Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Sunday, November 02, 2008

The Calcutta Quran Petition

Chandmal Chopra tried to ban the Koran at the Calcutta High Court in a Writ Petition on 29 March 1985. The book claims that Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code were often used by Muslims to ban or proscribe publications critical of Islam, and states that "so far it had been the privilege of the Peoples of the Book to ban and burn the sacred literature of the Pagans." It was under the same sections that Chopra tried to ban the Quran. Chandmal Chopra thought that the Koran "on grounds of religion promotes disharmony, feeling of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities and incite people to commit violence and disturb public tranquility..."

Chandmal Chopra also included a list of several dozens of Quran verses that "promote disharmony" in his petition. The book claims that these Quran verses embody one of the main themes of the book: "Nor have these passages been culled at random from different chapters of the Quran with a view to making the book sound sinister. On the contrary, they provide an almost exhaustive list of Allah’s sayings on a subject of great significance, namely, what the believers should believe about and do to the unbelievers..."

The Telegraph of May 9, 1985 reported that the Union Government would make itself a party in the case, and the Union law minister Ashoke Sen and the attorney-general of the Government of India were going to take action against the case. Muslim lawyers after a meeting condemned the case. According to The Telegraph of May 10, the Chief Minister of West Bengal called the petition "a despicable act". Other politicians in the Lok Sabha at New Delhi, and the Minister of State for Law condemned the Petition.

Pakistan’s minister of state for religious and minority affairs claimed that the petition was the ‘worst example of religious intolerance.’, and he urged the Indian government to ‘follow the example of Pakistan’ in ensuring freedom of religion.

The petition was however dismissed in May 1985. The text of the judgment is included in the book. The Attorney-General of the Government of India and the Advocate-General of West Bengal appeared in the case and argued against Chopra's petition.




On August 31, 1987 Chandmal Chopra was arrested by the police and kept in police custody until September 8 for publishing with Goel this book on the petition. Sita Ram Goel had to abscond to avoid getting arrested.




The Times of India published three articles which praised the Quran during the Petition controversy. Goel claims that a rebuttal to these articles could not be published in the Times of India. Goel claims that the chief editor, Girilal Jain, regretted his inability to do so for reasons he could not reveal.



Thanks to Vishal!

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Disinformation - Slashdot | Anti-Net Neutrality Astroturfer Exposed

"Ever wonder about all those groups claiming Google had a 'search monopoly' (as if there are no other search engines), or worse, coming out against Net Neutrality? CNet has a story about a shady DC lobbying group called LawMedia Group, being paid by Microsoft and Comcast, that is behind many of these attacks. That said, it's a mystery why they weren't able to pay more authoritative groups than the American Corn Growers Association or the League of Rural Voters to weigh in on technical matters. As a computer geek from corn country, I wouldn't solicit their opinion on tractor repair, let alone Internet policy."



It has long been understood that disinformation is a powerful weapon. That's why the US Army has Pysop. [wikipedia.org] Yes, propaganda that is disguised as a grassroots movement or the work of independent experts is disinformation, not advertising. Part of taking in information (like a product review or political statement) is accounting for the source of that information, ie you will consider the words of someone you respect more than words of someone you regard as a fool. So misrepresenting the source of information is a form of disinformation, and disinformation is weapon, weapons are used to control and destroy. Why are corporations allowed to control and destroy things like legislative process and public political awareness? Sure it's subtle damage, but over time it has done much harm to our society.


Slashdot | Anti-Net Neutrality Astroturfer Exposed


Also see Ron Suskind - Way of the World - he talks about how WMD letter is created by US Govt.

Also see http://idlinginc.blogspot.com/2008/04/behind-tv-analysts-pentagons-hidden.html

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

The Media Blackout Against Ron Paul

It was OK for the MSM to cover Ron Paul's campaign as long as there was no voting taking place. After all, they have to have SOMETHING to talk and write about, and all the other candidates sing the same old boring tune. But once the voting started there has indeed been a complete MSM blackout.

Economists William Meckling and Michael Jenson, formerly of the University of Rochester, offered an explanation for the extreme statist bias of the media some thirty years ago, and I think it applies to the MSM's current blackout policy. If you are a national news reporter, you must always keep in mind that news must be new. You must cultivate numerous "inside sources" of news, and in today's world those sources are overwhelmingly in govenment. If you report on defense issues, your main sources are Defense Department bureaucrats or political appointees. If you are an environmental reporter, your sources are EPA bureaucrats and political appointees. If you are a crime reporter, you rely on the FBI bureaucracy, etc., etc.

This is why the media are never very critical of government bureaucrats -- unless the bureaucrats are being insufficiently interventionist. They pretend to be critical from time to time, but not really. The regime must be defended at all costs, for it is the regime that is the source of the journalists' human capital. Strip away parts of the regime, as Ron Paul wants to do, and you strip away jobs and careers for "journalists."

It's not Ron Paul who is the target of the blackout, but his ideas of peace, freedom, free enterprise, and limited constitutional government. After all, the MSM never, ever write anything about him without saying, "but of course, he has no chance of winning." They don't believe he could ever win, but his ideas could, which is why they must be hidden from public view at all costs.

It will be interesting to see how much longer it takes the internet to break up this monopolistic political conspiracy.

Friday, June 29, 2007

James Randi, Oprah, Phil Donahue, Media and so on..

James Randi on Oprah Winfrey

James Randi (born August 7, 1928), stage name The Amazing Randi, is a stage magician and scientific skeptic best known as a challenger of paranormal claims and pseudoscience. Born Randall James Hamilton Zwinge, in Toronto, Canada, Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation and its famous million dollar challenge offering a prize of US $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties.
While inheriting a billion dollars is still the easiest way to land on our list of the world's wealthiest, it certainly isn't the most common. Almost two-thirds of the world's 946 billionaires made their fortunes from scratch, relying on grit and determination, and not good genes.

Phil Donahue is the MAN. I have a whole new respect for Donahue. Bill yelled at the top of his lungs to get his point through but in the end made himself sound like an idiot. Just because Bill O'Reilly was yelling at Donahue doesn't make him right. Like Phil said "loud doesn't mean right" He always does that on his show to make him feel like he's winning the argument.

Remember Phil Donahue's show on MSNBC a few years back that was supposed to be the liberal alternative to the conservative and popular Bill O'Reilly on Fox? Remember MSNBC cancelled Donahue's show, although his ratings were rising because they felt Donahue's show, during a time of war, might turn out to be, according to a study MSNBC had commissioned, a "possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes 'a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity?'"