Well, the neocons finally got their way. No Press TV in Britain. In this great ‘liberal democracy’ we can’t have people watching tv stations which put forward an alternative view of Middle East events can we- or which challenge the ‘dominant narrative’ that Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons programme is a ‘grave threat’ to the west.
I wonder what the hilariously mis-named ‘Index on Censorship’ will say about this blatant form of political Censorship. Don’t hold your breath for those highly selective advocates of 'free speech' to denounce it.
Meanwhile you can stick two fingers up at the Britain’s illiberal liberals by watching Press TV here.
More details on how to watch Press TV can be found here here.
Remember, Britain‘s neocons - those bellicose champions of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ really don’t want you to watch Press TV. All the more reason, I think for watching it. I’ll be tuning in on a daily basis from now on.
Update: George Galloway, the anti-war politician and Press TV presenter, writes:
Champions of liberty the British govt have now taken Press TV off Sky. Follow us at www.presstv.ir and other platforms.
We'll do just that George.
50 comments:
How and where does one apply to join the apparently essential "Independent Editorial Board" of Fox? Or Sky News? Or the BBC News Channel? Who is on them at the moment?
If you want news in Britain, then watch Al Jazeera. Or Russia Today. Or, until today, Press TV. There has been a sustained campaign of weeping and wailing in certain quarters about the Establishment figures who have appeared or who do appear on Press TV. Does it occur to the weepers and wailers that those appearances prove the falsehood of their calumnies against that station?
Andrew Gilligan, now their attack dog against Ken Livingstone and, rather amusingly for the man who once exposed the Dodgy Dossier, against the mighty Lutfur Rahman, used to be the highest paid presenter on Press TV. Even Oliver Kamm has appeared on it. As, repeatedly and for payment, has Dr Alan Mendoza, Executive Director of the Henry Jackson Society.
The superb Epilogue ought to have won awards by the bucket load. It has provided a home for Derek Conway, whose son was paid as a part-timer on the lowest point of the lowest quartile, and yet look what happened. Whereas, to cite an example almost at random, Jacqui Smith's husband was paid as a full-timer on the highest point of the highest quartile, despite doing nothing more than keep the constituency house in which she claimed not to live anyway. Yet look what did not happen. She was on This Week again last night.
On 9th November, Press TV reported the student demonstration in London while the BBC and Sky News refused to, instead pretending that it was not happening. But today, Fox "News" and its Sky and Beeb wannabes have got what they wanted through their servants at Ofcom, which acts for all practical purposes as an arm of whichever rogue element in the Foreign Office has secured the appointment of the current Ambassador to Israel, a man who publicly aspires to citizenship of the country to which he has been posted, and who has apologised for the arrest of Tzipi Livni's anti-British terrorist parents.
As confirmed by the resignation of Liam Fox, the Prime Minister and 80 per cent of his ostensible party's MPs are in reality members of Likud, which openly sits in government with a party, that of the Foreign Minister, which wants to denaturalise the Arabs and the ultra-Orthodox Jews. Al Jazeera and Russia Today, watch out.
Hi David,
I've no doubt that Russia Today will be next in the line of fire.
Neocon MP Denis McShame has already called for Putin to be barred from the Olympics.
Russia's crime? To oppose neocon policies on Iran.
First of all,let me say that I do not believe that Press TV should be taken off the air. My belief in free speech and free press is not so selective as some.
Two reasons were given to justify the decision. The first one, about editorial control being based in Tehran, doesn't stand up as the same could be said for other foreign channels operating in the UK.
The second reason is that Press TV refused to pay a fine imposed as a punishment for broadcasting an interview carried out under duress. I'm sure they could have afforded to pay it and deprived Ofcom of a justification.
This sham 'interview' and the relative lack of press freedom in Iran itself precludes me from feeling too much sympathy, though I repeat that I would like Press TV to stay on air.
When all is said and done, nothing much has changed-- Press TV's UK viewers will simply watch it online.
It is no secret that Al Jazerra, Russia Today and Press TV are state funded news organisations but what was the explanation for Press TV being axed from Britain?
@David Lindsay
I think Tony Blairs cousin was also a presenter on Press TV.
@Neil Clark
No they have been against Russia since the collapse of the USSR because they want to destabilise the country and split it into smaller separate countries like the former Yugoslavia along ethnic lines so they can control the Caspian oil basin and control Eurasia.
Russia’s main opposition to an Iran war is that it would free up the Caspian transit route connecting Iran and Turkey making the Nabucco pipeline possible that transits Caspian oil to European markets that bypass Russia.
Czarny Kot:
good piece on why Press tv has been banned on Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/20/britain-bans-press-tv/
The wikileaks revelations are very interesting.
jack: totally agreed re the neocon targeting of Russia. But it's even more important now for neocons to destabilise Russia because of the country's position on Iran.
Hello Neil
I have read the CounterPunch article already but it didn't really convince me.
First of all, I don't think the second reason cited for the withdrawal of Press TV's licence-- the unpaid fine-- has been adequately refuted (at least to my knowledge)
Secondly, crying about lack of press freedom is both over-dramatic and hypocritical.
Over-dramatic because Press TV is still available on the internet. On my TV I only have CNN and DWTV but I have free access via internet to Al-Jazeera, BBC, Fox, RT, Press TV... I think that most people who are politically aware enough to have heard of Press TV, let alone waych it, rely more on the internet for their information than on their TV set.
Hypocritical because the author of the Counterpunch piece, as a Press TV employee, is paid by a government which openly practises genuine press censorship.
As things stand, it is easier (and more legal) for me to watch Press TV than it is to watch match highlights of my beloved Newcastle United.
Hi Czarny,
Fair points- but taking Press TV off tv does amount to censorship- as it will greatly reduce the number of people in the UK who'll be able to watch it. While nearly everyone has a tv or access to one, there's still a sizeable chunk of the population who don't have computers and who never go online.
They won't now be able to hear the alternative view on world events provided by Press TV.
Yes, Press TV is still available on the internet, but I fear that there'll be moves to stop that too, in the present climate.
I don't think the argument 'well, there's censorship in Iran so how can they complain' is a strong one. The UK and its many 'liberal interventionist' 'free speech' pundits criticises Iran for press censorship- and now we're doing it.
Bet you're very pleased with the great job AP is doing at Newcastle.
Hi Neil
Newcastle's season so far has been amazing and surprising-- I had expected them to struggle at the foot of the table. Pardew deserves all the credit he's getting.
As for your point about TV / internet access, it would hold true if Press TV were available on terrestial TV. However, Press TV was on satellite. Roughly 82.5% of the UK population have internet access. I do not know how many people have satellite but i'd be very surprised if it was more than 82.5%.
I doubt Press TV had much of a viewership on Sky with most viewing there programs on YouTube like Russia Today so the ban is counter productive.
Hi Czarny,
I think people are always going to prefer to watch news channels/ new broadcasts on tv rather than on computers. If taking Press TV off the tv screens in the UK doesn't really matter in regards to its impact, why did certain people lobby for it to happen?
Sorry about today's Fulham v Newcastle result!
jack: I think it's the job of all anti-war progressives and genuine supporters of free speech (as opposed to Index on Censorship-style
free speech phoneys) to make sure that the ban IS counter-productive.
Tell a friend about Press TV- and pass on to him or her the internet link. Spreading the word about Press TV is the best thing we can do to fight back against Britain's illiberal liberals and those who don't want to see the dominant narrative challenged.
I haven't been following this story, as I've been preoccupied with my part in educating my Senators and Representatives on the awfulness of the Stop Online Piracy Act.
This is one of those moments where I share your disappointment. I don't have access to Press TV, but I think it would be helpful to be able to consider what is being said by any media outlet.
I don't think anyone can argue that the expulsion of Press TV from the UK is not a highly political act, following the UK's warmongering talk against Tehran, and considering Iran's constant reminders of Israel's continuing war crimes against Palestinians. Just because it is still available on the net - well look what else is!
There is another point here though which I have to raise; the grouping with Press TV and Russia Today with AL Jazeera! If you look at what is going on in Syria, how the whole Western world has been brainwashed with the help of AL Jazeera, promoting Qatar's agenda to install a puppet government instead of the popular Assad. AJ is the first station that we should stop watching.
The Iranian state is, basically, the equivalent of the state the Daily Express would create here if it could.
No surprise that an Express hack worships it. I'll stick with what we have created in the West, which for all its faults needs to be defended against all forms of conservatism, fear and insularity, wherever they come from.
So Orban in Hungary is called a "dictator" for trying to make minor amendments to the media whilst "free " Britain is not threatened with EU legal action or condemnation for banning Press TV.
Maybe this is part of the drive to get the correct ideas propagated in line with plans to attack Iran in the coming year. Just as the BBC should not be banned in Iran nor should Press TV in Britain.
@Douglas
The bad news is they took down MegaUpload which was one of the best as a free user for downloading files fast.
I hope they don't do the same for other file hosting sites like WUpload, Fileserve, etc.
Karl: yes, the double standards are glaring.
Robin: In what way is opposing the banning of Press TV tantamount to worshipping the Iranian state? What a ridiculous comment. All I've said on Iran is that we should:
1. respect the fact that the current govt does have majority support (did you read ex-CIA man Robert Baer's piece on the elections?)
2. not only rule out war on Iran, but lift sanctions too.
In what ways does that amount to 'worshipping' the Iranian state?
Sad to see you're taking the old neocon line: if someone opposes aggression- economic or military against a country, and merely wants it to be allowed to live in peace-then they are somehow worshippers of its regime.
It is always sad to see any view being snuffed out, even if I don’t agree with it. It does make me wonder though why PressTV didn’t pay the fine. It gave Ofcom the sense of legitimacy in the whole proceeding, as they had justifiable grounds of revoking the licence. I heard an interview with a PressTV rep and they didn’t say they felt the fine was unjustified, just that they didn’t pay it, so why give Ofcom a decent excuse?
Whilst I am no fan of censorship, I would wonder how big an effect this actually has. I would imagine the viewing figures to be mighty low. I feel pretty politically aware but have never watched PressTV (no satellite connection) and it is also available on the internet. If I was a cynic and this was some consumer product I may even be moved to suggest it was a marketing strategy to place the web stream as a “go to place for an alternative view”.
David M:
"I don't think anyone can argue that the expulsion of Press TV from the UK is not a highly political act, following the UK's warmongering talk against Tehran, and considering Iran's constant reminders of Israel's continuing war crimes against Palestinians."
Agree totally with that. There's been another victory for the neo-con/pro-Israel lobby today with the EU oil embrago.
Douglas:
"I don't have access to Press TV, but I think it would be helpful to be able to consider what is being said by any media outlet."
Spoken like a true believer in free speech and not an Index on Censorship-style hypocrite.
Ian: Hopefully people will watch online and that the ban will not have as big an impact as Press TV's enemies hope it will have.
george W Bush: 'they hate us for our freedoms'!
one of which is to close any media that dont portray events the way the elected dictators like.
Did the people of the UK consent for Press TV to be banned? if not the decision was dictatorial.
How ironic that Press TV was banned when it was siding with the miserable western press in their war on Libya...
'Hypocritical because the author of the Counterpunch piece, as a Press TV employee, is paid by a government which openly practises genuine press censorship.'
Czarny Kot must be assuming the Brits americans and others dont practice 'genuine' censorship...
Try to organise sedition against the UK govt and see how long your media lasts.
The western media now practice self-censorship.
'I haven't been following this story, as I've been preoccupied with my part in educating my Senators and Representatives on the awfulness of the Stop Online Piracy Act. '
Douglas....YOUR 'repesentatives'? Did you manage to buy them? because your senators represent those who fund them.
I can't say that CounterPunch article has convinced me.
I still don't understand why they didn't pay the fine. Do they say anywhere that they though it was unjustified?
Perhaps they wanted to get banned, so they can turn around and call the UK government hypocrites. But why give Ofcom a rather easy route to revoking the licence?
Neil,
the comparison I was drawing was between your social conservatism and belief that changes you don't like should be kept out by force - that culture should not be allowed to evolve at its own pace - and the similar attitudes of the Iranian state.
If the British state were to forcibly remove all channels playing pop music made since 1980 from Sky, that would be comparable censorship to that which exists within the Iranian state. And I have a terrible fear that you'd approve.
I also think the "hidden hand" rhetoric in David Lindsay's first reply to this thread is quite creepy and in the worst tradition of anti-Semitism.
The irony of Neil's citing Press TV on TV itself, rather than the internet, as some kind of bulwark against the folk devil of neoconservatism is that you had to subscribe to Sky to receive it that way, so arguably undermined your own case (if you thought of the world in that simplistic us-and-them sense anyway, which I don't). In other circumstances, Neil would be citing Sky as the destroyer of all of value in British television (which I would actually agree with if he meant radical drama and documentary, but *not* if he just meant Perry & Croft).
And anyway, how can you say how wonderful it is that the internet is relatively uncensored in the West, while genuflecting towards (not just respecting the rights of; there is a clear difference and Neil has crossed it many times) a state which very definitely censors it?
brian: george W Bush: 'they hate us for our freedoms'!
one of which is to close any media that dont portray events the way the elected dictators like.'
Good point.
Ian: probably because they felt that the fine was politically motivated and resented paying it for that reason.
Robin: 'the comparison I was drawing was between your social conservatism and belief that changes you don't like should be kept out by force' -
'belief that changes you don't like should be kept out by force'? again you're accusing me of opinions which I don't hold.
I'm sure David Lindsay can answer himself against what you have written, but drawing attention to the pro-Israel lobby, which most definitely exists, is in no way being anti-semitic. Conflating legitimate criticism of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby with anti-semitism is just a crude smear.
"how can you say how wonderful it is that the internet is relatively uncensored in the West, while genuflecting towards (a state which very definitely censors it?)"
Again, in what way is saying that we should stop bullying Iran and respect its rights and its sovereignty, 'genuflecting' towards it'?
"If the British state were to forcibly remove all channels playing pop music made since 1980 from Sky, that would be comparable censorship to that which exists within the Iranian state. And I have a terrible fear that you'd approve."
Your fear is wrong, dear boy. I most certainly would not approve.
No Baltimora, St Etienne or Pet Shop Boys? That would be terrible.
Neil, we're never going to see eye to eye on things like this (you seem to view any Left-originated criticism of the Iranian state as "neoconservatism", and any true Leftist can tell the difference), but would your response be any different if the forced exclusion of *black* pop made since 1980 was proposed?
RPC (St Et & PSB fan all the same)
Surely the very existence of sites like 'Counterpunch' (of which I am a fan) and blogs such as this one serves to refute thier own claims that media censorship in the west is in any way comparable with that of places such as Iran.
Robin:
would your response be any different if the forced exclusion of *black* pop made since 1980 was proposed?
No.
i'd take issue with yr premise that moderate social conservatism (and I'm not talking about Iran here), and what you call 'true leftism' are incompatible. In fact, they go together. Extreme social liberalism and extreme economic liberalism feed off one another.
czarny kot: good point. But how many times have you seen me or Alex Cockburn, or Seumas Milne, or John Pilger on the BBC's Question Time, or heard us on Any Questions?
The tv media in Britain still is very biased towards elite establishment figures and neocons, even tho' they have very little public support. I've been on the BBC five or six times over the last 12 months- but all about sport or
the privatisation of the Tote- not on foreign policy. To hear genuinely alternative views on foreign policy, you have to tune in to Russia Today, not the BBC.
Neil,
it's all very well for you to say that *now*, but some of the things you've said about hip-hop *in its totality* (as though it had been possible at any point since about 1986 to make such generalisations) would suggest otherwise. They are on a par in their ignorance with what Iranian conservatives would say about pop music *in its totality* (as though it had been possible to make such generalisations at any point since about ... well, 1956, really).
It occurs to me that neither you nor David Lindsay seem to mention Scandinavia as much as you, at least, mention the former "socialist" regimes in Eastern Europe (inverted commas are deliberate; I don't think countries that prohibit the organisation of trade unions separate from the state deserve such a description). Could this be because Scandinavia's avoidance of anything like the UK/US level of economic neoliberalism, having led the world in social liberalism in the 1960s & 70s, gives the lie to your notion that a more open and tolerant society than we had here in the 50s must *automatically* lead to an economic free-for-all and loss of any kind of security?
I can see some of your argument, but to blame Thatcherism entirely on the New Left is a ridiculously one-sided reading of history (Ian MacDonald, in his peerless 'Revolution in the Head', identifies the origins of Thatcherism in the 60s - but in mass consumer culture, *not* in New Left ideologies). It had many interrelated causes, not the least of which was the *Old* Left, in the form of the trade unions, going too far in 1973/4. Its immediate origins have far more to do with the Old Left trying to throw off the economic consensus than the New Left trying to throw off the social one.
a propos Press TV specifically, I don't think *anyone* (least of all anyone of the Left) should gloss over its broadcasting of coerced confessions or its employment of blatant anti-Semites (by which I mean considerably more than critics of the Israeli state, lest anyone ask).
Whatever the manifold imperfections of the US system, at least it was *possible* within that system for Fox News to turn overnight, on 20th January 2009, from a pro-government propaganda station to an anti-government propaganda station. Such are the restrictions on anyone even *standing* for the Iranian presidency (the equivalent religious-conservative criteria would almost certainly have frozen out Obama were they applied in the US) that it is inconceivable that Press TV could make the same transition.
Where religious conservatism is concerned, it is actually much more acceptable when it is tempered by capitalist logic, and thus unable to take its most extreme possible form because the demands of the market prevent it (capitalism is not *in itself* progressive, but can become so in context when set against older, more deep-rootedly reactionary forces). This is why American religious conservatism, however vile it is, very rarely reaches the same level as the Iranian version.
Hi Robin:
re the reason why I write more about eastern europe than Scandanavia is that I have lived and worked in eastern europe and know the region well. But I have written about Scandinavian socialism particularly in relation to Norway.
"its employment of blatant anti-Semites ". That's quite a charge to lay, can you be more specific?
On the subject of Press TV have you read this piece by Geoffrey Alderman on CIF?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/24/suppressing-press-tv-ofcom-licence
Robin: Don't know if you ever saw this piece of mine in praise of Norwegian socialism:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200409060021
Robin C.:"The irony of Neil's citing Press TV on TV itself, rather than the internet, as some kind of bulwark against the folk devil of neoconservatism is that you had to subscribe to Sky to receive it".
This is complete rubbish. You did not have to subscribe to Sky to receive Press TV. It was available free-to-air via Astra 2A on FTA and Freesat equipment. It is still available via Astra 1 19.2E and Hotbird 13.0E completely free-to-air providing you point your lnb at the right satellite.
You can get a free-to-air satellite kit from Amazon, ebay, maplin etc for half the price of an annual BBC TV licence.
ROBIN C: "Such are the restrictions on anyone even *standing* for the Iranian presidency (the equivalent religious-conservative criteria would almost certainly have frozen out Obama were they applied in the US)"
Of course the only restriction on standing for the US Presidency is the ability to raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
ROBIN C:"This is why American religious conservatism, however vile it is, very rarely reaches the same level as the Iranian version."
The American religious right merely being the cheerleaders for mass slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Nicaragua etc.
Remind me again, how many countries has Iran invaded and occupied since 1979?
Plenty of evidence online re. Press TV having employed people who went considerably further than criticising the Israeli state.
I know you have written about Scandinavia positively, but I do think you need to acknowledge that it undermines your social liberalism = economic neoliberalism argument. In the 1960s, Australia was a deeply socially conservative society (a case in point: the Troggs' "I Can't Control Myself" was banned outright by the state - not just a radio ban, you couldn't even go out and buy it), and by 1970-ish Scandinavia had far more open access to sex/porn films &c than virtually anywhere else. But Australia, as an English-speaking country, still ended up far more neoliberal than Scandinavia did.
Vegetable Man: great posts.
"The American religious right merely being the cheerleaders for mass slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Nicaragua etc." Absolutely. And cheerleaders for the assassination of progressive world leaders too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4177664.stm
Robin: "Plenty of evidence online re. Press TV having employed people who went considerably further than criticising the Israeli state."
Again, I'll ask you: can you be more specific?
"Australia, as an English-speaking country, still ended up far more neoliberal than Scandinavia did."
And what have Australia and the UK got in common? A Murdoch-dominated media.
Vegetable Man has reduced himself to the crudest form of politics, justifying a repressive regime not for what it is but for what it isn't. Religious conservatives in the US, if only because of their support for the market economy, *are* much less pro-censorship than Islamist ones (only extreme relativists would deny this). And the fact that a country does not invade others does not justify anything it might ever do to its own citizens - to suggest it does is to deny the universality of humanity and concerns for our fellow humans, and thus profoundly nationalist and right-wing.
Of course the US is profoundly financially unequal (far from the classless paradise that the post-war generation here imagined) and of course that has an effect on who can run for the presidency. I just don't think that justifies Iranian theocracy and human rights abuses, that's all. You could use that logic to justify virtually anything, but some of us don't, and have more advanced and less crude personal politics.
re. Australia, you're right about Murdoch, obviously, but you (deliberately?) didn't deal with my point that it was possible for Australia to go neoliberal having previously been profoundly socially conservative, which undermines your Blue Labour idea of where neoliberalism comes from. Selective quoting at its best/worst.
I do accept that Press TV was free to air on satellite, and accept the correction. But for a lot of people in the UK "satellite" equals "Sky" and "pay-TV" - there isn't the thriving FTA satellite market there is in continental Europe. Obviously this has to do with Murdoch's dominance and is thus to be regretted, but it cannot be wished away as though it were not there.
Robin:
"Religious conservatives in the US, if only because of their support for the market economy, *are* much less pro-censorship than Islamist ones."
I'd say that calling for someone you don't like, to be assassinated is pretty pro-censorship! Ditto supporting illegal attacks on other countries in order to 'regime change' and kill their leaders.
"the fact that a country does not invade others does not justify anything it might ever do to its own citizens"
Who says it does? But at the same time, we shouldn't minimise the importance of not invading others. Invading others means killing an awful lot of people- just think of Iraq. Is it morally right to say that the countries that committed this 'supreme international crime' should be somehow be exonerated, or regarded leniently, because they don't persecute gay people for instance. Don't get me wrong: the fact that they don't persecute gay people is obviously a good thing, but it shouldn't mean that because countries have domestic policies of which we approve, the countries have a free pass to cause death and destruction to people of other countries. Don't forget, wars are the greatest destroyers of human rights-and avoiding wars is the best thing we can do for human rights.
ps- Any chance of some more specifics on yr claim about Press TV employing anti-semites?
The only crude display here is from Robin Carmody whose "advanced personal politics" are pushing for war on Iran.
I was referring to censorship and artificial holding back of cultural developments that conservatives don't like - something you have shown signs of approving of on many occasions.
"Who says it does?"
You do, when you romanticise states such as Iran (as in your Auberon Waugh article).
I thought the invasion of Iraq was a deeply ill-conceived decision in those circumstances at that time. But that does not mean I support absolute sovereignty. You can have nuanced opinions on these matters.
Hi Vegetable Man:
you'll notice that Robin still hasn't provided any specifics for his charge that Press TV employs 'blatant anti-semites'.
Robin: "I thought the invasion of Iraq was a deeply ill-conceived decision in those circumstances at that time". That's a rather euphemistic way of describing a brutal and blatantly illegal war which has led to the death of up to 1m people and which was justified on the fraudulent grounds that Iraq possessed WMDs.
Well, for a start, Press TV has published articles on its website taking the forged 'Protocols of the Orders of Zion' seriously, and accusing Ofcom of being part of a global Jewish conspiracy. It has interviewed, and taken seriously, admirers of David Duke who think Mossad may have been responsible for the September 11 attacks, that Jewish power controls the US government, and blame Jews for the economic crisis and for the fact that American mass culture isn't exactly as it was in the days of 'My Three Sons' (probably). It has also repeated the organ-harvesting libel (a modern Islamist equivalent of the ancient blood libel).
Vegetable Man: I'm not "pushing for war on Iran". I'm against it. I just don't think that means we should treat the Iranian state and its propaganda agencies with any respect. It is possible to not have a crude either-or approach, you know ...
Robin: Do you have any sources?
Google "Press TV" + "anti-Semites"
Sorry, Robin, that's not answering my question. As I've written before, it used to be said that patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel, nowadays it's making false accusations of anti-semitism.
Googling 'Press TV and anti-semitism' would no doubt show up plenty of pro-Israel websites & blogs making accusations of anti-semitism- what I asked you for was direct sources.
btw Robin- I notice in yr earlier post you claimed that Press TV EMPLOYED 'blatant anti-semites'.
You seem to have quietly dropped that claim and are now switching to people who they have interviewed.
I'm giving up. Those who don't want to admit things never will. Those of us with more nuanced personal politics understand.
But here are some sources, should you care:
http://jhate.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/press-tv-uses-us-anti-semites-as-commentators/
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/lady-renouf-neo-nazis-and-presstv/
http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2011/05/29/press-tv-and-the-protocols-of-the-learned-elders-of-zion/
(and many others found easily)
Thanks, Robin, but what I was after was primary sources of Press TV employing 'blatant anti-semites' which is what you claimed. What I've got is links to blogs claiming anti-semitism. Modernity Blog is hardly an impartial source- I have never heard of the other two.
I don't think falsely claiming that a tv station you don't like employs 'blatant anti-semites' is very nuanced.
Post a Comment