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.