In the mainstream media articles are spiked by editors and withheld from publication.
In journalistic parlance, spiking refers to withholding a story from publication…
Editing is the process of selecting and preparing written, visual, audible and film media used to convey information. The editing process can involve correction, condensation, organization, and many other modifications performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate and complete work.
In Science articles are similarly spiked via the Peer Review Progress.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field.
Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility.
In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper’s suitability for publication.
Sadly, articles are frequently spiked because they undermine the propaganda policies of a particular organisation.
In public relations, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure. While traditional public relations may also rely on creative presentation of the facts, “spin” often implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics.
Politicians are often accused by their opponents of claiming to be honest and seek the truth while using spin tactics to manipulate public opinion. Because of the frequent association between spin and press conferences (especially government press conferences), the room in which these take place is sometimes described as a spin room. A group of people who develop spin may be referred to as “spin doctors” who engage in “spin doctoring” for the person or group that hired them.
Media manipulation is a series of related techniques in which partisans create an image or argument that favours their particular interests. Such tactics may include the use of logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, and often involve the suppression of information or points of view by crowding them out, by inducing other people or groups of people to stop listening to certain arguments, or by simply diverting attention elsewhere.
In 1891 Oscar Wilde eloquently lamented the demise of the Fourth Estate.
In old days men had the rack.
Now they have the Press.
That is an improvement certainly.
But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing.
Somebody – was it Burke? – called journalism the fourth estate.
That was true at the time no doubt.
But at the present moment it is the only estate.
It has eaten up the other three.
The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it.
We are dominated by Journalism.
The Soul of Man under Socialism – Oscar Wilde – 1891
In 2014 John Pilger continued the long tradition of eloquently lamenting the demise of the Fourth Estate.
The other night, I saw George Orwells’s ‘1984’ performed on the London stage.
Although crying out for a contemporary interpretation, Orwell’s warning about the future was presented as a period piece: remote, unthreatening, almost reassuring.
It was as if Edward Snowden had revealed nothing, Big Brother was not now a digital eavesdropper and Orwell himself had never said, “To be corrupted by totalitarianism, one does not have to live in a totalitarian country.”
Acclaimed by critics, the skilful production was a measure of our cultural and political times.
When the lights came up, people were already on their way out.
They seemed unmoved, or perhaps other distractions beckoned.
“What a mindfuck,” said the young woman, lighting up her phone.
A few years ago, Terry Eagleton, then professor of English literature at Manchester University, reckoned that “for the first time in two centuries, there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life”.
No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake for utopian dreams, no Byron damns the corruption of the ruling class, no Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin reveal the moral disaster of capitalism. William Morris, Oscar Wilde, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw have no equivalents today.
Harold Pinter was the last to raise his voice.
Among the insistent voices of consumer-feminism, none echoes Virginia Woolf, who described “the arts of dominating other people… of ruling, of killing, of acquiring land and capital”.
In politics as in journalism and the arts, it seems that dissent once tolerated in the “mainstream” has regressed to a dissidence: a metaphoric underground.
When I began a career in Britain’s Fleet Street in the 1960s, it was acceptable to critique western power as a rapacious force.
Read James Cameron’s celebrated reports of the explosion of the Hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll, the barbaric war in Korea and the American bombing of North Vietnam.
Today’s grand illusion is of an information age when, in truth, we live in a media age in which incessant corporate propaganda is insidious, contagious, effective and liberal.
John Pilger – 11 July 2014
The return of George Orwell and Big Brother’s war on Palestine, Ukraine and the truth
Last week, Michel Chossudovsky reported upon the spiking of eyewitness interviews.
According to the report of German pilot and airlines expert Peter Haisenko, the MH17 Boeing 777 was not brought down by a missile.
What he observed from the available photos were perforations of the cockpit:
The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation:
The cockpit shows traces of shelling!
You can see the entry and exit holes.
The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards.
These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter alibre projectile.
Peter Haisenko’s study is corroborated by the Russian Ministry of Defense which pointed to a Ukrainian Su-25 jet in the flight corridor of the MH17, within proximity of the plane.
Ironically, the presence of a military aircraft is also confirmed by a BBC report conducted at the crash site on July 23.
All the eyewitnesses interviewed by the BBC confirmed the presence of a Ukrainian military aircraft flying within proximity of Malaysian Airlines MH17 at the time that it was shot down:
Eyewitness #1: There were two explosions in the air. And this is how it broke apart. And [the fragments] blew apart like this, to the sides. And when …
Eyewitness #2: … And there was another aircraft, a military one, beside it. Everybody saw it.
Eyewitness #1: Yes, yes. It was flying under it, because it could be seen. It was proceeding underneath, below the civilian one.
Eyewitness #3: There were sounds of an explosion. But they were in the sky. They came from the sky. Then this plane made a sharp turn-around like this. It changed its trajectory and headed in that direction [indicating the direction with her hands].
The original BBC Video Report published by BBC Russian Service on July 23, 2014 has since been removed from the BBC archive.
In a bitter irony, the BBC is censoring its own news productions.
Prof Michel Chossudovsky – Global Research – 31 July 2014
“Support MH17 Truth”: OSCE Monitors Identify “Shrapnel and Machine Gun-Like Holes” indicating Shelling. No Evidence of a Missile Attack. Shot Down by a Military Aircraft?
Yesterday, Richard North reported upon the spiking of an article by Christopher Booker.
Israel is one of the very few issues over which Booker and I are not in full accord, but I was nevertheless looking forward to seeing the response to the column this week, telling myself that it was going to get pretty sharp reaction.
So sharp has been the reaction, though, that it has not even been able to get through the editorial filter. At the very last minute, with no time at all to provide a replacement, it has been pulled from the newspaper and will not appear in the print version or online.
Regrettably, mainstream Science is also infected with spin and propaganda.
Yesterday, the lamentably state of Science was [again] highlighted by Steven Goddard.
Yesterday I published this graph, showing almost perfect correlation between USHCN adjustments and NOAA atmospheric CO2 numbers.
I have long wondered why USHCN adjustments are increasing exponentially.
They are now nearly 1.5F total.
Which underlines how important it is to check the quoted sources and to familiarise yourself with any other sources that may clarify or contradict the narrative.
In my experience: there always two [and frequently more] sides to every story.
In science, nothing is ever proved – only falsified – regardless of what the papers say.