Murdoch media help Erdogan, smearing British Labour leader as ‘terrorist’


This video from the Young Turks in the USA says about itself:

Turkish Army Van Drags Kurdish Man To Death

8 October 2015

Video surfaced of authorities in Turkey dragging the corpse of a Kurdish man with an armored vehicle. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian (The Point), hosts of the The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

The Turkish government has entered damage control mode after the release this weekend of images that appear to show authorities dragging the body of a dead Kurdish man by the neck behind an armored vehicle.

The disturbing images have garnered coverage in top international news outlets. And the Turkish government‘s response has been nearly as disquieting as the images themselves.

Pro-government media in the country initially questioned the authenticity of the images and video, which have spread widely on social media in recent days. But many media sources eventually abandoned that line of argument, instead suggesting that dragging Kurdish people through the street is an acceptable way of making sure there are no bombs on the bodies — implying that handling corpses in such a way is justified at a time when the government has renewed hostilities with the armed, outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).”

Read more here.

By Steve Sweeney in Britain:

Turkey: Activists dismiss bid to link Corbyn to PKK ‘terrorism’

Tuesday 20th December 2016

CAMPAIGNERS hit out yesterday at “shameful” attempts to link Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn with support for terrorism following the Besiktas bombings in Turkey.

The claims were made in a Times [owned by Rupert Murdoch] article over the weekend which said Mr Corbyn’s support for the British-based Peace in Kurdistan campaign amounted to support for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) — deemed a terrorist organisation by Britain, the US and EU.

The article said that Peace in Kurdistan backs delisting the PKK as a terrorist organisation and cited its support for the Freedom for Abdullah Ocalan campaign. It also linked the group to the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, a splinter organisation that claimed responsibility for the bombings on December 10 which killed 46 people and injured 166.

But the campaign — established in 1994 by a group of people including playwright Harold Pinter, actor Julie Christie and Lord Avebury — has long campaigned for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey and elsewhere.

A Peace in Kurdistan spokeswoman was not surprised by the attacks: “This is typical of those who wish to delegitimise and undermine voices of opposition to an increasingly dictatorial regime in Turkey.

“This is a serious issue. Voices of dissent are being silenced across Turkey with opposition MPs thrown in prison, newspapers and TV stations being closed down and a third of the world’s jailed journalists in Turkish prisons.

False links to terrorism are a common tactic to try to delegitimise opposition. In Turkey many are accused of support for PKK or the Fethullah terrorist organisation, often both. It is a shame the Times is joining in and acting as Erdogan’s mouthpiece.”

A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said: “Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party support a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Turkey and Jeremy is glad to work with those who share that goal.”

Fox News and fake news


This video from the USA says about itself:

15 November 2016

Bill O’Reilly exploded on live TV as he came to the defense of Fox News Tuesday morning. The O’Reilly Factor host told CBS This Morning. “It’s a good place to work, all right? We do good work! We do honest work!” The former Inside Edition host vented his frustration after anchor Norah O’Donnell asked if he had read his colleague Megyn Kelly’s new book, Settle For More, in which she says she was sexually harassed by former Fox News honcho Roger Ailes.

According to recent research by Stanford University in the USA, many students have problems deciding what can be trusted more: a fake news source or Rupert Murdoch‘s Fox News.

Not that surprising, as Fox News is often called Faux News and often has fake news items.

On Sunday, the New York Times published an editorial entitled “Truth and Lies in the Age of Trump,” which bemoans “the breakdown of a shared public reality built upon widely accepted facts” due to the growing influence of social media. As a result, the Times writes, “it’s easier for demagogues to deploy made-up facts to suit the story they want to tell,” declaring “That’s what Mr. Trump has done.” While the editorial is framed as a critique of Trump, its real target is the idea that the population should have access to information that is not censored and massaged by the CIA, the military and the financial elite. This, in the Times’ view, is a recipe for disaster: here.

British corporate media promote racism


This video from Britain says about itself:

The Sun Newspaper Is Racist With Rupert Murdoch At The Helm

12 August 2016

A break down of everything Murdoch owns and the front page of the worst rag in Britain.

From lies and cover ups about the Hillsborough disaster to forcing racist articles down your throat on a daily basis with no substance and very little thought.

Boycott the Sun.

Music ‘A piece for two fingers’ by Kevin Mcleod.

Additional narrative content James O Brien LBC Radio.

By Ben Cowles in Britain:

Brands vulnerable to media exposure

Friday 14th October 2016

Ben Cowles discusses the Stop Funding Hate social media campaign with its founder RICHARD WILSON

“DRIP by drip our society is being poisoned with headlines selling hatred,” begins a video by Stop Funding Hate. “Right now the press use fear and division to sell more papers and they don’t care what we think because hate pays.”

Stop Funding Hate is a social media-based grassroots campaign aiming to deter companies like Virgin, Waitrose and Specsavers from inadvertently funding racism by paying for advertisement space in the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Sun. The hope is that the advertisers will see that the hate speech presented in these papers is damaging to society and that they will pull their ads from those publications.

Intrigued by the campaign, I got in touch with Richard Wilson, the campaign’s co-founder, and posed the following questions.

What motivated you to start Stop Funding Hate?

Katie Hopkins’s article in the Sun last year comparing migrants to “cockroaches” was a real wake-up call for me. I’ve met survivors of the Rwandan genocide and have friends from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where similar language was used to incite ethnic killings. I was seeing comments from Congolese friends on Facebook horrified to see this dehumanising language in the UK — a country that they had taken to be safe and stable.

Then the UN put out a statement pointing out that the Sun was using the language of genocide, warning that “history has shown us time and again the dangers of demonising foreigners and minorities […] It is extraordinary and deeply shameful to see these types of tactics being used […] simply because racism and xenophobia are so easy to arouse in order to win votes or sell newspapers.”

Research by Liz Gerard has shown that the anti-migrant coverage has actually been intensifying, with the Daily Express and Daily Mail in particular running an increasing number of anti-migrant front pages each year. At the same time community tensions are rising and there are growing divisions in our society. I’m personally quite worried about what will happen if things continue in this direction.

So far, you have aimed the campaign at Virgin, Specsavers and Waitrose. Why have you chosen these companies specifically?

Virgin and Waitrose are companies known for a particular set of values, which many people would say are fundamentally at odds with advertising in newspapers like the Sun, Mail and Express. Specsavers are clearly also a well-loved company, about which people have a lot of positive feelings. Again their association with these very aggressive and divisive newspapers just doesn’t sit right.

Specsavers issued a response after members of the Facebook community expressed their displeasure at one of their advertisements and threatened to boycott the company. How do you feel about the company’s response?

We were amazed by the scale of the public response to the Specsavers ad. We hadn’t originally identified them as a key company to engage with. But when we saw that they had an advert next to an anti-migrant front page headline in the Daily Express, we put a couple of things on social media that a lot of people picked up.

We think it’s commendable that Specsavers have responded to public concern over this issue rather than ignoring it. We know that this idea of “ethical advertising” is a new and emerging one, but we hope that Specsavers and other companies will start to factor it into their future marketing plans.

It’s a sad reality that migrant-bashing sells papers. The Sun, Mail and Express are more interested in profit than genuine reportage. But though we may completely disagree with what they say, they can exercise the freedom of expression (as long as it’s not hate speech, of course). Do you think what they print is hate speech?

The UN has stated unequivocally that elements of the British media are engaging in hate speech — and they’ve called on the government to do more to tackle it.

We are fully committed to freedom of expression, not just for newspapers but also for the customers of companies like Virgin, Waitrose and Specsavers who may want to express a view on these companies’ association with the anti-migrant press. We recognise that there are good reasons for treading carefully in the area of government regulation so the UN is actually going further than what we are calling for.

Our campaign is also about freedom of choice. The overwhelming majority of people in the UK don’t buy — and might never buy — the Sun, Daily Mail or Daily Express. Yet it’s currently very difficult to avoid shopping with one company or another that advertises in these newspapers.

Freedom of expression also means that the public has the right to question, criticise and challenge big media outlets like the Sun, Mail and Express. Yet the aggressive behaviour of the press can mute or even silence such criticism.

Obviously the Mail, Express and Sun are the most shameless offenders when it comes to migrant bashing. But the Telegraph and the [Murdoch-owned] Times generally also portray migrants in an unfavourable light. Will you focus on them also?

This is a campaign that focuses very specifically on the most extreme cases. We don’t take sides in political debates. This is not about whether people like or dislike a particular newspaper, but rather whether that newspaper is engaging in activities that are causing significant social harm. In this respect the evidence we’ve seen suggests that the Daily Mail, Express and Sun are in a category all of their own.

Of course companies care about the way people (especially their target market) perceive their brand, but if we really want them to change, wouldn’t we have to affect their bottom lines? Is this type of thing what you’re hoping to achieve or is media attention enough?

I think ultimately brand perception does affect the bottom line, otherwise companies wouldn’t invest so much in it.

Alongside that, supporters of the campaign are already making their own individual choices over whether to continue shopping with the companies we are engaging with.

We aren’t telling people what they should or shouldn’t do — and I don’t think we need to, as everyone’s individual circumstances are different. But if enough people get involved in the campaign, we do think it could have a significant impact on the bottom line, alongside those less tangible things like brand perception.

Some might describe campaigns such as yours as mere clicktivism. How would you respond to that? Though social media has great power to rally voices around a cause, does Stop Funding Hate have the momentum to keep going?

I wouldn’t make such a big distinction between online and offline campaigning. Whether it’s a Facebook page, a phone call, or a letter, these are just tools that can be used, more or less effectively, to communicate and organise. The key thing is how well you use those tools.

Whether or not our own campaign succeeds, we think it’s likely that this issue — and the public concern surrounding it — will not go away until we see a significant improvement in the way that the British press behaves towards migrants and other demonised groups.

How do you see things moving forward for the campaign?

We are currently working on a major new campaign focusing on one of the UK’s leading ethical brands, with a new video that we hope to release very soon. We’ve also got some big plans for the Christmas period, which is obviously the “peak” advertising season for many companies.

The campaign keeps on growing and gaining new supporters — from faith groups and academic experts to people who work within the media and are horrified by the way things have been going. Our biggest challenge is staying on top of all of the excellent ideas and offers of help that keep coming in.

Ben Cowles is the deputy features editor for the Morning Star. His twitter handle is @Cowlesz

If you wish to support or contribute to the Stop Funding Hate campaign then you can find their Facebook page here or sign the petition here.