Slashdot Mirror

indeed, this is the feeling in parts of Scotland (which is a separate country within the governance of the United Kingdom) where the BBC played a huge part in last years independence campaign. Unsurprisingly, the state broadcaster, funded by the tax payer, took the side of the "no" campaign instead of being unbiased in their reporting and this is causing huge ruptures in Scotland right now and calls are being made to revolutionise the BBC in Scotland. There has been a lot of reporting on this situation here and even before the referendum here and here.

Many in Scotland think that the BBC was a major force in swinging the vote in the final days before the referendum vote when both sides were close to 50/50 of the vote. This caused quite a few protests at BBC Scotland (although, these were played down by the state media).

Whilst it is obvious what the role being played by the BBC in NK and Eritrea is; bear in mind that it is a state broadcaster and will even attempt to exert power over residents within the UK.

Actually, if you follow international news at all, there has been a strong Conservative/Tory assault on the NHS for several years now. The assault comes in the form of privatization and the introduction of the 'free' market to the health care ecosystem. This system, if anything, is attempting to emulate the system put in place with the ACA, and the right in the UK has made it clear that they would like do what the right in America has been arguing for this whole time in terms of health care. Would the Dems have desired to emulate the original NHS, prior to its evisceration? Yes. Now? Not so much. Here's a bit of light reading on the topic, which is anything but hard to find. (Yes, they do tend to be from more leftwing sources, however, they have good information on what has been done to the NHS recently.) http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11935 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/farewell-to-the-nhs-19482013-a-dear-and-trusted-friend-finally-murdered-by-tory-ideologues-8555503.html http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=676:people-will-die-the-end-of-the-nhs-part-1-the-corporate-assault-&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69

I was wrong about it being enforced by the SEC. The laws vary from state to state on exact wording but they all basically say you can sue for "wrongful acts". And yes, this means not engaging in profit seeking. Here's an article for you:

http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/rh_corporate_responsibility.html

Because they have a legal obligation to: http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/rh_corporate_responsibility.html. Specifically, they are obliged to try to make money no matter who they shaft, and the directors can face legal sanction if they fail to do so.

I happen to think that's a bad thing, but unless legislation changes, that's the way it is, and it's no good blaming the companies.

Asserting that the "medieval warm period" provides evidence against current anthropogenic warming, claiming solar irradiance as the main cause of recent warming, claiming the overall power of water vapor as a GHG somehow makes CO2 irrelevant, these have all been debunked repeatedly, mostly several years ago. Realclimate.org has a good collection of the evidence against these claims, and the faulty logic often applied in them. The parent is missing only a very few of the old chestnuts, like the "Mars and Jupiter are warming, too, so Earth's warming can't be our fault" line, another old standard, also debunked. The repitition of these ideas is sounding increasingly similar, to my ear at any rate, to the arguments that the Grand Canyon was carved in a single flood event, and that same flood explains marine fossils on what are now mountains, etc. I.e., there are some people who don't want to believe what the science is consistently showing because of their ideologies, and they'll seize on any fairly plausible-sounding supposed evidence and never let it go, despite the more plentiful and reliable evidence to the contrary.

The film referenced in the parent relied heavily on the same already disproven ideas, and threw in some fake graphs to boot. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propag anda_the.php If "spot on" means "totally without merit," then I agree with the author of the parent on that final point.

Basically, I'm asserting that there's a BTKWB-type effect among people who think that mainstream climate science is a liberal conspiracy. But at some point, can the rest of us stop having to address the same old B.S. over and over?

Taken from a post in the forum on MediaLens : Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 since when he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run "a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol"; and "encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol". He appeared on a Channel 4 documentary last week in an attempt to debunk climate-change theories. The roll-call for interviewees becomes very enlightening when you start to look at their backgrounds and sources of funding (coupled with the past agenda of the documentary maker himself) and the way the sole climatologist was taken out of context through cunning editing. If there was genuinely a case for the contrary, then this kind of trickery is unnecessary, so just what IS the deal here!? More here...

Taken from a post in the forum on MediaLens : Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 since when he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run "a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol"; and "encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol". He appeared on a Channel 4 documentary last week in an attempt to debunk climate-change theories. The roll-call for interviewees becomes very enlightening when you start to look at their backgrounds and sources of funding (coupled with the past agenda of the documentary maker himself) and the way the sole climatologist was taken out of context through cunning editing. If there was genuinely a case for the contrary, then this kind of trickery is unnecessary, so just what IS the deal here!? More here...

I don't care what opinionated and personally involved people say about the study. The peer review concluded that the study is using the most reliable method and they think it's firm in it's conclusions.

Here is a link discussing the media distortion issue, btw.

You should check your facts. The 650,000 is a highly researched, peer-reviewed estimate compiled by one of the preeminent medical journals of the world (The Lancet) and using the most up-to-date methodology for estimating death tolls in catastophies of either human or natural making:

George Bush's comment on the report, "The methodology is pretty well discredited", was widely broadcast and printed. A great moment in TV history was missed when journalists failed to seek clarification on the exact nature of the president's problem with the methodology.

In fact Bush's claim that the methodology had been discredited was a lie, as the people who told him what to say are surely well aware. Richard Brennan, head of health programmes at the New York-Based International Rescue Committee, told Associated Press:

"This is the most practical and appropriate methodology for sampling that we have in humanitarian conflict zones."

Brennan's group has conducted similar projects in Kosovo, Uganda and Congo. He added:

"While the results of this survey may startle people, it's hard to argue with the methodology at this point." (Malcolm Ritter, 'Bush Dismisses Iraq Death Toll Study,' Associated Press Online, October 12, 2006)

Professor Mike Toole of the Centre for International Health, Melbourne, said:

"The methodology used is consistent with survey methodology that has long been standard practice in estimating mortality in populations affected by war. For example, the Burnet Institute and International Rescue Committee (IRC) used the same methods to estimate mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings of this study received widespread media attention and were accepted without reservation by the US and British governments. The Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health's Centre for International Health endorses this study." (Toole, The Age (Melbourne), letters to the editor, October 14, 2006)

Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report, told the Christian Science Monitor:

"I loved when President Bush said 'their methodology has been pretty well discredited'. That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it." (Dan Murphy, 'Iraq casualty figures open up new battleground,' Christian Science Monitor, October 13, 2006)

John Zogby, whose New York-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began, said:

"The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets. It is what people in the statistics business do." (Anna Badkhen, 'Critics say 600,000 Iraqi dead doesn't tally,' San Francisco Chronicle, October 12, 2006)

Zogby said similar survey methods have been used to estimate casualty figures in other conflicts, such as Darfur and the Congo. Zogby also noted that US critics accept the method for opinion polls, which are based on interviews with around 1,000 Americans in a country of 300 million people.

Frank Harrell Jr., chair of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, called the study design solid and said it included "rigorous, well-justified analysis of the data". (Ritter, op., cit)

Steve Heeringa, director of the statistical design group at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, said:

"Given the conditions (in Iraq), it's actually quite a remarkable effort. I can't imagine them doing much more in a much more rigorous fashion." (Ibid)

BBC Newsnight interviewed Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford, who de

Yes, you are missing something, but it's ok, you were meant to miss it.

You are missing the fact that on the day prior to Hezbullah kidnapping that IDF soldier, the IDF had entered the Gaza Strip for the first time in almost a year, and detained a palestinian doctor and his brother, claiming they were members of Hamas, thereby starting this last wave of violence.

See: The British Media And The Invasion Of Gaza

Section 716 of the business corporation act states:

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....

This is quoted from an article written by a corporate attorney proposing a 'Code for Corporate Citizenship' in state law. It can be found at http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/art icles_2002/rh_corporate_responsibility.html

Here

and here

explain why it hasn't been debunked (apart from by unqualified journalists).

Here

and here

explain why it hasn't been debunked (apart from by unqualified journalists).

The BBC Propaganda Begins:

The B ritish B rain C ontrol...

MediaLens.org - not so much a blog but excellent analysis of mainstream news media.

May I strongly suggest you actually read up on what Scott Ritter and Hans Blix have said about the efficacy or otherwise of inspectors in Iraq? I think you'll find that his view is quite antithetical to yours and that, according to UN inspectors, they had effectively disarmed 90 to 95% of the country.

A good start would be this and this

Of course, this is just more leftie-liberal-commie-european-anti-american trash to you I expect.

May I strongly suggest you actually read up on what Scott Ritter and Hans Blix have said about the efficacy or otherwise of inspectors in Iraq? I think you'll find that his view is quite antithetical to yours and that, according to UN inspectors, they had effectively disarmed 90 to 95% of the country.

A good start would be this and this

Of course, this is just more leftie-liberal-commie-european-anti-american trash to you I expect.

The result is the advertisers run the companies.

And when those companies are the media you have a big problem on your hands: how do you get accurate reports on issues that would have negative effects of companies from the media when the media relies on the adverts from those very companies to stay alive?

You can't.

Medialens ended up discussing this with one of the Guardian editors in April:

"Ever worked on a magazine launch? The first and only real questions are: who will advertise with in product / Will it be read by people whom advertisers want to reach?" -- Nick Taylor, Guardian Spark magazine editor.

It's called a "response". I never suggested he'd use it on his own capital! Standard response to a country using nukes would be to turn it's capital into a parking lot.

He has a nuke, wants to use it.

Ah, the good ol' disinformed US public. Let me first show you this link pointing out the lies and disinformation prevailent in the current pro-war speaches.

Now, a lot of what you are suggesting comes from the speaches and quotes that are ripped apart in the above link. May I also remind you that Iraq are simply not capable of producing nukes. While the physics are simple, the equiptment isn't. They could not develop a nuclear program without us noticing. Their country doesn't have the manufacturing capabilities to produce the kind of engineering required to build nukes.

Makes arrangements to have it shipped somewhere. Any large shipping port is fine. He has someone loyal to him go along with it, in its container to activate the bomb when they arrive at the destination

I read the Clancy book as well.

I personally could make a nuke. I personally could have it shipped somewhere. I personally could detonate it. Are you going to start a war with Scotland now, just because it's a possibility? Don't be so stupid.

The possibility of someone doing something evil or bad is not the justification for war. If that we're the case, the US would have banned guns by now. After all, they could kill someone.

What you are suggesting is a paranoid fantasy, implanted by a group of people who have lot's of experience in using fear to get what they want. Please educate yourself and rise above it. The US media revolves around fear, if this is a new concept to you, I'd suggest watching "Bowling for Columbine", where Michael Moore spends some time discussing the fear culture in the USA.

No one is saying that Saddam should be left in power. I just don't believe that killing innocent people is the answer, and long term it will only fuel hatred and terrorism towards the west. A bit self-defeating, don't you think?

Bush is a psychopathic fundamentalist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the Gulf region.

(By unspeakable, I refer to his complete lack of respect for everything that the USA is supposed to stand for)

When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for

Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.

Being opposed to war does not mean that we are opposed to doing anything. All it means is that we are not happy about being deliberatly misled by our leaders to start a war that is going to cause more long term problems than it will solve.

Do you think the USA is going to win over any friends in the region by medling further in the Middle East? Why don't you ask the next generation of potential terrorists, who will grow up hating the country that killed their parents...

Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser.

Ahh, but you forget the fact that your cities were attacked because of meddling in the past. Doing nothing would be a better solution (I'm not saying it's the best though). Going around killing people is only going to inspire the next generation of terrorists. And as the war on terrorism is inherently unwinnable (you can't defeat an enemy you can't see), I question the reasoning and motives behind the current policies.

Perhaps you will find this link interesting. It's a breakdown of the disinformation tactics used by the present US administration to dupe the public into backing this war.

The rest of the site is interesting as well, unfortunatly it's a frameset site, so you'll have to hack the URL to get to the home page

Perhaps you will find this link interesting. It's a breakdown of the disinformation tactics used by the present US administration to dupe the public into backing this war.

The rest of the site is interesting as well, unfortunatly it's a frameset site, so you'll have to hack the URL to get to the home page