{"id":19554,"date":"2021-09-25T18:37:39","date_gmt":"2021-09-25T18:37:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/?p=19554"},"modified":"2021-10-23T14:24:05","modified_gmt":"2021-10-23T14:24:05","slug":"gaslighting-the-public-serial-deceptions-by-the-state-corporate-media","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/2021\/09\/25\/gaslighting-the-public-serial-deceptions-by-the-state-corporate-media\/","title":{"rendered":"Gaslighting the public: serial deceptions by the state-corporate media"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following article on the role of political journalists in the state media was first posted by media lens<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

GASLIGHTING THE PUBLIC: SERIAL DECEPTION BY THE STATE-CORPORATE MEDIA<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

During last week\u2019s Tory Cabinet reshuffle, ITV political editor Robert Peston inadvertently summed up the primary function of political journalists:<\/p>\n

\u2018I simply pass on\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

His\u00a0tweet<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0was in reference to a ministerial source saying that Priti Patel was \u2018not looking happy\u2019. She remained in her job as Home Secretary.<\/p>\n

Peston\u2019s phrase was a tragicomic echo of a remark by Nick Robinson, ITV political editor during the Iraq war, who infamously declared that:<\/p>\n

\u2018It was my job to report what those in power were doing or thinking\u2026 That is all someone in my sort of job can do.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

(\u2018\u201cRemember the last time you shouted like that?\u201d I asked the spin doctor\u2019, The Times, 16 July, 2004)<\/em><\/p>\n

In 2012, Robinson, by now the BBC\u2019s political editor, mourned:<\/p>\n

\u2018The build-up to the invasion of Iraq is the point in my career when I have most regretted not pushing harder and not asking more questions\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n

(Nick Robinson, \u2018Live From Downing Street\u2019, Bantam Books, London, 2012, p. 332)<\/em><\/p>\n

However, Robinson\u2019s career certainly did not appear to have been harmed having abdicated this basic responsibility of journalism; namely, holding those in power to account. After a ten-year stint as the BBC political editor, he became a presenter on the high-profile BBC Radio 4 Today programme.<\/p>\n

Peston\u2019s counterpart at the BBC, political editor Laura Kuenssberg, also performs the required function of \u2018I simply pass on\u2019, broadcasting and amplifying the words of those in power with minimal \u2018analysis\u2019, far less critical appraisal. Relaying Prime Minister Boris Johnson\u2019s words on the current crisis in gas supply in the UK, as he flew to New York to attend climate talks, she\u00a0tweeted<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018Speaking on the plane Johnson said..<\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. gas supply probs shd be \u201ctemporary\u201d, the squeeze is a result of world waking up from pandemic shutdowns like everyone \u201cgoing to put the kettle on at the end of the TV programme\u201d and he said he was confident in UK supply chains\u2019<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Gary Neville, the football pundit and former Manchester United defender,\u00a0replied<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to Kuenssberg\u2019s tweet:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Hi Laura do you believe this guys crap ?\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    A tad blunt perhaps. But, judging by the number of \u2018likes\u2019 and \u2018retweets\u2019, it was a welcome challenge from someone with a public profile to the endless channelling by highly-paid political journalists of Johnson\u2019s twaddle \u2013 and worse (as we will see below).<\/p>\n

    Daniel Finkelstein, the Tory peer and Times columnist, defended Kuenssberg and\u00a0responded <\/strong><\/a>that reporting the Prime Minister\u2019s words \u2018is a part of her job\u2019 so that the public can judge them for themselves. Three obvious glaring holes in his argument are that the BBC political editor:<\/p>\n

    (a) rarely challenges Johnson (or other government ministers) to any significant extent;<\/p>\n

    (b) provides very few perspectives or opinions from outside the narrow range of \u2018mainstream\u2019 Parliamentary debate (Labour hardly counts as an effective \u2018Opposition\u2019 under the Blair-lite Sir Keir Starmer;<\/p>\n

    (c) ignores Johnson\u2019s many lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations which have been well-documented by several independent political observers, including\u00a0Peter Oborne<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Peter Stefanovic<\/strong><\/a>. Kuenssberg and her corporate media peers have given the Prime Minister a free pass on his serial deceptions.<\/p>\n

    There are countless examples of establishment bias by Kuenssberg (and her predecessors as BBC political editor). Recall, for example, that for years she\u00a0channelled<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0a one-sided account of Labour\u2019s supposed antisemitism crisis, including an infamous BBC Panorama programme that was\u00a0demolished<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0as a \u2018catalogue of reporting failures\u2019 by the Media Reform Coalition. Recall, too, her\u00a0evident disapproval<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0when Jeremy Corbyn, then leader of the Labour Party, refused to give her a commitment in a BBC News television interview that he was willing to press the nuclear button to launch weapons that would cause untold death and suffering.<\/p>\n

    On 20 September, 2021, The National newspaper in Scotland\u00a0reported<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that the flagship BBC News at Six \u2018did not run a single negative news story about the UK Government\u2019 during the previous week, 13-17 September. This was probably not an unusual week in that regard. Genuinely hard-hitting critical reporting of the Tory government is notable by its absence on BBC News and other establishment news media.<\/p>\n

    The truth is, that on one issue after another, leading journalists like Kuenssberg, Peston, and all the high-profile correspondents \u2018reporting\u2019 on politicians, the military and\u00a0intelligence services<\/strong><\/a>spend too much time performing as mere stenographers to power. Rational and critical opposing voices are routinely ignored, marginalised or ridiculed.<\/p>\n

    Media Lens has documented and explained over the past two decades how \u2018objectivity\u2019 and \u2018impartiality\u2019 are alien concepts to state-corporate journalism. As the US commentator Michael Parenti once\u00a0noted<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Bias in favor of the orthodox is frequently mistaken for \u201cobjectivity\u201d. Departures from this ideological orthodoxy are themselves dismissed as ideological.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Similarly, Matt Kennard, head of investigations at\u00a0Declassified UK<\/strong><\/a>, a vital resource for independent journalism,\u00a0put<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0it well:<\/p>\n

    \u2018If you\u2019re sympathetic to the weak, it\u2019s activist journalism. If you\u2019re sympathetic to the powerful, it\u2019s objective journalism.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The public are, in effect, constantly being subjected to gaslighting by corporate journalists purporting to inform the public what is happening around us. We are being told, explicitly and implicitly, that nothing is fundamentally wrong with the system of economics and power politics that prevail in the world. We are being misled that any serious problems that arise \u2013 even climate instability \u2013 can be \u2018fixed\u2019 by \u2018incentivising\u2019 changes to consumer behaviour, rejigging the economy by redirecting public subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables, but all still within a corporate-driven \u2018market\u2019 framework to maximise private profit, and by implementing technical \u2018solutions\u2019, such as capturing and storing carbon emissions (which have\u00a0failed<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to live up to the grandiose PR promises made, while fossil fuel companies have received large injections of public cash from governments).<\/p>\n

    In fact, \u2018mainstream\u2019 news is characterised by serial deceptions and omissions that hide essential truths about the world. We are being drip-fed propaganda that preserves the current inequitable system of power, privilege and class \u2013 even as we hurtle towards the abyss of climate chaos.<\/p>\n

    Any one of the topics addressed here could merit a media alert in its own right. Indeed, in each case, we have done so several times before. The objective here is to provide something of an overview of the propaganda system that is leading us towards ever greater levels of inequality and misery, even human extinction; a timely reminder of what is at stake.<\/p>\n

    Endless War<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Consider the recent pull-out of US troops from Afghanistan after twenty years of occupation. In an excellent\u00a0article<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for the Morning Star, Ian Sinclair observed that BBC News and other outlets continued to promote \u2018misleading narratives about the Afghan invasion and its motives\u2019. As just one example, Sinclair highlighted Johnson\u2019s \u2018astonishingly deceitful claim\u2019 that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018It was no accident that there has been no terrorist attack launched against Britain or any other Western country from Afghanistan in the last 20 years.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Sinclair countered:<\/p>\n

    \u2018First, terrorist attacks have taken place in Britain and the US that have been inspired by the US-British invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    He continued:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Second, it is widely understood by intelligence agencies and experts that the West\u2019s military intervention in Afghanistan led to a heightened terrorist threat to the West.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Sinclair added:<\/p>\n

    \u2018The final problem with the government\u2019s claim that the war stopped terrorism on the West from Afghanistan is that it\u2019s based on a simplistic understanding of the September 11 2001 terror attacks \u2014 that it was necessary for terrorists to \u201chave a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and other civilised nations,\u201d as president George W Bush explained in 2006.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    However, the 9-11 attacks were planned initially in Germany, training was implemented in the US and most of the hijackers were Saudi. A recent article in Covert Action Magazine\u00a0noted<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018The invasion of Afghanistan was launched following the NATO invocation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, but eventually it emerged that the report presented to NATO by U.S. Ambassador Frank Taylor contained no actual forensic evidence to support the assertion that the terror attacks had been orchestrated in Afghanistan.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The 7 July 2005 bomb attacks in London, and the Manchester Arena bombing and London Bridge attacks in 2017, required no \u2018safe haven\u2019 for terrorists to commit atrocities in Britain.<\/p>\n

    Sinclair summed up:<\/p>\n

    \u2018The omissions and distortions that have been made by politicians about Afghanistan over the last few weeks, echoed by much of the media, have been so big and unremitting it\u2019s easy to start questioning one\u2019s own grip on reality.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    But following corporate news media daily can have precisely that effect. In gaslighting media audiences, \u2018mainstream\u2019 news routinely skews the agenda in favour of what Washington and its allies wish to project. Thus, as Julie Hollar noted in a\u00a0piece<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for US-based media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), the corporate media only rediscovered Afghan women and their human rights when US troops left:<\/p>\n

    \u2018[corporate media] coverage gives the impression that Afghan women desperately want the US occupation to continue, and that military occupation has always been the only way for the US to help them. But for two decades, women\u2019s rights groups have been arguing that the US needed to support local women\u2019s efforts and a local peace process. Instead, both Democrat and Republican administrations continued to funnel trillions of dollars into the war effort, propping up misogynist warlords and fueling violence and corruption.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Hollar continued:<\/p>\n

    \u2018The US did not \u201crescue\u201d Afghan women with its military invasion in 2001, or its subsequent 20-year occupation. Afghan women need international help, but facile and opportunistic US media coverage pushes toward the same wrong kind of help that it\u2019s been pushing for the last two decades: military \u201cassistance,\u201d rather than\u00a0diplomacy and aid<\/strong><\/a>.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    She concluded:<\/p>\n

    \u2018For more than 20 years, US corporate media could have listened seriously to Afghan women and their concerns, bringing attention to their own efforts to improve their situation. Instead, those media outlets are proving once again that Afghan women\u2019s rights are only of interest to them when they can be used to prop up imperialism and the military industrial complex.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    FAIR has\u00a0summarised<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0a 20-year-long pattern of corporate media self-censorship, scapegoating and stenography since 9-11. The US \u2018war on terror\u2019 has likely killed more than one million people at a cost of $8 trillion, according to Brown University\u2019s\u00a0Costs of War project<\/strong><\/a>. The report\u00a0states<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Several times as many more have been killed as a reverberating effect of the wars \u2013 because, for example, of water loss, sewage and other infrastructural issues, and water-related disease.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Cost of War co-director Stephanie Savell said:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Twenty years from now, we\u2019ll still be reckoning with the high societal costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars \u2013 long after US forces are gone.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The corporate media played a major role in bringing about this catastrophe, then covering it up afterwards.<\/p>\n

    Meanwhile, the Biden administration is continuing its immoral mission to prosecute Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks co-founder and publisher, for telling the truth about US crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Assange rightly\u00a0said<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0in 2011 that the US goal was \u2018an endless war, not a successful war\u2019. The aim is to line the pockets of the narrow sector of society that profits from the military-industrial complex, at the expense of the general population.<\/p>\n

    In a\u00a0piece<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for Newsweek, Daniel Ellsberg, Alice Walker and Noam Chomsky wrote that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018When Assange published hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010, the public was given an unprecedented window into the lack of justification and the futility of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The truth was hidden by a generation of governmental lies. Assange\u2019s efforts helped show the American public what their government was doing in their name.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    As we have\u00a0noted<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0in previous media alerts, Assange\u2019s continued incarceration and long-term confinement, described as\u00a0torture<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0by Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, is a damning\u00a0indictment<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0of Western \u2018democracy\u2019.<\/p>\n

    Political commentator Philip Roddis\u00a0observes<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0astutely that \u2018Western democracy is ninety-five percent bogus\u2019 because:<\/p>\n

    \u2018(a) democracy implies consent, (b) consent is meaningless if not informed, and (c) informed consent implies truly independent media. That last we do not have when they are \u201clarge corporations selling privileged audiences to other large corporations\u201d [quoting Noam Chomsky].\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    A recurring feature of \u2018democracy\u2019 and its \u2018free press\u2019 is judicious silence or quiet mumbling when a \u2018mistake\u2019 is made. Consider the BBC\u2019s limited apology, and dearth of follow-up by almost all media, when the BBC conceded its coverage of an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Syrian city of Douma on 7 April, 2018 was\u00a0\u2018seriously flawed\u2019<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

    As we have\u00a0described<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0numerous<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0media<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0alerts<\/strong><\/a>, the corporate media declared with instant unanimity and certainty that Syria\u2019s President Bashar Assad was responsible for the attack. One week later, the US, UK and France launched missiles on Syria in response to the unproven allegations. Since then, there has been a\u00a0mounting<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0deluge of\u00a0evidence<\/strong><\/a>, in particular from whistleblowers, that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the UN poison gas watchdog, has perpetrated a\u00a0cover-up<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to preserve the Western narrative that Assad gassed civilians in Douma.<\/p>\n

    Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens had complained to the BBC following last November\u2019s Radio 4 broadcast of \u2018Mayday: The Canister On The Bed\u2019, which propagated the official Western narrative of the attack. In particular, Hitchens had objected to the slurs against an anonymous OPCW whistleblower named \u2018Alex\u2019. The BBC had claimed that \u2018Alex\u2019 only cast doubt on the official narrative because he had been promised $100,000 by WikiLeaks. The claim was false, as the BBC later admitted. There was no evidence to suggest that \u2018Alex\u2019, described as \u2018a highly qualified and apolitical scientist\u2019, was motivated by anything other than a desire for truth in sharing his doubts about the attack.<\/p>\n

    Aaron Mat\u00e9, an independent journalist with\u00a0The Grayzone<\/strong><\/a>, has vigorously and repeatedly pursued the\u00a0story<\/strong><\/a>, shaming both \u2018mainstream\u2019 media and most progressive media outlets who, like the corporate media, have blanked the scandal. He recently wrote a devastating\u00a0account<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0of the deceptions and evasions by OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias when appearing before the UN. Now, in a\u00a0must-watch interview<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0with Jimmy Dore about the BBC\u2019s apology, Mat\u00e9\u00a0said<\/strong><\/a>that the BBC only retracted part of its attack on the OPCW whistleblowers and that \u2018the retraction only scratches the surface of its deceit.\u2019<\/p>\n

    Steve Sweeney, international editor of the Morning Star,\u00a0noted<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0in response to the BBC\u2019s apology on its Douma coverage that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018None of the major British newspapers such as\u00a0The Times,\u00a0The Telegraph,\u00a0or the liberal mouthpiece for war with a human face,\u00a0The Guardian, gave it column space despite the serious nature of the matter.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The Stark Reality Of Newspeak<\/strong><\/p>\n

    But, of course, \u2018we\u2019 are the\u00a0\u2018good guys\u2019<\/strong><\/a>. And when evidence emerges to the contrary, it is shunted to the margins or buried. Other countries might be \u2018belligerent\u2019, but not us. Hence the deeply skewed reporting of the recent \u2018Aukus pact\u2019 between the US, UK and Australia which will provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines. This was largely presented by state-corporate news, including the\u00a0BBC<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Guardian<\/strong><\/a>, as a \u2018defence\u2019 deal to \u2018counter\u2019 China in its \u2018belligerent behaviour\u2019 in the Indo-Pacific.<\/p>\n

    BBC News at Ten declared on 16 September:<\/p>\n

    \u2018The deal will deliver nuclear-powered submarines to the Australian navy to promote stability in the Indo-Pacific region which has come under increasing pressure from China.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The BBC might as well admit that they are reading out press releases on behalf of Western power.<\/p>\n

    An online BBC News\u00a0article<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0included the deceptive wording:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Aukus is being widely viewed as an effort to counter Beijing\u2019s influence in the contested South China Sea.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The weasel phrase \u2018widely viewed\u2019 is newspeak for \u2018the view from Washington and London\u2019.<\/p>\n

    Likewise, the Guardian\u00a0dutifully carried<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0the official US-UK view and framed its reporting accordingly:<\/p>\n

    \u2018In Washington, the US defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, made clear that the administration had chosen to close ranks with Australia in the face of belligerent Chinese behaviour.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u2018Austin said he had discussed with Australian ministers \u201cChina\u2019s destabilising activities and Beijing\u2019s efforts to coerce and intimidate other countries, contrary to established rules and norms\u201d, adding: \u201cWhile we seek a constructive results-oriented relationship with [China], we will remain clear-eyed in our view of Beijing\u2019s efforts to undermine the established international order.\u201d\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Imagine if western journalists regularly wrote news reports about the plentiful examples of belligerent US behaviour. And about America\u2019s destabilising activities and efforts to coerce and intimidate other countries, contrary to established rules and norms. But that would be real journalism. Instead, a Guardian editorial\u00a0oozed<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0its approval:<\/p>\n

    \u2018A firm and unified response to China\u2019s actions by democratic nations is both sensible and desirable.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    There was no mention in any of the current reporting, as far as we could see, that the UK is set to\u00a0increase<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0its number of nuclear warheads by over\u00a040 per cent<\/strong><\/a>, breaking international law. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is encouraging the public to\u00a0report<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0the UK government to the UN.<\/p>\n

    This behaviour by the UK is no exception. \u2018We\u2019 routinely flout the law on arms, nuclear or conventional. Andrew Feinstein and Alexandra Smidman recently\u00a0reported<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0for\u00a0Declassified UK<\/strong><\/a>, that Britain\u2019s \u2018robust\u2019 arms export controls are a fiction:<\/p>\n

    \u2018In practice, UK controls on arms exports are all but voluntary, and Britain routinely arms states abusing human rights and those at war.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u2018Britain exported more than \u00a311-billion worth of arms around the world in 2019 but UK ministers claim this trade is properly administered in a mantra that goes like this:<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u2018\u201cHM Government takes its export control responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. We consider all export applications thoroughly against a strict risk assessment framework and keep all licences under careful and continual review as standard.\u201d\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    However, Feinstein and Smidman pointed out that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018These contentions are not true and the stark, unavoidable reality is that the British government and its weapons manufacturers, between whom there is a symbiotic relationship, repeatedly violate domestic law and international agreements on arms controls with no repercussions.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    In short:<\/p>\n

    \u2018The British arms industry, politicians, the military and intelligence services can all essentially do what they want, with limited scrutiny and virtually no accountability.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    As just one damning example: in\u00a0supplying arms<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0other support<\/strong><\/a>, including\u00a0military training <\/strong><\/a>and\u00a0maintenance services<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to Saudi Arabia, Britain is an active contributor to the brutal Saudi subjugation of the Yemeni people.<\/p>\n

    The UK also defies its own arms exports criteria in relation to Israel, to whom the UK has sold military equipment worth more than \u00a3400 million since 2015. Even this year\u2019s deadly Israeli attacks in\u00a0Gaza<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0caused no let-up in UK sales to Israel.<\/p>\n

    These are all yet more examples of the gaslighting that state-corporate news media are guilty of: the constant framing of the UK as a \u2018defender\u2019 and \u2018promoter\u2019 of \u2018security\u2019 and \u2018stability\u2019, while the state and military companies pursue arms sales and a wider foreign policy that kills and endangers people abroad and at home.<\/p>\n

    \u2018Nothing Is Moving\u2019 On Climate<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Almost inevitably, BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg makes a return in this alert for another dishonourable mention. \u2018Boris Johnson aims to push for more climate action during trip\u2019, she\u00a0gushed<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0after travelling as part of a press pack with him and his entourage on a plane headed to New York for climate talks. She wrote that Johnson was \u2018delighted\u2019 to be:<\/p>\n

    \u2018acting as the host of the government plane he has had repainted with the Union Jack on the tail, urging journalists to approve of the new paint job.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    But the most significant \u2018paint job\u2019 here was the BBC\u2019s depiction of Johnson as some kind of climate hero. \u2018Brokering climate deals a political priority\u2019, was one headline in Kuenssberg\u2019s report. She added:<\/p>\n

    \u2018the prime minister\u2019s main task on this trip to New York is to push other countries to make more meaningful promises on cash and climate.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The notion that Johnson, who has frequently\u00a0cast doubt<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0on global warming and made derogatory remarks about \u2018bunny-hugging\u2019, is a true champion of climate and environmental protection is bogus and dangerous. As recently as December 2015, when it was unseasonably warm, he published a Telegraph\u00a0piece<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0titled, \u2018I can\u2019t stand this December heat, but it has nothing to do with global warming\u2019.<\/p>\n

    He wrote:<\/p>\n

    \u2018We may all be sweating in the winter air, but remember, we humans have always put ourselves at the centre of cosmic events.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Referring to the leaders of state who had been at the 2015 Paris climate talks, Johnson added:<\/p>\n

    \u2018I am sure that those global leaders were driven by a primitive fear that the present ambient warm weather is somehow caused by humanity; and that fear \u2013 as far as I understand the science \u2013 is equally without foundation.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u2018There may be all kinds of reasons why I was sweating at ping-pong [in December] \u2013 but they don\u2019t include global warming.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The reference to \u2018ping-pong\u2019, and his flippant remarks on the climate talks, suggest the whole thing was all just a game to Johnson; a \u2018jolly wheeze\u2019 to provide ammo to churn out another newspaper column.<\/p>\n

    In this month\u2019s Cabinet reshuffle, Johnson appointed Anne-Marie Trevelyan as his new International Trade Secretary. She had previously\u00a0rejected<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0climate science in a series of tweets between 2010 and 2012, stating in one:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Clear evidence that the ice caps aren\u2019t melting after all, to counter those doom-mongers and global warming fanatics.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    People can, of course, change their minds when confronted by cast-iron evidence and solid arguments. Johnson himself\u00a0said<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0this month that \u2018the facts change and people change their minds\u2019. But the facts had not changed. Certainly not since 1988 when the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up and renowned climate scientist James Hansen\u00a0testified<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0to the US Congress about the already-known dangers of climate instability.<\/p>\n

    Moreover, how sincere can someone like Johnson be with his\u00a0appalling track record<\/strong><\/a>? Has his understanding around the serious reality and implications of catastrophic climate change really changed? Or does he just say whatever he believes is politically expedient to retain his grip on power?<\/p>\n

    In April 2021, Johnson\u00a0waffled<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0about \u2018building back greener\u2019 after the pandemic.<\/p>\n

    \u2018It\u2019s vital for all of us to show that this is not all about some expensive, politically correct, green act of bunny hugging.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u2018What I\u2019m driving at is this is about growth and jobs.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Experienced observers of political rhetoric will recognise that \u2018jobs\u2019 is often newspeak for \u2018corporate profits\u2019.<\/p>\n

    Johnson\u2019s insincerity and disregard for those he considers beneath him surfaced once more in the grossly insensitive remarks he made in \u2018joking\u2019 about Margaret Thatcher\u2019s \u2018green legacy\u2019. During a visit to a windfarm off the Aberdeenshire coast in July, he was asked if he would set a deadline for ending fossil fuel extraction. He\u00a0replied<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0with what he clearly thought was a witty remark:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Look at what we\u2019ve done already. We\u2019ve transitioned away from coal in my lifetime.<\/em><\/p>\n

    \u2018Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, who closed so many coal mines across the country, we had a big early start and we\u2019re now moving rapidly away from coal altogether.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Continuing his track record of serial deceptions, Johnson\u00a0boasted<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0this month that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018The fact is the UK is leading the world [in tackling the climate crisis] and you should be proud of it.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was\u00a0scathing<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0of this \u2018lie\u2019 that has been channelled repeatedly by Johnson and other cabinet ministers ahead of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow this November:<\/p>\n

    \u2018There\u2019s a lie that the UK is a climate leader and that they have reduced their emissions by 45 per cent since 1990.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    She pointed out that the statistics do not include the UK\u2019s share of emissions from international aviation, shipping\u00a0and imported goods:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Of course, if you don\u2019t include all emissions of course the statistics are going to look much nicer. I\u2019m really hoping that we stop referring to the UK as a climate leader, because if you look at the reality that is simply not true. They are\u00a0very good\u00a0at creative carbon accounting, I must give them that, but it doesn\u2019t mean much in practice.\u2019\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

    Rational\u00a0analysis<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0also shows that none of the world\u2019s major economies \u2013 in particular, the entire G20 (which includes the UK) \u2013 is in line with the Paris Agreement on climate.<\/p>\n

    The watchdog Climate Action Tracker (CAT) analysed the policies of 36 countries, as well as the 27-nation European Union, and found that all major economies were off track to contain global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The countries together make up 80 per cent of the world\u2019s emissions.<\/p>\n

    Niklas H\u00f6hne, a founding partner of the New Climate Institute, a CAT partner, warned that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018there has been little to no improvement: nothing is moving. Anyone would think they have all the time in the world, when in fact the opposite is the case.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The lack of seriousness given by UK broadcasters to the crisis is evident in the results of a recent\u00a0study<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that showed that the word \u2018cake\u2019 appeared 10 times more on British television than \u2018climate change\u2019 in 2020 while \u2018dog\u2019 was mentioned 22 times more. Mentions of climate change and global warming fell by 10 per cent and 19 per cent respectively compared with 2019, the\u00a0report<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0from BAFTA-backed sustainability initiative Albert found.<\/p>\n

    Joanna Donnelly of Met \u00c9ireann, the Irish Meteorological Service,\u00a0told<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0viewers of the \u2018Claire Byrne Live\u2019 programme on Irish television that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018when it comes to climate change, we are in an emergency situation\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    Irish journalist John Gibbons\u00a0highlighted<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0the TV clip on Twitter, praising Donnelly\u2019s forthright words, adding:<\/p>\n

    \u2018We\u2019re in a Code Red national\/global emergency, might be a good time to start acting like it (yes, media friends, that means YOU)\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    A soberly-worded, but terrifying,\u00a0assessment<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0of climate change risk published last week by Chatham House warned that, unless countries dramatically increase their commitments in carbon cuts:<\/p>\n

    \u2018many of the climate change impacts described in this research paper are likely to be locked in by 2040, and become so severe they go beyond the limits of what nations can adapt to.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    The report added that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018Any relapse or stasis in emissions reduction policies could lead to a plausible worst case of 7\u00b0C of warming by the end of the century\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    That prospect is terrifying. John Schellnhuber, one of the world\u2019s leading climate scientists,\u00a0warned<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0a decade ago that:<\/p>\n

    \u2018the difference between two degrees and four degrees [of global warming] is human civilisation.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    In other words, we are potentially talking about the end of human life as we know it; perhaps even\u00a0human extinction<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

    James Hansen, the previously mentioned climate expert, remains sceptical about a truly successful outcome of COP26 in Glasgow. He wrote earlier this month:<\/p>\n

    \u2018The bad news: we approach the gas bag season \u2013 the next Conference of the Parties (COP26) is scheduled for November 1-12. \u00a0Gas bag politicians won\u2019t show you the data that matter because that would reveal their miserable performances.\u00a0 Instead, they set climate goals for their children while adopting no polices that would give such goals a chance.\u00a0 Some of them may have been honestly duped about the science and engineering, but many must be blatant hypocrites.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

    (James Hansen, \u2018August Temperature Update & Gas Bag Season Approaches\u2019, email, 14 September 2021)<\/em><\/p>\n

    Other than the ever-present risk of\u00a0nuclear war<\/strong><\/a>, there is no greater threat to humanity than the climate crisis. And there is no more damning example of gaslighting by state-corporate media when they tell us we can trust governments and corporations to do what is required to avert catastrophe.<\/p>\n

    DC<\/strong><\/p>\n

    22.9.21<\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    This article was first posted at:- https:\/\/www.medialens.org\/2021\/gaslighting-the-public-serial-deceptions-by-the-state-corporate-media\/<\/p>\n

    __________<\/p>\n

    also see:-<\/p>\n

    The Guardian: a liberal defender of the imperialist world order \u2013 media lens<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Guardian – a liberal defender of the imperialist world order<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n