What to say to The
New Zealand Press Council response – “is there no obligation to
accurately report the facts?”
Ever feel as though the
media doesn't like one commenting on their well constructed and
carefully tuned news pieces? The answer appears to be yes.
This essay continues
the narrative around the New Zealand Press Council (NZPC) response to
the Stuff (Fairfax) moderation of two comments I placed on their
online articles 21 February and 5 March 2017.
The first part of the
story is in this blog post:
The NZPC considered the
matter at their Thursday 27 April meeting where they rejected my
complaint after finding they had no jurisdiction to consider it. The
second part of the series is here:
After I was forwarded
the decision of the Council mid May I wrote the following post script
to the Press Council and Executive Mary Major. Following the emailed
comments, I bring my thoughts together under this heading;
'Catch
22 – structural brick walls that hide corruption.'
Here's dropbox link to
pdf of original email:
Here's the text;
-----000------
Hi Mary,
Thanks for the advice.
I take it the decision will be uploaded to the Press Council website
from Monday 22 May?
I accept the decision
is final. I am disappointed with the specific decisions contained in
paragraphs #10 and #18 of the Press Council decision.
Decision
[10] At the outset, we
make it clear that the Stuff Terms and Conditions relating to online
comment are a matter between Stuff and its readership. The Press
Council has no jurisdiction over such terms and conditions. However,
we do see those Terms and Conditions, particularly those relating to
links to unchecked sites, to be a reasonable position for a publisher
to take.
[18] We reiterate that
the Terms and Conditions for online comment are a matter between the
online publisher and its readership. It is not a matter for the
Council, nor do we have any jurisdiction to interfere in it.
Thus we the public are
bound to continue being provided with only an abstract or a
misrepresentation of the full story from official news channels with
which to inform the democracy.
I will consider your
decision further carefully, as I strongly view the status quo
represents a systemic break down or loophole in the process of checks
and balances to ensure the press reports accurately - this is borne
out in previous reporting about security crises leading to decisions
to go to war.
If the press feel they
can get away with misrepresenting the facts or only partially
reporting matters without a credible check, they may feel justified
in their continued 'poor practice', especially on the critical issues
of whether the state elects for war or peace.
I draw your attention
to the hammering the press have provided POTUS Trump and his
decisions as President. However in the case of the Syria crisis,
where the US identified that the Syrian Government had gassed it's
people with Sarin gas in early April 2017 and then proceeded to bomb
the Syrian Airfield in retaliation or as a method of discipline, the
facts of who had released what, were less clear than the White House
suggested.
Without any fact
checking the Western International Press immediately closed ranks and
praised the decision to bomb the evil Assad regime! So Trump is an
automatic nut on all other decisions except when it comes to starting
wars!
The following article
explains my thinking and reasoning so I'll merely reproduce it here:
And here is MIT rocket
scientist Theodore Postol's Counter to the White House 4 pager from
April 2017:
Stuff reports were
similar in tone. There's no hint that the Sarin gas attack might be
the work of agents from one of the insurgent groups in Syria:
This
pulled from Fairfax's Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/91351778/Donald-Trump-puts-the-world-on-edge-with-Syria-missile-attack
This
one a repost of the Washington Post:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/91379116/donald-trump-lauds-us-military-defends-attack-on-syria
Which carried one out
of context photo with no reference in the story. Was this the balance
to the war party scream for blood?
As the world becomes
more stressed from the growing perfect storm of constraints,
environmental, social and population, economic, resources, food and
toxic pollution the role of those who inform the population will
become increasingly important.
We cannot allow
ourselves to be sucked into more genocidal wars for empire!
I'm not concerned about
the publication of 'my comments' so much as the principle of being
able to counter the MSM's tendency to replicate fake news and provide
it to the public as Gospel when it is the work of the 'devil of war.'
My whole argument and
the references I provided were in relation to the willingness of the
press to prostitute itself for 'the war party' - well done.
I believe the Press
Council has lost its moral/ethical bearings with the decision on my
complaint #2574, notwithstanding any jurisdictional technicality.
Surely you are at liberty to make a statement on principles.
The effect of your
decision is that you wash your hands - electing not to uphold the
central philosophy which underpins press freedom, "the
obligation to accurately report the facts."
This from the US - how
to get truth into the media so that the public is informed where the
media elect to not report or block where it suits their interest?
This on FOX and it's story on Monsanto and its bovine growth hormones
in the United States...
We are part of the US
Western empire and the influence is pervasive. Look to how the FOX
News chief shut down the story. Only in the US?
I suggest the NZ Press
Council think deeply on the implications.
With respect greg
Greg Rzesniowiecki
Attached your decision
#2574
(Note for reader: There were a couple of attachments)
-----000-----
Catch 22 –
structural brick walls that hide corruption
I face a similar
problem attempting to extract information from the GCSB and NZSIS
relating to the Iraq war. The GCSB (intelligence services) had told
the Clarke Labour government in the lead to the 2003 Iraq War that
there was no justification to go to war. I was given this information by the then Hon. Phil Goff in a Select Committee hearing in 2014, so on the parliament public record, thanks Phil. I asked the NZSIS and GCSB
for the information in correspondence 25 December 2015. (NB. I'll write
up the OIA saga in another blog piece to follow this. I write to
record the act after I've allowed the process to run its course.)
They are still dodging
the bullet as the implication is that the Western Coalition of the
Willing waged war of Aggression, the worst crime. The matter is with
the Chief Ombudsman Judge Peter Boshier, who has indicated in his
provisional opinion (PO) in relation to one matter, that he will not support my complaint as the
New Zealand government acts within the Official Information Act
provision in that 6 (a) and (b) of the OIA. These effectively give
cover where information might prejudice national or security
interests or where the information is received from a protected
source; 'an intelligence confidant likely the US National Security
Agency (NSA) or CIA.' - Catch 22 again!
Here we appear
constrained by some international treaty which presumes a lawful
obligation – what of the larger prohibition in international law to
stop war?
The fact of an
agreement (UK-USA Intelligence Sharing treaty known as Echelon or
Five Eyes) that we won't divulge privileged information that is
'evidence of the crime of Aggression,' is of more import than
highlighting the crime and prosecuting those who committed the acts.
Here we approach law as
a nonsense!
The only sense is to
provide the means to repeatedly go to war – do the New Zealand
Government agree knowingly and importantly willingly?
Which makes the NZ
Government and those components of the State who are aware of the
institutional implication complicit in the Crime of Aggression.
It is evident to me
that the OIA is similar to the structure of the Press Council
principles and rules for dealing with complaints.
It is framed as a
method to structurally avoid exposing government processes to
transparency particularly those central to the relationship with
nation states including the US. The 5 Eyes intelligence sharing
agreement is one such impediment as it requires that all
transmissions are privileged information.
Catch 22 – key to
unlock – “public interest for a secure and peaceful world of
states”
Public interest for
security ought be the definition of national security.
Public interest is not
advanced where states wage aggressive war for profit; whether to gain
territory, or for the commercial advantage of its corporations,
including for resources or the rights to control resources and
infrastructure. Where they do wage war, the universal public interest
is destroyed particularly for those genocided or collaterally damaged
in the business opportunities created in the waging of war – see US
General Smedley Butler for the key to why we (humans and their
institutions) still wage war, his speech; “War is a Racket.”
Wikipedia on Smedley
Butler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Audio essay on Smedley
Butler by The Corbett Report is edited, webmastered, written,
produced and hosted by James Corbett who has been living and working
in Japan since 2004. He started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as
an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society,
history, and economics:
The war for profit (war
is a racket thesis) is as strong today as it has ever been. The
corruption is what gave us thee 9/11 event and the subsequent for
profit wars.
The whole of my purpose herein, is to bring to light the corruption and institutional collaboration which checks or foils the public ability to identify the depravity of the state
and its actions.
What happens where the
information I seek is provided?
Where the state might
object and state that it acts to protect the people from a terrible
truth, "that independence from the US would be a dangerous choice" –
it highlights the coercion that is factored and leveraged into the
relations between states in this case between the US and NZ. What democracy? What noble global order?
To my mind it is
preferable that the intelligence that the state collects on the
depravity of other states is exploded into public light so we the people are able to digest the nature of the world.
This will then inform the democracy – and the result - new policy responses will be required to build an independent, sustainable and resilient state.
This will then inform the democracy – and the result - new policy responses will be required to build an independent, sustainable and resilient state.
Values, science,
common sense and policy outcomes
International affairs
and geopolitics will remain the plaything of the powerful with
ongoing tragic outcomes for people in developing nations of the Near
East, North Africa and possibly in Central and South America. These are
ill-equipped to counter the plots and insurgencies that run through
their states.
The US is repeatedly striking in Yemen - both through the agency of proxies as well as supporting the Saudi Arabians, most recently with a contract for US$110billion worth of military contracts. The connection to monetary transactions in the 'for profit' munitions industry is evident for any with eyes to see.
The US is repeatedly striking in Yemen - both through the agency of proxies as well as supporting the Saudi Arabians, most recently with a contract for US$110billion worth of military contracts. The connection to monetary transactions in the 'for profit' munitions industry is evident for any with eyes to see.
The war front advances
– it will consume the whole planet left unchecked.
Who will help us, help
ourselves?
