In the mid to late 80s, John Pilger changed my politics. But not in the way he probably intended. I bought his book on the miners strike. Pilger's explanation - similar to that of The Guardian's Seumas Milne - is that the miners were victims of a right wing conspiracy. My conclusion after reading the book was very different. Part of the reason the strike was doomed to defeat was due to strategic errors and the inept leadership of the NUM. To discount and ignore this indicated to me that Pilger for all his passion and campaigning zeal was more interested in comforting polemic than in complex realities and the actual evidence of what happened in 1984.
Rather than reflect on the merits of what youre supporting or carry out any self criticism, Pilger and others on the left prefer everything kept simple and in black and white. Therefore the fact that he is championing Assange as a victim of an US led conspiracy doesnt surprise me. But to see Helena Kennedy trying to stop a guy being extradicted on rape charges to Sweden, the most liberal, independent and non-aligned nations on the planet tells me that instinctive anti Americanism of segments of the political left in Britain is overriding true concerns over the human rights of two Swedish women. Thats exactly the sort of wrong headedness that results when celebrity anti estabishment posing and polemic replaces rational thought
In the mid to late 80s, John Pilger changed my politics. But not in the way he probably intended. I bought his book on the miners strike. Pilger's explanation - similar to that of The Guardian's Seumas Milne - is that the miners were victims of a right wing conspiracy. My conclusion after reading the book was very different. Part of the reason the strike was doomed to defeat was due to strategic errors and the inept leadership of the NUM. To discount and ignore this indicated to me that Pilger for all his passion and campaigning zeal was more interested in comforting polemic than in complex realities and the actual evidence of what happened in 1984.
Rather than reflect on the merits of what youre supporting or carry out any self criticism, Pilger and others on the left prefer everything kept simple and in black and white. Therefore the fact that he is championing Assange as a victim of an US led conspiracy doesnt surprise me. But to see Helena Kennedy trying to stop a guy being extradicted on rape charges to Sweden, the most liberal, independent and non-aligned nations on the planet tells me that instinctive anti Americanism of segments of the political left in Britain is overriding true concerns over the human rights of two Swedish women. Thats exactly the sort of wrong headedness that results when celebrity anti estabishment posing and polemic replaces rational thought
That tells me two things about you, one that in the 1980s all you saw was the propaganda and two that you haven't changed much.
The program was a real eye opener. The problem is that I assume the only people who really sat down to watch this were the people who already had doubts about how the "world leaders" control what the media report.
So many people watch or read the news and belive it to be the truth. The documentary showed that it is very rarely the truth but as the saying goes "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets out of bed". And by that time it's too late. The lie is belived by those who do not want to change their minds.
That tells me two things about you, one that in the 1980s all you saw was the propaganda and two that you haven't changed much.
What is propaganda?
The irony about John Pilger - who supposedly embodies investigative journalism - is that he himself is an idealogue and arch propagandist with little interest in nuanced evidence and niceties such as facts.
Throughout his career Pilger has created his own egotistical myth and personality cult based on a fairly silly notion that he alone in a compliant complaisant media is in possession of the unalloyed truth.
The fact thats he's associated with Assange - another individual creating his own phoney self glorifying myth as victim - is not surprising.
So many people watch or read the news and belive it to be the truth. The documentary showed that it is very rarely the truth but as the saying goes "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets out of bed".
But you should remember that Pilger has an agenda and whilst he is correct in much of what he says in others he is not.
But to see Helena Kennedy trying to stop a guy being extradicted on rape charges to Sweden, the most liberal, independent and non-aligned nations on the planet tells me that instinctive anti Americanism of segments of the political left in Britain is overriding true concerns over the human rights of two Swedish women.
It is a bit bizarre that people who campaign to make the UK more like Sweden are fighting desperately to stop this guys extradition there to face his accusers.
Afer all it's not like he was being sent to Iran..:D
The irony about John Pilger - who supposedly embodies investigative journalism - is that he himself is an idealogue and arch propagandist with little interest in nuanced evidence and niceties such as facts.
Throughout his career Pilger has created his own egotistical myth and personality cult based on a fairly silly notion that he alone in a compliant complaisant media is in possession of the unalloyed truth.
The fact thats he's associated with Assange - another individual creating his own phoney self glorifying myth as victim - is not surprising.
I haven't seen all the film but I've seen clips of it and it seems pretty factual to me.
He's probably associated with Asssange because he can see that if wikileaks had been able to get and publish documents relating to the Iraq war prior to our invasion it would have probably never happened. If people could have seen the truth not the lies the media was feeding us we would probably have not allowed it to happen. If people could have seen the memos expressing doubts not certainties about WMD they would have known there was no reason for war. A lot of people who are now dead would be alive, a lot of people who are now sick and maimed would be healthy.
I haven't seen all the film but I've seen clips of it and it seems pretty factual to me.
He's probably associated with Asssange because he can see that if wikileaks had been able to get and publish documents relating to the Iraq war prior to our invasion it would have probably never happened. If people could have seen the truth not the lies the media was feeding us we would probably have not allowed it to happen. If people could have seen the memos expressing doubts not certainties about WMD they would have known there was no reason for war. A lot of people who are now dead would be alive, a lot of people who are now sick and maimed would be healthy.
Thats conflating a lot of issues
Unlike Assange and Pilger, I am not fixated on American foreign policy and take it as axiomatic that the US is essentially a malign presence and the sole engine of world evil.
The trouble with Pilger is that, as a polemicist, he ignores all tyranny and oppression if it contradicts his anti American world view. For example, he's never going to write an essay on the 2009 Iranian election protests and the death of Neda Agha-Soltan is he?
He exhibits an anti Western self loathing that personally makes me cringe.
I haven't seen all the film but I've seen clips of it and it seems pretty factual to me.
He's probably associated with Asssange because he can see that if wikileaks had been able to get and publish documents relating to the Iraq war prior to our invasion it would have probably never happened. If people could have seen the truth not the lies the media was feeding us we would probably have not allowed it to happen. If people could have seen the memos expressing doubts not certainties about WMD they would have known there was no reason for war. A lot of people who are now dead would be alive, a lot of people who are now sick and maimed would be healthy.
Rubbish.
The myth propagated that "I was against iraq" is just self comforting nonsense because it's turned out a bit messy.
I dare say the usual lot were against the war. But the rest of us really couldn't give two hoots. That's why Labour were re elected.
Always gets me that people who are so sure about knowing the truth, seeing through the media lies, not being sheep are at the same time so blind about the people around them.
In simple terms, the UK and America got together with some fantastic state of the art weaponary and for a while "kicked some butt". It was fun while it was us killing them in large numbers, not so good when that stage was over.
We are a belligerant, aggressive people which has been very useful over the centuries. The aftermath of hand wringing is the equivilant of the criminal feeling sorry when they have been caught.
Recognise what the people are like, then you might be worth listening to (and people like Pilger). Stop making excuses for us, we really don't need them.
The irony about John Pilger - who supposedly embodies investigative journalism - is that he himself is an idealogue and arch propagandist with little interest in nuanced evidence and niceties such as facts.
Throughout his career Pilger has created his own egotistical myth and personality cult based on a fairly silly notion that he alone in a compliant complaisant media is in possession of the unalloyed truth.
The fact thats he's associated with Assange - another individual creating his own phoney self glorifying myth as victim - is not surprising.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I believe his standing has been somewhat diminished over the years for the points you've raised.
He's clinging onto the limelight for dear life though.
Speak-Softly: Everyone has a different level of interest. I don't think it's a myth that people were against the war before it turned messy. People were clearly against the war, otherwise why did they march (myself included) in London? And before you suggest I'm part of 'the usual lot', I presume you mean hippies that protest anything, it was the first time I'd protested in my life and I did so because I took quite an interest in the news reports from lots of sources.
Unfortunately I missed this, but judging by many of the comments on this thread so far, it seems that Pilger is up to his old tricks of selective reporting, whilst presenting the image of a politically neutral 'truth' seeker.
It's therefore something of a mystery as to why, he, a self appointed champion of justice and truth, has been on record for giving glowing support to Hugo Chavez.
Now I think most people, irrespective of political allegiance, can agree that Chavez's socialist 'utopia' aint' quite all it's cracked up to be, to say the least.
Justice or even the 'truth' doesn't motivate John...hard left politics motivates John. Pity he can't be more honest about it as it's so blindingly obvious.
Unfortunately I missed this, but judging by many of the comments on this thread so far, it seems that Pilger is up to his old tricks of selective reporting, whilst presenting the image of a politically neutral 'truth' seeker.
It's therefore something of a mystery as to why, he, a self appointed champion of justice and truth, has been on record for giving glowing support to Hugo Chavez.
Now I think most people, irrespective of political allegiance, can agree that Chavez's socialist 'utopia' aint' quite all it's cracked up to be, to say the least.
Justice or even the 'truth' doesn't motivate John...hard left politics motivates John. Pity he can't be more honest about it as it's so blindingly obvious.
If you didn't watch you are in no place to make any judgement on the content!
Pilger's explanation - similar to that of The Guardian's Seumas Milne - is that the miners were victims of a right wing conspiracy. My conclusion after reading the book was very different. Part of the reason the strike was doomed to defeat was due to strategic errors and the inept leadership of the NUM. To discount and ignore this indicated to me that Pilger for all his passion and campaigning zeal was more interested in comforting polemic than in complex realities and the actual evidence of what happened in 1984.
Arthur Scargill was a fool he picked the wrong time and the wrong opponent and his blinkered and rather foolish assumption that the miners were all powerful was also wrong.
He also had the problem that not all the miners were of the same opinion and consequently they split apart.
I was very sorry for the miners I could see they were being led to destruction but sadly a combination of loyalty to Scargill and the NUM and hatred of Maggie blinded them to the brutal reality - they couldn't win.
Arthur Scargill was a fool he picked the wrong time and the wrong opponent and his blinkered and rather foolish assumption that the miners were all powerful was also wrong.
He also had the problem that not all the miners were of the same opinion and consequently they split apart.
I was very sorry for the miners I could see they were being led to destruction but sadly a combination of loyalty to Scargill and the NUM and hatred of Maggie blinded them to the brutal reality - they couldn't win.
I am not saying Scargill was perfect but ...
By the time the strike happened he didn't really have much choice. In hindsight it would have been far better to have struck in 1981
By the time the strike happened he didn't really have much choice. In hindsight it would have been far better to have struck in 1981
Like many at the time I broadly supported the miners, if not their leadership.
My point was that Pilger and Milne dont need a right wing conspiracy to explain the failure of the miner's strike. Scargill himself - his terrible decison making, arrogant, iconoclastic nature, his rare ability to make enemies out of friends, and by his actions split the Labour movement from top to bottom - is explanation enough.
Rather than reflect on the merits of what youre supporting or carry out any self criticism, Pilger and others on the left prefer everything kept simple and in black and white.
I see. So this simplistic outlook it limited just to those on "the left", is it? Isn't that a rather black and white way of looking at things, too?
to see Helena Kennedy trying to stop a guy being extradicted on rape charges to Sweden, the most liberal, independent and non-aligned nations on the planet tells me that instinctive anti Americanism of segments of the political left in Britain is overriding true concerns over the human rights of two Swedish women.
There does seem to be something rather odd, or co-incidental, or even conspiritorial about some aspects of his detention, though, regardless of your portrayal of Sweden being a liberal utopia.
The organisation Women Against Rape reports up to 90% of all rapes reported in Sweden never even get to court. In 2006, six people were convicted of rape in Sweden although almost 4000 were reported. So, why did they pull out all the stops to reverse a previous decision that there was not a case to answer? What was so different about Assagne?
In terms of the UK treatment of Assagne; how come other men accused of rape and previous convictions for serious violent crimes were allowed bail, but he was not (initially)? What was so different about Assagne?
The trouble with Pilger is that, as a polemicist, he ignores all tyranny and oppression if it contradicts his anti American world view. For example, he's never going to write an essay on the 2009 Iranian election protests and the death of Neda Agha-Soltan is he?
That's probably due to the fact that the Iranian election protests and death of Neda Agha-Soltan received wall-to-wall coverage in the mainstream news media at the time. Why would he need to investigate something that was already being investigated and chewed over in great detail by everybody else?
He has observed in interviews however, that there appears to be a curious difference in approach to civil unrest that receives high exposure worldwide (e.g. Iranian election) and protests that just get a cursory mention (Honduran coup).
Did anything happen to those Americans soldiers/officers who on that video leaked by wikileaks just slaughtered those Iraqi's from the air for no reason?
![[Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c09ccc08ff0535d3d8bc62d6cd5abe96.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 940
Comments
:cool:
It was good esp the second half - shows that sometimes people need to edited.
Would have been more effective in an hour
Rather than reflect on the merits of what youre supporting or carry out any self criticism, Pilger and others on the left prefer everything kept simple and in black and white. Therefore the fact that he is championing Assange as a victim of an US led conspiracy doesnt surprise me. But to see Helena Kennedy trying to stop a guy being extradicted on rape charges to Sweden, the most liberal, independent and non-aligned nations on the planet tells me that instinctive anti Americanism of segments of the political left in Britain is overriding true concerns over the human rights of two Swedish women. Thats exactly the sort of wrong headedness that results when celebrity anti estabishment posing and polemic replaces rational thought
That tells me two things about you, one that in the 1980s all you saw was the propaganda and two that you haven't changed much.
So many people watch or read the news and belive it to be the truth. The documentary showed that it is very rarely the truth but as the saying goes "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets out of bed". And by that time it's too late. The lie is belived by those who do not want to change their minds.
What is propaganda?
The irony about John Pilger - who supposedly embodies investigative journalism - is that he himself is an idealogue and arch propagandist with little interest in nuanced evidence and niceties such as facts.
Throughout his career Pilger has created his own egotistical myth and personality cult based on a fairly silly notion that he alone in a compliant complaisant media is in possession of the unalloyed truth.
The fact thats he's associated with Assange - another individual creating his own phoney self glorifying myth as victim - is not surprising.
But you should remember that Pilger has an agenda and whilst he is correct in much of what he says in others he is not.
His is a view - it is not necessarily the truth.
It is a bit bizarre that people who campaign to make the UK more like Sweden are fighting desperately to stop this guys extradition there to face his accusers.
Afer all it's not like he was being sent to Iran..:D
I haven't seen all the film but I've seen clips of it and it seems pretty factual to me.
He's probably associated with Asssange because he can see that if wikileaks had been able to get and publish documents relating to the Iraq war prior to our invasion it would have probably never happened. If people could have seen the truth not the lies the media was feeding us we would probably have not allowed it to happen. If people could have seen the memos expressing doubts not certainties about WMD they would have known there was no reason for war. A lot of people who are now dead would be alive, a lot of people who are now sick and maimed would be healthy.
Thats conflating a lot of issues
Unlike Assange and Pilger, I am not fixated on American foreign policy and take it as axiomatic that the US is essentially a malign presence and the sole engine of world evil.
The trouble with Pilger is that, as a polemicist, he ignores all tyranny and oppression if it contradicts his anti American world view. For example, he's never going to write an essay on the 2009 Iranian election protests and the death of Neda Agha-Soltan is he?
He exhibits an anti Western self loathing that personally makes me cringe.
Rubbish.
The myth propagated that "I was against iraq" is just self comforting nonsense because it's turned out a bit messy.
I dare say the usual lot were against the war. But the rest of us really couldn't give two hoots. That's why Labour were re elected.
Always gets me that people who are so sure about knowing the truth, seeing through the media lies, not being sheep are at the same time so blind about the people around them.
In simple terms, the UK and America got together with some fantastic state of the art weaponary and for a while "kicked some butt". It was fun while it was us killing them in large numbers, not so good when that stage was over.
We are a belligerant, aggressive people which has been very useful over the centuries. The aftermath of hand wringing is the equivilant of the criminal feeling sorry when they have been caught.
Recognise what the people are like, then you might be worth listening to (and people like Pilger). Stop making excuses for us, we really don't need them.
He's clinging onto the limelight for dear life though.
It's therefore something of a mystery as to why, he, a self appointed champion of justice and truth, has been on record for giving glowing support to Hugo Chavez.
Now I think most people, irrespective of political allegiance, can agree that Chavez's socialist 'utopia' aint' quite all it's cracked up to be, to say the least.
Justice or even the 'truth' doesn't motivate John...hard left politics motivates John. Pity he can't be more honest about it as it's so blindingly obvious.
If you didn't watch you are in no place to make any judgement on the content!
The fact that Pilger produced it means I don't have to!
Did you notice that my critique was aimed at Jonno himself and not the programme? I only went off topic because other people did.
Arthur Scargill was a fool he picked the wrong time and the wrong opponent and his blinkered and rather foolish assumption that the miners were all powerful was also wrong.
He also had the problem that not all the miners were of the same opinion and consequently they split apart.
I was very sorry for the miners I could see they were being led to destruction but sadly a combination of loyalty to Scargill and the NUM and hatred of Maggie blinded them to the brutal reality - they couldn't win.
If you had asked the great British public who he was a month ago most would have had no idea and most probably still don't.
I am not saying Scargill was perfect but ...
By the time the strike happened he didn't really have much choice. In hindsight it would have been far better to have struck in 1981
Like many at the time I broadly supported the miners, if not their leadership.
My point was that Pilger and Milne dont need a right wing conspiracy to explain the failure of the miner's strike. Scargill himself - his terrible decison making, arrogant, iconoclastic nature, his rare ability to make enemies out of friends, and by his actions split the Labour movement from top to bottom - is explanation enough.
I see. So this simplistic outlook it limited just to those on "the left", is it? Isn't that a rather black and white way of looking at things, too?
There does seem to be something rather odd, or co-incidental, or even conspiritorial about some aspects of his detention, though, regardless of your portrayal of Sweden being a liberal utopia.
The organisation Women Against Rape reports up to 90% of all rapes reported in Sweden never even get to court. In 2006, six people were convicted of rape in Sweden although almost 4000 were reported. So, why did they pull out all the stops to reverse a previous decision that there was not a case to answer? What was so different about Assagne?
In terms of the UK treatment of Assagne; how come other men accused of rape and previous convictions for serious violent crimes were allowed bail, but he was not (initially)? What was so different about Assagne?
That's probably due to the fact that the Iranian election protests and death of Neda Agha-Soltan received wall-to-wall coverage in the mainstream news media at the time. Why would he need to investigate something that was already being investigated and chewed over in great detail by everybody else?
He has observed in interviews however, that there appears to be a curious difference in approach to civil unrest that receives high exposure worldwide (e.g. Iranian election) and protests that just get a cursory mention (Honduran coup).