On Feb 28 Brian Lilley, host of Sun TV’s Byline was in London to talk about his new book, “CBC Exposed.” I was on-hand to video the entire event which was hosted by the International Free Press Society (Canada). Introductions were by Mary Lou Ambrogio and before Brian took the stage we heard from Bjorn Larsen, President of IFPS, and Joseph Ben-Ami of the Meighen Institute. A Q&A followed were Brian answered questions on the CBC, conservatism, immigration and other topics.
On March 22nd, 2012 I sat down with Lord Christopher Monckton for a one-on-one discussion of education, journalism, Catholicism, Islam, conservatism, and philosophy.
GUEST: The Rt Hon Christopher Monckton, Autodidactic Mathematician, Game Designer, Architect, Journalist, Politician, Skeptic
GUEST: Professor Christopher Essex, Dept Of Applied Mathematics And Past Director, Theoretical Physics, UWO; Co-Author Of Taken By Storm
Global Warming – Has All The Hot Air Dissipated?
Advising Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – Changing The Views Of The Iron Lady
From SudoKu X To The Puzzle That Is Lord Monckton
The Courtier’s Conundrum – The Intersect Of Science And Politics
Upon first hearing the news of the bombing and shooting in Norway my first thought, as I’m, sure it was the first thought of many, was that this was yet another attack by Islamists on the West. We now know of course that the perpetrator, Anders Breivk, was a Norwegian Nationalist. A Christian, not a Muslim. What a rarity. How unique. This hasn’t happened since when, Timothy McVeigh in 1995?
The event lasted just three hours but the political fallout has only just begun. Over the past few days the pundits, radio talk show hosts, newspaper editors and journalists have all tried to make sense of such a heinous act and they have come down on two sides. The established liberal media have tried to paint Breivik as a typical member of the burgeoning right wing movement in Europe which they claim is against multiculturalism, islamophobic and nationalistic. The conservative media, pundits and talk show hosts have immediately taken issue with the labeling of Breivik and have, quite rightly, tried to paint him as a lone criminal not at all representative of those who are in favour of restricting Muslim immigration into traditionally non-Muslim countries.
One of the conservative pundits, Mark Steyn, said it best when he said “So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “islamophobic’ mass murder?”
Quite telling of the double standard of the liberal press is an article in the American Spectator which juxtaposed the headlines of the New York Times for the Norwegian massacre with their headlines of the Ft. Hood massacre in 2009. To recap, the Ft. Hood massacre was carried out by Muslim Nidal Malik Hasan who described himself as a ‘Solder of Allah’ and shouted “Allahu Akbar” before killing 13 and wounding 29 US servicemen on the Army Base in Texas.
The headlines for the Norwegian Norway massacre are:
“Oslo suspect wrote of fear of Islam and plan for war
“Norway attacks put spotlight on rise of Right-Wing Sentiment in Europe
“Killings in Norway Spotlight anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.
“As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist
“Right Wing Extremist is Charged in Norway.
Here are the headlines for the Ft. Hood massacre:
“Army Doctor held in Ft. Hood Rampage
“Mass Shooting at Fort Hood
“Little Evidence of Terror Plot in Base Killings
“Major is arraigned in Fort Hood Killings
The bias is stark. No mention is ever made by the New York Times of the Ft. Hood mass murderer being Muslim and shouting “Allahu Akbar” before his rampage while within hours of the Norway massacre the perpetrator is labeled as Christian, Right Wing and islamophobic.
The real Islamophobe is the newspaper editor who refuses to mention that a terrorist is a Muslim, Why? Because he fears retaliation. He fears Islam. This makes him the islamophobe.
Unless the West, and the rest of the civilized world, comes to grips with the overwhelming violence committed by Muslims in the name their religion the carnage will continue. Not the kind of carnage that Anders Brievic inflicted on his young, defenseless victims, which although horrific to contemplate, is an aberration and pales in comparison to the continuing carnage and atrocities carried out daily by Jihadists.
I would ask you all to consider how many deadly Islamist terrorist attacks have occurred worldwide since the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Don’t count attacks in combat such as in the Afghanistan war. Don’t count incidents of ordinary crime involving Muslims killing for money or some other non-religious motive. Only count terrorist acts committed out of religious duty designed specifically to instill terror.
Do you think it might be 10 or 20 or even 100? As of two days ago there have 17,506 Islamic deadly terrorist attacks worldwide. Just last week alone there were 40 attacks resulting in 101 deaths and critically injuring 264. Last month alone there were 184 attacks in 18 countries resulting in 930 murdered and 1,527 critically injured.
This data comes from a web site called thereligionofpeace.com which has kept records of Islamist attacks worldwide since 9/11. Since Breivik’s attack there have been at least 15 Islamic atrocities committed around the world resulting in 47 deaths, with almost no press coverage in the West.
We in the West seem to have been inured by Muslims killing people. That is what makes the Norwegian massacre noteworthy. A white man, a Christian has murdered other white people in a politically motivated bombing and shooting spree. This is a novelty. This is news.
When a Muslim does the exact same thing every day all over the world we dismiss it. The question is why. What would happen if we publish a You-tube video of the Taliban hanging an 8-year old boy in order to punish his father for not joining their organization? What would happen in the West if we were inundated daily with pictures and videos of the daily beheadings of infidels like us, of the daily bombings, of the splashing of acid in little girls’ faces for daring to go to school?
Why is the press afraid of telling the truth and letting us see the horrors of this cultural war we are in. Why? Because it would fly in the face of their cherished beliefs that all cultures are the same. That we can all just get along if we only held hands in some grassy meadow and sang Kumbaya. Well we can’t.
People like Breivik must be brought to justice for their actions. The light of day should be shed on his motives, as much as they can be determined. But just as we do with Breivik we must also do to the thousands upon thousands of Muslim Breiviks of the world who continue to kill and maim in the name of politics and religion. Every death of an innocent is tragic and must be accounted for whether he is a white-skinned Christian child in Norway or a dark skinned Muslim child in Darfur. The killing of innocents must stop and all terrorists, whatever their religion, their politics, or their skin colour, must be held accountable for their actions. If the press and the other media refuse to do it then who will?
(Originally air on Just Right #210, July 28, 2011)
Many institutions of the fourth estate often advertise themselves as “trusted” news sources. Trust is the fourth estate’s backbone. Without trust I would venture to say that news organizations would no longer exist. People would no longer view their news programs, nor buy their newspapers and businesses would no longer advertize with them.
But trust is a fleeting thing. Any hint of plagiarism, scandal, fabrication, bias, or omission could irreparably damage a news organization’s credibility and hence its existence. That is why they often go to great lengths to report the news accurately avoiding any threat of libel.
But the established news papers and networks today are rapidly losing their trust with the third estate, the people, not necessarily through libel, plagiarism, or fabrication but with bias and omission.
Bias is becoming quite obvious in today’s news media. In the US the notion that FOX has a conservative bias is common. In Canada the notion that all of the television news networks are pro government is also common. There is, in my opinion, no real bias to either Conservative or Liberal because as I have mentioned before there is no effective or significant difference between the Liberals and Conservatives. The news media panders to government regardless of the party in power. The bias comes from omission.
There are political parties and advocacy groups in Canada who are decidedly opposed to most government action yet these groups get virtually no coverage from the media, are completely ignored, or if they are noticed at all it is to ridicule them.
Any group or Party which opposes the government’s immigration policies, foreign aid programs, official language policies or myriad of socialist programs is a pariah to the news media and shunned. There are rare exceptions and I don’t want you to think that there are no news outlets with journalistic integrity in this country. There are.
The act of ignoring certain groups and their opinions is an easy one for news organizations to commit because if they don’t report on them then the populace doesn’t realize what they are missing and therefore can’t accuse the media of being biased.
Today’s media considers themselves to be unbiased if, when debating an issue, they include a panel consisting of a Conservative, a Liberal and a New Democrat. Each panelist will try to outdo the other in throwing money at the problem in question. Each will have the same opinion as the other except when it comes to degree. Nothing will be resolved and the problem will continue to grow until next year when the same three panelists meet again to discuss the same problem. This time they will discuss how much more money they can throw at the problem. A fair panel should not only consist of members of the three socialist parties but also a member of, for example, the Freedom Party who would explain that throwing money at the problem is not the solution and that the problem exists because the government chose to involve itself in something that it shouldn’t have in the first place. And while members of the Freedom Party do appear on panels it is almost never on the big pro-government networks it is usually on the smaller local or cable networks.
As well as deceiving the public by omitting opinions which don’t agree with theirs the trust we place in the media is being eroded as we are beginning to realize that much of the so-called news stories in the press are, while having a kernel of truth to them, actually manufactured as crises.
Consider the recent green extremist’s incessant campaigns against everything from CO2 to plastic water bottles to idling cars, cigarette smoke, cell phones, windmills, the Alberta oil sands, and on and on. The amount of copy or air time given to these non-issues, these manufactured scandals created to put fear into our hearts vastly outnumbers the amount of time the media take to report on more important things like the Revolution in Egypt or the steady stream of thousands of Canadians crossing the border to get proper and timely health care.
Yesterday, the National Post’s front page carried the fall of Egypt’s Mubarak. The front page of the London Free Press consisted of three articles. The first is entitled “Yeah, but does the hologram recite poetry?” about the Mayor’s first speech since his taking office. The second is about a methadone’s clinic contesting a city by-law prohibiting it from setting up. And the third is four sentences about the Egyptian crisis but is it about Mubarak’s decision to step down? No. It’s entitled “Volunteers fill the breach left by civic, security services” continued on page 9.
Even when faced with defining moments in history this paper chooses to all but ignore it.
What we use as our source of information has drastically changed over the past ten years and the days of the populace “trusting” the established news media is almost over. The internet is taking over the news world and the days of editors and publishers forming our opinions and feeding us pap and manufactured crises is coming to an end.
One of my favorite sources of not only opinion but news on the internet is the video blog of Pat Condell available on you tube. His latest rant has so far been viewed over 82 thousand times. One of his most popular posts has been viewed 5,768,509 times. Lloyd Robertson or Peter Mansbridge could never dream of having that many viewers and yet here we have a very clever man in the UK with nothing but a video camera and a sharp wit gathering an audience of millions. Why? Because he is saying things that the main-stream media will not say. He is reporting on stories that the main-stream media ignore.
As part of my daily dose of news consumption I subscribe to two newspapers but browse online 11 others including The Guardian, The Jerusalem Post, the Ottawa Citizen and the Wall Street Journal. I tune in to Facebook every evening not to look at family photos but to follow some of the links friends and others have posted which do not make it through the corporate news filter.
With sites like Digg, Twitter, Facebook, and Google News the world’s news is at your fingertips. Much of it edited and watered down from the main news networks but also much of it raw first-hand accounts of events the main-stream media ignores.
With the internet we now have the capacity in most cases to go straight to the source for information bypassing the usual pundit’s tired views. On issues of climate change which we have covered on this show we did not just read what the press had to say on the subject, we went directly to the United Nation’s reports, we downloaded countless documentaries on the subject and read many of the scientific papers on both sides. We visited sites showing us information that the media usually ignore.
With such a powerful weapon at our disposal it is only a matter of time before the government and other vested interest in ideas and power restrict our use of this remarkable research and entertainment tool.
When Egypt’s President Mubarak realized that part of what made the revolution in Tunisia successful was the instant communication between its people via cell-phone texting and Twitter he moved to shut down the cell-phone communications and internet in his country. But, apparently, it was too late for him.
China routinely restricts the content of the web from its citizens as does many other dictatorial states.
The Canadian government and the old media corporations too have not sat idly by while its citizens eschew the main-stream media for its entertainment and news. They have used the CRTC to control access by fixing prices, maintaining the monopoly that Bell has on the internet’s infrastructure, capped download capacity and even set the speed at which we can access the internet. Contrary to popular belief our nation does not have a free market in the internet. All providers have the packages they sell to the consumer tailored by the CRTC and they are unable to compete fairly due to CRTC rulings on bandwidth, price and speed.
The latest attempt at controlling our access was to begin on March 1st when download capacity would be capped at 25 Gigs with excessive usage being billed a fee that goes directly into the coffers of Bell. Excessive is the term the CRTC has used to describe going over 25 Gigs. Of course I went directly to the CRTC to get a copy of their ruling and bypassed the media in doing so.
After an on-line petition totaling over 350,000 the Minister of Industry last night instructed the CRTC to rescind the unlimited use restriction. His method for the announcement…Twitter.
While this attempt at control has been averted for now it still illustrates that the government, at will, can interfere with the internet and private communications contracts through the bureaucracy of the CRTC.
Content, too is scrutinized for “so-called” hate speech, and for alleged copyright infringement. All intended to exercise control over us.
Before the internet, before cable TV and even before computers, back in the dark times of say the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Canadians got their news from a couple of Television stations and a few newspapers. International news was either through Reuters, the Associated Press or the state-owned CBC. So much power was concentrated in so few organizations. These organizations still exist and are feeling the growing discontent of the consumer, who now has the ability to put their “trust” in other sources for their news. They now have the ability to immediately question the news and opinions they see on TV and read in the paper and post their opinions on the internet where, as in the case of Pat Condell, millions can see it.
The power of the fourth estate is waning and the power of the third estate, you and I, is growing. Do not think for a minute that the media and the government will stand for this much longer.
(Originally aired on Just Right show #186 February 3rd, 2011. To download the show visit //www.justrightmedia.org)
Climategate: A quick synopsis of the events. On Nov. 17th, 2009 an anonymous hacker posted stolen e-mails and source documents on the internet. These e-mails were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit headed by Professor Phil Jones.
The e-mails have been confirmed by Dr. Jones to be authentic.
The e-mails appear to suggest that Jones and other leading climatologists are:
- Deleting data and e-mails so that they cannot be found out with via a Freedom of Information request.
- Discrediting climate change skeptics.
- Colluding in a public relations attempt to “sell” the climate-change argument to the public.
- Keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature.
- Manipulating the evidence to show an increase in global temperatures in recent years even though the data shows a decline.
I have seen some of the e-mails and documents and anyone who is the least bit computer savvy can find them.
There are other facts relating to climategate which to me are more important than the alleged behavior of these climatologists.
- Why was this story buried in the London Free Press and hardly commented on at all other than to dismiss it?
- Why was it only given scant coverage in the Globe and Mail (mainly in an article by Michael Coren)?
- Why was it not front page news?
- Why, when I go to Youtube, do I find that the predominant newscasters covering this story are Fox News and the usual conservative talk show hosts and not the major networks or newspapers?
You can rest assured that if these climatologists had been climate change skeptics this would have been front page news.
The fact is that we already knew that climate-change/ global warming was a lie. So this little gaff by the climate-change prophets of doom is really not all that important except to reveal the biases of the main stream leftist press.
This will blow over shortly and we can all go back to finding more ways to reduce our carbon footprint and send the world back to the Stone Age. I for one will pledge to reduce my carbon footprint by exhaling only after every second breath.
Who benefits by telling us that the climate-change is real?…only the left, the socialists, the statists, the anti-capitalists. The same people who desire power over everybody else.
(Originally broadcast on Just Right, Show #131, December 3, 2009. To download the show visit //www.justrightmedia.org)