Saturday, August 29, 2015

Murdoch Brings Back Into the Fold The Woman He Wishes Was His Daughter

Rupert Murdoch, the ruthless, ethics-free, arch-reactionary global media baron and political kingmaker (and breaker), has apparently hired back his political hitwoman Rebekah Brooks. 

Brooks used to run Murdoch's United Kingdom print propaganda operations as chief executive of "News International," a role she was forced to step down from after being criminally indicted in the massive phone-hacking and police bribery scandal of Murdoch's Minions in "Great" Britain.

Now, according to the UK's Financial Times (cited by Reuters), Brooks will be back in her old executive chair, as boss of all of Murdoch's British “news”papers. There she will resume her former duties of overseeing the poisoning of the British public mind with neo-fascist agitprop, political slander and vituperation directed at opponents of Murdoch and at any public figure with the slightest evidence of a progressive tendency; tawdry sexual titillation and innuendo (often with hypocritical puritanical denunciation included); and celebrity and “royals” tittle-tattle and trivia to distract the moronic masses, plus combinations of the above. [1]

No doubt Brooks will be handsomely remunerated. Murdoch previously gave her a going-away present of 16.1 million British pounds when she resigned her post in Murdoch's empire. (At the exchange rate on the date she resigned, July 15, 2011, of around $1.615 per pound, that's about $26 million. Of course she didn't get the money on that exact date. On top of that, Murdoch paid her lawyers fees, probably over a million pounds. Not bad for doing your boss' dirty work.)

It's been widely reported that Murdoch has a paternal affection for Brooks. He has stood staunchly behind her through the years-long scandal as she twisted and turned like a greased eel and ultimately succeeded in lying her way out of a jam. (Lower-ranked minions of Murdoch weren't so fortunate, some going to prison for short stints.) [2]

Murdoch's actual biological daughter, Elisabeth, apparently has some ethical standards (thus indicating that morality is not genetic) and has even offered some veiled criticism of her father's media practices in public. She has kept a greater distance from the Great Man than has his sons. Murdoch's mother is also named Elisabeth, so presumably he named his daughter after his Mum. 

But with Brooks, the years of closeness, the fact that they have matching personalities (completely ruthless, and free of the burden of a pesky conscience) and amoral-reactionary politics, and the great trust Murdoch places in her, plus the tremendous support he has provided her rather than treating her as expendable as he did his other underlings caught in scandal, whom he unsentimentally threw overboard, and adding the descriptions of people in a position to observe the relationship, leads one reasonably to the conclusion that Rebekah is The Daughter Rupert wishes he had had.

Rebekah and Rupert, Together Again at Last.

Another person who privately stood foursquare behind Brooks during her period of tribulation (and apparently has a soft-spot for her) is the current Prime Minister of Britain, the Tory toff David Cameron, a social friend of Brooks. The two met at least several dozen times over a period of several years, and apparently exchanged numerous emails and texts- most of them kept hidden by Cameron and his accomplices. Obviously both share reactionary politics also. [3] 
 
I don't want them to see what I'm hiding behind my back.” British
ruling class toff and prime minister David Cameron.

Brooks is a woman who had wormed her way into the British elite, socially and politically. Her precise social standing currently is opaque to his outsider and not-close observer of British society. I will leave that to others to analyze.

Murdoch waited a decent interval, about one year, after Brooks' unjust acquittal in her trial to openly bring her back on board his pirate vessel. (The evidence of her guilt is overwhelming. Andy Coulson, one of her former underlings and a co-defendant at trial, who was formerly the top Murdoch editor at News [sic] of the World, and later chief propagandist for Tory Prime Minister David Cameron- yes, him again- was not so lucky.) [Footnote 2.]

 Coppers can't lay a hand on her.

Speaking of Crime and No Punishment, throughout his career as a global propaganda czar, Murdoch has personally been above the law, as his enterprises mostly have been.

In the UK scandal, Murdoch's U.S. parent corporation was in blatant violation of U.S. law against bribing foreign officials. Also his minions hacked some victims' phones on U.S. soil.
Yet, with utter predictability, the Obama regime refused to prosecute “News” Corp. for the very blatant violation of the Federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which criminalizes US companies from even attempting to bribe foreign officials, let alone succeeding. (British police officials were regular recipients of Murdoch bribes.)

In typical smarmy fashion, the Obama regime kept the news as quiet as possible (it came out in a corporate filing by Murdoch's “News” Corp. in the U.S.), reneging on a promise to keep his stateside victims apprised of the progress of the “investigation.” [4]

Contrast that with Obama's and Holder's (Loretta Lynch going forward) targeting of journalists and persecution of whistleblowers. There's the secret indictment of Julian Assange, the lawless attacks on the finances of Wikileaks, the mass tapping of the Associated Press's telephones, the targeting of a Fox News (irony there) reporter in a criminal “investigation,” the persecution of government whistleblowers, and most recently, the adoption of a new Pentagon policy of assassinating journalists they don't like, labeling them “unprivileged belligerents” in official military doctrine. [5] 
 
And then there was the assassination of Michael Hastings.

Other examples of Murdochian lawbreaking with impunity was his illegal ownership of TV stations when his corporation was still Australian, before he incorporated in the U.S.; his illegal ownership of newspapers and television stations in the same cities; one of his companies hacking into the computers of a rival company, a much more serious crime than what the U.S. wanted to send Aaron Swartz away for 30 years over; his companies "non-profit" and thus non-taxable status in New York State; and probably a lot lot more.

But the Federal government has more important things to do- like locking up marijuana sellers. (And under Obama, locking up medical marijuana clinic owners too. Thanks, President Choom Gang! Great to see you on the job!) 

Reason to be Cheerful: Look Ma, I'm Above the Law!

But Hold the presses! Murdoch's criminal legal troubles in Britain may have another chapter or few to run. See “Phone hacking: CPS may bring corporate charges against Murdoch publisher- Metropolitan police hands over file of evidence on Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper arm to Crown Prosecution Service,” Guardian, 28 August, 2015.

Let's hope.

That's right, reactionary plutocrats like me should rightly rule the world! What of it!”


1]UPDATE 3-Rebekah Brooks returning to News Corp as UK chief – FT,” Reuters, August 28, 2015. In March it was reported that Brooks was being set up in a U.S. position by Murdoch. Possibly that was a trial balloon surreptitiously floated by Murdoch himself, either by him making a “casual” comment to someone through whom he knew it would get into the media, or by his minions “leaking.” See "Rebekah Brooks about to be rehired by Rupert Murdoch for US operation, "Guardian (UK), 1 March, 2015.

2] Andy Coulson, who admitted to listening to stolen voicemails of David Blunkett to his mistress, only has to serve less than 9 months in jail. The former top editor of the Murdoch Sunday rag News [sic] of the World, where thousands of private messages of other people were surreptitiously stolen, was sentenced to 18 months, less than the 2 year maximum, and since he's a “non-violent” offender, he automatically only has to serve half, with additional reductions. Blunkett was a cabinet minister, the “Home Secretary,” similar to an Interior Minister or the U.S. Attorney General, that is, a guy in charge of internal security/domestic repression. The voicemails were publicized and used by Murdoch's minions to force Blunkett from office. Numerous subordinate editors and reporters were also mildly sentenced. Most pled guilty. For the various sentences, see e.g. “Andy Coulson jailed for 18 months for conspiracy to hack phones,” Guardian, 4 July, 2014, an inaccurate title since the article reports he'll only have to serve under 9 momths; “Andy Coulson sentenced for 18 months in phone hacking trial,” UK Telegraph, 4 July, 2014; “Jules Stenson admits phone hacking at News of the World,” Telegraph, 12 December, 2014.

3] See e.g. "David Cameron put on the spot by cosy texts to Rebekah Brooks: Messages about horse riding and conference speech from cache of texts and emails handed over to Leveson inquiry," Guardian, 3 November, 2012.
This was only a fraction of Cameron's texts exchanged with Brooks, as he kept the rest hidden on the Leveson inquiry commission set up to ostensibly get to the bottom of the Murdoch empire scandal, which involved deep and numerous ties with the top echelons of British power and with the police at various levels, including bribery and police coverups of the crimes of Murdoch's minions. See “David Cameron acknowledges there may be more Rebekah Brooks texts,” Guardian, 4 November, 2012.

4]News Corp won't be prosecuted in US in relation to phone hacking,” Guardian, 2 February, 2015.

5] For an overview of some of the Obama regime's depredations against actual journalists, see “Leak investigations and surveillance in post-9/11 America,Committee to Protect Journalists, October 10, 2013. 
 
For the Pentagon's new “kill reporters who don't toe our line” policy, see “Bush Created 'Enemy Combatants.' Now Obama Has Invented 'Unprivileged Belligerents, Formerly Known as Journalists,” August 11, 2015, and “From The Horse's Mouth: Pentagon Lawyer Confirms Targeting of Journalists,” August 16, 2015



Sunday, August 16, 2015

From The Horse's Mouth: Pentagon Lawyer Confirms Targeting of Journalists

"The term 'unprivileged belligerent is pretty much the same as 'unlawful enemy combatant,'" says Charles A. Allen, the Pentagon's "deputy general counsel for international affairs," in an interview on "On the Media" conducted by host Bob Garfield, an advertising industry veteran. [1]

But not to worry. The U.S. military is only going to kill journalists who have "abandoned" their status as journalists and become spies, enemies. There would be "research" before murdering a journalist, to make sure he/she wasn't entitled to be called a journalist but rather "a member of enemy forces."

Like the four times they bombed Al-Jazeera offices. And shelled the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. And murdered various journalists.

And they and/or the CIA assassinated Michael Hastings. Hastings was considered an enemy by the military after his Rolling Stone article on general Stanley McChrystal exposed the deep contempt McChrystal and his officer staff had for their nominal civilian commanders, the president and vice president of the United States. [2]

The U.S. military has regarded the media generally as "enemies" ever since the Vietnam War. Cadets at West Point are even inculcated with hatred for the media, according to a female instructor there.
The interview consisted of a lot of bland-sounding blather and verbiage from Allen, delivered in a low-key tone, designed to pacify and disarm. Garfield wasn't able to effectively pierce this cotton candy rhetorical shield.

Just as torture isn't torture, it's "enhanced interrogation techniques," journalists aren't journalists when the U.S. military decides to kill them, they're "unprivileged belligerents" and "members of enemy forces," another term Allen used.

Naturally Allen had to feed us some whoppers, like the military's "strong cooperation with the media." Translation: cheerleading flagwaving media nationalistic shills get fed Pentagon propaganda, which they duly broadcast at top volume.

1] "When A Journalist Becomes An 'Unprivileged Belligerent,'" On The Media, August 14, 2015. On The Media is a weekly radio program hosted by NPR affiliate WNYC.

Here's a link to the podcast:
http://www.onthemedia.org/feeds/tags/department_of_defense

See also: Bush Created "Enemy Combatants." Now Obama Has Invented "Unprivileged Belligerents," Formerly Known as Journalists, August 11, and Obama Regime Codifies Policy of Murdering Journalists U.S. Doesn't Like, August 10.

2] "The Runaway General," by Michael Hastings. Rolling Stone, June 22, 2010.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Court Jester Jon Stewart Ends 16 Years of Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Jon Stewart's stepping down from Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" is being marked as a notable media event by U.S. media. GOP politicians have pissed on his backside on his way out. (It's far from the first time they've lobbed shells on Stewart. Contrary to the mythology Republicans push, Stewart is not a one-sided pro-Democrat partisan. He has skewered Democratic politicians and Obama regime bureaucrats and government organizations under Obama plenty of times. [1])

What Stewart did was akin to the role of court jesters in medieval courts. Truths that no one dare speak on penalty of losing their heads could be referenced "in jest" by the court jester. This provided both an outlet for expression and a check on the ruler getting too out of touch with reality.

In America, reactionary claptrap and demented assertions of absurd non-"facts" is treated as perfectly reasonable and respectable. This causes people who are even semi-rational to feel like they are losing their minds. Stewart's show provided a needed mental salve for such people to hang on to their sanity. It validated what is in fact obvious but that "society" in general denied, namely that much of political discourse, ideology, and action in the U.S. is irrational, noxious, and deranged.

I say it was shooting fish in a barrel because the absurdities Stewart sent up were very obvious. Yet since they are treated as "respectable" by the propaganda system, there was nowhere else in mass establishment media people could turn to except a comedy show.

And as in medieval courts, using humor as cover allows the jester to get away with speaking taboo thoughts.

Stewart though is no radical. Rather, he is a classic American liberal, a person who has no gripe with the system fundamentally, but is too pragmatic and rational to swallow some of the very glaring irrationalities and insanities of it. He is "safe" in that respect, which is why he is feted by what neofascists insist is the "liberal" media. On the other hand, a Randy Credico is marginalized and persecuted by the police with impunity.

I laughed at Stewart's stuff. It was mostly well done, if rather broad and at times crass. Like many others, I found needed satisfaction in seeing barbs aimed at well-deserved targets. We will see what the new host will do.

Stewart isn't the only person in establishment media doing this. John Oliver is another comedian who does the same thing, on HBO.

But in terms of actually changing the U.S., only an organized movement can do that. The Obama regime and various city governments moved with alacrity to crush the Occupy Movement in the latest example of how the rulers of America systematically work to prevent the emergence of any movements that can change the status quo. Currently the Black Lives Matter movement, an unorganized movement of people mostly venting, is their target, as the recent false arrest and probable murder of the outspoken Sandra Bland in Texas demonstrates.

1] In July of 2014, McCain had the gall to stand reality on its head and say of Stewart, "when he says things...that are absolutely wrong, he gets away with it." This is yet another example of how reactionaries project. Of course it is reactionaries like McCain who say factually false things DAILY which the corporate oligarchy's media treats as reasonable. ["McCain Fires Back at Jon Stewart: 'Gets Away' With Being 'Absolutely Wrong;' Jabs Media," "Media Research Center" (sic), 7/21/14.]

Ironically, the source I just cited is a reactionary propaganda sewer.

Or you can view the same story at Talking Points Memo.