "Re: MD The MOQ and Mysticism 101"

    Mark Steven Heyman made the pertinent comment on January 9th that:

    I consider the WSJ [“Wall Street Journal”] to be an excellent source of
    information, except for their editorials, of course. For example, by
    reading the Journal, I learned a lot about what the passage of NAFTA
    would mean to American business. People who read such papers,
    primarily investors, require and expect accurate information. But
    this is off-point...

    I don’t think there is such a thing as a politically neutral
    observer. Everyone’s world experience shapes and colors their
    opinions. And, in the case of the profit-driven mass media a new
    level of skepticism is warranted. This is why it’s important to
    examine the full spectrum of opinion, from a wide variety of sources…

    Ant McWatt states: Yes, this is an important ideal - as I will show in the
    illustration given below.

    Platt Holden remembered accurately:

    Awhile back I cited an article in a British newspaper reporting on
    the sad state of their National Health System only to be told by
    someone (Anthony McWatt as I recall) that the newspaper I drew the
    information from was totally unreliable.

    Ant McWatt comments: The so-called UK “newspaper” that Platt referred to is
    called “The Sun”. If you visit their website at: www.thesun.co.uk that will
    give a good flavour of what the typical daily edition of this publication is
    like i.e. cheap and facile.

    Anyway, they actually apologised to Liverpool – as a city – last year due to
    a seriously mis-leading article of theirs (ironically titled… “The Truth”)
    that reported on a disaster that occurred at a football stadium where 96
    Liverpool people lost their lives.

    Andrew Coombes of an “independent” news group provides the background of the
    story [anything in square brackets is an addition made by me]:

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sun has again apologised for its “The Truth” story, made a few short
    days after the [1989 Hillsborough} disaster [in Sheffield] that eventually
    claimed 96 lives. Yet the Sun’s apology will not cut much ice with those on
    Merseyside. The Sun stated in its editorial on July 7th [2004] that it is
    has apologised in the past for its reporting of the disaster, and that it
    has no hesitation in apologising again. However, such apparent contrition is
    only window dressing when there is no analysis provided on how their
    dreadful “The Truth” story did more to set back the cause of justice than
    perhaps any other single event in the aftermath of the disaster.

    “The Truth” was, ultimately, one of the most mendacious pieces of journalism
    ever committed to print. The piece reported that fans urinated on police
    attempting resuscitation. It brazenly stated that Liverpool fans raided the
    pockets of injured and dead fans. It reported that Liverpool fans leered at
    the exposed breasts of a female fan who had been mortally injured in the
    crush. It referred to the Liverpool fans as being a drunken, seething mass.
    And, crucially, it reported these unsubstantiated allegations as fact. This
    appalling journalism (if such a tag can be applied), was not just a slight
    slip-up that a simple “Hands up, Guv” apology will ameliorate.

    96 Liverpool families travelled to Sheffield for inquests on their lost
    loved ones with the full knowledge that Britain’s best-selling [“newspaper”]
    had effectively criminalised them. One would like to suppose that our legal
    system would remain largely untainted by the sweeping statements of a
    tabloid newspaper looking to sensationalise an already emotive event. But
    then, one tends to underestimate the power of the media in shaping popular
    attitudes, amplified when a few handy regional stereotypes are there to peg
    a fallacious story on. In the courtroom, stereotypes were again intrinsic to
    the way that the inquests were steered. Fans were described by several
    police officers as an uncontrollable mass, only intent on gaining entry to
    the ground to watch an FA Cup semi-final. Tellingly, blood alcohol levels
    were referred to at length at the inquests, an unprecedented move that no
    doubt was influenced by the kind of reporting that the Sun pushed as
    “truth”.

    The reporting that was made by The Sun became commonsensical, and
    hence public figures who were largely unqualified to speak on the events at
    Hillsborough were faithfully given column space - from Bernard Ingham [a
    Conservative politician] (who referred to “a tanked up mob” as being to
    blame) to Brian Clough [a rival football manager], the overwhelming negative
    statements concerning the events at Hillsborough and those about Liverpool
    residents were faithfully relayed. Granted, the Sun did not report many of
    these statements themselves, but it was largely responsible for promulgating
    an environment where mythic assumptions around the disaster and the city
    could be played out, and rehearsed as fact. 15 years later, the families of
    the Hillsborough dead have still not received the justice (and the full and
    comprehensive inquest) they so deserve, and to a large extent because of the
    powerful outside pressures that infiltrated the courtroom and affected the
    decision making processes made therein.

    The Sun states in its editorial “The Sun of 2004 no more deserves to be
    hated on Merseyside than Wayne Rooney [a football player who has recently
    moved outside Merseyside] does”. Such bleating shows the Sun
    does in fact not care about the Hillsborough families one jot, and only
    illustrates that it has failed to grasp the depth of hatred that exists on
    Merseyside for the effects that its false reporting provoked. The Sun
    conveniently plugged into a set of assumptions about the behaviour of both
    football fans and Liverpudlians, and with those assumptions helped engineer
    an untruthful dominant ideology that, left unchecked, caused immense hurt
    and suffering. For the Sun to give a mawkish apology behind the image of a
    football prodigy is a further insult to the Hillsborough families. In 2004,
    the newspaper seems to have forgotten that the hundreds of families torn
    apart by the Sun’s abhorrent reporting 15 years ago had nothing to hide
    behind. The Sun stole the innocence of those killed or injured at
    Hillsborough.

    But above all this, The Sun obviously feels it has paid for its mistake. Its
    editorial states that 15 years is a long time - nine years longer than the
    Second World War. To which the people of Merseyside will say - 15 years is a
    hell of a long time without justice. For The Sun to say that the old staff
    have cleared their desks and that now there are new faces at the paper
    betrays a failure of understanding that the disaster’s aftermath has on
    Merseyside, and thus makes the latest apology distinctly hollow.

    In short, The Sun needs to offer more than an apology in the tone of a
    petulant child that feels that its after-school detention is up. It must now
    step forward and demonstrate a full understanding of the real events of the
    disaster and its aftermath, from its own journalistic failings to the
    mendacity and evasiveness of South Yorkshire Police. A full and truthful
    context must be given to The Sun’s readership. The 96 innocents who never
    came home from a football match deserve nothing less.

    Andrew Coombes July 7th 2004

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2004/07/295149.html

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ant McWatt comments:

    I know Platt wasn’t aware of the above issue but he might now see why
    someone as myself with close links with Liverpool was not very impressed by
    his referencing of “The Sun” in order to support his argument against public
    national health systems.

    And, the owner of “The Sun” (the “bright light of the UK media”)?

    Well, maybe it comes as no surprise that it is Rupert Murdoch – also the
    owner of Fox news which is termed the “The Most Biased Name in News” by the
    “Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting” website (www.fair.org). Of course, it’s
    always easier to accept the status quo line of Murdoch (which will always be
    one of the “best promoted” political lines) rather than spend some time and
    care to assess a wide variety of sources beyond the status quo that he
    represents. This lack of care is a bad mistake, and, as seen in “The Sun”
    can have serious long term repercussions in the upset it causes.

    So ends today lecture.

    Anthony.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
    http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 14 2005 - 00:22:11 GMT