Over the last 24-hours there’s been a renewed media storm over Syria – prompted by a horrific story of atrocities in the town of Houla. Very gruesome images of dead children have been offered to the media, which has lapped them up and used them again and again on our screens and in our newspapers.

The UN observers in Syria, so far, have declined to draw definite conclusions about who’s responsible for this terrible massacre. But unsurprisingly, western media has been less circumspect. There’s a deafening chorus of howls complaining ‘The World’ isn’t doing anything, while President Assad gets away with murdering his own people – again!

Kristyan Benedict tweets about the Houla massacre; Amnesty UK's Campaigns Manager already knows who's guilty - and tells us all!

I’ve no doubt some of the Twitter users tweeting and re-tweeting this type of sentiment on the #Houla hashtag are genuine in their concern. Yet remarkably few people ever seem to pause and ask themselves the obvious question – why on earth would the Syrian Government want to kill Syrian children? And even if for some reason they did – why would they do so in a way more or less guaranteed to attract international condemnation and renewed calls for intervention?

In other words, ‘cui bono‘?

Who really benefits from this atrocity – and who doesn’t? Surely the insurgents and their foreign backers benefit.. and the Syrian Government most certainly does not! Given that recent bomb atrocities in Damascus have been blamed – almost universally – on extremist opponents of the Assad Government, isn’t it at least plausible they’re also behind this latest horror?

Yet just as mainstream media doesn’t want to give that line of inquiry much encouragement, major ‘human rights’ NGOs like Amnesty have also rushed to judgement. Their weekend tweeps have been hammering away, sneering at the Assad Government and spinning the incident as grounds for outside “intervention”… just like they did last year over Libya.

BBC Story 'Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows' - Version 1

Every now again again the mass media is so dishonest it gets caught out. The BBC came a cropper only a few hours ago – but there’s been no acknowledgement and I suspect BBC staff would like their ‘mistake’ flushed rapidly down the Memory Hole.

To make it a tad harder for them, this post tells the story for posterity. The information on which it’s based comes from a pro-Syrian tweeter called Hey Joud, whom I’ve found to be well informed and savvy.

A few hours ago the BBC posted a story on its website (Middle East section) entitled Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows. The latest update is given as 04.40 GMT. It has some rather unremarkable graphics – a photo of a UN observer witnessing bodies in sheets and a map showing the location of Houla, near Homs.

However, a friend of Joud’s was smart enough to take a screenshot of an earlier version of this story. Then he/she did some homework – and discovered the dramatic image which it featured prominently was in fact a photo from Iraq dating from several years ago (according to the associated image data, May 2003). It’s featured as image no 52 on this webpage. The accompanying text makes it clear the bodies had been removed from a mass grave.

Hey Joud tweeted about this discovery. That’s how I became aware of it:

@BBCWorld propaganda:http://imageshack.us/photo/my-image … showing a pic of bodies from Iraq claiming it’s the?#HoulaMassacre? ?#Syria? http://shineyourlight-shineyourlight.blogspot.ca/2012/01/9-nike-years-of-war-in-iraq.htmleyourlight-shineyourlight.blogspot.ca/2012/01/9-nike… …

By the time I went to check the same BBC’s story online for myself, the photo from Iraq was no longer there. At any rate, it doesn’t appear now on the equivalent BBC webpage, viewed from here in Australia.

BBC Story 'Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows' - Version 2

I’d guess the most likely explanation is that the original (highly deceptive) photo was taken from BBC archives, used in this article for its high dramatic impact – then quickly replaced when the BBC became aware someone had spotted the deception. If that’s not what actually happened, perhaps the BBC would care to correct me?

This is not the first time I’ve reported on image fakery with regard to Syria. The western media’s sustained attack on that beleaguered nation has now been underway for more than a year. A comprehensive account of all its deceptions and misreporting over that period would fill many volumes.

No-one ever seems to be held accountable for the gross breaches of journalistic ethics that do come to light. Jobs in organisations like Reuters and the BBC must be relaxing. Unlike humble bloggers out here in the ‘real world’, these folk don’t need to bother about truth and accuracy. If they ever do get busted by a wary public, their butt is always well-protected.

George Orwell’s book 1984 is often viewed as a parody of totalitarian states such as Soviet Russia, even though the tale was actually set in England.

I think there’s another possibility. In the early 1940s, Orwell spent a year devising war propaganda for the BBC. Working at the Beeb was probably all the inspiration he needed to write the most famous dystopia of his century..

For years I have considered the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to be an unsavoury organisation.

My disillusion really set in when I realised the ABC had no intention of giving fair and balanced coverage to the story of the century:accumulating evidence that the official story about 9/11 – Founding Myth of the “War on Terror” – is baloney.

That was years ago. Soon I realised the ABC’s reporting about wars such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria is more like war propaganda than genuine impartial news coverage, that its narrative on Israel/Palestine is biased and deceptive – and that a strand of Judeophilia runs through the organisation that’s inappropriate for a national broadcaster in a multi-cultural society.

In short, the ABC exercises bias and practises deception. These are not good traits for a publicly funded organisation. The ABC’s Charter, remarkably, does not require the organisation to tell the truth. Staff – presumably with the Board’s connivance – take considerable advantage of this convenient omission. We, the public, pay for a service that practices systematic deception and exercises gross bias on what are arguably the most crucial issues of the day – matters pertaining to war and peace.

ABC's Breakfast News duo - smug war sales every morning with coffee, toast & marmalade

Yet I’ve also acknowledged throughout that good people do work for the ABC and that some of its services are high quality – such as sports (although I don’t honestly know because I rarely watch it), arts (usually BBC re-runs, but even so…), gardening (definitely fine Australian programs!) and local news. I usually threw in the latter acknowledgement out of a sense that at least at a local/regional level, ABC news coverage is likely to be reasonably truthful.

Whether it’s true that the ABC’s local/regional coverage is truthful and balanced throughout the continent is debatable. I should be honest and admit I don’t listen enough to ABC Far North know. But it’s nice to be charitable.

Yet whether or not local my ABC does do a good job reporting, interviewing and storing information about our ongoing political process, one thing is apparent. It is NOT keen on giving the public easy access to this information.

ABC Far North: It will decide on what's news and the circumstances under which is will be made available!

During the recent Queensland election campaign, I didn’t catch any of the interviews conducted by ABC Far North with the candidates on local radio, but assumed I’d be able to access them online after the election. At the very least, I thought, interviews with winning candidates would be downloadable from the website – ideally (but not necessarily) with an accompanying transcript..

How wrong I was. When I checked, NO interviews with candidates were on the website. I phoned ABC Far North to ask if that could be rectified. My inquiries were treated like nuisance calls. When I finally spoke to the Station Manager she was abrasive from the outset and at one point remarked on poor rates of pay at the ABC as some kind of justification for not providing this material to the public via the ABC website. She referred me eventually to the ”Cross Media Reporter”. With her assent, he reluctantly promised to send me one audio file of the interview with my own new local MP – Michael Trout – by email. It arrived in my email the next day, without any conditions set as far as I could see. I put the file online on the website of a local community group and notified him, with thanks.

Happy Sam Davis, Cross Media Reporter

The next morning Sam the Cross Media Reporter called. He was extremely cross and demanded prompt removal of the audio file from the web, as it breached the ABC’s copyright.

Of course I comply with legitimate copyright infringement notices (actually it’s the first I’ve ever had!) and agreed to remove it. But I also asked him to put the file up on the ABC website, so I could still link to it. What’s the harm in that – especially as his time had already been invested locating the file from ABC archives?

But no, Sam won’t put this material on the ABC website and is vehement it has no “news value” at all.

I’ve issued a formal complaint to the ABC and we’ll see whether it gets anywhere. Past experience has not been encouraging.

Here’s a challenge to Mark Scott, ABC Managing Director, who himself maintains a 100% track record of never replying to my many tweets.

Why not let the PUBLIC decide what’s got news value and what doesn’t?

If members of the PUBLIC express interest, doesn’t that indicate PUBLIC interest?

What are we expected to do? Organise a petition?

This is a small but not isolated case of ABC staff behaving like tin-pot dictators. Has the malevolent arrogance that so enrages informed people aghast at its one-sided coverage of certain overseas conflicts permeated the entire organisation?

I’ve always believed that funding a national – and local – public broadcaster is worth doing. But there must be truthfulness, diligence, accountability and responsiveness to the public.

If the local ABC can’t be bothered to keep a publicly accessible archive of its own unique material of the ongoing political debate in this region, it should lose its contract.

The public should not have to beg or pay twice for information about our own democratic process – just as we should not have to plead for truthfulness.

Mark Scott, ABC Managing Director; such a lovely portrait it would be a shame if more people don't see it

______________________________

Please note: all images on this webpage are the copyright property of the publicly funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

If the ABC hierarchy wishes them deleted a phone call will suffice and I’ll strip the webpage bare of offending material, with a humble apology for inconvenience caused. The local station has my number.

Of course, it would be discriminatory if only my website alone is required to do this, so I presume any such instruction would be extended to all websites bearing any images sourced from the ABC website.

Before embarking on this course, ABC management may reflect on whether they wish to attract howls of derision from thousands of webmasters and web-mistresses – all for behaving as though it has an impediment at the read end of the alimentary canal.

You may be able to shrug me off  Mr Scott – but beware the wrath of the blogosphere en bloc.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is the major publicly-funded broadcaster – TV and radio – in this sprawling southern continent. In recent years it has also become active on-line and consequently does an increasing amount of “narrow-casting” as well.

It’s often said “the ABC is the most trusted media organisation in Australia”.

I think it likely the ABC’s public credibility is higher than most of the privately-owned media – although I also believe the perceived integrity of ALL the mass media is in decline. More and more people with the ability to double-check media spin on-line simply don’t trust mainstream media any more.

On definable news subjects – especially topics of keen interest to the Zionist Lobby and/or the so-called “intelligence agencies” – I don’t consider the ABC trustworthy at all. Many folk have yet to catch on to what dreadful liars they are. But that’s a changing too…

In the media, credibility is power. Power should come with responsibility. But to whom is the ABC really responsible?

The popular notion is the ABC is run by frightfully clever people – a government-appointed board of the best minds and highly professional senior staff – who can be relied upon to do the best job possible on behalf of the broad public interest. That’s more or less what I used to believe. I don’t believe it at all any more. I’ve come to believe this organisation is heavily manipulated by some covert power configurations. It must be.

WTC-7 - not even mentioned in the US Government's initial 9/11 report

Like many people, it was 9/11 that woke me up. Anyone who has spent a significant amount of time considering the matter is aware there are INSOLUBLE problems with the official narrative.

That’s why so many highly-qualified people have taken career risks to demand a new inquiry. Clearly the fairytale of fanatical Muslim hijackers which has been used to sell recurrent wars and to rationalize plummeting civil liberties is bogus. What really did happen and who was responsible is open to legitimate dispute – although even that thorny subject has been persuasively sketched-in over recent years.

That, of course, is to present just one person’s perspective – my perspective. I believe that like everyone else in this country, the public broadcaster should give me a voice – one voice among the many. It should not set out to censor my views. That’s not serving a news function; that’s acting as a control agent.

________________________

Earlier today I happened to post a comment on The Drum, which is the busy ABC blog where selected articles are posted and comments from the public are invited (but not always approved).

The article Journalism education v profession: who has lost touch? was by journalism academic Jenna Price. I read it with interest. After all, I’d blogged about this same issue only yesterday.

Comment sumbitted to Jenna Prrice article in The Drum

I posted a comment under her article. It wasn’t a brilliant comment. In fact it was rather grumpy. But it did open new ground in the discussion and was broadly on topic.

My comment (see right) wasn’t published.

Of course, every blog is free to choose which comments to publish – but my question is this.

Why should Australian citizens – as a whole – pay the wages of ABC staff if they select only those articles and comments of which they approve?

What’s the value these ABC people add to our national debate by exercising that largely covert censorship function with such evident bias? Whose interests are they serving? Whose interests are they completely disregarding?

More and more a key role of publicly-funded media looks to me like social control.

That was a theme in my article Come in No 12! Taking a Megaphone to Australia’s Finkelstein debate, published here yesterday. I’d hoped to be able to point anyone reading through comments at The Drum to the article. But the public censors decided otherwise.

The ABC is an organisation funded by all Australians. It now occupies webspace (such as The Drum) that independent initiatives could take instead. Yet it exercises an inexplicit, unjustified (and in my view wholly unjustifiable) censorship function.

____________________

ABC Canberra 666

Here’s another case of ABC censorship – and a good example of the contempt in which ABC staff often hold people whose views they consider beyond the pale.

This afternoon I happened to come across a tweet from ABC Radio in Canberra. I learnt that a discussion was already underway about “conspiracy theories” (stupid term!) and 9/11. I tuned in to 666 to listen.

The presenter, Genevieve Jacobs, was in the process of interviewing a man who was identified as a (so called) ‘Sceptic’. He was in the mould of the USA’s Michael Shermer, or Australia’s most pompous radio commentator, Philip Adams. Like Shermer and Adams before him, the interviewee enjoyed himself immensely ridiculing “conspiracy theorists” none of whom, needless to say, were on-air and able to talk back. Genevieve asked him occasional soft ball questions. They joked together. Both were clearly having lots of fun.

ABC 666 tweets re "conspiracy theory"

I called in.

I was asked what I wanted to say and put on a call queue.

When asked, I’d decided to be honest and explain that I’m highly critical of the official 9/11 story; apart from anything else I wanted to see how I was treated as someone with those unpopular views.

Would I get to be interviewed on air?

The answer was no. After ten minutes or so, the line went dead.

I called the ABC back, but was told there was no time for more calls from the public. I pointed out the entire conversation had been 100% biased towards the perspective that the official story about 9/11 is correct. All the phone-in callers had concurred on that point. I’d identified myself as holding the opposite view but given no chance to speak. Didn’t they want to treat the subject with any fairness at all?

The voice at the other end of the phone started to sound annoyed. Today’s discussion, she told me, followed another on-air segment the day before, when a real “conspiracy theorist” had been on air. I asked his name and whether I could get a transcript of that interview. She curtly told me to try ‘Media Monitors’ (a paid service) and hung up.

So much for the ABC’s responsiveness to public inquiries.

Genevieve Jacobs; thinks it's a giggle that people still ask questions, a decade after three skyscrapers collapsed at near free-fall acceleration on one "unique" day in NYC

During the parts of the show I heard, Genevieve Jacobs’ discussion about “conspiracy theorists” was more than dismissive. She actually pathologized the people with whose views she disagrees. Listeners were invited to join in and say why anyone might possibly hold such nutty views.

Except we weren’t really invited – not unless we agreed with the Genevieve Jacobs line on 9/11.

Her minder made sure of that.

______________________

Let’s suppose Ms Jacobs actually wanted discussion on the topic of 9/11 on her show.

Let’s suppose , that is, she wanted a serious discussion (which doesn’t mean boring): a discussion which aimed at investigating the truth and exploring the range of cogently-argued positions on the topic – as opposed to merely celebrating the current dominance in the mass media of one view over another.

Ms Jacobs could still invite all her chums to participate as usual – but she’d also need to speak with scholars such as Dr Graeme MacQueen and architect Richard Gage. She’d need to sample the best of the case for and against – not merely ridicule one side.

I challenge her to do this.

I doubt very much she will, because I suspect she’s really a phony “journalist” working for a fake news organisation, aka ”their” ABC.

Genevieve has enough talent to make fun of people who are grappling with the truth – but has she got the inclination or skills to really explore the complexities of the subject of 9/11? I doubt it. Perhaps it touches on one of her cultural blind-spots?

Now… please do go right ahead and prove me wrong Ms Jacobs!

Make my day!

On the subject of 9/11, I think you’re more a propagandist than a journalist. A shill, not a honest commentator.

No wonder you and your chums giggle about “truthers”. You gleefully celebrate the ascendancy of The Lie! 666 indeed!

I bet you won’t get a green light to interview knowledgeable genuine sceptics such as Graeme MacQueen, Richard Gage or David Ray Griffin - even if you wanted to. I doubt your controllers would allow it. You’re not smart enough to best such interviewees. Serious intellectuals like MacQueen, Gage and Griffin would make their points effectively. You couldn’t stop them. So, I doubt your bosses would dare let you take the risk – even if you had the curiosity and nerve to consider taking on such a challenge, which is also highly doubtful.

OK ABC… why not show me I’m wrong?

How about taking up my challenge Genevieve?

Have you got what it takes to discuss 9/11 on a level playing field?

I doubt it.