This article of mine, on anti-democratic developments in Serbia, appears in the New Statesman
Imagine a country where the self-styled democrats threaten press freedom and where “anti-democratic" forces try to defend it. Such an Orwellian state of affairs exists in Serbia, where a draconian new media law from the Democratic Party-led government has been attacked not only by the political opposition, but by national and international human rights groups.
Under the law, media outlets and journalists can be fined for offences including publication of what is deemed to be false or libellous information. Editors face fines of up to €25,000 - fearsome enough were this to be imposed in the UK, but a colossal sum in Serbia, where salaries are about a fifth of the size. The law suspends citizens' right to set up publications and introduces a registration system for media outlets.
The government claims the law will introduce "order into the chaotic media", but opponents say it has been rushed through in order to prevent the press from criticising Serbia's ruling elite.
“The adopted changes abolish all domestic and European standards of the freedom of the media," says Vladimir Vodinelic, a Belgrade professor of law. The head of the OSCE Serbia mission, Hans Ola Urstad, warns that they may lead to "self-censorship and the closure" of news outlets.
The prime movers behind the law are the small but influential party GI7 Plus, which threatened to leave the governing coalition if the law was not passed. G17 was one of the "pro-democracy" organisations supported by the US's National Endowment for Democracy in its push to topple Slobodan Milosevic's regime in the 1990s. That yesterday's "democratic" opposition is now acting like an authoritarian group is an irony not lost on Serbs.
“In the 1990s I wrote many articles attacking Milosevic and the government," says Dragan Milosavljevic, a journalist. “It is much harder to criticise the democratic government today."
When a restrictive media law was introduced in Yugoslavia in 1998, as the country faced the prospect of Nato airstrikes, there was widespread condemnation from western governments. Will the same condemnation be offered again? We shouldn't hold our breath.
35 comments:
Spookily, yet again I was just infuriated by another Radio 4 piece on Serbia, and here's a piece on Serbia. That truly is shocking news, and unfortunately probably a presage of what's going to be rolled out throughout Europe. Anyway, on the 'Kate Adie (puke) show' one of her 'reporters' told a story about the assaults on a gay pride march in Serbia which implied very heavily that only the far right (queer-bashers) denied exclusive and total Serbian guilt for everything ever and opposed, and were an obstacle to, Serbian entry to the EU. You can guess the rest.
Still waiting for the source for the Cicero "quote" so we'll assume that you can't produce one. Does the Express know? How about the First Post and your theft of intellectual property?
Remember, our boys died for this. Just as they died for the "democracy" in Afghanistan.
thanks jock- yes they'll use anything they can to smear the Serbs.
david: quite.
'anonymous'- yes, the Daily Express knows all about where the Cicero quote came from- the Daily Express editor saw the quote in another newspaper and I was asked to write a piece on other quotes from the past which are relevant today. And what was the other newspaper? why it was a News International newspaper- so I suggest you pusue the matter with News International as the quote in question seems to obsess you so much.
re your question re the First Post-well, they treated your attempt to get me the sack by emailing them anonymously with a link to a smear post by Oliver Kamm claiming I had plagiarised an article with the contempt it deserved.
As I think many people in journalism and in the blogsphere now know, I have for the past three years and nine months been subject to an obsessional and extremely malicous campaign of smears and character assassination by the neo-con blogger Oliver Kamm
, which started when I critically reviewed his pro-war book for the Daily Telegraph. I've written about this campaign here:
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2007/05/poisonous-vendatta-of-oliver-kamm.html
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2007/09/case-of-criminal-harassment.html
Kamm has boasted of his efforts in 'destroying' my career, but despite his tireless efforts in trying to destroy my journalistic reputation, he hasn't been successful. which seems to irks 'anonymous' very much.
I have received around 50 such emails/messages from anonymous in the last few months, but i took the decision not to publish them. That was a mistake, as I think the emails say far more about the sender, his peculiar obsession with me and his disturbing mental state, than they do about me.
here is the first batch of communications by anonymous @ 12.17' which have been sent to me this summer. i think you'll agree- the phrase 'obsessive crank' goes nowhere near describing the mental state of the sender.
Neil Clark] New comment on The 'Left-Wing' Rogues Gallery.
From: Anonymous
Sent: 18 August 2009 07:55:22
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The 'Left-Wing' Rogues Gallery":
Still waiting for you to put those Biden "quotes" back up and say where they came from. Funny you don't seem to want to talk about them.
From: Anonymous Sent: 04 August 2009 08:04:27
Still waiting! Where did Cicero say his quote? Gandhi? Did you take a fee from the First Post for passing off someone else's words as you own work? Are they happy with that?
From:
Anonymous
Sent:
26 July 2009 04:56:27
Have you told the First Post yet?
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/50581,news,iran-neocon-ally-war-al-qaeda-and-the-taliban-obama-gordon-brown-afghanistan-israel
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13578/
From: Anonymous Sent: 24 July 2009 23:24:34
No that isn't a link for the quotes, it's just repeating the fakes. Neil Clark, you've now been exposed for faking quotes from Biden, Gandhi and Cicero and for stealing the work of the Counil on Foreign Relations and pretending you wrote it (and getting a fee). That's fraud. Does the Express know this? Does the First Post? This is a very serious matter.
From: Anonymous Sent: 24 July 2009 07:46:55
Oh dear!
http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/07/just-fancy-that.html
From: Anonymous Sent: 21 July 2009 08:45:08
It’s 2 months since you said you would post these quotes back up when you got confirmation of them and you haven't done it. Faking quotes is a serious matter and you've done it 3 times. Does the Express know this?
And here's the second batch....
From: Anonymous
Sent: 20 July 2009 23:16:55
It's 2 months since you said you would post these quotes back up when you got confirmation of them and you haven't done it. Faking quotes is a serious matter and you've done it 3 times. Does the Express know this?
From: Anonymous () Sent: 17 July 2009 23:23:48
Oh dear!
http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/07/just-fancy-that.html
From: Anonymous
Sent: 15 July 2009 20:24:43
Oh dear!
http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/07/just-fancy-that.html
From: Anonymous Sent: 08 July 2009 06:20:50
Why does it say on your bio that you're a regular contributor to the Guardian?
From: Anonymous Sent: 07 July 2009 07:13:09
Oh dear: http://johnrentoul.independentminds.livejournal.com/110604.html
I can see why you refuse to give sources.
From: Anonymous Sent: 30 June 2009 13:29:07
Is this the only mag that will publish you? The Guardian and Comment is Free last published you a year ago. Does it have anything to do with your compulsion for false quotes (Cicero, Gandhi, Biden)?
From: Anonymous Sent: 22 June 2009 13:55:14
Dear Mr Clark,
I represent Harvard University. We are looking for a Professor of Classics. As you have found a quote from Cicero that no other scholar has ever found, you are obviously the only candidate for the job.
From: Anonymous (noreply-comment@blogger.com) Sent: 15 June 2009 22:19:37 To: neilclark66@hotmail.com
Still waiting for your sources for the faked quotes from Biden, Cicero and Gandhi.
From: Anonymous ( Sent: 14 June 2009 12:32:21
You said you were going to post the direct links to Joe Biden'salleged anti Serb comments. You never did. Should we assume you've been exposed for copying down bogus quotes from the Internet without checking? Isn't that what Kamm said you were doing and you protested? No wonder your career is so minor.
From: Anonymous Sent: 08 June 2009 12:43:03
Your politics as the BNP though, aren't they? You support hanging and mass murderers and you want a stop to immigration. Is that why the Guardian refuses to publish you or is it because they got tired of publishing corrections to your work?
From: Anonymous Sent: 08 June 2009 12:40:57
Ah yes. You and the law. Didn't you have a humbling experience once when you tried to sue but got laughed out of court?
Still waiting for the sources for the Cicero and Gandhi "quotes". Does the editor of the Daily Express know what they are?
From: Anonymous Sent: 02 June 2009 12:29:01
Questions for Neil Clark.
Where do your alleged quotes from Cicero and Gandhi come from?
How humiliated do you feel at being caught out for copying down false quotes from the internet?
From: Anonymous ) Sent: 29 May 2009 12:37:12
Still no sources for "Cicero" and "Gandhi"! Will you be apologizing to The Daily Express for copying down false quotes from the internet?
From: Anonymous Sent: 29 May 2009 11:18:49
Where did you get the false quotes from Cicero and Gandhi? You didn't just copy them down from the internet without checking them, did you?
From: Anonymous Sent: 29 May 2009 10:49:50
How is asking you for your sources a smear? You claimed that it was a false allegation that you copied down false quotes from the internet without checking but it looks as if it's true, doesn't it?
Have you ever tie4d to tale legal action before? How did you get on?
From: Anonymous Sent: 27 May 2009 13:37:25
It does look like you make a habit of copying down false quotes without checking them. Don't you think this is a valid criticism that people should know about? You can always provide sources if your quotes are right.
From: Anonymous Sent: 11 May 2009 23:56:29
"It's the very fact that I do check my facts..."
Let me wipe that egg off your face, Neil.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/05/spuriosity-shop-chapter-94.html
Neil,
Do always publish these emails. I need a good old laugh from time to time.
You have my greatest respect for reviewing Oliver Kamm's book, since that also means reading it. I read the first few pages and noticed with some shock that it was the biggest load of dross I've come across in a while.
thanks, Olching.
the funny thing is that I never pushed to review Kamm's book in the first place. I actually received, unsolicited, a review copy from the publisher (and a copy of another book on neoconservatism) in the post.
I should have published the emails. They are clearly designed to cause distress to the recipient, and the sender thought that I wouldn't want them published. But now I'd like the whole world to see them as they say far more about the sender than they do about me.
Don't you just love the pompous, bullying tone?
This is a very serious matter.
Faking quotes is a serious matter
Faking quotes is a serious matter and you've done it 3 times
How humiliated do you feel at being caught out for copying down false quotes from the internet?
Neil Clark, you've now been exposed for faking quotes That's fraud.
This is a very serious matter.
etc, etc, etc....
the comments remind me of of a crime novel- an Agatha Christie I think, when a woman who had amnesia is continually told by a relative that she committed some heinous 'serious' crimes- when all along the relative is the one with something to hide.
Neil
I entirely agree with Olching: you should publish to incriminate this guy who offers a far darker view of neoconservatism than any leftist. Interestingly there was a recent thread on Aaronovitch watch where one contributor said he did not like trying to find psychological motives for his opponents but in the case of 'decents' (British neocons) it was nearly impossible.
I have very, very odd political views which lead me to seriously disagree with most people: liberals, racists, theocrats, Paleocons, Islamists, communists etc etc.
Yet never have I met people as nasty and self-righteous as the neo-cons. There are so many paradoxes: they claim to be pro-liberty but have helped destroy civil liberties. They claim they are utilitarian whilst life expectancy in Iraq has fallen. They claim opponents of the Iraq war are still responsible for being 'objectively' pro-Saddam (presumably they are 'objectively' in favour of Chinese oppression and the war in the Congo). They claim to be rational yet have no 'falsifiable' objectives.
Also I recently read this interesting article on neocon 'intellectual' Steven Schwartz:
http://www.icsfp.org/EN/Contents.aspx?AID=2592
It seems that emotional instability is key to being a neocon.
Jock Mctrousers, the most interesting fact about the articles in the west about the cancellation of the pride rally is the fact why far right groups reacted the way they did.
Their were attempts at a parade in 2004, 2007 and 2008. They were cancelled. No such major or radical reaction from the rightist groups or media occured then.
This year their were rumours that the organizers were planning to burn Serbian flags before the rally. Two days before the rally this was confirmed by organizers, the government then withdrew support.
I'm pretty sure flag burning is a criminal offence in many places in the west, like in Serbia.
But anyways. I am more in line with what centre right film director Emir Kusturica said. "I am not oppose to the rally. It's shameful the parade was cancelled. What is more shameful is that the govenrment used this so that for weeks the media wouldn't report on it's failures."
<-- I tend to agree with the latter part of his statement, even if it is conspirational.
Have you been able to find the IP address(es) of this emailer?
What's all the fuss about? Some guy knows every word I ever said? I can't remember what I said yesterday much less 2000 years ago.
Beauregard: Yes.
Cicero: I'm afraid for one particular obsessive what you did/didn't say all those years ago has been the big event of the summer. But only because he thought it would further his three years and nine months smear campaign against me.
Could you please give us more details regarding Dragan Milosavljevic you quoted? Google finds amazingly few references for a self-styled outspoken free journalist, namely a few letters to the editor. One appears in Vreme magazine (http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=334509), another in NSPM (http://starisajt.nspm.rs/PristigliKomentari/otvorenopismodm1.htm) and a third in Glas Javnosti (http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.rs/arhiva/2006/10/25/pisma/srpski/pisma.shtml), neither of which strays far from Milosevic's, or, rather, Kostunica's line - since all of them are dated post-2000.
Re: law itself, it's deemed wrong, extreme and unconstitutional by a fair number of journalists and organizations that *did* speak out against Milosevic when it mattered. The issue is already taken up with the Constitutional Court. One of the briefs arguing that the changes should be struck down as unconstitutional was filed by the Ombudsman, Sasa Jankovic. NUNS (Independent Journalist Association of Serbia) asked for expedient procedure, citing concerns over "possible media outlet closures under the cover of darkness" (http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/Dru%C5%A1tvo/183341/Ustavni+sud+o+Zakonu+o+informisanju.html page in Serbian).
'anonymous'' 9.12am-
what's up? given up on the 'Cicero front' and now trying to catch me out on something else?
I'm sure you've spent hours poring over the article and google searching, trying to find something you could find fault with. How utterly pathetic.
Here's the deal: you write in again- not anonymously, but under your own name and I'll happily provide you with more details re Dragan Milosavljevic. And I'll also respond to the point you make in the second part of your post.
why on earth are you so coy about using your real name when writing in to request that I provide further information/prove my sources etc?
"why on earth are you so coy about using your real name when writing in to request that I provide further information/prove my sources etc?"
Go for it, Citylightsgirl! Tell it like it is, Greengoddess!
It's funny because real writers like to be challenged and don't run away screaming about smears. You are so transparent. You get caught in plagiarism and start blubbing about how persecuted you are. Perhaps that's why real papers don't publish you.
anonymous '5.03pm' -
' real writers like to be challenged '- you don't challenge- you just smear.
'You get caught in plagiarism '- only in the feverish imagination of a former hedge fund trader who has been trying to 'destroy' my career for the past three years and nine months, ever since I critically reviewed his pro-war book for the Daily Telegraph.
As to the use of false identities on the internet, I would have thought that you would have kept quiet about that.
http://neilclark66.blogspot.com/2008/01/green-city-girls-suicidal-tendencies.html
'real papers don't publish you'- well, you've certainly tried to do everything to discredit me with those who employ me, but haven't succeeded- so your attacks are getting more and more desperate, such as claiming that this article
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/50581,news,iran-neocon-ally-war-al-qaeda-and-the-taliban-obama-gordon-brown-afghanistan-israel
is a copy of this one
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13578/iran_and_the_future_of_afghanistan.html
You really are beyond pathetic- you are an obsessional crank with serious mental problems, as I think anyone who follows this thread will agree.
Yes, Anonymous, I have looked into the constant stalking amd smearing of Neil Clark in cyberspace. This is harrassment of the first order Anyone who has been following the neo-con issue knows exactly which para-political group is behind this harrassment. You stalk and smear anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you, and your activities on the net can be described as nothing less than the organised harrassment of innocent people who dare to speak their mind. You are bullying, anti-democratic cyber-thugs typical of the group you represent.
Everyone knows who you are. One day the people who you have intimidated might well get together and take legal action. You are leaving a trail of evidence and witnesses that will one day be used against you. You deserve nothing less than to be fined to the point of bankruptcy.
- questionnaire
Oh, I get it. It only counts as plagiarism if you copy the whole article and not bits of it. You really the comedian. Did you split the fee with Google?
'citylightsgoil' aka anonymous,
you're the comedian, except you're not very funny. not unless people like laughing at sad obsessives whp pursue internet vendettas under the cloak of anonymity. your earlier charge was that I had taken the whole CFR background paper and then passed it off as my own work. Now you're saying only 'bits of it'.
People can read both articles (links are above in my earlier comment) and judge for themselves who is the comedian. And who is the sad obsessive.
As questionaire so eloquently puts it- you are a bullying, anti-democratic cyber-thug typical of the group you represent.
but i'll post your comments here as they say far more about you than they do about me.
You're faking it yet again, Greengoddess (anonymity? Nice one!) You said it was a smear to call you a plagiarist. So how did someone else's words get copied into "your" article? Do tell.
People can read both sides.
"After the Taliban took power in 1996, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, denounced the group as an affront to Islam, and the killing of 11 Iranian diplomats and truck drivers in 1998 almost led to an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan...." - Neil Clark, "Our Ally in the War on Terror", The First Post, 13 July 2009
"After the Taliban took power in 1996, Iran's supreme leader denounced the group as an affront to Islam, and the killing of eleven Iranian diplomats and truck drivers in 1998 almost triggered a military conflict." - Council on Foreign Relations' backgrounder, "Iran and the Future of Afghanistan", 30 March 2009
How dare the Council on Foreign Relations look into the future and copy your work! Have you thought of suing in the County Court?
People can read both sides.
"After the Taliban took power in 1996, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, denounced the group as an affront to Islam, and the killing of 11 Iranian diplomats and truck drivers in 1998 almost led to an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan...." - Neil Clark, "Our Ally in the War on Terror", The First Post, 13 July 2009
"After the Taliban took power in 1996, Iran's supreme leader denounced the group as an affront to Islam, and the killing of eleven Iranian diplomats and truck drivers in 1998 almost triggered a military conflict." - Council on Foreign Relations' backgrounder, "Iran and the Future of Afghanistan", 30 March 2009
How dare the Council on Foreign Relations look into the future and copy your work! Have you thought of suing in the County Court?
I didn't support the Balkan War and am no fan of the unpleasant regimes NATO helped bring to power but I have to say that I think fines for publishing false information sound about right. You've posted a lot on here about a smear campaign against you so I would have thought that you'd have some sympathy with it. I like our libel laws too. If you can't prove it, don't print it. Seems like a decent principle. Lots of unpleasant people benefit from the presumption of innocence but I'm sure you're not in favour of changing that...
anonymous aka citylightsgoil aka redgoddess: so instead of claiming i copied a whole piece and passed it off as my own work, we're now down to one sentence. but why don't you quote the whole of the sentence in question in my 830 word article?
After the Taliban took power in 1996, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, denounced the group as an affront to Islam, and the killing of 11 Iranian diplomats and truck drivers in 1998 almost led to an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan, which was averted by the intervention of the US and UN.
The only thing you have proved by your interventions here is that you are an obsessive crank, spending hours and hours trying to smear me. You've tried everything- from trying to prove that i was wrong to say that Bernard Kouchner
was in favour of military invention against Iraq- to claiming that I lifted a false quote from Cicero from the Internet.
But by all means, keep digging yourself into an even deeper hole.
Greengoddess, that's plagiarism, aka cheating.
But at least you've never copied anything Cicero said.
definition of plagiarism by 'citylightsgirlie/anonymous/red goddess': anything that a certain former hedge fund trader who has pursued an obsessional four year internet vendetta against Neil Clark for critically reviewing his pro-war book says it is.
if you're so sure of the charge, why not make it here in your own name?
just to make it clear
anonymous/citylightsgirlie/redgoddess- if you want to keep making these charges here, then do so in your real name. what have you got to hide? if you think i am a plagiarist and are so sure of your case then make the charge under your real name.
i don't mind people posting anonymously/pseudonymously here if they want to engage in debate, but writing in every ten minutes trying to post smears under the cloak of anonymity/pseudonymity is something else.
It's not a "charge", Greengoddess. "Your" article reproduces a passage from someone else's article. Yours was published later. You are a plagiarist. QED.
I think 'Questionnaire's' point about the stalking and smearing of Neil in cyberspace has been well and truly proved by the subsequent comments on this thread.
citylightfloozie: ha, ha, ha, we've gone from
Neil Clark copied a whole article from the CFR and passed it off as its own work to Neil Clark 'reproduces' a passage'. But even that is not true: you conveniently cut off the last 19 words of my sentence to try and prove your case.
Totally pathetic, but as I say, if you want to continue to contribute on this thread, kindly so under your real name. Come here and call me a plagiarist under your real name. I dare you.
I should explain also to any readers following this thread that Oliver Kamm, the former hedge fund writer whose claims work 'anonymous/citylightsfloosie/red goddess' parrots so faithfully here has been targeting my articles for The First Post for much of this year, in continuance of the long-standing vendetta he has waged against me ever since I critically reviewed his pro-war book for the Daily Telegraph in December 2005. In February he tried to claim that I was wrong to talk of the strong Israeli connection behind the $1m Dan David Prize that Tony Blair had won.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/46559,opinion,tony-blairs-reward-for-following-the-foreign-policy-goals-of-the-us-and-israel.
In May he attempted to post a comment on the First Post website attacking my reliability as a journalist- the comment was removed.
Then in June, he sent this comment (which I reproduce below), in to the First Post regarding an article I had written on David Cameron's neocon connections.
I'm afraid the phrase "George Osborne praised the 'excellent neoconservative case, for war against Iraq" emblazoned across this page is legerdemain. George Osborne in fact praised, in a parliamentary debate on 22 October 2003, "AN excellent neoconservative case for the action that was taken in Iraq". He was referring to a specific contribution to that debate made by another MP. This was Nigel Beard, then the MP for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Mr Beard was a Labour MP; in context, George Osborne's remark is clearly intended to be an ironic remark, complimenting Mr Beard on his argument while observing that it was out of line with other arguments presented in that debate from the Labour side. Praising a specific speech while using the term neoconservative in an ironic sense is obviously not the same as "praising the 'excellent neoconservative case' for war against Iraq". Whatever view you take on the Iraq War, it should be obvious that quoting three words without indicating their context and while removing the indefinite article is not careful or reputable journalism. I'm unsurprised at the mess that the First Post has got itself into through its failure to check Clark's claims, and presume that the magazine will correct this misrepresentation.
Kamm presumed wrong. The First Post did not 'correct' the alleged 'misrepresentation, in the same way that the Guardian did not print a correction to my piece on Bernard Kouchner which Kamm also demanded.
And then came my piece on First Post piece on Iran, and Kamm's claims of plagiarism, which have been parroted, so obsessively by 'anonymous/citylights floosie/red goddess etc here.
Just to put the whole thing in context.
Kamm is a nasty piece of neocon trash. I suspect, however, that someone more obscure is doing his bidding here. Maybe even Marko Attila Hoare (you know, the hysterical anti-Serb who wants to impose sanctions against Egypt for not recognizing Kosovo - hey Marko, what do you think about the EU report hot off the press that pins the blame on the Georgian donkey for the Abkhazia/Ossetia crisis last year? Do you have any teeth left to gnash?).
Kamm and MAH's foreign policy recommendations have f***ed up just about everywhere and they don't like to be reminded of it. So they, or their cyberthugs, take it out on the people who got it right like Neil, Noam
Chomsky, John Pilger etc.
One thing alot of these neocons share is their short physical stature (eg. Kamm, Hitchens, MAH). It would not surprise me in the least to learn that these people (especially Kamm) were bullied at school and that their love of military solutions and bloodshed is a form of revenge on society for their unhappy youth.
What to make of a world of values where the token paraphrase is considered a far graver sin than supporting foreign policies that have led to the death of 1 million+ innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or like Kamm to boast of one's atheism or secularism yet be a fanatical supporter of a country founded entirely upon religious belief (eg. the state of Israel).
These people are stinking hypocrites and cowards. All of them. It's a damn good thing I will never come close to power because the first law I would pass would be to ship all of this scum out to the front line in Afghanistan for a 2-year tour of duty. Without weapons or ammunition, of course.
You seem to have been having fun while I was in hospital, Neil. Clearly you have an infestation of Gimlet´s mongish crew, so what disinfectant are you planning to use?
Have you saved the e-mails? If so then open up the headers and see if you can trace the ISP that way. The thing is that this gang are not on the ball when it comes to matters internet, so maybe we can have a laugh with them.
I am on the road to recovery and the thought of getting involved in a scrap is fair giving me a blue veiner. Anthea, my little French speaking crack hoare, is going to be given a right old nailing tonight.
Dear me, the CiF moderators have been busy today. That (very) decent chap Nick Cohen had a CiF piece on Britain's libel laws and dodgy film director Polanski. I offered this:
Well said, Nick. Perhaps you should also have mentioned the case of the Trnopolje "concentration camp". The footage ITN screened led to headlines the following day of "Belsen 92" etc. The film was key in ensuring that all of the blame for an ugly civil war - with atrocities on all sides - was squarely put on to the Serbs.
In challenging the way that the footage was manipulated by ITN, LM magazine was sued by journalists Penny Marshall and Ian Williams in the libel courts. All agreed in court that the prisoners were not penned in by the barbed wire as depicted in the film. Even though this was the salient feature of how the image was perceived on transmission, and by the press the following day, the journalists won their libel action. Ian Williams, said lamely after the case that: "I was not knowingly not telling the truth."
-------
Any ideas why CiF moderators sought fit to delete the posting?
Post a Comment