Interesting...I don't see one mention of Kofi in this piece....

Try again.

How's that list of state owned and/or left leaning media outlets coming along? Don't forget to include comparitive circulation/ratings figures with rupert and others networks.

So Mulholland, what do you think about that war-for-oil scandal. Gotta piss you off huh?

Mexico's comes to mind, where you may die if you dissent in the media...I would imagine a majority of the world has a similar media relationship

America?...Where do I start:...CNN, ABC, cBS, NBC, pmsNBC, AP, NPR, PBS, NYslimes, LAslimes, WashingtonPost, at least 80% of all newsprint and magazines, a majority of journalists and editorial boards, 99% of Hollywood.

I've answered the question...The scandal was inherent in Kofi's scam...Kofi and friends didn't want the boondoggle to end and so they and their media buddies spun this fabricated diversion of "war-for-oil"...Amazing that you would parrot this propaganda, yet poo-poo allegations that have at least a mountain of evidence comparitively.

Uh uh.....that's not the war-for-oil scandal.

I see you're not pissed off when the corrupt conspiracy is on your hero huh.... It's ok when he conspires......

And I don't poo poo allegations of the oil-for-food scandal. Not at all. It was very real. I'm saying Kofi has been cleared of involvement. If you have proof that this was in error, go for it. Show me the mountains of evidence that Kofi was involved.

Who controlled that investigation chicky?...Specifically, no beating-around-the-Bush...Who Chicky?...Who had the discovery, who concealed or otherwise destroyed evidence, and who orchestrated the investigation of Kofi?

I'll give you a hint...He has a son named Cujo who was another major player.

"The world's, and the more frequently than not state-controlled media's, silence regarding the UN oil for food scam suggests a worldwide conspiracy"

"Mexico's comes to mind, where you may die if you dissent in the media...I would imagine a majority of the world has a similar media relationship"

Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not have a similar media relationship. As you succintly put it - you may imagine it so, but that dosn't make it so.
Edit - guessing you've got nothing to say about the claim of state owned media.

"least 80% of all newsprint and magazines, a majority of journalists and editorial boards"
I can't comment on this as you're no doubt more familiar with your country's journalism than me. I do find the 80% figure doubtful given uncle Ruperts considerable interest over there.

By the way, aside from the mexico example, you havn't provided much in the way of support for your claim that there's a worldwide media conspiracy against the good ole us. Or do you perhaps just mean that the majority of the world is not perfectly aligned with your own opinions? Don't feel bad about it, the same could be said for just about anyone. But I guess it's easier to imply that the rest of the world's out of step and it's one big conspiracy. Must make you quite angry huh.

China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, no longer in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lybia...Where it is not outright "owned" it is controlled at the point of a gun...I hope you are not denying this reality.

Gav, Rupert is a drop in the media bucket:

“There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous. That’s different from the media doing it’s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.”
— ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.

“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.

“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

“Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’”
— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.

“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.

Its chopped from an op-ed article on NRO

http://www.nationalreview.com/rosett/rosett200410072250.asp

- as is fairly obvious from the emotive language.

Mul - Volcker was in charge, and I really can't see how you think he is a crony of Annan, given his former jobs.

Bollocks. You have apparently made this up.

You know, its convenient for you to suddenly include every and any country in the definition of the "world", given you usually don't when discussing political spectrum. Rather than make numbers up, I scouted out a piece of research which, amongst other things, shows that there is not a single state owned newspaper in the top 5 for any country in the Americas (incl Mexico, which also has no state owned tv channels in the top 5) or Western Europe.

Besides, we have a govt owned TV channel or two here, and it is fiercely independent (and rightfully so).

Its at that point that a rational person would sit back and wonder how "80%" of anything can be left of centre, given that the centre is at 50%.

I'll ask the questions of you...

Who controlled that investigation Cam?...Specifically, no beating-around-the-Bush...Who Cam?...Who had the discovery, who concealed or otherwise destroyed evidence, and who orchestrated the investigation of Kofi?

Answer the question!

Sure, whatever. Kofi Annan did, as follows:

The key parts are "independent" and "unanimous resolution endorsing the enquiry".

The US didn't veto the resolution, and you presumably are restricting yourself to besmirching (love that word) the good names of every person on the committee, which heaped a good deal of criticism on Kofi Annan for failing to ensure the programme was being run well.

The salient point is that the investigation cleared him of wrong-doing. He might have been incompetent, but he was apparently honestly incompetent.

Point me to the part in the report where the committee questioned their own independence or stated that they had insufficient information to clear Annan and I'll reconsider.

Better yet, who do you think hired Volker to do the investigation...and paid him?

So are we questioning Volcker's independence? You should just state that rather than pissing around, then we can get on with a meaningful discussion.

I've been having a think about the media bias issue - I do have something to add to it. I do think that many of the US newspapers (I don't bother with the TV channels) I read online have a liberal slant to the editorial/op-ed pages. I also believe that, in general, they try very hard not to have a slant in the news, in particular given the blowtorch that has been progressively turned on them by the (massive) conservative blogsphere.

I'd also like to add that the blogsphere is, by comparison, almost completely "unregulated" - they are by their nature very biased and as such I really don't think they are a good source of news (or news links, as is usually the case).

Hey Chicky...Here is a great example of the types who were so vocal about this being a "war for oil":

"The suicide bombers are freedom fighters, not terrorists. I salute all of the fighters and all of the martyrs of Palestine ... Children throwing stones and becoming suicide bombers are heroes ... we must support the PLO and assist them in wiping out the Zionist entity."
-George Galloway -- England's far-left Labour Party

then (the rest of the story)...

George Galloway, the Labour backbencher, received money from Saddam Hussein's regime, taking a slice of oil earnings worth at least £375,000 a year, according to Iraqi intelligence documents found by The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad.



MRC

Who Cam?

You not answering this question severely compromises your credibility...You cannot answer it because it destroys your apology for the greatest scandal in world history.

It's all enough to raise questions about the agenda of the Volcker probe itself. As it happens, Rep. Henry Hyde's Committee on International Relations is planning to do just that. Hyde's investigators expect to focus on, among other things, why one of Volcker's lead investigators, Robert Parton, defected this past April with boxes of evidence. Parton explained via his lawyer that he had resigned on "principle" because the second of Volcker's three interim reports had been too soft on Annan.

Weekly Standard

Galloway won well over £1m from the Daily Telegraph for libel after they made that accusation (because it wasn't true). He also won a libel case against the Christian Science Monitor which accused him of different corruption on the basis of documents which turned out to be forgeries. Disagree with his politics all you like, but do some fact checking first.

Back to the oil for food investigation. Who? I dunno? I get an "F" and now have no credibility :(.

Can you please make it multi-choice because I'm really, really struggling here. I think you might be after the name of the guy who was in charge of the scheme - Benon Sevan (thank you wikipedia)?

You won't answer my question either - are you calling into question Volcker's independence and character?
(edit) - you did now. Thanks

Ok, read the Weekly Standard link now too.

I think the report is too soft on Annan - as the "boss" he was either disinterested or incompetent, both of which I consider fireable offences.

Mind you, I thought heads should have rolled in the wake of the Duelfer (sp?) report too.

But I don't think Annan was complicit, and I'm going to keep working on an "innocent until proven guilty" basis, strange as that might seem.

Neil Darbyshire, the executive editor of The Daily Telegraph, said the newspaper was "disappointed by this judgment, which we believe is a blow to the principle of freedom of expression in this country".

"The Daily Telegraph published genuine documents that emanated from the highest levels of the Iraqi government and raised questions about the activities of Mr Galloway, a British Member of Parliament."

Galloway took money from Saddam...As did friends of France, Germany, Russia and Kofi.

BTW...Kofi is the answer to the question you seem to want to avoid like the plague.

I had already answered "Kofi" so thanks for wasting my time. Don't blame me, don't blame Annan, blame Volcker - US citizen, conservative, and - it appears - scum(?).

So, are you now concerned that the UK courts didn't do their job correctly? That they incorrectly ruled it was libel against Galloway?

Actually, what you're doing again is not fact checking before posting, which is ironic given you have criticised me as lacking credibility. Take, for instance, further comments from that guy above:

The "defence" of the Telegraph was, in essence, that they should be free to bring such things to the world's attention without checking their veracity. Should we give the Telegraph a pass on this one? Does that mean Dan Rather's ok now too?

Remember that the defence for libel is usually that it is true.

So what did the judge say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4061165.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4063455.stm

Ironic that this thread had a trip through "liberal bias in the media" land, no?

Looks like that article was written (in the Telegraph, in April 2003) before the court case which Galloway won. I reckon the court considered that.

Your fact checking sucks.

Two different sets of documents.

No matter how you slice it Galloway is a pro-Saddam communist.

"I am 100 per cent certain that this document is genuine," he said, his eyes still fixed on the letter. "As soon as I saw the document I knew it was Habbush's handwriting because it is so distinctive and unusual. This is not ordinary writing. The words are very big, just like sculptures. He writes very well."

These documents were deemed authentic.

Oh whatever. Deemed authentic by some guy, but not the court or the Telegraph's lawyers, who couldn't mount the "truth" defence against libel.

Oh, and in Galloway's words (I can't believe I am bothering to be an apologist for the guy), it is a bit of a stretch to call him "pro-Saddam" although dude is definitely a socialist (by any definition):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1616578,00.html

Further comment - I don't even like Galloway - he falls into the category of people who I think take away from humanity more than they give (its not really a very big list). I probably hold Bush in higher regard than Galloway - it seems that in pursuing his political goals Galloway will stoop pretty damn low.

But I don't think he is guilty of the things he won the libel cases for.

He wasn't just "some guy"...

Saddam Hussein's former head of protocol said yesterday that the document found by The Daily Telegraph saying that George Galloway received substantial payments from the Iraqi regime was "100 per cent genuine".

Haitham Rashid Wihaib, who fled to Britain with his family eight years ago after death threats, said he had no doubt that the handwritten confidential memorandum addressed to the dictator's office apparently detailing how the Labour MP benefited from Iraq's oil sales was authentic....

Salon

Now, you could make the case that you cannot trust liberal media...You would be right, but not this bit of information...After all, who would know better but an ex Saddam loyalist...The letters, further, were authenticated by experts.

But back to the substance of Kofi being a crook...Some very shady crap went down on the backs of starving Iraqis, Kofi orchestrated the scam of "oil for food"...Add to that the human rights abuses in the Congo (rape of little girls) and the fact that Kofi has active human rights villains on the so-called "Human Rights Commission", and I think the picture quite accurately reflects a man that should not only step-down, but face some good ole' fashioned African justice like the necklace.

Amazing the leftist disconnect from reality...We have one of history's biggest scam artists (if not biggest) and he gets a free pass, nay, lifted on the collective leftist shoulders.

Really telling of the character of the left..."Rwanda?...whatchoo talkin' bout?"..."Sudan?...whatchoo talkin' bout?"..."Congo?...whatchoo talkin' about?"..."North Korea?...whatchoo talkin' bout?"..."Saddam?....whatchoo talkin' bout?"

"Whatchoo talking about willis?" (for full effect, play this clip on loop while reading the last couple pages)

"China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, no longer in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lybia"
Well, you've provided a list now how about looking at the other side of the coin - namely every other country in the world.

So from what I can understand, all your complaints about liberal bias stem from the above countries only. If these countries make up 'the rest of the world' then you have a very different perception of the world to me.

"Rupert is a drop in the media bucket"
News Corporation selected holdings
The U.S. Fox broadcasting network;
Twenty-two U.S. television stations, the largest U.S. station group,
covering over 40 percent of U.S. TV households;
Fox News Channel;
A 50 percent stake (with TCI's Liberty Media) in several U.S. and
global cable networks, including fx, fxM and Fox Sports
Net;
50 percent stake in Fox Kids Worldwide, production studio and owner
of U.S. cable Family Channel;
Ownership or major interests in satellite services reaching Europe,
U.S., Asia, and Latin America, often under the Sky Broadcasting brand;
Twentieth Century Fox, a major film, television and video production
center, which has a library of over 2,000 films to exploit;
Some 132 newspapers (primarily in Australia, Britain and the United
States, including the London Times and the New York Post),
making it one of the three largest newspaper groups in the world;
Twenty-five magazines, most notably TV Guide;
Book publishing interests, including HarperCollins;

This list is now out of date but I think it serves as a fair example of this 'drop in the bucket'. I can't be bothered looking for an exact figure of market share/circulation (would be a fairly rubbery figure anyway) but whichever way you slice it - it's not an insignificant share/exposure.

Now, other than that you've given six peoples opinions about the ABC, BBC and New York Times. As I've previously stated - I'm not up for an opinion on these networks as I don't know them. Maybe you're right - maybe you're not. However, your statement of the rest of the world bias is baseless - unless you're only considering China Cuba etc.

Ok, this is what I've observed.

Mulholland makes up his mind and that's it. It doesn't matter if evidence contradicts what he's decided.....it falls under "conspiacy."

So, for example, he knows Kofi was involved, has nothing to prove this, so that falls under conspiracy. He knows Delay is innocent, has nothing to prove this, so that falls under conspiracy. (sidenote, I cannot claim either way on Delay, I have not seen evidence, so I am not claiming guilt or innocence either way, this is just an obvservation on how Mul's mind works.) If Delay is innocent, he'll be vindicated, if Delay is guilty, it'll be a conspiracy. The media reports something he does not like, it's a lying conspiracy. Bush makes a poor decision, it's a conspiracy, he really made a good decision, but it's some conspiracy.

Sounds like "facts fixed around policy." He makes a conclusion, and will fit "conspiracy" where needed as a way to "substantatiate" this conclusion. I sure hope you're not a scientist Mul.

Mul, the whole world is not some sort of conspiracy out to get you my friend...

Chicky...who orchestrated the investigation of Kofi?...The UN's endemic corruption precludes them from honestly investigating themselves.

Incorrigible...You see right where there is wrong and wrong where there is right...Alice in Pelican Land...The estrogen perhaps?

I was shooting from the hip here...You can bet their medias are at the very least heavily coerced by the dictatorships in which they fluorish...I would doubt that many countries truly have a "free-press," and even if they did (which they do not) there is something about the liberal mind that gravitates toward wanting to write history (like in American media)…I hate to say this, but Michael Moore agrees with me…

"We're the only country in the whole world without dominant state-controlled media. In a democracy, the state is supposed to be the people. So if it's truly the people, I'd rather run the risk of a government truly run by the people than a corporation doing it."… "All my stuff lately has been funded from Europe," he says. "The TV show was from the BBC and Channel 4. The film I'm working on is from a German studio. Canadians funded the last season of "The Awful Truth. … Other cultures that haven't had the Moral Majority suppression have moved their culture forward. We haven't." – Michael Moore

Pretty compelling case Mooreon makes for me, isn’t it?

Why single out Fox News and other holdings of Mr. Murdoch?...The only holdings that Murdoch has, that have a right-tilt, are his FoxNews and a couple papers...A drop in the media bucket.

Again, I ask, why do you single out Murdoch?

I don't think they were authenticated - I think you're making that up too.

Let's say they were authenticated to a standard of legal proof. If so, would not the first step of the Telegraph's legal team have been to avoid several million pounds worth of cost by using the "truth" defence to libel?

But they didn't do this, because the letter was not authenticated.

Re: Kofi Annan - I don't think he is competent, but I think the failures are due to human error (compounding) and greed, but not maliciousness, spread throughout the UN. This is pretty much what the report found. I think all the nations in the UN need a renewed and genuine commitment to it.

Virtually everything Murdoch owns which is capable of having a tilt has a right wing one (prove me wrong!). And Michael Moore is wrong too, unless "media" is another way of saying "tv".

Interesting how Dan Rather still stands behind the story that his Bush documents were real, although they were forgeries, yet we have an exiled refugee from Saddam's inner sanctum and he confirms the document's authenticity, yet he cannot be trusted.

Saddam Hussein's former head of protocol said yesterday that the document found by The Daily Telegraph saying that George Galloway received substantial payments from the Iraqi regime was "100 per cent genuine".

Haitham Rashid Wihaib, who fled to Britain with his family eight years ago after death threats, said he had no doubt that the handwritten confidential memorandum addressed to the dictator's office apparently detailing how the Labour MP benefited from Iraq's oil sales was authentic....

link above

Galloway has had proven forgeries levelled against him too (Christian Science Monitor), so you could call it even.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that Haitham Rashid Wihaib's "authentication" is clearly not up to any standard of legal proof?

He is an eyewitness testimony, living in a place he can easily be targeted for assassination (England), who authenticates documents that had the appearance of being genuine.

Galloway is a notorious friend of Islam (Palestinian apologist/anti-Semite) and pretty much a communist...Neither of these predelictions would suggest honesty at any level.

I believe that eyewitness would mean someone who saw the document created or signed.

Look, I'm done with this. Find some proof (not opinion) that Galloway did it and you'll get somewhere. Consistently repeating the opinion of Wihaib from 6 months before the judgement against the Telegraph is not going to convince me.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1128385056.jpg

Oh, that's right, he was. No involvement.