gdp's Comments

The Comment Factory : How not to do media analysis

Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:11:48 +0000

Joe Emersberger seems a well-intentioned chap, and credit to him for at least acknowledging the existence of the WHO/IFHS study in his emails to journalists (the Medialens editors could learn from him on this). But I sometimes get the impression he doesn't *check* facts which appear to contradict his beliefs. In the case you mention, he seems to assume that those horrible attacks on Monbiot must have been posted by people *other* than the Medialens editors (who, being saints, would never post anything but "respectful criticism"). And yet the ML eds did post those crazy, slanderous attacks on Monbiot (from their own crazy, slanderous supporters) - just as they posted several pieces of sheer dingbat lunacy about IBC - eg the claim they were "actively aiding and abetting in war crimes". I saw the same thing in the Medialens forum. Joe Emersberger reported that a correspondent of his claimed that a Medialens editor said Stephen Soldz's mind had been eroded by establishment propaganda (Soldz was a former ML supporter who had a falling out with ML). Emersberger, disbelieving this (but not bothering to check it) replied to his correspondent: "To even say that 'in effect' the Eds claimed his mind was eroded is quite a distortion." http://tinyurl.com/63mrwdp As it turns out, Medialens editor (and polite, respectful saint), David Edwards, did indeed write that Soldz's mind was "showing the signs of what might be called propaganda weathering and erosion" - as this screen capture shows: http://dissident93.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/so...

The Comment Factory : How not to do media analysis

Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:08:49 +0000

The Comment Factory : How not to do media analysis

Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:53:10 +0000

Tony S provides a good example of the "have you stopped beating your wife" fallacy:- "do you now accept that you were wrong to claim Edwards and Cromwell ignore examples which do not support the central premise of the PM?" Tony, your presupposition is false - I've never claimed that "Edwards and Cromwell ignore examples which do not support the central premise of the PM". You are confusing "central premise of the PM" (which I've referred to precisely ZERO times) with the specific "truths" (of Edwards/Cromwell) which I've been addressing at length (you might have noticed this if you'd actually read my article) - eg their "truth" that IBC's figures are "favoured" by the media "because they are very low". When I last looked, that "truth" wasn't in the Herman/Chomsky book, and doesn't form any part of the "central premise of the PM" - although you can perhaps see how Edwards & Cromwell arrived at it by applying their wacky ideological illogic to the starting points they *derived* from the PM. This is obvious to anyone with more than a few inches of forehead, which is why I gave you a shorter version in my previous reply to you ("One can interpret the Propaganda Model as useful and basically valid *without* building an ideology around it"). In short, I credited you with enough intelligence to see your own error (even though you'd already falsely attributed claims to me - see my initial replies to you). But, instead, you went running to Medialens to post some straw-man drivel titled "Shone's evasions".

The Comment Factory : How not to do media analysis

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:50:38 +0000

Tony S (at Medialens) - I got your further message which was forwarded to me by the CF editor. (Is it really that difficult to post a comment here, Tony?) I think you've misread my whole argument. One can interpret the Propaganda Model as useful and basically valid (along with various other models) *without* building an ideology around it. I have no problem with the PM, per se, and my article wasn't about the PM (or Robinson's take on it). What I have a problem with is ideologues who go around accusing people of "marginalising" their ideologies (which they confuse with "truth"), etc.

The Comment Factory : How not to do media analysis

Thu, 13 Jan 2011 01:28:38 +0000

Tony S has responded to my previous comment. Tony - why not post your points here where I can respond to them directly (I'm not permitted to post at Medialens)? Tony writes: "Mr Shone claims that he is not trying to show that the Eds' analysis is self -refuting. However, that is clearly what he is hinting at in the final paragraph." On the contrary, I'm "hinting" at nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating that it was bizarre to see such daily praise of Indie/Guardian antiwar content while the belief in their complicity in war crime was maintained as "truth". I don't make any inference from this that the ML eds' analysis is "self-refuting" (whatever that means). Tony continues: "Furthermore, [Shone] claims to have read Robinson's work but fails to mention that Pockets of Resistance was also greatly inspired by the Propaganda Model." Why would I mention it? Piers Robinson says that the Propaganda Model was one of several he took into account for Pockets of Resistance. He didn't give it any special precedence. In fact, the Medialens editors wrote to Robinson: "Anyway, this is pretty much all you have to say in explaining the propaganda model, which is marginalised in your analysis". So, you might want to check this with the ML eds, Tony. You say the Pockets of Resistance study was "greatly inspired" by the Propaganda Model, but the ML eds say it "marginalised" that model! Both of you can't be right. Either way it makes little difference to my own article - since the only reference in it to the Propaganda Model is the point that Medialens derives its starting points from that model. Robinson's position on the model makes absolutely no difference to this point. With respect, Tony, I think you're trying to read into my article all sorts of claims which I'm not in fact making.

The Comment Factory : How not to do media analysis

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 23:47:40 +0000

Tony S (at Medialens) writes: "Shone also claims that the Eds' analysis is self-refuting because they use the mainstream media as a source of information." Er... no I don't. Not even close. (The Steven Poole quote I include mentions - correctly - that Medialens rely on the corporate media for factual reference, but Poole doesn't say that their analysis is therefore "self-refuting". Anyway, it's Poole's statement, not mine). Tony S also writes: "Shone clearly didn't read Robinson's reply to the Eds. In it he claims that the Propaganda Model was also a central part of Pockets of Resistance... [etc]" I've read not only Robinson's reply to the ML eds, but also his previous comments on the Propaganda Model (from earlier work). It's pure non sequitur for Tony S to imply that it follows that I "clearly didn't read Robinson's reply to the Eds". It doesn't follow at all. Logic was never a strong point for the Medialens devotees.

The Comment Factory : How not to do media analysis

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:01:22 +0000

In fact, the direct comparison between the WHO study and Lancet 2006 is on violent deaths: Lancet 2006: 601,000 WHO: 151,000 That's a disagreement of 450,000 violent deaths. The comparison on "total" deaths is less direct (requires acceptance of more assumptions - as the WHO study authors have pointed out, both in the study and in a published reply to Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the Lancet study). Even then there's a difference of a quarter of a million deaths (655,000 vs 400,000). That's hardly what you'd call an "agreement". Joe Emersberger deserves some credit, though - he seems pretty much alone among Medialens's followers in actually citing the WHO study at all, and he's at least making some effort to inform himself on the subject. The Medialens editors could learn from his example.

The Comment Factory : How not to do media analysis

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:33:21 +0000

I see that my article has been mentioned on the Medialens site - this is a first! (the usual response from the Medialens crowd is to pretend I don't exist). One of Medialens's subscribers comments: "More holes than an Emmental cheese... and I look forward to the demolition." Ken Waldron - if you're reading this, why not list the "holes" that you imagine you've spotted? (I suspect that you haven't even read the article). I, too, look forward to any "demolition" of what I've written... whether from the ML "masters" or their loyal disciples... ;)

The Comment Factory : The media's smearing of Wikileaks

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 17:21:29 +0000

Yes, Medialens are being dishonest here. They're framing it as a battle between Lancet (science) and IBC ("amateurs", "guitarist", etc) - but if they gave a full account (or even an accurate summary) of the science to date, it would completely undermine (in fact reverse) their argument. So they leave scientific research out of it, while claiming to be on the side of science. Their attempt at "media analysis" was bizarre: "UK Broadsheets ‘Wikileaks’: 103 mentions ‘Wikileaks’ and ‘Iraq Body Count’: 17 ‘Wikileaks’ and ‘Lancet’: 0" (etc) So they spent all this time (it took three of them apparently - Edwards, Cromwell and David Peterson) analysing media content - to arrive at the *shocking* conclusion that on the Wikileaks story, IBC got more coverage than "Lancet". I mean, who would've expected that? IBC worked with Wikileaks on the data. IBC's John Sloboda was at the Wikileaks press conference. The Wikileaks data is at an individual level, like IBC's. The Wikileaks data has nothing to do with epidemiological surveys (eg Lancet study).

The Comment Factory : The media's smearing of Wikileaks

Fri, 5 Nov 2010 20:46:54 +0000

Iraq Body Count (IBC) worked closely with Wikileaks on the recently leaked Iraq documents. While some (but not all) media attempted to smear Assange, David Edwards (of Medialens) continues to smear IBC at every opportunity. Medialens's most recent attack on IBC occurred after the BBC published some of my comments in a BBC News piece about Wikileaks & IBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11613... After somebody at Medialens posted a link to my BBC comments, the Medialens editors responded to an article I'd written for the Comment Factory (on IBC & the Chilcot Inquiry) by writing that: "Shone repeatedly misrepresents Dougherty as a 'scientist'. He’s not; he’s a guitarist." That was false. Dougherty (Josh) is a researcher with IBC who has authored peer-reviewed scientific research, but who isn’t a “professional” scientist. Contrary to Medialens’s assertion, I’ve never once labelled Josh a “scientist” (never mind “repeatedly”). Of course, I no longer expect mere facts to get in the way of Medialens's attacks on myself or IBC, but I expected at the very least that Medialens would have the courtesy to post my response to their message board, to set the record straight about what I had and hadn't said. But no, they won't do that. Their worldview mustn't be contradicted by awkward things like facts. Relevant ML posts in reverse order: http://www.webcitation.org/5u26YEszG http://www.webcitation.org/5u26fVSgJ http://www.webcitation.org/5u26m04NR http://www.webcitation.org/5u26qerkD Medialens works on a principle which is exactly the opposite to that of Wikileaks. Openness is the watchword for Wikileaks; Medialens is closed to any evidence which refutes its closed belief system. http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/media...

The Comment Factory : Britain gets Shock Doctrine'd

Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:21:52 +0000

Great article. What amazes (and frightens) me is the speed with which the particular rightwing ideology behind this Shock treatment took hold of "public discourse" (or the media representation of it in programmes such as BBC's Question Time, etc). I mean, after the collapse of the financial system, there was a short, relatively sane, period of newspaper articles, etc, declaring the end of greedy capitalism. How quickly that disappeared - and now there's a commonly expressed opinion that government spending itself is the problem! I find it deeply ominous, although I suppose not entirely unpredictable given the decades of Daily Mail type framing in which economic woes are always blamed on scroungers, the "workshy", immigrants, etc. So, here we are in the 21st century - labour-saving technology providing a greater level of overall wealth than we've ever seen. Staggering wealth. More than enough to go around, to make people's lives easier. And what do these political "visionaries" suggest? Make everybody work further into old age, and go easy on the banks out of fear that they don't move to a different country.

The Comment Factory : The UK Conservatives' 'Big Society' is a mirage

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:26:10 +0000

"Big society" suggests all-inclusiveness, nation-as-family. It makes sense (given the "toxic brand" Tory history) - the same kind of PR bull that's seen in bank ads. Perhaps it's more about Focus Groups than Hayek?

The Comment Factory : New generation of artists resist oppression

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:31:26 +0000

There's a hell of a lot going on in the art world (meant in the broadest sense) that fills me with optimism. Even relatively "mainstream" artists such as (say) Michael Winterbottom, creating films full of "political" intelligence, but expressed in new ways. And then I read what passes for "new" "political" writing, and a lot of the time it seems the exact opposite: banal, predictable, uninspiring, preaching to the choir, ineffective, etc -- even though it comes from a well-intentioned place. So yeah, I think artists have a really major effect/role, even when their work isn't overtly political. I have less time for endless repetition of the same old forms (ie most political discourse).

The Comment Factory : New generation of artists resist oppression

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:44:04 +0000

Yep, I appreciate that... more of a tangent of my own I'm off on than a direct comment on Peter's line... (I think there's a whole fascinating area here, with the old political vocabulary hopefully disappearing fast)

The Comment Factory : New generation of artists resist oppression

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:29:45 +0000

"...there is no organised 'left' into which artists can slot..." No doubt a good thing (unless one likes the idea of old political frames defining what artists slot into). I'm reminded of something Brian Eno wrote (in a blurb for a book called 'The Seven Cultures of Capitalism'): "... by tracing these connections between our metaphors and our behaviours, it illuminates exactly and clearly that which professional culture-writers so often only make more obscure: how we continually resort to cultural images to describe and redescribe ourselves. This in turn suggests to those of us who make culture [...] that we think of ourselves as evolving the vocabulary of these new descriptions". Or, to put it another way, artists create new "slots" (or frames) for politics to fit into.

The Comment Factory : Racism against Gypsies and Travellers rampant in Europe

Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:42:02 +0000

Concise, informative piece. I see a lot of fearmongering wrt travellers in my local rag. And the letters-to-the-editor pages make depressing reading, as a lot of people seem to have internalised the Daily Mail worldview almost at the cellular level, below rational thought. You can get lists of the email addresses for the letters pages of most of the UK local rags. Might be worth sending a version of the above piece to all these.

The Comment Factory : Counterproductive antiwar arguments

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:10:57 +0000

Yes, I think that's a good point. The most vocal critics of IBC (mostly ideologues of the type I mentioned in my last reply to John, above) also tend to be the least aware of what IBC have actually written on this subject. Their rationale is one of the clearest pieces of writing I've seen on the topic: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/rationale/1

The Comment Factory : Counterproductive antiwar arguments

Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:02:10 +0000

I don't think it's the "general" case, John, but I'll grant that I have seen cases where "evil" has been assigned specifically, and solely, to "western" "capitalist" governments. That's part of an ideology which is very vocal, but which doesn't (to my mind) constitute the "general" antiwar position.

The Comment Factory : Counterproductive antiwar arguments

Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:06:16 +0000

Slight over-generalisation there, John. Many antiwar campaigners do focus on the wars started by their own governments - with good reason (they may feel a responsibility for what their government does in their name, and they may feel they have a greater chance - as voters, etc - of influencing political policies in their own country). Occasionally one does see a lack of attention paid to conflicts/atrocities started elsewhere, but let's not generalise that into sweeping statements concerning all "antiwar people".

The Comment Factory : Counterproductive antiwar arguments

Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:03:51 +0000

Thanks for that, Greg. Unfortunately it's one of those topics which gets polarised, so that if you don't frame your antiwar views in the "right" way you get mistaken for one of the Bad People, as if humanity is neatly split into two sides. I'm flattered that you read all the way through it - I suspect that most of the readers it's specifically aimed at won't get past the first few paragraphs.