|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mobo123
This is from an australian newspaper, of all places. The biggest and largest newspaper in australia. I doubt there is much bias one way or another there. Way too far removed physically although diiishguy is in aussie land.
This is what the world DOESNT see......
|
Mobo123, I think that you've missed the prime reason why our Mr. Cheney only watches foxnews, and only allows foxnews...and no other network, to "interview" him...... HWT, the newspaper that you're citing, offers scant sourcing for the authenticity of the photos that it published. Round the world, the following illuminates the breadth and reach of Mr. Murdoch's politics, and the remarkable similarity between Mr. Murdoch's agenda, and that of Bush/Cheney:
Quote:
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/1041/print
* Additionally, the Herald Sun article appeared the day after the PM Howard declared that the Green’s policies were "very kooky … in relation to things like drugs and all of that sort of stuff [4]." On John Law’s right-wing radio talk-back program, syndicated to 60 radio stations around the country.
......In late February this year, the APC upheld Brown’s complaint, and <b>a subsequent appeal by the Herald Sun against its decision was rejected. In a detailed and damning statement, the APC branded the original article "irresponsible journalism" full of "false claims"</b> and "…In the context of an approaching election, the potential damage was considerable ... Readers were seriously misled." .......
|
We have no way to confirm now, one way or the other, the truthfulness of the OP HWT article that you post, Mobo123. We do know, though, that less than two years ago, HWT was determined by <b>self-regulation media watchdog, the Australian Press Council (APC)</b> to have helped Australian PM and Bush ally in the GWOT, John Howard, smear the Greens party, on cue, as described above, via "irresponsible journalism" full of "false claims".
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...897015,00.html
<b>Their master's voice</b>
Monday February 17, 2003
The Guardian
That a guy! You have got to admit that Rupert Murdoch is one canny press tycoon because <b>he has an unerring ability to choose editors across the world who think just like him.</b> How else can we explain the extraordinary unity of thought in his newspaper empire about the need to make war on Iraq? After an exhaustive survey of the highest-selling and most influential papers across the world owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, it is clear that all are singing from the same hymn sheet.
It isn't always clear exactly what Murdoch believes on any given issue, but this time we know for certain, courtesy of an interview in the Australian magazine, the Bulletin (which, by the way, he doesn't own). To cite the report of that interview in Murdoch's own Sydney Daily Telegraph, the "media magnate...has backed President Bush's stance against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein". Indeed, his quotes are specific. "We can't back down now, where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam...I think Bush is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on with it". Then came words of praise for Tony Blair. "I think Tony is being extraordinarily courageous and strong... It's not easy to do that living in a party which is largely composed of people who have a knee-jerk anti-Americanism and are sort of pacifist. But he's shown great guts as he did, I think, in Kosovo and various problems in the old Yugoslavia."
Most revealing of all was Murdoch's reference to the rationale for going to war, blatantly using the o-word. Politicians in the United States and Britain have strenuously denied the significance of oil, but Murdoch wasn't so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil. "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country."
He went even further down this road in an interview the week before with America's Fortune magazine by forecasting a postwar economic boom. "Once it [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else."
So there was the maestro's music. What then of his editors' lyrics? His single paper in the United States is the New York Post, a raucous tabloid which doesn't sell as well as its rival but makes more than enough noise to be heard far and wide. Its editor, Col Allen, is Australian, as is its leading polemicist, Steve Dunleavy, a long-time Murdoch acolyte. A series of gung-ho front pages have been backed up by vehemently pro-Bush articles inside.....
<h3>.....How lucky can Murdoch get! He hires 175 editors and, by remarkable coincidence, they all seem to love the nation which their boss has chosen as his own.</h3> The papers he owns in the country of his birth, Australia, are noticeably more muted than the New York Post and the Sun. But it doesn't require a semiologist to see that the leader-writers are attempting to break down stubborn public opinion: some 39% of Australians oppose a war, even with UN backing, while 76% oppose a war unless there is full-hearted international support.
Even so, the insistent message on the editorial pages of the five largest Murdoch papers in the main Australian cities - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide - is that Bush is pursuing the right path. These papers show their colours by giving unswerving support to the rabidly pro-American prime minister John Howard, who has sent troops to the Middle East, and heaping scorn on the opposition leader, Simon Crean, for what the Melbourne Herald Sun calls "political opportunism" in opposing war.......
|
Last edited by host; 08-01-2006 at 12:09 AM..
|