Cheerleading the Climate Criminals: exchange with a reader

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

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