David Cromwell

Email to Philip Zimbardo, author of 'The Lucifer Effect'

2007-06-27T06:34:00.000-07:00

June 6, 2007

Dear Philip Zimbardo,

I hope you're well. I was inspired to buy a copy of your book The Lucifer
Effect after watching your eloquent interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy
Now (March 30, 2007). The book is a great achievement, hugely important and
I warmly congratulate you. Your writing is full of both reason and humanity,
a truly powerful combination, and easy to read too. I've also had fun
exploring your various websites. Thank you.

I was pleased to see you note early in the book that:

"...most psychologists have been insensitive to the deeper sources of power
that inhere in the political, economic, religious, historic, and cultural
matrix that defines situations and gives them legitimate or illegitimate
existence. A full understanding of the dynamics of human behavior requires
that we recognize the extent and limits of personal power, situational
power, and systemic power." (p. x)

How true.

It was both correct and brave of you to go all the way to the top and indict
Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush for the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo
Bay and all the other places around the world where torture and abuse
continue to take place, in their name, in the so-called "war on terror".

You also describe the shocking events of Haditha, where Iraqi civilians,
including women and children, were killed in cold blood. As with My Lai in
Vienam, there are likely untold numbers of similarly shocking incidents
elsewhere in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

What I found to be missing from your book, however, was an unequivocal
identification of the overarching framework of imperial power under which
such war crimes have - and continue to be - committed. In particular, we
must surely judge the invasion of Iraq by the same standards that were
upheld at the Nuremberg war trials where it was clearly stated:

"To initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime, it
is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in
that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The concept of aggression was defined clearly by US Supreme Court Justice
Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor for the United States at Nuremberg. An
"aggressor," Jackson proposed to the Nurember tribunal, is a state that is
the first to commit such actions as "invasion of its armed forces, with or
without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State." Clearly
true in the case of Iraq - and Afghanistan, many would argue. Justice
Jackson also noted at Nuremberg: "If certain acts of violation of treaties
are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether
Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal
conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against
us." (Quoted by Noam Chomsky, 'A Just War? Hardly', ZNet commentary, May 20,
2006; http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-05/20chomsky.cfm)

Although you rightly describe the invasion as a "preemptive war against
Iraq", it's disappointing that you did not refer back to the Nuremberg
judgement and identify the war as "the supreme international crime". After
all, isn't this directly relevant to the full understanding you seek; to
recognise the brute realities of systemic power especially as it relates
today to the US government acting as the most powerful 'rogue state' on the
planet? Doesn't this constitute the background - the parameters, the
mindset, the very real forces - to all the recent crimes and abuses you
describe so powerfully and movingly in your book? To point this out would
not require a lengthy revelation of US (indeed western) history, elite
priorities, and the goals and policies of state-corporate power - we have
the work of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, William Blum and many others for
that - but surely making more substantial reference to this realpolitik is
directly relevant and helpful to your thesis? I do note, of course, that you
rightly warn of nations relying on "ideology", "patriotism", and the
rhetoric of "threats to national security"; the powerful impact that this
has on individuals and societies; and that you refer in passing to the
classic work of Erich Fromm: still so relevant and vital today.

To end on a more appreciative note, I love your positive and hopeful focus
on "heroism" and was pleased to see you write warmly of the work of Martin
Seligman. His book "Authentic Happiness" is also a groundbreaking work that
I enjoyed. You are likely also familiar with the work of writers such as
Daniel Goleman, Alan Wallace and Matthieu Ricard who have emphasised the
core value of compassion in the search for authentic happiness. Sharon
Begley's recent book, 'Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain', has ample
scientific evidence underpinning this approach. To me, compassion is at the
root of heroism; and, as such writers have explained, compassion can be
strengthened considerably by positive efforts in meditation and mindfulness,
with all kinds of myriad benefits flowing from that - both for ourselves as
individuals and society as a whole. These are all very hopeful and inspiring
developments.

If you have time, it would be nice to hear back from you in response to the
above points. In any case, I wish you well and thank you once again for your
excellent and inspiring work.

Best wishes,
David Cromwell
Co-Editor, Media Lens
www.medialens.org

Blair, Iraq and revisionism: exchange with Steve Richards of The Independent

2007-06-17T03:25:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, 13 June, 2007

Dear Steve Richards,

Your comment piece today is interesting, perhaps mostly for what it misses ('A courageous attack that will lead to reprisals', The Independent, June 13, 2007).

But first - you wrote:

"Blair exaggerated the significance of the intelligence on WMD."

That's sleight-of-hand journalism.

Take the Niger-uranium saga, for instance. As investigative reporter Neil Mackay of the Sunday Herald rightly said, this tawdry episode reveals: "one of the key strategies of the Bush and Blair governments: allowing information which the administrations knew to be fake and phoney to be aired in order to convince the US Congress, the British Parliament and the people of the UK and America, that they should support war."

Mackay added:

"The British government's claim that it had additional intelligence which proved that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger was a blatant lie." (Neil Mackay, 'The War on Truth', Sunday Herald Books, 2006)

There's so much more that could be said to undermine your confused turn of phrase.

In any case, you've skirted round the glaringly obvious central issue: We must surely judge the invasion of Iraq by the same standards that were upheld at the Nuremberg war trials where it was clearly stated:

"To initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor for the United States at Nuremberg, noted at the time:"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

What Jackson said about the United States applies similarly to the United Kingdom. And, make no mistake, the invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression, sold on a false premise.

Perhaps the failure of the Independent - and other major newspapers and broadcasters - to point out that the invasion was the "supreme international crime", and that Blair and their ministers ought to stand trial for war crimes, has something to do with the public's increasing scepticism of traditional sources of 'news' and narrow spectrum of 'comment'.

Finally, you write pejoratively of "the current extreme and dangerous cynicism about those we elect". The public scepticism about power, which you bemoan, also applies to the media that reports - or, more often, fails to report - on those elected. More accurately, this public scepticism is directed towards the damaging *policies* pursued by political leaders: policies which so often favour the few - elite interests - at the expense of the many, namely the public at large.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Best wishes,
David Cromwell

===
Response from Steve Richards:

Thursday, 14 June, 2007

Dear David,

Many thanks for your note.

The intelligence was wrong. In advance of the war it became part of theargument used by those that supported the invasion (not by me-I was opposedfrom the beginning). Did Blair believe the intelligence? Probably he wasnaive enough to believe some of it. The more sophisticated Hans Blix didtoo.

By then Blair had no choice but to put the best possible public case forwar. He had made the commitment. What would have happened if he had opposedthe war? It would still have gone ahead, with the US even more detachedfrom the rest of the world. Look at Chirac and Schroeder-impotent in theiropposition and acquiring no more authority at home or abroad as a result.I stress again I was opposed to the war. A stronger figure than Blair wouldhave taken the less easy route and broken off from the US...but all routeswere treacherous for Blair in that period. For the media to scream 'liar'at every opportunity casts no light anywhere.

Cheers, Steve

===

Follow-up email to Steve Richards:

Friday, 15 June, 2007

Dear Steve,

Many thanks for responding. You still haven't addressed the central point put to you - let's return to that in a moment.

First, the intelligence. You now say: "The intelligence was wrong". But in your column you said: "Blair exaggerated the significance of the intelligence on WMD." So you're not even consistent in your revisionism of the historical record.

The facts are out there, courtesy of the Downing Street Memos and other sources. In a meeting chaired by Tony Blair in July 2003, Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the Secret Intelligence Service, said that "the facts and the intelligence" were being "fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq.

Brian Jones, Defence Intelligence Staff (1987-2003), reported that MI6 was required by the Government to extract as much information as possible from their limited sources in Iraq to construct a plausible intelligence case.

John Morrison, an adviser to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee and a former deputy chief of defence intelligence, said that when Blair made his claims of Iraqi WMD: "I could almost hear the collective raspberry going up around Whitehall."

Blair claimed that it was "absurd" to claim that any Iraqi WMD had been destroyed prior to the invasion. Hans Blix told the BBC in response: "No, it was not [absurd] and the inspectors had not really asserted that these things [WMD] existed. They had calculated material balances and they've said here [are] a lot of things unaccounted for, and it wasn't absurd that they had destroyed it."

Blix also said: "If anyone had cared ... to study what UNSCOM was saying for quite a number of years, and what we [UNMOVIC] were saying, they should not have assumed that they would stumble on weapons."

The testimony of those experts such as Scott Ritter, former chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, that Iraq had been "fundamentally disarmed", was largely buried by politicians and media commentators.

Carne Ross, a key Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN inspectors in Iraq, said that British government claims about Iraq's weapons programme had been "totally implausible". Ross told the Guardian:

"I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too.

I could go on. In any case, alleged WMD was only ever a convenient casus belli, as Paul Wolfowitz admitted:"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

The real issue is, as it has always been since the end of WW2, the US desire to shape the Middle East in its own strategic and economic interests.But back to the main point in my first email to you. The invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression; the "supreme international crime", judged by the standards of Nuremberg. But this stark fact has gone unrecognised in your journalism. Your evasion of the point in your response to me highlights your uncomfortable silence.

You claim, without justification, that "Blair had no choice but to put the best possible public case for war."The same logic applies to honour amongst Mafia killers. If a hit is going to go ahead, come what may, then any discomfort or dissent amongst the mafiosi is to be suppressed in order not to offend the capo - or worse, bring down his wrath.

You ask, "What would have happened if he [Blair] had opposed the war?"and declare with supreme confidence, and extraordinary powers of clairvoyance:"It would still have gone ahead, with the US even more detached from the rest of the world."

This is a line of defence that would not pass muster at Nuremberg.

We know from the Downing Street Memos that Blair had signed up to Bush's plans in early 2002. We know that Sir Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador to the United States, wrote in a March 18, 2002 memo:

"We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically."

We know that Meyer called for a "strategy for building support for military action", and warned of the "need to wrong foot Saddam on the inspectors."

We know, too, thanks to the diligent investigative reporting of Michael Smith of the Sunday Times, that there was a secret, illegal air war carried out in the cynical hope of a reaction from Saddam that would 'justify' a full-scale assault and invasion.

We know, in other words, that the US and the UK conspired to launch a war of aggression.

Blair has colluded in a monstrous crime - the supreme international crime, recall - that has led to the deaths of approaching one million Iraqis; untold numbers of maimed and wounded civilians; millions of refugees; the deaths of thousands of soldiers; the increased security threat to Britons everywhere; further destabilised the Middle East, including the very real threat of a new war on Iran.

Maybe, even now, you can be persuaded to reconsider your journalistic perspective.

I look forward to your response.

Best wishes,
David

Challenging the Independent's environment editor

2007-04-01T10:03:00.000-07:00

Just emailed Michael McCarthy, environment editor of The Independent, at m.mccarthy@independent.co.uk:

===
I'm a researcher in ocean circulation and climate at Southampton Oceanography Centre. I'm writing an article for New Statesman on the news media's reporting of climate. Would you have a moment to provide a response to the following, please?

Since April 1998 [date of McCarthy's first article], you have published a total of 374 articles that address climate in The Independent, according to a Lexis-Nexis search I conducted today. You don't appear to have mentioned contraction and convergence, the proposal by the Global Commons Institute, in any of these articles. Why not?

Hope to hear from you soon. Thank you.
===

Will McCarthy finally respond to a challenge about his news reporting on climate? Watch this space....

CIA "blunder" over North Korea

2007-03-05T09:49:00.000-08:00

CIA "blunder" over North Korea, apparently, with obvious implications for how we should treat US claims (and threats) against Iran: namely, with deep scepticism. Or will the BBC et al. continue to follow the line set by US-UK power? Hmmmm, tough call. === CIA blunder 'prompted Korean nuclear race' By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles Published: 02 March 2007 The IndependentThe United States appears to have made a major intelligence blunder over North Korea's nuclear weapons programme, one that may have exacerbated tensions with Pyongyang over the past four years and goaded Kim Jong-Il into pressing ahead with last October's live nuclear test, intelligence and Bush administration officials have said.

Full article here:http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2318711.ece

A reader asks about global warming...

2006-10-16T09:50:00.000-07:00

A few days ago this email appeared in our inbox:

I am constantly bringing up the issue of global warming in conversation & have been telling people about the film An Inconvenient Truth - however I keep on getting the same response from people which is - while parts of the earth are getting warmer other parts are getting colder - so the global warming effect is cancelled out.

They never tell me which parts of the world are getting colder - are there parts of the world that are getting colder? If so where? And does this fit into global warming?

This was my reply:

Thanks for getting in touch and well done on your efforts to inform people about global warming. Perhaps the best thing I can do is point you to the notes on this at Wikipedia, which appears pretty authoritative and helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

You'll see that it's now very well established that average global surface temperature has increased significantly since pre-industrial times, almost certainly as a result of human activities (primarily fossil fuel combustion and deforestation).

I'm not aware of parts of the globe that are cooling - there *may* be - but there is no question of any global warming effect being cancelled out. As you'll see at Wikipedia, average global temperature has risen by about 0.6 deg Celsius in the 20th century - over the whole globe that's a huge amount of increased heat energy! It's that heat that drives the weather, storms, etc.

It may be that people have heard about the "global dimming" effect of airborne pollution that reflects back out to space some of the incoming solar energy. This has masked (not cancelled out) some of the global warming that would otherwise have taken place. Because of improved environmental regulations in many countries, airborne pollution (sulphate aerosols from power stations, etc.) is reducing. Good news in terms of better health, but it does mean that the dominant global warming effect will now become even stronger. Up till now, a kind of brake has acted upon global warming. But now the brake is coming off.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Some important points to conclude:

It's not just about *average* effects such as the global average temperature increasing, sea level rising, etc. The more energy is in the climate system (more heat) - the more extreme phenomena will occur: severe storms, flooding, droughts, etc. Talking about just "warming" gives the impression that things will change gradually, in a linear manner. But the climate system can have positive feedback effects that suddenly accelerate the changes taking place: e.g. the potential melting of the permafrost in western Siberia (evidence is strong that this is already happening), releasing billions of tonnes of methane - a powerful greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere. That would truly have catastrophic effects.

Same goes for other possible "tipping points" (a buzz phrase much loved by politicians and the media but it's a proper scientific/engineering concept too), such as the melting of the Greenland or west Antarctic ice sheets. Yet another, is the possible weakening or even collapse of the so-called thermohaline ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, which includes the Gulf Stream and its extension, the North Atlantic Drift, which moderates the climate of western Europe. In a warming world, the ocean "pump" that drives this ocean circulation (the pump is the sinking of cool, saline water at high latitudes, which then "drags" up warm water from Florida) would falter. The temperature in western Europe would then drop by 5-6 deg Celsius - even as the rest of the world warms - a huge decrease that would have massive consequences for us. In fact there is evidence in a paper published in Nature by colleagues of mine last December that the Gulf Stream has already weakened by around 30%. Is this a longterm trend or part of a natural, decades-long cycle? We don't know yet - we need to keep monitoring what's going on - but there is lots of mounting evidence (e.g. Arctic sea ice cover not recovering every winter) that observed changes match very closely those that are predicted in a warming world by advanced computer models of climate.

best wishes,
David Cromwell

P.S. I haven't seen Al Gore's film but by all accounts it's very good on the climate science.

Climate change, ice sheets and rising sea levels: an exchange with a reader

2006-03-11T09:52:00.000-08:00

I received the following on March 8, 2006 from a Media Lens reader who'd previously told me he thinks "evolution is probably the most sucessful theory peddled as fact". This time the topic is climate change. First, his email, followed by my response.

===

In several of your alerts you refer to the present changes in climate as possibly being terminal. I discussed this with my son who commented as follows:-

----
I'm not sure why the majority of scientists are that worried about a rise in temperatures considering that they are mostly evolutionists and would tell you that the earth has seen several much warmer periods in the past e.g. most of the rocks in Antarctica reveal tropical species once flourished there, as do many fossils found inside the Arctic circle. Melting ice sheets over water such as are found around the north pole won't change sea levels at all -just put a few ice cubes in a glass, mark the water level with a felt tip, and then mark it again once they have melted. Its the same due to the initial displacement caused by the ice.

When the vikings first arrived in Greenland, the climate was temperate and the land green with pastures, hence the name. The ice sheet has grown a lot over the last few centuries without any effect on sea levels. At the time of the viking expeditions, France and Britain were still seperated by the Channel.

When the earth cooled down, the Vikings made an exit from Greenland due to decreasing agricultural productivity. When it was warmer conditions were better to sustain their society.

Another thing to consider is that much of the far north is covered in permafrost and tundra, rich frozen organic material that is not forming now but was formed during a warmer period. When the northern latitudes were warmer, there was MORE biomass, not less. Look at how many mammoths there are buried in the tundra in Siberia, animals that require an enormous amount of food, which does not grow there now, but did in the past when the climate was much warmer, a possible 10 degrees warmer than today.

All this tells me that a rise in global temperatures does not lead to a reduction in biomass, but an increase. Why has this not been mentioned much in the debate, considering how fiercly the evolutionary viewpoint is pushed in mainstream media and education? The other studpid thing is that most climatoligists tell us that we are actually in an ice age at the moment. I agree with that to some extent. So why the panic?"
---

Would you care to respond?

====
March 9, 2006

Hi [Name withheld],

Thanks for getting in touch. Perhaps I may respond by referring you to some online resources for now. The Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science has produced on 'online encyclopaedia' about the oceans and climate change. It's nicely done and can be seen at:

http://192.171.163.165/Climate%20Encyclopaedia/index2.html

In particular, on rising sea levels, please go directly to:

http://192.171.163.165/Climate%20Encyclopaedia/sealevelchanges.html

where you can see that:

"Rising sea levels are caused by thermal expansion of seawater as temperatures increase and increased inflow of freshwater from melting ice caps and glaciers.Melting of ice on the surface of sea water does not contribute as it was originally formed from seawater. If all glaciers, the Greenland Ice sheet, the West Antarctic Ice sheet or all ice sheets melted they would lead respectively to increased sea levels of ~0.5 m, ~6 m, ~8 m or >80 m. It is to be expected that the recent rapid rise in global sea temperatures will have led to an increase in sea level rise from thermal expansion and there is clear evidence of major retreat of glaciers."

The info at Wikipedia also seems pretty reliable and up to date:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_change

Or, if you really want the meaty stuff, go straight to the IPCC report from 2001 (though indications since then indicate *increased* threat of climate chaos) here:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/408.htm

As for whether we are currently in an ice age or not (last glacial maximum was around 21,000 years ago), definitions vary. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

As for why rising global temperatures and their related effects represent such a huge threat for humanity and ecosystems generally see this article by Mark Lynas:

http://www.marklynas.org/wind?document=34

One threat is the possible shutdown of the North Atlantic ocean 'conveyor belt' referred to here:

http://www.marklynas.org/wind/document/17.html

Hope these help.

best wishes,
David Cromwell
[ ]

Overpopulation?

2005-12-13T09:54:00.000-08:00

A Media Lens reader responded to our recent media alert, Burning the Planet For Profit (December 6, 2005; http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/051206_burning_the_planet.php ).

The reader had two main contentions:

1. That the human population today "is rising exponentially."

2. That "overpopulation" is"the main cause of environmental degradation."

In fact, according to the UN, the rate of increase of the world's population is slowing. Population will peak at around 9 billion sometime around 2050, and thereafter start falling. (See, e.g., Fred Pearce, 'Power to the People', Independent, October 8, 2003)

I agree with our reader that resources are being used unsustainably. But I believe he is wrong to write sweepingly that "overpopulation" is "the main cause of environmental degradation." I gave him a very brief summary as to why I think that view is wrong (essentially the global political-economic system ensures inequitable distribution, oppression, huge waste and profligate ecological 'footprints'). Rather than my expanding at length on the detailed reasons, I'd like to flag up an essay, 'Population?!', by Michael Albert. I think his analysis is careful and worth pondering:

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/albert3.htm

As Albert concludes:

"...there is no evidence that current poverty, hunger, and environmental degradation etc. owe their origins or tenacity in any significant degree to a population problem, but, instead, the evidence is abundant that these particular crimes against humanity are rooted in oppressive institutional structures and the abhorrent misallocations of labor and energy and maldistribution of product that they foster."

IoS letters page: an interesting case study in omission

2005-11-16T09:55:00.000-08:00

November 6, 2005

Printed version:

Credit to Andrew Buncombe for pointing out that the Bush
administration may yet be engulfed by the scandal of building its case for war upon lies (Bush faces his Watergate, 30 October). But your reporter skirts cautiously around the truth when he says, following Lewis Libby's indictment,that "using false statements and twisted information to mislead a nation and launch that war is a greater crime than orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign against your political rivals".

Initiating a war of aggression was recognised by the Nuremberg prosecutors as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

David Cromwell, Southampton

Submitted version:

Credit to Andrew Buncombe for pointing out that the Bush
administration may yet be engulfed by the scandal of building its case for war upon lies (Bush faces his Watergate, 30 October). But your reporter skirts cautiously around the truth when he suggests merely that "using false statements and twisted information to mislead a nation and launch that war is a greater crime than orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign against your political rivals".

In fact, initiating a war of aggression was recognised by the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials as "the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The Nuremberg prosecutors also declared against "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements and assurances". A wealth of evidence shows that George Bush, Tony Blair and their advisers did just that. If the mythical role of the fourth estate in challenging power actually meant anything, then the mainstream media, including your newspaper, would not shirk from pointing out such obvious truths.

David Cromwell, Southampton
---

No prizes for figuring out why the end was chopped off.

The corporate-led obsession with "economic growth"

2005-11-01T09:55:00.000-08:00

To: letters@independent.co.uk

Dear Sir,
Few rational readers would disagree with any of your proposed measures ('Climate change: 10 ways to save the world', 1 November). But what about the elephant in the room: the corporate-led obsession with "economic growth"? If we factor in the negative impacts of increasing global poverty, disease and inequality; environmental degradation and climate-related disasters; and imperialistic wars waged for strategic dominance and access to natural resources and markets, the global economy has probably been in free-fall for decades. We need to shift to a new participatory and equitable system of economics that values people and planet.

yours faithfully,
David Cromwell

Cheerleading the Climate Criminals: exchange with a reader

2005-09-08T09:57:00.000-07:00

This exchange, following last week's two-part alert on climate, may be of interest.

DC

===

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: editor@medialens.org
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 1:08 PM
Subject: Cheerleading the Climate Criminals

Dear Editor

Though I have little faith in Tony Blair's integrity, and have relayed
your concerns, some of your criticisms did seem to be taken out of
context, particularly that of Sir John Houghton in the lead-up to the
G8 summit. It is sometimes more helpful to appeal to someone's better
side (which is what Sir John seems to me to have been doing) than to
condemn his failings.

What is particularly significant and needs publicising is how the
media have condemned Bush for failing to help after Katrina but not
for his insane contribution to the global warming which empowered it.
No good preaching to the converted: the American public needs to
reject on masse its current President and all he stands for. The
only way I see of doing that is to appeal to the integrity of the
American media at this critical moment, rather than to simply condemn
it.

[Name withheld]

---

From: "Media Lens editor"
To:
Subject: Re: Cheerleading the Climate Criminals
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:10:32 +0100

Dear [Name withheld],

Many thanks for sending us your thoughts, and for relaying our
concerns - much appreciated.

Let's start with John Houghton who is a very gifted climate physicist,
leader (former chair of the IPCC science working group) and
communicator; and there is no doubting his passionate commitment to
countering human-induced climate change. I accept that it's important
to be gentle with people; but we also have to be robust in examining
statements and arguments that are promoted in the mainstream media,
and society generally. So, when commentators, Houghton included,
promote the myth that Blair is well-intentioned, or that the G8 is an
institution that could possibly be part of the solution to impending
climate chaos, then they need to be challenged vigorously. Of course,
it does not mean that we are attacking those commentators personally,
a misunderstanding that crops up repeatedly.

You mention the 'integrity of the American media'. I'm not sure that
that it exists, to be frank. By the way, we focus on the British media
as we're based in the UK, but in both countries the media operate
largely as integral components of concentrated economic power -
because that's exactly what they are. Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky did a
powerful job of explaining this by means of a 'propaganda model' in
their classic book, Manufacturing Consent. You can read an overview of
their ideas here:
www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/
articles_2001/dc_propaganda_model.html

There +are+ openings here and there in the media for more honest and
couraegous reporting and commentary, and we hope to nudge media
professionals in the right direction; but it's not our primary focus,
as we've tried to explain over the years in our alerts. Our primary
aim is to encourage the public to see the insidious and systemic
corruption of truth by corporate media, and the need for a
compassionate revolution that would transform all sectors of society,
not just the media. Relying on the supposed integrity of the
mainstream media, who have helped bring us to the edge of the abyss,
is tragically, the wrong route to survival.

Thanks again for writing.

best wishes,
David Cromwell

Blair notches up another kill

2005-09-08T09:56:00.000-07:00

To: letters@independent.co.uk

Dear Sir,
Terri Judd's front page story was titled "The immigrant who died for Britain" (7 September, 2005).What a sick travesty. "The immigrant who died for Blair" would be more accurate. The tragic death of Donal Meade would never have occurred were it not for an illegal and immoral invasion-occupation in pursuit of US geostrategic power, with the UK in its usual shameful supporting role. Kindly stop colluding in media deceptions that mask this reality.

David Cromwell

Estimates of Iraqi deaths

2005-07-21T09:58:00.000-07:00

To: letters@independent.co.uk

21 July, 2005

Dear Sir,

You reported that Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group have documented almost 25,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the US-led invasion in March 2003 ('Iraq conflict claims 34 civilian lives each day', July 20). This has been misleadingly compared with the earlier Lancet estimate of 100,000 deaths.

Your news story stated: "The only previous attempt to assess the level of civilian casualties was published in The Lancet medical journal last October and put the figure at 100,000, based on a survey of Iraqi households. Although it was seized upon by opponents of the war as justifying their worst fears, its methodology was subsequently criticised."

Criticised by whom? In reality, the government and its supporters orchestrated a shameful propaganda campaign in response to the Lancet study.

The IBC/ORG report provides a baseline of the minimum estimate of civilian deaths. As the authors explained, their report "is a compilation of recorded deaths, not an estimate or projection". It is therefore not directly comparable with the Lancet estimate of 98,000 deaths.

The Lancet study was a rigorously peer-reviewed article in one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. Before publication, its authors had already had to demonstrate that their methodology, analysis and conclusions were sound. No amount of government spin can change that.
yours, etc.
David Cromwell

Climate; a planet saturated in corporate interests

2005-06-10T09:59:00.000-07:00

To: letters@guardian.co.uk

Dear Sir,

Robin Cook notes that it "is a tragedy that at this moment in history the world has to negotiate with an American administration that is saturated in US oil interests" ( If we make global warming history we'll all be better off, 10 June).

However, Cook overlooks a tragedy that is closer to home: the British government is itself saturated in UK oil, and other UK corporate, interests. Moreover, he ignores the tragedy that the British government is colluding with the American administration in promoting corporate interests around the planet - and all at the expense of global climate and the struggle against global poverty.

I look forward to Cook's follow-up articles on the unsustainable nature of endless economic 'growth' - in fact rising economic damage - on a finite planet; not to mention the obstructive tactics of big business to real sustainabilty, and the billions spent by the public relations industry in promoting endless consumer consumption.

Maintaining a media silence on these vital issues will only lead to disaster on a planetary scale.

yours,
David Cromwell

A tragic collusion in war crimes

2005-05-05T09:59:00.000-07:00

On Friday morning, this country will likely wake to find itself still governed by a major war criminal - a dissembling Prime Minister who, Macbeth-like, has waded in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by war and sanctions.

What will this tragedy say about our sycophantic news media, academics and sundry pillars of society who collude in a cruel deception about the virtues of western "democracy"?

Dangerous questions

2005-04-10T10:01:00.000-07:00

In response to Michael McCarthy's recent despair over climate change (Independent, 7 March; but more so his article in The Tablet last month), Tom Barker is correct to point to the current absence of radical greens and to the "impotence of a correspondent who can only report" (letters, 10 March). But the deeper problem is that correspondents do not even report what they should be reporting.

Where are the reports addressing the unsustainable nature of endless economic growth on a finite planet? Or drawing links between likely climate catastrophe and the damaging core practices of global corporations and investors? Or highlighting the obstructive tactics of big business to truly sustainable policies? Or pointing out the billions spent by business and the public relations industry in promoting unsustainable consumer consumption?

Mainstream media, with its heavy reliance on advertising revenue to remain afloat, is failing to alert the public to the true nature of the global crisis we are in. The profit-led media is part of the same system of state-corporate power that is leading this planet to disaster; unless the public wakes up in time.

Evidence of US war crimes in Fallujah: BBC news silence

2005-04-04T10:03:00.000-07:00

To: Helen Boaden, BBC director of news, helen.boaden@bbc.co.uk

Dear Helen Boaden,

I hope you are well.

You may recall that I emailed you on 15th February regarding evidence of US war crimes in Fallujah, reported by independent journalist Dahr Jamail. See:

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000196.php

I asked, via the BBC Press Office, whether you would be investigating such reports and addressing the evidence in BBC news bulletins. You responded on 23rd February via a BBC spokesperson:

"The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case."

You thus avoided responding to the specific evidence I quoted, including the disturbing report of the alleged killing by US forces of a six year-old boy who was crying over the corpses of his parents. A follow-up query, submitted via the BBC Press Office on 25th February, asking which BBC programmes had addressed the conduct of coalition forces, including the specific war crimes evidence in Fallujah, went unanswered.

Further evidence of US war crimes continues to emerge, as Aljazeera reported yesterday at:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216

As the report says: "Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah."

Again, I have not seen this covered in BBC news. Perhaps I have missed it. Surely it should be prominently featured in the headlines of your main news bulletins at 1, 6 and 10 o'clock?

Could you possibly please explain why the BBC news has apparently yet to broadcast any reports regarding evidence of contraventions of international law by US forces in Fallujah? Perhaps you are already investigating such harrowing evidence?

I look forward to hearing from you.

best wishes,
David Cromwell

Completely and utterly unthreatening

2005-03-12T10:00:00.000-08:00

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, said in a speech recently:

“Other newspaper groups have deeper pockets, which we sometimes envy. But I suspect that all my colleagues in editorial chairs have at some point turned an envious eye on the complete and utter freedom Guardian editors have, and have always had, thanks to its Trust ownership.”*

"Complete and utter freedom"?! Well, yes, if you like. If you manage to get to the editorial chair, then it's highly likely that you've already proved that you're not going to do anything too dangerous with that freedom.

(*Hugo Young Lecture, ‘What are newspapers for?’, Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian, Sheffield University, March 9h, 2005, The Inaugural Hugo Young Lecture and third University Centenary Lecture)

Wednesday, May 04, 2005, 18:58

"Enhanced impartiality": another media myth gets an airing

Tim Luckhurst is a former Today reporter/producer and was - very briefly, if I recall - editor of The Scotsman. He's a media pundit cropping up in all kinds of corners. In the Daily Mail yesterday he opined:

"Political Editor Andrew Marr has dismayed licence-payers with apologias for New Labour in general and Tony Blair in particular. His repeated insistence that the Prime Minister did not lie about the legal advice he was given on the Iraq War has taken political coverage to a new low.

"Such conscientious rewriting of history deserves a place in George Orwell's 1984, not on a national television station funded by the taxpayer."

(Tim Luckhurst, 'As John Humphrys announces his retirement . . . The giant the BBC hasn't got the guts to replace', Daily Mail, 3 May, 2005)

Nice touch to lean on George Orwell, a great hero of Marr's apparently. That will have stung - possibly.

Of course, Luckhurst does rather shoot himself in the foot when he goes on to describe Jeremy Paxman in the same article as: "the only other BBC presenter [along with John Humphrys] to have emerged from the election campaign with his reputation for impartiality enhanced."

That will be the great rottweiler who somehow couldn't manage to expose Blair's war crimes when interviewing a Prime Minister steeped in the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (and other unpeople in Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, ...)

War criminals and the "right people" in Washington.

2005-03-10T10:01:00.000-08:00

News reports today have announced that Ramush Haradinaj, the 36-year-old former prime minister of Kosovo, has been flown to The Hague to face charges of war crimes. Who is Ramush Haradinaj?

Described in some news reports as "flamboyant" and "colourful", Ramush Haradinaj was a commander in the Kosovo Liberation Army. He was then the head of the KLA's political successor, the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo and he was elected prime minister last December.

His name frequently crops up in reports of murder, shootings and 'disappearances' in Kosovo. The Scotsman reported in 2000 that he was injured in a firefight in western Kosovo, the "savagely violent post-war province". Interestingly, he ended up in a US military hospital at Landstuhl in Germany.

"Haradinaj looked to be the sort of guy that we might see our way to backing," said one senior international official who spoke on condition of anonymity [of course!]. "After the launch of his party, he was due to go to Washington to meet up with the right people," said another western official. (Christian Jennings, 'Western-backed Kosovar Albanian politician shot', 11 July, 2000, The Scotsman)

The Observer described him in the same year as "the key US military and intelligence asset in Kosovo during the civil war and the Nato bombing campaign that followed." He is "implicated in murder, drug-trafficking and war crimes."

British officials described him as "one of the few former commanders of the KLA who can deliver." (Nick Wood, US 'covered up' for Kosovo ally, 10 September, 2000, Observer )

One former British soldier, who served with the Kosovo Verification Mission described him as "a psychopath":

"He would beat his own men to maintain a kind of military discipline....Someone would pass him some information and he would disappear for two hours. The end result would be several bodies in a ditch." (Wood, ibid.)

While these 'disappearances' were taking place, Haradinaj maintained daily contact with American military personnel in the US. These links were then taken over by Nato at the beginning of the bombing campaign in Kosovo.

Tom Walker reported in the Sunday Times that Robin Cook, then foreign secretary, met with Haradinaj on a trip to Kosovo in April, 2001. Walker added:

"Diplomats in Pristina said Haradinaj entered politics last year at the behest of Britain and America, which wanted to see the KLA's support base split. 'He said it was too early for independence,' said a European official introduced to Haradinaj. 'He was coached to say what was needed.' Last April Haradinaj made a fundraising trip to Washington." (Walker, 'Cook held talks with war crime suspect', Sunday Times', 29 April, 2001)

The Foreign Office, ever 'pragmatic', saw no difficulty with any of this. It "insisted that Haradinaj had been reminded of his democratic responsibilities." Very reassuring. "There are periods in the cycle when you're moving to a democratic future from a violent past," said a spokesman. "There are no hard and fast rules on who you should talk to. Until indicted, they are straightforward politicians." Need we comment on this?

Jared Israel, in an eye-opening online article, explains more of the background to this US/UK-backed war crimes suspect. As Israel notes, The Times "prettifies the ugly fact that the U.S. and British governments coached Haradinaj and funded him, thereby thrusting him into politics, instead of jail, where he belonged." ( 'Which Terrorists Are Worse? Al-Qaeda? Or the KLA?', 12 December, 2001)

Today, the BBC news website neglects to mention any link between Haradinaj and western politicians (BBC news online, 'Kosovo ex-PM flies in for trial' , 9 March, 2005 )

And the BBC News at One politely described Ramush Haradinaj's appearance at The Hague on war crimes charges as
"embarrassing" to western politicians who had supported him in the past.

It is examples like this, multiplied countless of times every year, that bury uncomfortable truths out of sight.

Cryptic gestures in the face of global climate catastrophe

2005-03-07T10:02:00.000-08:00

A comment piece in today's Independent by the environment editor Michael McCarthy reads very much like a response to those who have emailed him recently following his despairing article in The Tablet (see media alert "Is the Earth Really Finished?", 1 March, 2005).

McCarthy writes, in rather vague terms, of the need for a global Manhattan Project: not a new idea, and reminiscent of Al Gore's call for a global Marshall Plan in his 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance". And no mention of the powerful profit-led interests that would obstruct such a move with every fibre of their being. But, yes, it will likely take something of that worldwide magnitude and commitment to turn things around (just don't expect world leaders to hand it to us on a plate).

And still no mention of the proposal of contraction and convergence, which is the logical and equitable global framework for achieving the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (www.gci.org.uk). Why is McCarthy trying so hard to avoid mentioning it?

The article is a classic case of what David Edwards calls cryptic gesturing in the direction of the truth.