Mediawatch

How shallow the ABC’s Mediawatch (‘Media war over Syria’ [11 April 2017]) treats such an important issue, the 6 year long war against Syria. They have cobbled together a few tweets so as to defend the war story of the US and Australian Governments, and the state and corporate media (ABC, BBC and UK Guardian) which faithfully reflect that line.

They then randomly add a few tweets from me, a couple of other writers and the crazy right winger Alex Jones. I’m not sure what they wanted to achieve, but does this have anything do with Mediawatch’s supposed mission of holding the media to account? I think not.

Mediawatch seem to have learnt little from its 2014 defamation of Reme Sakr, a young Syrian-Australian woman who took them to court over their attack on her. She was not a journalist but a student of journalism, and a profile of her was published in the Good Weekend. Mediawatch went more for this young student than for the media. At issue was Mediawatch’s wish to debunk any criticism of the war on Syria, including by support of the August 2013 false flag chemical weapons incident in countryside Damascus.

They attacked Reme for supporting her government. The ABC eventually paid her a sum of money as compensation for their lies against her, also swearing her to secrecy so no one would know about their deceit. They also agreed to finally add Reme’s full reply to their website, which they had earlier truncated. She has since returned to Syria to help her country survive this terrible war.

They treat my tweets as though they were theories off the top of my head. If they had done their homework they would have seen that I published a well-researched book on the conflict, more than a year ago. I gave particular emphasis to collecting hundreds of sources of evidence on the massacres and various claims made by the al Qaeda groups and Washington. The Dirty War on Syria is now published in seven languages. A number of chapters are free online, here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/tim-anderson

UPDATE: Still no reply from Mediawatch on 11 December 2013. Inside, letter to Mediawatch. Many people who are concerned about government-engineered population growth in Australia and the commercial growth lobby's impact on democracy have noticed a clear pro-growth bias in the ABC and other mass media. The fact is that population growth is almost constantly aired as something we must have more and more of, but the many contrary arguments are not. Some of them are occasionally reported, almost always with a negative spin. It is a fact that population numbers affect every aspect of society. It is therefore vital that decisions about population numbers be made with real democratic consultation, at the level of local government upwards.

From: Michael S.
Date: 1 October 2013 11:28
Subject: Vote Compass Fraud
To: [email protected]

Mediawatch,

Please prove that there is impartiality at the ABC................

The ABC stands accused of undemocratic conduct on a grand scale over the last 5+ years.

Is the ACMA an ineffective stooge? Is the ABC the propaganda machine of the Australian pro-growth dictatorship?

What are you going to do about it?

Will you pre-emptively face the music or will you cling to the hope that you will continue the style of gross misconduct seen during both the 2010 and 2013 election campaigns? Remember the Carbon Tax? Allegedly dropping (fossil fuel based) emissions by 60 million tonnes pa by 2020 while population growth increases it by over 90 million tonnes? And the target is 5% below 2000 levels by 2020, which means a drop of 28% per capita by 2020 despite continued chaotic expansion of the carbon-based economy? This is driven by developing-world population growth rates which the ABC relentlessly conceals from public discourse by characterising the whole issue as being limited to asylum seekers and immigration; rather than sustainable population.

But hang on, is it those plantation forests that were planted between 1990 and 2010 that are actually reducing (fossil fuel based) carbon emissions? So we are just doing what we've always done and pretending that something has changed?

There are two aspects of emissions growth:
(1) What creates it
(2) What reduces it

What creates it is going gangbusters as always; but has the ABC ever, in over 5 years of endless carbon tax debate, sought to lay these cards on the table? Is it showing support-by-omission for extreme population growth?

This issue is ENORMOUS compared to anything you have ever addressed on Mediawatch.

Please provide a response. Are you prepared to address this?

Regards
Michael S.