Category: Media

  • A boat carrying dozens of international journalists and medical professionals from 25 countries has set sail for Gaza as part of the latest mission organized by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) to break Israel‘s illegal siege. The vessel, Conscience, bombed by Israel off the coast of Malta in May 2025, has returned to serve as a vehicle for medics and media determined to reach their colleagues in besieged Gaza.

    For nearly two years, Israel has barred foreign journalists from entering Gaza, creating one of the most severe and sustained press blackouts in modern history. During this time, Israeli forces have targeted Palestinian journalists, killing over 270 and imprisoning countless more since October 2023.

    The post Journalists And Healthcare Workers Sail To Challenge Israel’s Siege appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Five of the six journalists and cameramen killed by Israel on 10 August 2025

    Note added 1 October 2025:

    This alert was originally published on 14 August 2025. However, a technical problem prevented it from being shared via our usual email lists. This has now been fixed. Apologies for the delay in sending this out.

    Late last Sunday, a targeted Israeli attack killed prominent Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif alongside several colleagues. They were in a tent outside the main gate of Gaza City’s al-Shifa hospital. Also killed were Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal, together with freelance cameraman Momen Aliwa and freelance journalist Mohammed al-Khalidi. Al-Sharif was previously part of a Reuters team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2024.

    Western ‘mainstream’ news outlets prominently featured Israel’s claim that Anas al-Sharif was a Hamas operative. This televised BBC News segment was typical:

    ‘Israel says Anas Al-Sharif was a member of Hamas, a claim long rejected by the news network, his family, and the Committee to Protect Journalists.’

    Although scepticism was indicated, the Israeli propaganda claim skewed reporting by disrupting the reality that Israel had just deliberately murdered several journalists and media workers. This was exactly as Israel wished, diverting attention from its killings to addressing the presented ‘evidence’ of one victim being an active Hamas operative. This is part of a longstanding Israeli pattern of lies and deception since the genocide began in October 2023.

    Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said:

    ‘Israel keeps killing journalists, usually accusing them of being part of Hamas’s military, rarely offering any proof beyond its own worthless assertions.’

    Irene Khan, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, said:

    ‘This is a pattern the Israelis have used over the last 20 months…to assassinate and silence independent reporting on Gaza…they are running a carefully planned program of assassination.’

    The Financial Times had a straightforward headline: ‘Israel kills famous Al Jazeera reporter in Gaza’

    By contrast, the Daily Telegraph headlined: ‘Israel kills Al Jazeera journalist it accused of leading Hamas terror cell’

    There was a follow-up piece by the paper’s Jerusalem correspondent, Henry Bodkin: ‘Why Israel believes Al Jazeera reporter killed in Gaza was a terrorist’

    How does a journalist without mind-reading powers know what Israel ‘believes’, rather than what it claims or asserts?

    The Daily Mail included the Israeli claim in its headline: ‘Five Al Jazeera journalists are killed in Israeli strike on tent in Gaza: IDF says it was targeting and struck “Hamas cell leader posing as correspondent”’

    When not actually featured in newspaper headlines, Israel’s claim that Anas al-Sharif was active in a Hamas cell was prominent in reporting. The second line of a Sun news article was typical:

    ‘Anas al-Sharif, 28, was hit in the strike after the IDF claimed he was the “head of a terrorist cell in Hamas”.’

    The UK-based Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) noted of media coverage:

    ‘Unlike the FT, many major outlets have centred Israeli propaganda that Al Jazeera’s Anas al-Sharif was working for Hamas. Here’s how the media should be reporting things, beginning with the fact that Israel just killed four Al Jazeera journalists in a targeted strike.’

    CfMM then pointed out that media outlets should have provided basic context in their reporting, including:

     ‘- The timing of this attack (on the eve of its latest expected assault on Gaza)

    – Targeting of journalists not a one-off (some 240 killed by Israel so far – more than any other conflict)

    – Israel doesn’t allow foreign journalists into Gaza’

    Responsible journalism should also:

    ‘Humanise the victims. These journalists had been pivotal in sharing stories out of Gaza. Share their families’ and friends’ pain.’

    CfMM also observed that reporting should have indicated prominently that Israel had already threatened al-Sharif, and that the Committee to Protect Journalists had warned that any attack on journalists is clearly unacceptable.

    Finally, said CfMM, Israeli claims about al-Sharif needed to be put in proper perspective: that the claims are not supported by the ‘evidence’ presented.

    In fact, responsible journalists should go further and explain to audiences that Israel has a long history of lying, fabrication and deceit. Since the genocide began, there has been a litany of lies that the ‘mainstream’ media have propagated and, when exposed, ignored or downplayed. Mehdi Hasan, founder of independent outlet Zeteo, powerfully debunked ten of the most egregious Israeli lies in a clip lasting just three minutes:

    In summary, ‘Israel’s top 10 lies about its Gaza genocide’ presented by Hasan are:

    1. Hamas systematically steals aid coming into Gaza.

    2. It’s all about the hostages, i.e. if Hamas released the hostages, Israel would stop the genocide.

    3. 40 beheaded babies, and babies in ovens or hung on clotheslines.

    4. Mass rape on 7 October 2023 as a weapon of war.

    5. Hamas ‘command and control centre’ under Al-Shifa hospital.

    6. A schedule found for Hamas guards in Rantisi hospital (it was an Arabic calendar).

    7. UNRWA, the UN relief agency for Palestinians, is a front for Hamas.

    8. You cannot trust the ‘Hamas-controlled’ health ministry.

    9. Israel didn’t kill those 15 aid workers or 100 people waiting for flour.

    10. Hamas uses human shields.

    Following Israel’s targeted killing of Al Jazeera’s entire reporting team in Gaza City, Muhammad Shehada, a Gazan political analyst and Visiting Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, created this new brief summary of Israeli lies. Running at just over two minutes, Shehada observed that he kept going until he ran out of breath, but barely scratched the surface of Israeli deceit.

    In his introduction, he said:

    ‘One thing that you need to keep in mind is that Israel has been lying incessantly since the beginning of the genocide. It’s been the cornerstone of Israel’s genocidal campaign to lie every single day about everything possible.’⁠

    Other than the Israeli lies cited by Hasan above, examples given by Shehada included: Israeli use of white phosphorus weapons; deliberately starving Gazans; gassing Israeli hostages; killing women and children with white flags; mass rape of Palestinians; non-existent tunnels under graveyards; Israeli snipers targeting children in the head; breaking the ceasefire; blowing up Gazans fleeing south; blowing up and destroying Kamal Adwan hospital; claiming that dead Gazan children are fake plastic dolls; creating alleged safe zones that they push people into and then bomb; Red Crescent staff participated in the 7 October attacks; designating journalists as Hamas militants (such as al-Sharif); Hamas hid giant supplies of fuel under Rafah; and on and on.

    In conclusion, said Shehada:

    ‘You should attach as much value to Israel’s allegations about Anas al-Sharif, as to the dust on the floor.’

    Western Media Complicity in the Slaughter of Journalists

    You might think that, with so much evidence of Israeli deception and outright lies, journalists would treat Israeli claims with extreme scepticism, while explaining to audiences why. This should especially apply to BBC News, the national broadcaster that is funded by a public licence fee and which is supposed to uphold the highest journalistic values as enshrined in the corporation’s Editorial Guidelines, and promised by its Royal Charter.

    Of course, as is widely known by now, the credibility of BBC News has nosedived since the genocide began and there has even been significant discontent within its own newsrooms.

    How did the BBC treat Israel’s targeted killing of Anas al-Sharif and his Al Jazeera colleagues in Gaza City? As we saw earlier, BBC news broadcasts prominently featured wording such as, ‘Israel says Anas Al-Sharif was a member of Hamas’.

    When the BBC interviewed Martin Roux, head of the crisis desk at Reporters Without Borders, the BBC presenter inevitably began with, ‘Israel says…’.

    Here is another BBC example that was broadcast live:

    ‘Let’s bring in our colleague Yolande Knell who is in Jerusalem. The accusation from Israel is that Anas al Sharif had a dual role, he was both in their words journalist and terrorist…’

    There followed almost two minutes of bland, emotionless newspeak from Knell with only perfunctory scepticism about Israeli claims, and zero context about the longstanding Israeli pattern of denials, deceits and deceptions.

    As media activist Saul Staniforth noted:

    ‘The IDF assassinated him. Now the BBC assassinates his character.’

    The flagship BBC News at Ten actually broadcast a segment in which BBC correspondent Jon Donnison, reporting from Jerusalem, made this outrageous observation:

    ‘There’s the question of proportionality. Is it justified to kill five journalists when you were only targeting one?’

    As Jonathan Cook noted, the comment was ‘obscene’. If you cannot grasp that, imagine that five well-known BBC journalists were killed in a targeted Russian strike inside Ukraine: perhaps Jeremy Bowen, Lyse Doucet, Yolande Knell, Lucy Williamson and Jon Donnison working together from a makeshift base in Ukraine. Imagine that one of them, Donnison perhaps, had allegedly been secretly working for Ukraine, passing on intelligence information about Russian troop movements. If all five had been killed in a Russian attack, would that have been framed in BBC reporting as:

    ‘There’s the question of proportionality. Is it justified to kill five journalists when you were only targeting one?’

    Of course not.

    Consider also a press review segment on Sky News in which one of their journalists extensively recounted Israel’s claims about Anas al-Sharif’s active Hamas involvement ‘at the time of his elimination’, followed by:

    ‘Sharif himself had denied it. Al Jazeera deny it too. So, you know, you’re left with two sides here again’.

    As journalist Afshin Rattansi, Going Underground presenter, observed:

    ‘The two sides:

    ‘An ethno-state perpetrating genocide that lies as much as it kills

    ‘A slain journalist who has shown the horrors of the genocide

    ‘And there’s “journalists” seemingly still can’t figure out that Israel had every motivation to kill a Palestinian journalist to stop him from showing the world the horror of the genocide they are perpetrating…

    ‘Bear in mind these people are paid well to be this awful at their jobs’

    Karishma Patel, a former BBC News journalist who resigned over the broadcaster’s biased coverage of Gaza, said on X:

    ‘For nearly 2 years, I have been asking @BBCNews to critically engage with its sources over Gaza. Israel is a bad source. Uncritically repeating its claims, even with the caveat that they’re denied, is not journalism. Do your job. Verify.’

    She continued, addressing the BBC:

    ‘You have put Palestinian lives at risk by legitimising Israeli claims that have laid the groundwork for its attacks. You have created the conditions under which Israel could kill AJ’s entire team in Gaza City. All you have ever had to do was follow the evidence.’

    Journalist and documentary filmmaker Richard Sanders observed:

    ‘Israel last night murdered the entire Al Jazeera team in Gaza City. Western media should long ago have united to bring serious pressure on the Israelis to end the slaughter of journalists. Their failure to do so makes them complicit.’

    Al Jazeera noted recently that Israel has killed nearly 270 journalists and media workers since 7 October 2023, listing all their names here.

    ‘An Insult to Journalism and a Stamp of Disgrace for Humanity’

    Tanya Haj-Hassan, a Toronto-based paediatric intensive care and humanitarian doctor who has worked in Gaza, told the UN last November:

    ‘Incredible Palestinian journalists covering the genocide of their own people have been repeatedly targeted by Israel and discredited, while both their reporting and their murder[s] have been largely ignored by mainstream Western media.’

    She added:

    ‘Spend just five minutes in a hospital there [in Gaza] and it will become painfully clear that Palestinians are being intentionally massacred, starved and stripped of everything needed to sustain human life’.

    The public have been moved by such authoritative testimony from many doctors, as well as countless, extremely harrowing scenes of devastation and suffering from Gaza, and are well aware that ‘mainstream’ media are protecting Israel. Reporting from a protest in Washington DC for Al Jazeera English, Shihab Rattansi said:

    ‘Several hundred demonstrators gathered outside the headquarters of various media organisations in this building: NBC, Fox News, ITN, the Guardian. They say that their coverage of the Gaza genocide has given Israel the room to kill so many, and notably so many journalists.’

    Rattansi added of the protesters:

    ‘They’re trying to disrupt the narratives that are being told on these programmes. That message is, “Look, you’re no longer the gatekeepers. We know what’s happening in Gaza. We know about the genocide, despite your best efforts.”’

    Mariam Barghouti, a US-born Palestinian journalist and policy analyst, stated via X:

    ‘We are no longer waiting for international journalists to condemn Israeli practices against children, civilians, and their own peers.

    ‘We condemn these journalists in their entirety. We condemn them for their journalistic malpractice, their ineptitude to fulfill their obligation to the world, and for engineering the narrative of victimhood for Israel.’

    Barghouti added:

    ‘From correspondents to editors to producers, across Sky news to CNN, BBC, NYT and others. You’re an insult to journalism, and a stamp of disgrace for humanity.

    ‘You have wielded so much power, and at every juncture chose to abuse it. And here we emphasize and remember, it was a choice, because real journalists- like those in Gaza,- did not acquiesce and chose to report the truth even as their body began to eat itself from hunger & the bombs rained on them.’

    Hind Khoudary, a Palestinian journalist based in Gaza, said:

    ‘I will not speak to foreign media about the killing of Palestinian journalists.

    ‘I will not sit on your global channels to be part of a segment you’ll forget by tomorrow.

    ‘To you, we are just a headline — a tragedy to consume, not colleagues to defend.

    ‘We are being hunted and killed in Gaza while you watch in silence. For two years, your fellow journalists here have been slaughtered. What did you do?

    ‘Nothing.

    ‘Or maybe it’s because we are Palestinian journalists — we don’t count as “real” colleagues in your eyes.’

    Perhaps it is also because Palestinians are presented by western media as lesser humans than the rest of us.

    Investigative journalist Matt Kennard has raised serious questions for well over a year about British complicity, indeed participation, in Israel’s Gaza genocide. Together with Palestine Deep Dive and Declassified UK, he has reported UK spy flights over Gaza: something the ‘mainstream’ media, in part, has only recently addressed (although notably not the BBC, so far).

    Kennard noted via X on 11 August:

    ‘Likely that UK had a mercenary spy plane in the sky over Gaza when Israel targeted and killed 5 Al Jazeera journalists, including Anas al-Sharif, last night. The intelligence gathered by this plane goes directly to Israeli military in real-time. How long will we tolerate this?’

    Declassified UK noted that the Hind Rajab Foundation has now identified Israeli air force commander Tomer Bar as one of those responsible for killing the Al Jazeera team in Gaza. Last month, Declassified UK revealed that Keir Starmer’s government had allowed Bar to visit Britain in July. He reportedly met with RAF commanders and attended the Royal International Air Tattoo event. Around the same time, air chief marshal Sir Rich Knighton, head of the RAF, was confronted by Phil Miller of Declassified UK:

    ‘Why are you still sharing intelligence with Benjamin Netanyahu while he’s wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Gaza?’

    Knighton refused to answer while his colleague, squadron leader Ryan Kerr, repeatedly tried to stop the interview by shoving Miller.

    How long will ‘mainstream’ British journalists treat Israeli claims with minimal scepticism, indeed repeat and amplify Israeli lies and deceits?

    How long will the British media broadcast Benjamin Netanyahu’s words, without pointing out that he is wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

    How long will UK media outlets soft-pedal challenges to Keir Starmer, David Lammy and other government ministers over their role in the Gaza genocide?

    History will condemn them all.

    The post “Israel Says” Is Not Journalism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • It should be evident by now to anyone paying even casual attention that exerting full-spectrum control over American media is among the Trump regime’s most perniciously obsessive projects.

    Of all the extra-constitutional messes this vulgar ignoramus is making, I count his assaults on media his gravest attempt to destroy what remains of American democracy and what little chance there may be to restore it.

    There are all sorts of cases in point. President Trump has a citizen’s right to file lawsuits against various media — ABC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Paramount Global (the parent of CBS News) — but to call these anything other than an antidemocratic assertion of executive power is out of the question.

    The post The War Department’s War On Media appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On the same day the UN released its report, approximately 250 US state legislators, representing all 50 states and both parties, were in Israel for a “50 States, One Israel” conference sponsored by the Israeli government. The Jerusalem Post (9/15/25) characterized it as “the largest-ever delegation of US lawmakers” to Israel.

    According to ethics disclosures reported in the Boston Herald (9/14/25), Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Alan Silvia’s trip to Israel for the conference cost $6,500. The Herald said Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs would “reimburse, waive or pay for travel expenses, though it was unclear what portion of the costs the government planned to cover.”

    Quoting Rep. Ilana Rubel (D-Idaho), Boise State Public Radio (9/17/25) reported that no Idaho taxpayer funds were used to send any of five Idaho state legislatures to the conference.

    The post UN Declares Genocide In Gaza While 250 US Lawmakers Are In Israel appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On 2 September, Zack Polanski, a former Liberal Democrat who joined the Green Party in 2017, was elected leader of the party in a landslide, with 85% of the vote share. Polanski defeated Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, winning 20,411 votes against their 3,705 in a ballot of party members.

    From May to July 2025, when Polanski launched his leadership bid, the Green Party saw its membership rise by at least 8%, described as the ‘Polanski surge’. The Green Party now has 79,000 members. The previous peak in 2015 was 67,000.

    Polanski has described his politics as ‘eco-populist’, asking bluntly:

    ‘Why is everything so shit? Our wages are shit, our rivers are swimming in shit, and most politicians, they are full of it too.’

    He cites prime minister Keir Starmer as a prime example:

    ‘This is a man who stands for nothing. He has no morals, no values, no principles, and he will defend Peter Mandelson up until the point he thinks he needs to for his own career. And I think that’s the only thing he cares about at this point.’

    Polanski has added:

    ‘We’re not a threat to Starmer.

    ‘We’re the replacement.

    ‘People aren’t leaving Labour – Labour left them.

    ‘And they’re finding a new home with the Green Party.’

    He commented to the Telegraph:

    ‘I’m really frustrated with this Government on the genocide in Gaza, the complete destruction of our public services, the continuation of austerity and the pushing of public money to private wealth. I’m running for leader because when I travel the country, I see constantly that people are looking for a party to champion them. The Green Party has not been as effective as I want us to be in communicating our message. If we had been doing that more effectively, we wouldn’t be seeing the rise of new parties.’

    He has also commented on the surge in support for right-wing Reform Party leader Nigel Farage:

    ‘Far too often we have been on the sidelines and Farage has been in the centre of the conversation. We need to challenge Farage and his charlatan MPs as the climate deniers and the billionaire protectors that they are. I despise Nigel Farage’s politics, but it’s undeniable that he has been one of the most effective political operators that we’ve seen.’

    Polanski has said he would be willing to work alongside Jeremy Corbyn, who congratulated Polanski in a post on X, saying:

    ‘Your campaign took on the rich and powerful, stood up for the dignity of all marginalised communities, and gave people hope!

    ‘Real change is coming. I look forward to working with you to create a fairer, kinder world.’

    Gracious comments indeed, given that Polanski had supported the manufactured anti-semitism smear campaign against Corbyn. In July, the Times of Israel reported:

    ‘Polanski had previously criticized the rise in antisemitism in the Labour Party on Corbyn’s watch, saying in 2018 that he was “a pro-European Jew,” calling that “two reasons I couldn’t vote for Labour under Jeremy Corbyn.”’

    Polanski recanted in June 2025, saying: ‘it was not helpful for me to assume that the Labour Party was rife with antisemitism when we now know that blatantly was not true’. In fact, we also knew that was not true in 2018.

    Guardian columnist Owen Jones commented:

    ‘When the independent MP and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the former Labour MP Zarah Sultana announced the birth of a new leftwing party, the surge of interest shocked even its founders. More than 750,000 people signed up in support of an unchristened, nonexistent party. Polling suggested nearly a third of Britons would vote for an alliance with the Greens; among under-35s, support rose to 52%.’

    The Your Party project has recently been derailed by a major disagreement, with Sultana going dramatically public about her feeling that she had been sidelined by Corbyn and his male allies, accusing them of sexism. Jones, however, reports that ‘a miscalculated game of chicken appears to have drawn to a close, and plans to launch a new party have resumed’. There is once again, therefore, hope of real change ahead.

    ‘Student’ Politics – Getting Rid of the Arguments

    The response of Western governments to both Israel’s genocide in Gaza and accelerating climate collapse – supplying the bombs, planes, diplomatic protection and rising carbon emissions fuelling both crimes – has been a eureka moment for even the least discerning consumers of Guardian and BBC-style propaganda. ‘Western democracy’ is clearly not merely an illusion, but an illusion carefully curated to ensure that voters – who are, by and large, neither genocidal nor biocidal – do not realise that beneath the statesman-like pomp and ceremony, ‘democracy’ is a charade protecting the ruthless greed, racism and violence of a tiny elite.

    From the extraordinary lengths governments and corporations go to bolster the illusion of democracy, we know that deceiving the public is a key requirement. People like Polanski who rip the veil aside must be targeted for concerted attack by state-corporate media, which are not primarily a media system at all, but a system evolved and designed for the purpose of social control.

    The prime mechanism of propaganda control is to direct a ceaseless tsunami of smears at the people exposing the ‘necessary illusions’ in hopes of undermining their credibility. Noam Chomsky explained:

    ‘Somehow, they [journalists] have to get rid of the stuff. You can’t deal with the arguments, that’s plain – for one thing you have to know something, and most of these people don’t know anything. Secondly, you wouldn’t be able to answer the arguments because they’re correct. Therefore, what you have to do is somehow dismiss it. So that’s one technique, “It’s just emotional, it’s irresponsible, it’s angry.”’ (Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian, Chronicles of Dissent, AK Press, 1992, p.79)

    The irony being, of course, that the system is itself built on childishly irrational beliefs. Chomsky again:

    ‘A properly functioning system of indoctrination has a variety of tasks, some rather delicate. One of its targets is the stupid and ignorant masses. They must be kept that way, diverted with emotionally potent oversimplifications, marginalised and isolated.’ (Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, Hill and Wang, 1992, p.369)

    In a recent, televised discussion with former Conservative politician Penny Mordaunt, who now works for British American Tobacco, Polanski asked about the impending visit of Donald Trump:

    ‘Are you comfortable with the world’s most powerful man banning books, militarising the police, damaging women’s reproductive rights?’

    Patronising freely, Mordaunt replied:

    ‘I disagree with a lot of things that Donald Trump does… The thing is, Zack, you’re now the leader of a political party; you’re not the president of a student union. And you have to take responsibility for things. And you have to take responsibility for trying to have a positive impact on the world around you… I hope it makes you feel good; you can go home tonight and feel great about it.’

    Thus, Polanski’s truth-telling – and these are simple but important truths obvious to any thinking person – is dismissed as childish, immature, naïve; as if profit-driven, genocidal ‘realpolitik’ was ‘mature’.

    In a separate discussion involving Polanski, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, worked hard to avoid describing Israel’s ethnic cleansing as a genocide (he has since accepted that it is a genocide) and did not agree that Israeli President Isaac Herzog should be arrested when he visited London. Instead, Khan responded:

    ‘Well, I think what we’re seeing is an example of the Greens trying to use the forum of Mayor’s question time to raise really important issues in a trivial way.’

    In fact, Polanski was raising really important issues in a really honest way. Khan, on the other hand, was answering the questions with really trivial evasions. Polanski replied:

    ‘Six minutes of words and the Mayor won’t acknowledge it’s a genocide.’

    Echoing Mordaunt, Khan replied:

    ‘That was the soundbite, that’s what was been after [sic] in the last six minutes. That’s, you know, sixth-form politics in Mayor’s question time.’

    Exactly as Chomsky said, ‘It’s just emotional, it’s irresponsible’, and should therefore be dismissed. In fact, it is the dismissal that can be dismissed.

    When Jeremy Corbyn stood for election as leader of the Labour Party in July 2015, Jonathan Freedland opined in the Guardian:

    ‘Tony Blair and others tried to sit the kids down and say: “Look, you’ve had your fun. But take it from us, even if Corbyn is right – which he isn’t – he is never, ever going to get elected. This crusade is doomed. Come back home”.’

    Freedland added:

    ‘The unkind reading of this is to suggest that support for Corbynism, especially among the young, is a form of narcissism.’

    In the Observer, Andrew Rawnsley mocked the ‘fantasy’ of ‘Corbynmania’, with ‘younger audiences’ deluded by ‘the Pied Piper of Islington’, suffering from his ‘terrible delusion’.

    ‘Sixth-form politics’, in other words.

    We all learned from the extraordinary propaganda blitz directed at Corbyn that the state-corporate Medium – led, in that instance, by the Guardian – will use literally any conceivable smear in a scattergun effort to turn as many voters as possible against an establishment threat.

    If we could not be persuaded to dislike Corbyn because of his footwear (The Guardian asked thoughtfully: ‘is the world ready for his sandals and socks?’), then there was his ‘Chairman Mao-style bicycle’, his flat cap (allegedly photoshopped by BBC Newsnight to look like a treacherous Russian fur ushanka), the kind of anorak he wore (‘Critics of the Labour politician were angered by his choice of jacket, with some saying he looked “scruffy”’, noted the Daily Mail), how he bowed at the cenotaph (there were claims ‘Corbyn had deliberately bowed less dramatically than Cameron’), how he ‘mispronounced’ the name Jeffrey Epstein (former Independent editor, Simon Kelner, who is Jewish, shrank in fear at Corbyn’s pronunciation: ‘a Jewish person does know when there is something that sounds wrong, or pejorative, or even threatening’), that he had an allotment, that he had been romantically involved with Labour politician Diane Abbott, that he ‘feigned’ having to stand on a ‘supposedly’ crowded train, that he was race-blind to an allegedly anti-semitic mural that, in fact, depicted a number of recognisable, historic Jewish and non-Jewish financiers (with the biggest nose drawn belonging to the Christian Episcopalian, J.P. Morgan).

    On one occasion, Corbyn’s failure to sing the national anthem generated a storm of criticism:

    ‘“Corbyn snubs Queen and country” (Daily Telegraph); “Veterans open fire after Corbyn snubs anthem” (The Times); “Corb snubs the Queen” (The Sun); “Not Save the Queen” (Metro); “Shameful: Corbyn refuses to sing national anthem” (Daily Express); “Fury as Corbyn refuses to sing national anthem at Battle of Britain memorial” (Daily Mail); “Corby a zero: Leftie refuses to sing national anthem” (Daily Star).’

    Roy Greenslade was all but alone in noting that, as a principled republican for many years, Corbyn would have been accused of rank hypocrisy if he had mouthed the words of an anthem that strongly celebrated the monarch, rather than the nation.

    If we had space, we could, of course, supply reams of similarly crazed examples relating to Julian Assange, and many other dissident voices, ourselves included.

    Polanski is currently not sufficiently threatening to merit Corbyn-level abuse. But an opening propaganda salvo in the Daily Mail gave an idea of what might be in store: ‘His jagged, gapped teeth had shades of Hannibal Lecter. Better watch out’

    If we don’t mind jagged teeth with gaps, there are other issues that might persuade us to reject a politician campaigning to stop genocide, systemic injustice and climate collapse against UK leaders blocking all resistance. Quentin Letts wrote:

    ‘Designer-stubbled Mr Polanski spoke for quarter of an hour without notes. You don’t become a Harley Street cleavage quack without the gift of the gab.’

    In 2013, a newspaper reporter requested a hypnotherapy session to increase her breast size and self-confidence for an article in the Sun newspaper. Polanski, then working as a hypnotherapist, did the session without charge and featured in the published article. He said the article did not accurately reflect what happened but subsequently apologised for his involvement. The story has been made a major issue across the media.

    After his election victory had been announced, Letts commented:

    ‘Soon he was locked in an embrace with his boyfriend. It was some time before they could be separated.’

    Why the emphasis on duration in the text and in the caption to a picture showing the embrace? Having reviled Polanski’s teeth, stubble and quackery, were we being invited to feel uncomfortable with the idea of him hugging his boyfriend?

    Patrick Kidd wrote in the Telegraph:

    ‘The tribe’s underwhelming participation did not stop Polanski from speaking bullishly, or whatever the vegan option is (quornily?), about enthusing the wider public. “I promise you, nothing will make you feel more inspired than joining the Green Party,” he said, though perhaps he meant to say “insipid”.’

    Kidd also noted Polanski’s teeth and stubble:

    ‘There is something of the modern BBC executive about Polanski’s appearance, though his dentistry is old-fashioned gappy English. With his wide-open collar, close-cropped hair, designer stubble and fixed smile, he has the look of someone with one of those job titles like director of cohesion or head of future, who spews out visions about “the lake of content” and “the bubble of opportunity”.

    In 2016, John Moternan observed of Corbyn in the New Statesman:

    ‘His air was similar to the one he displays at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) — the bewildered geography supply teacher look.’

    In 2015, an entire Guardian article was focused on Corbyn’s dress sense under the title:

    ‘Get the Jeremy Corbyn look: “retired postman” is the big fashion trend at Labour conference’

    As was initially also the case with Corbyn, the Guardian has not gone straight over to the attack on Polanski. The initial focus has been to view him primarily as a warning to be heeded by a Labour leader the Guardian worked so assiduously to bring to power. The paper had a dedicated, movingly optimistic series of articles titled, ‘Starmer’s path to power’. On 2 September, the standfast introducing a Guardian leader, read:

    ‘A mass politics of anti-austerity, identity and climate is emerging from the left’s margins. Keir Starmer cannot afford to ignore it’

    The piece concluded:

    ‘Labour’s defence of an old order that is crumbling away has only helped Mr Polanski. Unless Sir Keir reclaims the narrative terrain and offers transformative policies – and fast – British politics will not see only realignment but rupture.’

    Readers actually donating to this corporate newspaper – thus supporting editor Kath Viner, struggling to get by on £527,695 (as of April 1, 2023) – might ask themselves why the Guardian’s chief concern is to ensure that a man who ‘has no morals, no values, no principles’ ‘reclaims the narrative’.

    Another Guardian effort to save Starmer was titled: ‘Is there anything Labour can do to save itself from disaster? Our panel responds’

    The key focus:

    ‘Over a year into power, Starmer’s government is floundering – but it still has time on its side. In the second of a two-part series, our panelists suggest ways of reversing the slide’

    The Guardian’s true values, shared by Starmer, were hinted at in a piece by senior political correspondent Peter Walker, titled: ‘Greens take step into unknown with election of Zack Polanski as leader’

    What is this anxiety-inducing ‘unknown’?

    ‘… Polanski will be under pressure to show he has not just the patter but also the judgment, with some eyebrows raised by his call in May for the UK to consider leaving Nato, which was not in the manifesto’.

    A profile in the Observer noted that Polanski had previously worked as an actor and hypnotherapist:

    ‘He may well need all his theatrical and hypnotic powers to transform some of his convictions into popular policy. The Greens have long supported unilateral nuclear disarmament, but, even with eastern Europe under threat from an increasingly bellicose Russia, Polanski also wants to see the UK withdraw from Nato and an alternative arrangement of “peace and diplomacy”.’

    As key cogs in the Perpetual War Machine, firm supporters of the West’s wars of aggression – even when they claimed to be in opposition to the Iraq war, for example – leaving Nato is something the Guardian and Observer will not countenance. Such talk should be reserved for the ‘student union’ and ‘sixth-form politics’.

    As with Corbyn in 2015, the fevered ranting from the extreme right-wing press will be accompanied by initially muted criticism from the extreme centre, at the far end of the truncated media ‘spectrum’. Also as we saw with Corbyn, to the extent that Polanski offers genuine hope of change, the response from the Guardian, Observer, BBC, Independent and others will rise in pitch until the threat to ‘adult’ genocidal and biocidal politics is removed.

    The post “Sixth-Form Politics” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • By pressuring broadcast giant ABC to suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show—a decision that ABC reversed this week—the Trump administration has taken its assault on the First Amendment to new heights over the past week. Kimmel’s show is back on the air for now, but the whole debacle has revealed just how vulnerable free speech in America is to political and corporate authoritarianism. This is a crisis, and both Democrats and Republicans have set the stage for it. “As corporate media accelerate their censorship of comedians and journalists,” renowned media analyst Jeff Cohen writes, “we must realize that we got to this dire situation because of old-fashioned, bipartisan corruption in Washington, DC.” In this episode of The Marc Steiner Show, Marc speaks with Cohen about how the consolidation of corporate control over the media, mixed with a ravenously censorious Trump administration, has left free speech in America hanging by a thread.

    Guest:

    Additional resources:

    Credits:

    • Producer: Rosette Sewali
    • Studio Production: David Hebden
    • Audio Post-Production: Stephen Frank
    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Marc Steiner:

    Welcome to the Marc Steiner Show here in The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. It’s great to have you all with us. Our democracy is under attack and one of the underpinnings of a free society is a free and independent press. Right now, 90% of our media is controlled by just six corporations, and when those in media do their job and confront power, they’re attacked by their corporate owners and by the right wing. We’re in control of the White House. Trump said in response to the firing of Jimmy Kimmel, congratulations to a, b, C for finally having the courage to do what had to be done.

    And while Jimmy Kimmel may be back on many stations controlled by right-wing conglomerates like Nexstar, which controls over 200 stations, reaching 220 million people will not carry Kimmel. This monopolistic control of our media is a canary in the coal mine. And to unravel we face, we’re joined today by Jeff Cohen, founder of the Media Watchdog Group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and co-founder of RootsAction.org. He’s a retired journalism professor at the college and author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media. Jeff, it’s good to have you with us. I really appreciate you taking the time here.

    Jeff Cohen:

    Great to be with you

    Marc Steiner:

    And a propitious moment as well. I mean, we could talk about, as we will, the state of media in America today and where we are, but the Kimmel episode was really a frightening in the beginning, but enlightening and how this is unfolding talk. I really want to hear, start off with your kind of analysis of where that is, why this bloody thing happened in the first place and why it’s turned around the way it turned around.

    Jeff Cohen:

    Yeah, it’s been a long time coming. We’d almost have to talk about the decades of the federal government, both parties, Congress and the White House, allowing the media, placing the media in the hands of fewer and fewer ever larger conglomerates. That’s the beginning. And then these conglomerates, when they want to merge even bigger, they need to get federal approval. So if there’s too many employees that are interfering or making things difficult with them, for them, with whoever the government is, I experienced this as you know, Marc, I was at MSNBC in the run up to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    Marc Steiner:

    I remember.

    Jeff Cohen:

    And we were muzzled by management and then terminated three weeks before the invasion and all the internal memos leaked out. Why? Because of what we were trying to question, ask journalistic questions about the invasion. So it’s been happening decade after decade, but it’s never been worse than now because the conglomerates are bigger than they ever were. And we have the Trump team. So you have all of these companies doing somersaults to please Trump, especially if they have merger business before the Federal Communications Commission. The reason that Colbert was terminated, many of us believe is because Paramount needed to merge with Skydance. When that happened, the boss of Paramount, Sherry Redstone became $2 billion richer than the day before the merger, and the merger could not go through until 60 Minutes had been squeezed. The executive producer 60 minutes left in protest, as did his boss, and they were still holding out.

    That’s when I suspected they’re waiting for something to be done to either Colbert on CBS, which Paramount owns or comedy the Daily Show on Comedy Central. So now we come to Kimmel, and it’s the same thing. Disney had merger business before the Federal Communications Commission. Disney already owns Hulu, the streaming service, and they wanted to get fubu, and that needs federal approval. It’s currently at the Justice Department, Trump’s Justice Department. And then perhaps even more important than Disney’s collaboration with Trump in suspending, Kimmel was two big television groups. One is the right wing Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is as Trumpian as any media company in our country and the other, and they own or operate nearly 200 television stations. And nexstar owns even more TV stations. And both of them after the FCC threatened to go after a B, C affiliates carrying Kimmel. That’s also unprecedented. Those two companies said were preempting Kimmel and that put pressure on Disney and then Disney folded. But what it has to be understood about both Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcast Group, their government created conglomerates prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act that was pushed through by Democratic President Bill Clinton, hand in hand with Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

    You could only own 12 TV stations in the whole country. You couldn’t own 200 like Nexar and Sinclair owned. So that brings us up today. They’re going to bring Kimmel back this week according to Disney, but Nexstar and have said, no, he’s not coming back on our stations. I heard from someone in Washington DC they won’t be able to watch Kimmel’s return because of who owns the Washington DC ABC affiliates and nearly somewhere between 25 and 30% of ABC affiliates will not be carrying Kimmel on his return.

    Marc Steiner:

    It’s so convoluted, but also very dangerous. I’m going to take a step back for just a minute. People may not, who are watching and listening to us now may not be aware of what happened in 1996 and how that allowed all this to unfold and why the Democrats team built Republicans to allow it to happen, why Clinton allowed it to happen to kind of take this massive media world we have in our country owned by many different people across the country, local stations, doing it in local ways. Why that changed? Well, what was the dynamic in 1996 that allowed that to happen and exactly what did happen so people understand really what we’re facing?

    Jeff Cohen:

    Yeah, it’s really important. When we, for decades, one individual or company could only own in the whole country, seven television and 7:00 AM radio and seven FM radio, and you couldn’t own two in one market. When Reagan took over Fowler, his FCC chair got it changed. So it was 12, 12, 12. That’s how it stood until the point you want me to talk about, which is 1996 when there was this corrupt law written by the telecommunications and media company lobbyists that sort of divided up the media pie among fewer companies that were allowed to get bigger because the caps were relaxed. So instead of being able to own 12 TV stations, now you could own hundreds. And so Sinclair Broadcast Group only owned 12 in 1996, and they’re completely Trumpian, totally right wing. They’ve been right wing since they intervened. I remember in the 2004 presidential election

    Marc Steiner:

    Running

    Jeff Cohen:

    A smear documentary attacking Kerry two weeks before the election of Kerry and George W. Bush in 2004. So those companies, thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they now own or operate around 200 stations. That was illegal in 1995. You could only own 12 nationwide. So other things that happened, Murdoch, because of the 1996 bill, he was able to build his Fox Empire Clear Channel, a right wing radio company out of Texas, closely allied with George W. Bush. Prior to the Telecommunications Act, they owned 50 radio stations. Within two years, they owned about 1200 radio stations. Again, this was written by lobbyists Fair, the media watch group that I founded, we were protesting, we were trying to get journalists to even cover this 1996 telecommunications act, which was the biggest change in media since the 1930s, and you couldn’t get coverage. I remember the Consumer Federation of America was so concerned about how little attention this very dangerous corporate media bill was getting. They went to CNN and said, Hey, we’ve raised the money for a 32nd ad to warn the public, and CNN wouldn’t sell them the 32nd ad time

    Marc Steiner:

    Would not sell them the ad,

    Jeff Cohen:

    Right? So it was horrific at the time. I was able back then to write stuff in the Baltimore Sun actually

    Marc Steiner:

    About

    Jeff Cohen:

    How dangerous this bill was. And we’ve now seen the implications both parties back then. This is before Citizens United Corporations couldn’t give to politicians, but they could give to party organizations. That was what was called soft money. And the big media companies were giving big dollars to the Democratic party organizations and the Republican party organizations. And it passed the Senate, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 81 to 18. And I remember talking shortly after it passed with Senator Paul Simon, not the singer, the senator from Illinois,

    And Paul Simon was the only journalist in the Senate. He had been a newspaper publisher in Illinois, and he said, it’s one of the proudest votes I’ve ever cast was to vote no on this horrible bill giving all of our media information power to fewer and fewer big companies. So the 1996 Act, when I say to people, don’t just blame Trump. If you’re blaming presidents for the censorship that’s going on, whether it’s journalists, whether it’s Colbert, whether it’s Kimmel, also you have to blame President Bill Clinton, a Democrat because of the role he played in pushing this corrupt legislation. And again, Democrats were getting big money from the media companies as well as Republicans.

    Marc Steiner:

    That period I remember, well, I was on public radio with my show and we covered this. It was almost like was deafening the silence of the opposition to what we saw unfold. And I think so especially what you’ve been writing lately is we are reaping what was sowed then. And I think that this is, as I said earlier, we’re on a very dangerous precipice with corporate control of everything we see, read and hear, and a very right, right-wing government in power in our country. And I don’t think people really understand the clear danger

    Jeff Cohen:

    That

    Marc Steiner:

    This poses for us.

    Jeff Cohen:

    And remember, when these companies want to get even bigger, they need federal approval. And that means Trump and Trump’s basically told every federal agency, you work for me. So the Federal Communications Commission used to be somewhat independent. Now it’s headed by a Trump bite. He wrote part of Project 2025,

    He wrote the part of it on the media, and that’s Brendan Carr. He’s maybe even more ferociously right wing than Trump. And so these companies, Nexar, which already owns or operates 200 television stations, and they won’t be running Kimmel, when Kimmel comes back, they want to merge with a company called TEGNA Media. And instead of just reaching 39% of US households, which is what the cap is now, they want it changed to 80%. And Brendan Carr at the FCC has basically said he would do that. So the FCC has to approve the Nexar merger. They need to approve that. The Justice Department will have to, is now investigating the merger Disney wants, where they will take over FUBU to go along with their Hulu. And it’s also the internet tycoons. I mean the billionaires control the media, and you had all of them sitting in the front row of the Trump inauguration. That was unprecedented. Marc, you and I go back a few decades, but for young viewers,

    We have to let them know how abnormal all of this is. That instead of in the front row being US Senators who’ve been in office for 20, 30 years, it was the tech moguls. It was Zuckerberg, it was Bezos, it was Elon Musk. Bezos owns the Washington Post. He’s demanded that the opinion page only have free market propaganda. You can’t be critical of corporate capitalism on the Washington Post. People have had to resign their political cartoonists, their award winner. Ann, tell Nate, she had to resign recently over comments about Charlie Kirk that were accurate just quoting what Kirk stands for

    Marc Steiner:

    Said what actually said. Right?

    Jeff Cohen:

    Yes. She got fired. The Global Opinions editor and African-American woman, Karen Atia. So the censorship is worse than ever. It’s happening because the media are concentrating in the hands of a few. People always say, well, at least Colbert can go until May. I’ll be shocked if he survives till May Kimmel’s contract. He’s coming back, but he’s coming back limping because those huge station groups aren’t carrying it. At least not now. And I saw a great quote from the head of Nexstar or from their pr, they’re not going to bring Kimmel back to their, I think they have more than 30 ABC affiliates because approval is pending. They want to see if Kimmel will be fostering an environment of respectful dialogue. Now, I guess that means they can’t cover anything that comes out of the mouth of Trump. He’s usually so abusive and name calling, but Kimmel, they want to be more obedient.

    So yeah, it’s utterly dangerous that the billionaires and these conglomerates have been having so much handed, so much media power. All they care about is profit maximization. They don’t care about journalism. They don’t care about the right to dissent. A, B, C News is a shrinking part of the Disney conglomerate. They don’t care about news or journalism. Paramount Skydance because they got rid of, or they’ve terminated Colbert as of May. That merger went through with Paramount that owns Comedy Central and CBS merging with Skydance, which is Larry Ellison’s money. He’s the 81-year-old billionaire who founded Oracle. His son David is the CEO of Skydance. They’ve already announced they’re going to move CBS news to the right. They’re going to make sure there’s no bias, nothing that will offend Trump. People have already left CBS news because of this. It’s going to get worse. And there was an amazing column by a former Wall Street banker who’s now a publisher in the New York Times a couple days ago.

    And he said, Larry Ellison, the 81-year-old billionaire who’s now perhaps the billionaire most closely allied with Trump since Trump had his falling out with Musk, this guy is now the behind Paramount Skydance, which owns CBS Comedy Central and so much more. He’s going to get a majority stake. He’s part of this consortium taking over TikTok, and there’s evidence that Larry Ellison wants to take over Warner Brothers discovery, which owns HBO CNN. So we’re in, and again, if Trump gets what he wants out of these conglomerates, he’s going to approve these mergers that would not have been able to be approved years or decades ago.

    Marc Steiner:

    So one of the things I was thinking about reading all this and leading up to this conversation, but also just covering this because of the years I’ve been doing this work in media, is that this reminds me of the period of the trusts that ran America in the late 1890s, early 19 hundreds before Teddy Roosevelt broke them up. All you can say about Teddy Roosevelt, you can say about him, but he broke up the trusts, he went after

    Jeff Cohen:

    Them,

    Marc Steiner:

    He didn’t back down. So where do you think that political force today to take this on?

    Jeff Cohen:

    Well, what’s fascinating is when you do polls of the public, whether it’s right wing people, left wing people, everyone thinks there’s too much corporate power and too much corporate. It’s just not debatable that the masses want these things broken up. You can do polls on this. Are the insurance companies too big? Is big pharma too big? So you bring up the key point that the reason the media have been able to be put in the hands of such a few companies is antitrust law quit being enforced.

    The Federal Communications Commission kept changing its rules to loosen ownership caps. And I mean, think about antitrust, one of the most important cases in the area of media and information when governments still enforced antitrust law that as you say, came about at the turn of the 20th century with a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt in 1948, the Justice Department in a suit initiated under Franklin Roosevelt’s government that was continued under Harry Truman’s government. They said to the big movie studios, the case is called United States versus Paramount, the movie studios, you want to own movie studios. You shouldn’t be able to own the where you produce the content. You shouldn’t be able to own the movie theaters that are at the end delivery point of the product or the content. Classic vertical monopoly

    Marc Steiner:

    Was

    Jeff Cohen:

    Not allowed. And they had to sell off their theaters. And it allowed independent movies to sometimes be shown in theaters because there was no longer this vertical monopoly. That was 1948, beginning in the eighties with Reagan continuing with Clinton in the nineties. And Bush and Obama. They don’t enforce antitrust law. And what was interesting is one of Biden’s best appointments of all was the head of the Federal Trade Commission, Lena Kahn. And she was really a break on some of these mergers. And you had big democratic donors like Kamala Harris’s big donor, Reed Hoffman was demanding month after month. They’ve got to get rid of Lena Khan at the Federal Trade Commission

    Because she was obstructing these ridiculous mergers that all would’ve been illegal 10, 20, 50 years ago. And if Kamala Harris had been elected and Kahn was probably going to go. So that’s the problem you bring up antitrust. We used to have rules that made the economy more competitive and allowed smaller outlets, smaller companies, including smaller media companies to compete. That’s a bygone era, and it’s not a natural process that the media were handed over to a few companies. It’s utterly corrupt. These companies were funding both parties, usually done behind closed doors. As you know, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the biggest change in media law for 60 years was hardly discussed in mainstream media.

    Marc Steiner:

    Nobody covered it. I mean, in that period, I forced a conversation on Capitol Hill with our Maryland Congressman about that bill, because you saw the handwriting on the wall. You knew what it was going to mean. So I just wonder, in all the ways of looking where our media is at this moment, how do you see the political opposition organizing to stop it? Or does it exist?

    Jeff Cohen:

    Well, the fascinating thing is most of the people getting censored are not as famous or big as Jimmy Kimmel, but when he got suspended, it was an uprising. There were demonstrations in the streets. There were all these online petitions. There was let’s boycott Disney, boycott Hulu, 400 of the biggest names in Hollywood all signed an ACLU petition protesting the FCC, putting pressure to get Kimmel suspended. So that’s the good news is people know how to organize on behalf of freedom of speech, the right to dissent. But a broader answer to your question is independent media. That’s the key. I’ve supported The Real News Network since day one. If you know about The Real News Network, and most Americans do not.

    Marc Steiner:

    Right

    Jeff Cohen:

    Fund it, tell your neighbors and friends and relatives about it, independent news outlets are doing the serious journalistic work and having the serious debates that are not happening in mainstream media. And so if you’re an activist who cares about these big issues, whether it’s labor rights, environmental rights, environmental justice, anti-racism, you’ve got to also be, if you’re an activist on any of those issues, your second issue should be media activism. And if you’re a media activist, that means you resist censorship wherever you see it, and you use your own email, your own social media, your own word of mouth to promote The Real News Network, to support these places that are doing the real digging and having the voices. I can’t get on mainstream media anymore. I was banned in 2003. They

    Marc Steiner:

    Won’t have you.

    Jeff Cohen:

    I mean, with Phil Donahue, I saw what media censorship was up close. And so I’m a big believer in independent media. The independent media is strong, but it needs activist to promote it because The Real News Network doesn’t exactly have a big ad budget.

    Marc Steiner:

    It does not. I think one of the things in terms of what you’re laying out for people to hear is that most Americans, I think at this point don’t understand the danger we’re in with this kind of right wing authoritarian power in Washington dc. The destruction of our independent media, the monopolies taking place over our media and what we hear and learn. I mean, this is a moment where I think that people have to, the most we can do is to make people understand what we face. Our democracy is under threat. Our media independence is under threat. One of the things about America that made it blossom was freedom of the press. People speaking their minds and presses in the newspapers being owned locally by people in the community.

    Jeff Cohen:

    You’ve said it. I mean, we were the original democracy. It was always imperfect, always was racist.

    Marc Steiner:

    But

    Jeff Cohen:

    We went to Tocqueville, a French nobleman, traveling all around the us. He’s just amazed. Everyone’s reading newspapers. He came from Europe where it was all monarchs. And I’ve marveled as recently as a few weeks ago, that we’re a country where you can have Jimmy Kimmel and Colbert criticizing, ridiculing the president night after night with millions of people watching. But again, that seems to be a thing of the past. Even the comedians are going to have to go independent. Colbert. If he wants to do something, he’ll be doing it online. Probably Kim will, John Stewart, they’re all making plans for a post conglomerate. I mean, we have these great comics that have kept many of us sane through the Trump era, but they’re all employed by conglomerates. Paramount employs Colbert and John Stewart and the team at Comedy Central at the Daily Show, Warner Brothers Discovery, which may have a new right wing owner.

    Soon they employ one of the great investigative journalists of our day, the comedian John Oliver Comcast. And Trump’s been threatening Comcast. Comcast is the employer of Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon on NBC. Now, most people, if we had media literacy in the schools, kids would be taught, oh, okay, here are the companies that own the media and information system, but we don’t have media literacy in our schools. So yeah, it’s very dangerous. The comedians have been a breath of fresh air. I’ve always said that you can learn more from a 10 minute monologue from Kimmel or John Oliver or Colbert than from watching like a month of news on those very same channels. The journalists have always been, this is why fair.org exists. And by the way, a good way to fight for media against censorship is with fair.org. But the reason we exist is because of this censorship that has gone on, and you can resist it together as a group, and it’s more effective. I am telling people the worst thing you can do in a period like this where Trump is collaborating with conglomerates to squeeze dissenting voices, the worst thing you can do is sit at home alone. You’ve got to join organizations. You need to become a sustainer of the Real News Network. You have to join fair fair.org. I’m also with Roots Action and Activism Group that fights this censorship roots action.org. When you’d start joining with other people.

    That personal despair I think can be eroded because we’re taking action and we’re doing it with other like-minded people.

    Marc Steiner:

    What you’re saying is really critical. Everything you’ve been writing about it, I think is very critical. But what you’re saying at this moment in our conversation is critical because it’s, we’re not done yet. And I can remember in 19, I am dating myself here. I can remember in 1968 when we convened a national media in Washington DC of alternative media, but not just alternative media of media people, of small newspapers across America who came in to start talking about what we have to do to organize, to not allow then the corporate media from owning everything. And I think we’re at that moment.

    Jeff Cohen:

    Yeah, and we’re at that. I think it’s the most dangerous moment since the height of the Joe McCarthy era

    Of Blacklist, where so many journalists were purged. Edward Murrow didn’t even defend some of the journalists that got purged from CBS News. Journalists across the country were purged. Academics were purged. Union leaders were purged. A number of unions were almost smashed during that era. And today, one of the most outrageous things that’s happened in the last week or two is the University of California President has taken the names of 160 professors, students and staff, and turn them over for investigation to Trump on the basis that maybe they engaged in antisemitism. We know a lot of these people on the list are Jewish. It’s a hoax, as we know from the encampments, protesting the Gaza genocide. And my daughter is one of them.

    So many of the protesters are Jewish, but they use this charade, this hoax that they’re antisemitic when they protest the University of California being invested with Israel in killing Palestinian civilians. So they’ve turned over a list. It’s like if you’re talking about echoes of the McCarthy era, when a university is turning over a list and the people on the list don’t know what they did, they’ve been notified. They’re on the list, they have no clue why they’re on the list. Many of them are Jewish. They are not antisemitic. So yes, it’s a dangerous time, but we still have independent media. And if you put together the audience of the Real News Network and Democracy Now, and Common Dreams and Truth Dig and Truth Out and Counter Punch, and the Young Turks salon.com, I mean, you’ve got millions of people every day are getting independent news from non-corporate, non conglomerated sources. That’s new. Now, there’s obviously tens of millions that don’t know about these independent sources, but the fact that so many millions of people are getting the news every hour. This didn’t happen in the sixties. In the sixties and early seventies, which was a boom in independent media, which had underground newspapers and liberation news service. But it basically reached a youth demographic,

    And it was once a week, aside from Pacifica Radio, it was once a week with the internet. We have these independent outlets that are giving you the real scoop, as you guys say, the Real News on an hourly and daily basis. And we didn’t have that in the late sixties, early seventies when the underground press, the alternative media boomed.

    Marc Steiner:

    Well, I really do appreciate this conversation, and I do want to have more of these conversations with you and others, and we have to keep this fire burning, and you keep your fire burning and keep putting yourself out there.

    Jeff Cohen:

    Thanks. And we have to be optimistic. I know The Real News Network emphasizes taking action, not just learning the news.

    Marc Steiner:

    That’s right. That’s

    Jeff Cohen:

    Right. That’s the key.

    Marc Steiner:

    That’s the key.

    Jeff Cohen:

    Thanks, Marc.

    Marc Steiner:

    Once again, thank you so much.

    Jeff Cohen:

    Thank you.

    Marc Steiner:

    We’ll stay in touch once again. Let me thank Jeff Cohen for joining us today. And thanks to David Hebden for not only running the program, but editing today’s program and producer Rosette Sewali for making it all work behind the scenes and everyone here through the news for making this show possible. So please let me know what you thought about what you heard today and what you’d like us to cover. Just write to me at mss@therealnews.com, and I’ll get right back to you. Once again, thank you to Jeff Cohen for joining us today and for the valuable work he does for all of us. So for the crew here at The Real News, I’m Marc Steiner. Stay involved. Keep listening, and take care.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • No CCF Government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full programme of socialized planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the Cooperative Commonwealth.

    — 1933 Regina Manifesto

    During two months of campaigning to lead the NDP we’ve questioned the foundation of our economic system more than all branches of the party over the past few years. But our position has deep roots in the NDP/CCF and is more relevant than ever as capitalism destroys the prospect for human survival.

    In a recent hit piece labelling me a “perennial gadfly” National Post columnist John Ivison mockingly noted, “Engler is campaigning on a platform to abolish capitalism.” At the more liberal end of the corporate press, Toronto Star reporter Mark Ramzy buried my candidacy in a long piece devoting significant attention to the more capital friendly contestants, simply noting I was running “for the leadership on an anti-military and anti-capitalist platform.” The Western Standard, Queen’s Journal, Rebel, Left of the Box and others have all described me as an anti-capitalist candidate and hundreds of thousands have read or watched my launch commentary, releases and videos saying I’m running to challenge capitalism. In recent days thousands of “capitalism can’t be fixed” leaflets and posters for the Toronto launch of a ten-city national tour have been distributed.

    Aside from this recent flurry of anti-capitalist rhetoric, it’s remarkable how little discussion in NDP circles there has been of our wealth-concentrating, ecologically destructive economic system. But challenging capitalism is more important than ever.

    Capitalism is a system of minority and class rule that is based on the private ownership of the means of livelihood. Capitalist collectives (corporations) have socialized labour while operating as privately owned workplace dictatorships that centralize power in the hands of a small elite.

    Capitalism is a threat to humanity. The system’s need for constant profit maximization and growth is imperilling human survival. The last three years were the hottest in 100,000 years and CO2 levels are the highest in millions of years. Canadians have among the highest per capita GHG emissions, yet Canadian capital continues to expand its heavy GHG emitting tar sands extraction.

    It’s not just the climate crisis. The search for corporate profits is driving mass species extinction, soil depletion, ozone layer thinning, loss of arable land, freshwater depletion and other ecological crises.

    Capitalism is imperilling our ability to live on the planet but it’s also destroying our health. The growing health impact of plastics, a late twentieth century corporate invention, is a case in point. Researchers have found that most of us now have as much as a small spoon worth of plastic particles in our brains.

    Capitalism also damages our mental health. Incessant messages to buy this and buy that are destabilizing. A staggering amount of resources and ingenuity are devoted to convincing us we need this or that (always more) to be satisfied.

    At the same time as it wages a war on our psyche, capitalism alienates us from our labour. It devalues work, generally paying the hardest working people the least. In recent years Canadian capital has waged an unrelenting war on working class organizations, driving Canada’s private sector unionization rate to its lowest level in 80 years.

    As capitalists attack unions, the system concentrates wealth in the hands of an ever-smaller elite few. Canada’s wealthiest family, the Thompsons, have nearly $100 billion. Canada has about 75 billionaires, who control more wealth than millions of Canadians. According to data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the richest 1% of Canadians hold 24% of the country’s total net wealth while 53% of all wealth is held by the top 10%.

    Wealth concentration is a threat to democracy. Through their ownership of shares, large shareholders have an excessive amount of power within the political system. They buy political parties, own the media, fund think tanks, organize themselves in business lobby groups, amongst other things. In short, they try to mould societies’ political, cultural and economic structure to their benefit.

    But my campaign does not just criticize capitalism. It offers an alternative.

    One dollar one vote capitalism should be replaced with one person one vote economic democracy. Wherever there’s social labour, there should be community ownership and workplace democracy.

    As my late uncle Allan Engler argued in Economic Democracy: The Working Class Alternative to Capitalism the required social change should “be based on workplace organizations, community mobilizations and democratic political action; on gains and reforms that improve living conditions while methodically replacing wealthholders’ entitlement with human entitlement, capitalist ownership with community ownership and master-servant relations with workplace democracy.” (You can watch my father’s series of videos called Economic Democracy or No Democracy — An Anti Oligarchy Manifesto seeking to popularize the themes.)

    And these ideas are clearly growing in popularity.

    In its first ten days of fundraising my bid to lead the NDP on an anti-capitalist platform has raised over $55, 000. Additionally, we’ve more than doubled the nomination threshold to participate in the leadership race with over 1,000 party members, covering all the party’s regional, equity and age requirements, signing my nomination form.

    Despite fulfilling the nomination and financial criteria, there’s a possibility the party brass will block me from the race. But even those who don’t plan to vote for me should reject this type of anti-democratic manipulation. All but the most reactionary party members should want capitalism to be on the agenda in the NDP leadership race.

    This is the CCF/NDP tradition. According to the 1933 Regina Manifesto, the aim of the party is to “REPLACE the present capitalist system” while the 1969 Waffle manifesto says, “Capitalism must be replaced by socialism.”

    If I’m not allowed to participate in the race don’t expect much discussion of capitalism. If I’m allowed to run expect everyone in the race to be questioning the odious economic system by the end of it.

    The post Back to the Future: NDP Must Debate Capitalism again first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Although physical attacks against journalists are the most visible violations of press freedom, economic pressure is also a major, more insidious problem. The economic indicator on the RSF World Press Freedom Index now stands at an unprecedented, critical low as its decline continued in 2025. As a result, the global state of press freedom is now classified as a “difficult situation” for the first time in the history of the Index. See the Index

    At a time when press freedom is experiencing a worrying decline in many parts of the world, a major — yet often underestimated — factor is seriously weakening the media: economic pressure. Much of this is due to ownership concentration, pressure from advertisers and financial backers, and public aid that is restricted, absent or allocated in an opaque manner. The data measured by the RSF Index’s economic indicator clearly shows that today’s news media are caught between preserving their editorial independence and ensuring their economic survival.

    “Guaranteeing freedom, independence and plurality in today’s media landscape requires stable and transparent financial conditions. Without economic independence, there can be no free press. When news media are financially strained, they are drawn into a race to attract audiences at the expense of quality reporting, and can fall prey to the oligarchs and public authorities who seek to exploit them. When journalists are impoverished, they no longer have the means to resist the enemies of the press — those who champion disinformation and propaganda. The media economy must urgently be restored to a state that is conducive to journalism and ensures the production of reliable information, which is inherently costly. Solutions exist and must be deployed on a large scale. The media’s financial independence is a necessary condition for ensuring free, trustworthy information that serves the public interest.” Anne Bocandé, RSF Editorial Director

    Of the five main indicators that determine the World Press Freedom Index, the indicator measuring the financial conditions of journalism and economic pressure on the industry dragged down the world’s overall score in 2025. 

    The economic indicator in the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom Index is at its lowest point in history, and the global situation is now considered “difficult.”

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Evidence posted over the weekend online appears to show that tech giant Google has allowed the government of Israel to purchase sponsored content spots so that online users searching on the Global Sumud Flotilla will be shown inaccurate, propagandized content accusing the flotilla particpants as being allied with violent, terrorist elements. The Sumud Flotilla — a group of international…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Israel’s airstrikes on a media complex in Yemen last week resulted in the largest single attack on journalists the world has seen in 16 years, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. In a report released Friday, the group said that 31 journalists from two government-run newspapers based in Sana’a were killed in the strikes on September 10, along with four others…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Journalists and defenders of press freedom are expressing alarm and condemnation after the Pentagon, under the command of President Donald Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, announced new restrictions on reporters that include pre-approval of stories that include even unclassified material and a new pledge to not publish any material without permissions from government officials.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • US public affairs giant SKDK has ended a $600,000 contract with the Israeli government that “promoted Israel’s perspective” about the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, according to POLITICO.

    “SKDK stopped this work on Aug. 31 and has begun the process of de-registering,” a spokesperson for SKDK told the DC-based magazine, declining to comment on the reasons why the contract was cut short early, saying only that the work “had run its course.”

    According to POLITICO, the contract between Tel Aviv and SKDK was expected to run until March 2026.

    The announcement followed a report by Sludge on 15 September that said the firm was involved in a bot program to boost pro-Israel content online.

    The post Top US Firm Ends Contract With Israel To Whitewash Gaza War Crimes appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The former lawyer was outspoken about China’s response to the Covid pandemic

    A Chinese citizen journalist who was previously jailed after reporting from the frontlines of the Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan is set to face trial for the second time, according to human rights activists and media freedom groups.

    Zhang Zhan, who was released from prison in May 2024 after serving four years behind bars, is expected to face trial once again for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”, a catch-all term used to target government critics, at 9am on Friday at the Shanghai Pudong New Area people’s court.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Charlie Kirk’s assassination will likely serve as the crux of a new era of political violence and repression in the United States. In the days since Kirk was shot at a speaking event at Utah Valley University, right-wing groups and figures have demanded mass censorship of all critical online speech directed at Kirk. President Donald Trump has effectively attributed the attack to the “radical left” and vowed to go after those he deems responsible. Mass doxing campaigns targeting people who contextualized Kirk’s politics or celebrated his killing has led to firings across the country.

    Amid the online chaos, narratives surrounding Kirk’s assassin, stemming from incomplete reporting from mainstream outlets and a lack of clear analysis by the FBI, have further fueled confusion and outrage across the political spectrum.

    The post Chris Hedges Report: Israel, Charlie Kirk, And Weaponization Of Murder appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Shadow Communications Minister Melissa McIntosh has warned that Australia is falling behind on the basics of communications sovereignty, urging the federal government to bolster Australian ownership and control over critical parts of the system or risk losing control of our digital future. “It is time to lead,” Ms McIntosh said in an opinion piece this…

    The post Australia must lead on comms sovereignty: Shadow Minister appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • Revelation relating to then Northern Ireland home affairs correspondent, Vincent Kearney, a ‘matter of grave concern’

    MI5 has conceded it “unlawfully” obtained the communications data of a former BBC journalist, in what was claimed to be an unprecedented admission from the security services.

    The BBC said it was a “matter of grave concern” that the agency had obtained communications data from the mobile phone of Vincent Kearney, a former BBC Northern Ireland home affairs correspondent.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The post Psyop Landfill first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Bullies, never able to hit upwards, always kick down.  The United States beats their vassals in the Indo-Pacific and Europe with vulgar presumption.  Their vassals kick down to their own appointees, expecting compliance and respect to various degrees.  Australia, long known as Washington’s regional deputy sheriff, looks down on its Pacific Island neighbours as basket cases for charity, potential enclaves for terrorism, and vulnerable to the temptation of rival powers.  The language of a relationship falsely described as friendship is better seen as one of financial asymmetry, strategic use and a mockery trapped in the formaldehyde of colonialism.  Australians are both confused tourists and mercenaries in the region – and it shows.

    On the sidelines of the 54th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Honiara in the Solomon Islands, Australian officials had made it clear that all Pacific Island media would have no role in covering the September 10 press conference with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, held, with boisterous irony, at a sports facility funded by the People’s Republic of China.  Papua New Guinea’s National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) was told that “the presser was only for Australian journalists.”

    When he was asked by an Australian journalist, Stefan Armbruster, about the bar on Pacific journalists attending the press gathering, the words, delivered with snotty indifference were: “I don’t know what you are talking about mate.”  Armbruster expressed his dissatisfaction with the whole matter, insisting that this had “to stop and Pacific journalists treated with respect.”

    The Fijian Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, tried to soften matters by assuming that this was an entirely Australian matter, and therefore something for the Australian Prime Minister and his coddling minders.  Landlords, it would seem, must have their day, while native scribblers should repair elsewhere.  “The press conference was his so his press people would have made that arrangement, and they might have restricted access to it, and it’s got nothing to do with the Pacific Island Forum.”  The Fiji Sun was less accommodating, complaining that “the exclusion was both confusing and detrimental to the representation of regional media.”  The decision threatened “to reinforce a narrative that Australia is more focused on controlling its own story than on being a responsible regional partner to Pacific communities.” Rarely has a paper been so relevantly sharp.

    On September 12, the Pacific Freedom Forum released a message condemning the exclusion.  “This ‘shameful’ act represents a direct assault on press freedom and democratic principles within our Pacific region,” complained the PFF chair from the Solomon Islands, Robert Iroga.  “You cannot claim to be part of the Pacific family while silencing Pacific voices.  You cannot talk about partnership while blocking journalists from doing their jobs.  This cannot happen in our region, at our own forum.”   He went on to fume that, “The decision to restrict media access exclusively to Australian outlets while excluding regional journalists demonstrates a troubling disregard for transparency and democratic accountability.”

    Appositely enough, these complaints mirror a state of constrictive circumstances that affect Australia’s own relationship with the United States, the paternal bully and Freudian Daddy Canberra struggles to do without.  Australian officials do little to enlighten the press corps in their country about what, exactly, is going on with such momentous agreements as AUKUS, or the next security bash with America’s uniformed finest.  Canberra’s near criminal expenditure on nuclear powered submarines that Australia will never have with any degree of autonomy, in exchange for bolstering US naval shipyards and creating imperial naval hubs in Australia for deployments against China, is something that the Albanese government remains silent about.  Their preference is to do things in plain sight.

    Better information, without exception, is always to be found in the US State Department and the Pentagon.  The US intelligence facility in Pine Gap in the Northern Territory, ostensibly described as a jointly run outfit with Australian personnel, does nothing to inform the residents of the territory, or of Australia, about its role in maintaining US hegemony.  Guest lists to events on the base rarely feature locals, and certainly not the local political representative.  The facilities have, with little doubt, been used for such unsavoury acts as directing drone strikes against areas of the world most Americans, or Australians, would be unable to locate, spells of strategic bombing, and sharing intelligence with allies no Australian journalist would ever be allowed to officially confirm.

    It may well be that the Albanese government’s inexorable gravitation to secrecy is starting to look, rather disconcertingly, like that of his pathologically clandestine predecessor, Scott Morrison.  Exuding the confidence that comes from a heaving electoral majority, and the concern that his policies might be subjected to greater scrutiny than he would wish, Albanese is embracing the dark magic of the controlled narrative, the heavily curated truth.  If so, such moves are cloddish, insensitive and foolish to the vulnerable island states whose support he so desperately needs.  “Not to put too fine a point on it,” suggests Dan McGarry of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, “but if Australia wants the Pacific to choose it over China, maybe it should make the differences easier, not harder to see.”

    The post Australia Excludes the Pacific Island Press Corps first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In an age of relentless misinformation, immigrant communities in the United States are not just resisting—they are rebuilding. While corporate and legacy news outlets often filter immigrant experiences through sensationalism, victimization, or meritocratic tropes, independent and bilingual media are quietly transforming how stories of migration are told. And in doing so, they’re also restoring something journalism has long struggled to offer immigrant communities: trust.

    When official channels fail, whether due to linguistic barriers, legal repression, or outright neglect, immigrants turn to each other. From Spanish-language radio to WhatsApp news bulletins, the rise of community-rooted journalism shows that mutual aid is not only about sharing food, shelter, or legal advice. It’s also about sharing information—fast, culturally attuned, and free from the fear of state surveillance.

    The Need for New Narratives

    Traditional narratives about immigrants often fall into two categories: the idealized “model immigrant” (valedictorians, doctors, and entrepreneurs) or the demonized “illegal alien.” This binary leaves little room for the majority of immigrants whose lives fall outside those extremes—day laborers, domestic workers, asylum seekers, families navigating mixed-status households.

    Frustrated by this lack of nuance, many immigrant communities have built their own storytelling ecosystems. These are not just emergency alternatives to most news. They are long-standing infrastructures that predate the digital age and have evolved into powerful networks of survival, culture, and resistance.

    The Subversive Power of Spanish-Language Radio

    Take, for instance, Spanish-language radio. In places like the US-Mexico borderlands and immigrant-heavy neighborhoods across the country, radio has become a lifeline. As reported in High Country News, Spanish-language stations often serve as hyperlocal information hubs, broadcasting everything from ICE raid alerts to tenant rights, COVID-19 safety updates, and neighborhood organizing meetings. What makes these broadcasts powerful isn’t just the information, but the tone: intimate, familiar, and deeply rooted in community values.

    For many undocumented listeners, this format offers something the government and corporate media cannot: safety. Unlike online platforms like Facebook or Twitter, which are surveilled by ICE through data brokers and keyword-tracking software, radio remains difficult to monitor en masse. What’s more, many stations allow for anonymous call-ins or listener requests, preserving both privacy and participation.

    WhatsApp Journalism

    While radio lays the groundwork, messaging apps like WhatsApp have exploded in popularity among immigrant communities as trusted news delivery systems. Why? Because they are encrypted, peer-to-peer, and resistant to algorithmic censorship. In cities like Miami, Houston, and Los Angeles, organizers use WhatsApp groups to circulate flyers about know-your-rights workshops, eyewitness updates during ICE raids, or rapid-response legal resources. Sometimes, these groups reach hundreds of members in minutes.

    One standout example is El Timpano, an Oakland-based outlet that has pioneered Spanish-language, text-message-based reporting tailored to the city’s Latino immigrant population. Their reporters use survey tools and direct outreach to ask residents what they want to know about housing, jobs, and local politics, and then deliver the answers right to their phones.

    This method flips the traditional journalism model on its head. Rather than assuming what audiences want, El Timpano lets the audience lead.

    Grassroots Media as Mutual Aid

    This participatory, community-first model echoes mutual aid philosophies that have guided immigrant survival for decades. During the pandemic, groups like Make the Road NY and Mijente didn’t wait for traditional media to validate their concerns. They built their own communication networks, livestreams, newsletters, and social media blasts that combined real-time reporting with calls to action.

    What ties these projects together is a deep respect for the lived knowledge within immigrant communities. Outlets like Prism Reports, El Tecolote in San Francisco, and Documented NY don’t parachute in to cover a story—they already live it. Their reporters are often first-generation themselves, multilingual, and understand the stakes firsthand.

    Rebuilding Trust, One Story at a Time

    One of the most insidious effects of anti-immigrant policies, from surveillance tech to detention center gag rules, is the erosion of trust. When ICE agents impersonate police or social workers, when newsrooms repeat official statements without scrutiny, immigrants learn to keep their heads down and stay silent. Restoring that trust means going hyperlocal, multilingual, and deeply relational.

    These independent immigrant-led media outlets are working. They’re informing. They’re protecting. And they’re reminding us that journalism at its best is not a spectacle, it’s a service.

    Lessons for the Wider Media Landscape

    There’s much that legacy outlets can learn from these efforts. First, abandon the savior narrative. Immigrants are not waiting to be “given a voice,” they’re already speaking, loudly and clearly. Second, invest in multilingual reporting not as a side project, but as central to newsroom equity. And finally, respect local knowledge. The people most affected by immigration policy are often the most equipped to explain its impacts.

    Journalism schools and philanthropic funders, too, have a role to play. Support youth storytelling projects, such as 826 Valencia, Define American, and Radio Pulso. Train and hire more bilingual reporters. Fund community media with the same urgency given to big tech “misinformation” efforts. Because the misinformation that harms immigrant communities often isn’t just falsehoods, it’s omission, dehumanization, and erasure.

    A Media Future Rooted in Dignity

    In the face of deportation raids, algorithmic surveillance, and the constant threat of detention, immigrants are doing more than surviving; they’re documenting. And they’re doing it on their own terms.

    When traditional media ask how to regain trust, the answer isn’t just better fact-checking or polished podcasts. The answer may lie in a WhatsApp chain warning neighbors of an unmarked ICE van. In a late-night radio broadcast about workers’ rights. In a text from a community reporter who listens before they report.

    In these everyday acts of media-making, dignity persists. And so does resistance.

    The post How Immigrant Communities Are Reclaiming Media on Their Own Terms first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Our latest visual, created in partnership with Prism Reports, visualizes a months-long Prism investigation conducted by journalist Laura Albast, on pro-Israel bias in mainstream U.S. newsrooms, particularly after Oct. 7, 2023.

    Read the full investigation here. Special thanks to Yara Ramadan for her design collaboration on this visual.

    The report takes a deep, investigative dive into the experiences of repression and silencing that journalists face in the U.S. while attempting to cover the genocide accurately and factually. This collaboration between Prism and Visualizing Palestine reveals and illustrates what happens to stories about Palestine in U.S. newsrooms, from inception to reporting, editing, and publication.










    Albast spoke with nearly a dozen journalists across the U.S. who described resistance from editors and managers surrounding coverage that centered, or even mentioned, Palestinians. Journalists, who are either Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim, told Prism that they were shut out of coverage around Israel’s genocide in Gaza, while white, Jewish, or Israeli—oftentimes former soldiers —journalists took the lead. They said they witnessed Palestinian voices and stories being quashed, as external Zionist groups unleashed campaigns of complaints and harassment against such reporting.

    Albast deftly pulls together firsthand accounts from journalists and investigations that demonstrate pro-Israel bias at newsrooms like The New York Times, NPR, The Wall Street Journal, and even progressive media organizations like More Perfect Union. As anti-genocide readers turn away from complicit media, many turn to independent media that align with their values. While much of this reporting centers on Palestinian journalists in the U.S., Albast also includes non-Palestinian reporters, whose experiences underscore how even those more broadly connected to the region, as well as those trying to tell the truth, can be sidelined. We are left to ask, however, what does the future hold for these journalists in the U.S.?

    The post What Happens to Stories About Palestine in U.S. Newsrooms? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • What’s the best way to pass on what you learned from more than a half century of left-wing doing, reading, writing, talking and thinking?

    Write a book. This was especially obvious to a retired union-activist-journalist-novelist grandfather. So, I did. Started writing a book tentatively titled Economic Democracy or No Democracy — An Anti Oligarchy Manifesto.

    But then I actually listened to my grandchildren and learned they don’t read much. Instead, their pipeline to understanding the world is social media, mostly memes and videos, few of which exceed five minutes of attention span. At first, I argued with them. “You should read. Much more. Opens your mind to places, experiences, ideas …”

    They try to be polite to grandpa but there’s no mistaking the disinterest as cellphone-induced zombie (perhaps Zen-like?) eyes stare at a screen on the table instead of me.

    How to respond? What to do? Decades of union organizing has taught me the importance of listening. Meeting people where they are at. Following their lead rather than trying to impose an ‘organizing template’ on them. The most successful organizing drives are ones in which the ‘organizer’ is a resource, an assistant in a process where the unorganized transform themselves into the organized. “The union is U” — an old slogan expressing a fundamental truth.

    So, how to meet my grandchildren and other young people where they are at? How to say something they might consider listening to?

    Perhaps these are questions someone two generations removed can never really answer. Certainly, in the late 1960s and early ’70s, when I was the ages of my two oldest grandchildren there was no way most ‘old people’ were deemed worthy of even asking their opinion about war, politics and life in general, let alone the really important issues of the day like sex, relationships and feminism.

    Still, it is important for a socialist and union elder to try passing on at least a few things that might help young people today learn from our experiences — successes and, most of all, failures. According to a TV documentary about elephants, the oldest females are the ones able to lead the herd to faraway, lifesaving watering holes in times of drought.

    Surely this era of climate-change-ignoring-billionaire-emperor CEOs, ‘free-world’-supported- live-streamed genocide, Donald Trump and all the other authoritarian, about-to-turn-fascistic ‘world leaders’ is at least the human political equivalent of a savannah drought.

    We are in a crisis almost certainly about to get worse and the young ones need our working-class socialism, union-movement elderly-elephant-like accumulated knowledge to survive. It is up to us whose tusks are falling out to do what we can to save the herd.

    So, I taught myself how to make videos, created the Your Socialist Grandfather YouTube channel and turned my book manuscript into 43 five-minute-or-so-long videos. I call it a video book and the first few episodes are already live on YouTube with a new one added every second day.

    Mostly the free videos are about creating a new inclusive language of economic democracy to replace the old socialist/Marxist/anarchist jargon that divided us and to understand capitalism as another in a long line of tiny minorities attempting to rule over the vast majority.

    As Your Socialist Grandfather sees it, ‘the left’ must get back to what was its original reason for existence — to fight for one-person, one vote democracy in the economic as well as political systems that govern our lives. To achieve our goals, we must get rid of capitalist dictatorship in our economy and workplaces as well as oligarchy/authoritarianism in our political systems. We must challenge capitalists’ claim to “own” our economies.

    The post Young People Must Choose: Economic Democracy or No Democracy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Israeli crimes perpetrated AFTER October 7th 2023 represent the reason why the October 7th events unfolded. 

    You read that correctly, but I’ll say it again: the Israeli crimes perpetrated AFTER October 7th are why the heroic Palestinian resistance (i.e. Hamas) attacked the Nazi Zionist apartheid terrorist entity to begin with.

    But what happened on October 7th? 

    This is something that’s been discussed extensively; discussed honestly only in rare cases, but distorted, misinterpreted and lied about the vast majority of the time. 

    This is because the doctrine/policy of (pro-)Israeli propagandists and their allies – the prostitutes of propaganda- such as CNN, the BBC, Fox News, Talk TV and countless others, conforms to the Nazi practices of Hitler and his minister Joseph Goebbels. 

    The post Propaganda 101: The Illusion Of Truth appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The Israeli crimes perpetrated AFTER October 7th 2023 represent the reason why the October 7th events unfolded. 

    You read that correctly, but I’ll say it again: the Israeli crimes perpetrated AFTER October 7th are why the heroic Palestinian resistance (i.e. Hamas) attacked the Nazi Zionist apartheid terrorist entity to begin with.

    But what happened on October 7th? 

    This is something that’s been discussed extensively; discussed honestly only in rare cases, but distorted, misinterpreted and lied about the vast majority of the time. 

    This is because the doctrine/policy of (pro-)Israeli propagandists and their allies – the prostitutes of propaganda- such as CNN, the BBC, Fox News, Talk TV and countless others, conforms to the Nazi practices of Hitler and his minister Joseph Goebbels. 

    The post Propaganda 101: The Illusion Of Truth appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ANALYSIS: By Simon Levett, University of Technology Sydney

    Journalist Mariam Dagga was just 33 when she was brutally killed by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza on August 25.

    As a freelance photographer and videographer, she had captured the suffering in Gaza through indelible images of malnourished children and grief-stricken families. In her will, she told her colleagues not to cry and her 13-year-old son to make her proud.

    Dagga was killed alongside four other journalists — and 16 others — in an attack on a hospital that has drawn widespread condemnation and outrage.

    This attack followed the killings of six Al Jazeera journalists by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in a tent housing journalists in Gaza City earlier on August 10. The dead included Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Anas al-Sharif.

    A montage of killed Palestinian journalists
    A montage of killed Palestinian journalists . . . Shireen Abu Akleh (from left), Mariam Dagga, Hossam Shabat, Anas Al-Sharif and Yasser Murtaja. Image: Montage/The Conversation

    Israel’s nearly two-year war in Gaza is among the deadliest in modern times. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which has tracked journalist deaths globally since 1992, has counted a staggering 189 Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza since the war began. Two other counts more widely cited have ranged between 248 and 272

    Many of the journalists worked as freelancers for major news organisations since Israel has banned foreign correspondents from entering Gaza.

    In addition, the organisation has confirmed the killings of two Israeli journalists, along with six journalists killed in Israel’s strikes on Lebanon.





     

    ‘It was very traumatising for me’
    I went to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in Israel and Ramallah in the West Bank in 2019 to conduct part of my PhD research on the available protections for journalists in conflict zones.

    During that time, I interviewed journalists from major international outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, CNN, BBC and others, in addition to local Palestinian freelance journalists and fixers. I also interviewed a Palestinian journalist working for Al Jazeera English, with whom I remained in contact until recently.

    I did not visit Gaza due to safety concerns. However, many of the journalists had reported from there and were familiar with the conditions, which were dangerous even before the war.

    Osama Hassan, a local journalist, told me about working in the West Bank:

    “There are no rules, there’s no safety. Sometimes, when settlers attack a village, for example, we go to cover, but Israeli soldiers don’t respect you, they don’t respect anything called Palestinian […] even if you are a journalist.”

    Nuha Musleh, a fixer in Jerusalem, described an incident that occurred after a stone was thrown towards IDF soldiers:

    “[…] they started shooting right and left – sound bombs, rubber bullets, one of which landed in my leg. I was taken to hospital. The correspondent also got injured. The Israeli cameraman also got injured. So all of us got injured, four of us.

    “It was very traumatising for me. I never thought that a sound bomb could be that harmful. I was in hospital for a good week. Lots of stitches.”

    Better protections for local journalists and fixers
    My research found there is very little support for local journalists and fixers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in terms of physical protection, and no support in terms of their mental health.

    International law mandates that journalists are protected as civilians in conflict zones under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. However, these laws have not historically extended protections specific to the needs of journalists.

    Media organisations, media rights groups and governments have been unequivocal in their demands that Israel take greater precautions to protect journalists in Gaza and investigate strikes like the one that killed Mariam Dagga.

    London-based artist Nishita Jha (@NishSwish) illustrated this tribute to the slain Gaza journalist Mariam Dagga
    London-based artist Nishita Jha (@NishSwish) illustrated this tribute to the slain Gaza journalist Mariam Dagga. Image: The Fuller Project

    Sadly, there is seemingly little media organisations can do to help their freelance contributors in Gaza beyond issuing statements noting concern for their safety, lobbying Israel to allow evacuations, and demanding access for foreign reporters to enter the strip.

    International correspondents typically have training on reporting from war zones, in addition to safety equipment, insurance and risk assessment procedures. However, local journalists and fixers in Gaza do not generally have access to the same protections, despite bearing the brunt of the effects of war, which includes mass starvation.

    Despite the enormous difficulties, I believe media organisations must strive to meet their employment law obligations, to the best of their ability, when it comes to local journalists and fixers. This is part of their duty of care.

    For example, research shows fixers have long been the “most exploited and persecuted people” contributing to the production of international news. They are often thrust into precarious situations without hazardous environment training or medical insurance. And many times, they are paid very little for their work.

    Local journalists and fixers in Gaza must be paid properly by the media organisations hiring them. This should take into consideration not just the woeful conditions they are forced to work and live in, but the immense impact of their jobs on their mental health.

    As the global news director for Agence France-Presse said recently, paying local contributors is very difficult — they often bear huge transaction costs to access their money.

    “We try to compensate by paying more to cover that,” he said.

    But he did not address whether the agency would change its security protocols and training for conflict zones, given journalists themselves are being targeted in Gaza in their work.

    These local journalists are literally putting their lives on the line to show the world what’s happening in Gaza. They need greater protections.

    As Ammar Awad, a local photographer in the West Bank, told me:

    “The photographer does not care about himself. He cares about the pictures, how he can shoot good pictures, to film something good.

    “But he needs to be in a good place that is safe for him.”The Conversation

    Simon Levett is a PhD candidate in public international law, University of Technology Sydney. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • New Delhi, September 4, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists warns that the Nepali government’s decision to block access to social media platforms across the country will seriously hinder journalists’ work and people’s access to news and information. 

    “Nepal’s sweeping ban on social media sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom,” said CPJ Regional Director Beh Lih Yi. “Blocking online news platforms vital to journalists will undermine reporting and the public’s right to information. The government must immediately rescind this order and restore access to social media platforms, which are essential tools for exercising press freedom.” 

    On Thursday, Nepal’s Ministry of Communication and Information Technology directed the Nepal Telecommunications Authority to immediately shut down access to platforms that had failed to heed an August 25 Cabinet directive requiring foreign social media and online streaming platforms to register within seven days.

    The Supreme Court also ruled on August 17 that online platforms must be registered before operating in Nepal, so as to monitor misinformation.

    Platforms’ internet access may be restored gradually if they initiate the registration process, according to a copy of the ministry’s September 4 directive, reviewed by CPJ.

    The Japanese-owned app Viber and Chinese-owned TikTok have registered, while most major Western platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and X have not, newsreports said.

    Communication Ministry Secretary Radhika Aryal did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment. However, in an interview with the news site Corporate Nepal, she said that Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, had repeatedly refused government requests to register.

    Meta, X, and Google, which owns YouTube, did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed requests for comment.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • During my time as head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), I frequently travelled to Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Brazil, but never to Venezuela. There was simply no need.

    The Venezuelan government’s collaboration in the fight against drug trafficking was among the best in South America, rivalled only by Cuba’s impeccable record. This makes Trump’s narrative of a “narco-state” in Venezuela sound like geopolitically motivated slander.

    The 2025 World Drug Report tells a story that is the opposite of the narrative peddled by the Trump administration. Piece by piece, the report dismantles the geopolitical lie built around the “Cartel de los Soles”, an entity as mythical as the Loch Ness Monster, but which is useful for justifying sanctions, blockades and threats of military intervention against a country which, incidentally, sits on one of the planet’s largest oil reserves.

    The post The Great Hoax Against Venezuela: Oil Geopolitics Disguised As ‘War On Drugs’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • New York, September 3, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns Azerbaijani authorities’ addition of seven new charges against 10 incarcerated journalists in relation to a currency smuggling case against the independent outlet Meydan TV, as well as the arrest of photojournalist Ahmad Mukhtar.

    “The latest financial crimes charges against the prize-winning Azerbaijani outlet Meydan TV echo those recently used to sentence seven other journalists to lengthy prison terms, underlining the unprecedented scale of Azerbaijan’s drive to crush the independent press,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Azerbaijan should release more than two dozen journalists and media workers unjustly incarcerated in their recent crackdown, including the latest detainee, Ahmad Mukhtar.”

    On August 28, 10 journalists — arrested on currency smuggling charges involving Berlin-based Meydan TV on the dates below — were charged with seven additional crimes, including illegal entrepreneurship, tax evasion, and money laundering:

    • December: Meydan TV’s Natig Javadli, Khayala Aghayeva, Aytaj Tapdig, Aynur Elgunesh, Aysel Umudova, and Ramin Jabrayilzade.
    • February: independent journalist Shamshad Agha, who works with Meydan TV.
    • May: independent journalist Ulviyya Ali, who has denied any affiliation with Meydan TV. 

    The charges are identical to those against the seven journalists linked to Abzas Media, carrying a sentence of up to 12 years. Since late 2023, at least 21 journalists and media workers have been jailed on allegations of illegal Western donor funding, as relations with the West deteriorate.

    On August 28, a court remanded Mukhtar in pretrial detention for 40 days. He was previously arrested in December with six Meydan TV journalists and accused of smuggling money. He served a 20-day sentence on separate charges of hooliganism and disobeying police. CPJ was unable to determine the latest charges against Mukhtar.

    Authorities have accused several leading independent outlets of failing to obtain the legally required approval for foreign grants. Defense lawyers argue that this omission is punishable by fines, not criminal sanctions.

    Exiled human rights lawyer Subhan Hasanli told CPJ that authorities generally refuse to register independent organizations seeking foreign grants, making it impossible to legally receive them.

    CPJ emailed the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which oversees the police, for comment, but did not immediately receive a reply.


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Western reporters are full partners in the genocide. They amplify Israeli lies, which they know are lies, betraying Palestinian colleagues who are slandered, targeted and killed by Israel.

    ANALYSIS: By Chris Hedges

    There are two types of war correspondents. The first type does not attend press conferences. They do not beg generals and politicians for interviews. They take risks to report from combat zones.

    They send back to their viewers or readers what they see, which is almost always diametrically opposed to official narratives. This first type, in every war, is a tiny minority.

    Then there is the second type, the inchoate blob of self-identified war correspondents who play at war. Despite what they tell editors and the public, they have no intention of putting themselves in danger.

    They are pleased with the Israeli ban on foreign reporters into Gaza. They plead with officials for background briefings and press conferences. They collaborate with their government minders who impose restrictions and rules that keep them out of combat.

    They slavishly disseminate whatever they are fed by officials, much of which is a lie, and pretend it is news. They join little jaunts arranged by the military — dog and pony shows — where they get to dress up and play soldier and visit outposts where everything is controlled and choreographed.

    The mortal enemy of these poseurs are the real war reporters, in this case, Palestinian journalists in Gaza. These reporters expose them as toadies and sycophants, discrediting nearly everything they disseminate. For this reason, the poseurs never pass up a chance to question the veracity and motives of those in the field.

    I watched these snakes do this repeatedly to my colleague Robert Fisk.

    Took huge hit
    When war reporter Ben Anderson arrived at the hotel where journalists covering the war in Liberia were encamped — in his words getting “drunk” at bars “on expenses,” having affairs and exchanging “information rather than actually going out and getting information” — his image of war reporters took a huge hit.

    “I thought, finally, I’m amongst my heroes,” Anderson recalls. “This is where I’ve wanted to be for years. And then me and the cameraman I was with — who knew the rebels very well — he took us out for about three weeks with the rebels.

    “We came back to Monrovia. The guys in the hotel bar said, ‘Where have you been? We thought you’d gone home.’ We said, ‘We went out to cover the war. Isn’t that our job? Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do?’

    “The romantic view I had of foreign correspondents was suddenly destroyed in Liberia,” he went on. “I thought, actually, a lot of these guys are full of shit. They’re not even willing to leave the hotel, let alone leave the safety of the capital and actually do some reporting.”

    You can see an interview I did with Anderson here.

    This dividing line, which occurred in every war I covered, defines the reporting on the genocide in Gaza. It is not a divide of professionalism or culture. Palestinian reporters expose Israeli atrocities and implode Israeli lies. The rest of the press does not.

    Palestinian journalists, targeted and assassinated by Israel, pay — as many great war correspondents do — with their lives, although in far greater numbers.

    Israel has murdered 245 journalists in Gaza by one count and more than 273 by another. The goal is to shroud the genocide in darkness.

    No other war close
    No war I covered comes close to these numbers of dead. Since October 7, Israel has killed more journalists “than the US Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (including the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos), the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, combined.” Journalists in Palestine leave wills and recorded videos to be read or played at their death.

    A funeral for Palestine TV correspondent Mohammed Abu Hatab
    A funeral for Palestine TV correspondent Mohammed Abu Hatab. Hatab was killed, along with his family members, in an airstrike on his home in Khan Yunis, Gaza. Image: Abed Zagout/Anadolu via Getty Images

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • There are two types of war correspondents. The first type does not attend press conferences. They do not beg generals and politicians for interviews. They take risks to report from combat zones. They send back to their viewers or readers what they see, which is almost always diametrically opposed to official narratives. This first type, in every war, is a tiny minority.

    Then there is the second type, the inchoate blob of self-identified war correspondents who play at war. Despite what they tell editors and the public, they have no intention of putting themselves in danger. They are pleased with the Israeli ban on foreign reporters into Gaza. They plead with officials for background briefings and press conferences.

    The post The Betrayal Of Palestinian Journalists appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Israel is boosting its Zionist influence in the Pacific. Australia has exposed such media influence. The media in the Philippines is now under scrutiny. And Aotearoa New Zealand?

    COMMENTARY: By Walden Bello

    When the Flores and Velasco articles and posts whitewashing Israel’s genocidal policies in Gaza first came out a few days ago, I was waiting for people in the Philippine media to criticise and denounce them since they were so obviously hack pieces that did not meet the minimal standards of decent journalism.

    I waited and waited, until I realised that there were no media people or organisations that were going to speak up.

    Where were the progressive and liberal voices, apart from those of Richard Heydarian and Inday Espina Varona?

    Walden Bello's earlier article in Asia Pacific Report on August 31
    Walden Bello’s earlier article in Asia Pacific Report on August 31 exposing “hack propaganda”. Image: APR screenshot

    This was the reason I felt compelled to issue the statement condemning the sordid reporting of Flores and Velasco.

    I was not out to do an expose, but that’s what it effectively became. In my subsequent posts, I raised the question of what was the reason just two journalists were willing to challenge the stories.

    Was it a case of circling the wagons to protect errant colleagues? Was it fear of ties with the Israeli state being exposed by the Israelis in retaliation? Was it fear of physical or political reprisals by the Israelis?

    These may have played a part, but the deafening silence meant there was something bigger at work.

    This morning I received a long text from a prominent media practitioner that provided the answer. It’s not fear. It’s actually worse: agreement with Zionist ideology and policies, including genocide.

    That the person asked me not to divulge his name for fear of suffering retribution from his colleagues stunned me. OMG, is this how deep the rot is with our media? ? Here is his disconcerting revelation to me:

    ‘Most are prejudiced’
    “Yes some are scared, but honestly most of them actually are prejudiced against Muslims and side with the Zionists anytime.

    “Most believe in the US religious fascist Zionist narrative, and also cannot accept that the world has changed — that the US is no longer the unipower it was decades ago, and that Russia, China, India and BRICS are on the rise.

    “And also, you should hear them talk about how Filipino Muslims should be wiped off the face of the earth.

    “These are college graduates from UP [University of the Philippines], UST [University of Santo Tomas], Ateneo who studied media.

    “Whenever I would voice empathy for the Muslim minority here, or Palestinians, I’d be called stupid. Same also because I refused to join in the corruption.

    “Oh, and also they have the same prejudice against China and the Chinese and mistake the Japanese imperial army atrocities as something China did to us!

    “Also this is not limited to media. I have batchmates from UP Diliman, medical doctors, lawyers, engineers who also have the same prejudices.”

    He added: “Some of these journalists have won awards abroad.”

    Walden Bello is a Filipino academic and analyst of Global South issues who was awarded Amnesty International Philippines’ Most Distinguished Defender of Human Rights Award in 2023. He has also served as a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.