Corporate media

MSM is an acronym for "MainSteam Media". In common usage it refers to both print and broadcast sources of news, current affairs commentary and entertainment with the term "Mainstream" applied to distinguish it from so-called "Alternative" media.

Definition and Demarcation

Both the definitions and demarcation, as between "Mainstream and "Alternative", are necessarily somewhat arbitrary. They apply according to where, on a spectrum between Establishment sycophancy and outright Establishment enmity, the editorial policy (stated or otherwise) of a particular publishing organisation sits. They are UNCONNECTED with where on the traditional Left-Right political spectrum it sits, the entire spectrum having long-since been co-opted and absorbed by the Establishment. Historically the Left has been more problematical for Establishment interests but, in its overtly anti-establishment forms, it too has been more or less successfully neutered following the demise of the old Soviet Union.

Content Policing and the MSM self-image

Most MSM and MSM professionals, undoubtedly regard themselves, at the very least, as Establishment sceptic and, on matters unconnected with 'Deep State' issues, they are mostly both honest and correct to do so. However the boundaries of allowable debate and discourse, though largely unstated, MUST be respected if career progression within the MSM structure is to remain open. The archive section of the 'Media Lens' web site provides numerous trenchant illustrations of how this content policing operates.

Taboo Subjects

There are many taboo subjects and knee-jerk buzz-words which the ambitious journalist/commentator/celebrity knows he/she must navigate with extreme caution. Among the latter are: "Holocaust", "Conspiracy", "Anti-Semitic", "Zionist", "Nazi", "Terrorist"; among the former, dissent about the merits of: Globalisation, Economic Growth (on a finite planet), Free-Trade (so-called), and Western definitions of "Freedom" and "Democracy" - all of which are treated as articles of faith to be questioned only on pain of excommunication and severely stunted career prospects. Similarly risky/taboo behaviour is to question: The real motives of US/UK/NATO military entanglements; the alleged (assumed) benign intent of Western geo-policy, the essentially defensive nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; the reality and extent of 'the terrorist threat' - and a good few more besides.

MSM Ownership

In broad terms, "mass circulation/audience" and "mainstream" are synonymous. Trans-national corporate interests dominate MSM organisations ownership (which are themselves Zionist dominated). Where such corporate interests do not own outright - and with the notable exception of the BBC (See below) - they provide the dominant income stream through advertising.

The BBC

On the face of it the BBC, as a tax-payer funded organisation (or 'public-service broadcaster' as current Newspeak has it), ought to be less susceptible to the pressures that steer and moderate content in the vast bulk of the MSM as outlined above. But appearances can be deceptive.

There is no doubt that, when it comes to the dog-fight of domestic party political trivia with its simplistic tribal allegiances, and in spite of well attested left-leaning tendencies in such matters, the BBC IS INDEED relatively unbiased, balanced and impartial. Unfortunately, this makes it all the more sensitive to charges that, at a more fundamental level on matters central to the modern Western 'progressive' creeds outlined above, all may not be as it seems and it is therefore inclined simply to dismiss charges of institutional bias (intentional or otherwise), out of hand. There are many cases of such lofty dismissal, amply documented, on the Media Lens Web site mentioned above .

The plain, unarguable fact is that, where issues impinge upon 'Deep-State', hidden, Permanent Government interests, the BBC has always been the voice of the British Establishment. It's Charter is the work of men wedded to the Mackinder-Rhodes-Milner vision of the British Empire as a missionary force for 'progress' and the spread of civilisation in the world; and it is financed on the whim of the British Government whose hidden, permanent and secret elements dominate. How could it be anything else?

Subservience to Deep State interests

The 1926 General Strike

John Reith, then general manager and later Director General of the BBC, confided to his diary: "The Cabinet decision is really a negative one. They want to be able to say that they did not commandeer us, but they know they can trust us not to be really impartial." Reith is also quoted as saying: “since the BBC was a national institution, and since the government in this crisis was acting for the people...the BBC was for the government in the crisis too.”

John Pilger contrasts the actual implementation of a policy on impartiality with the literal meaning. He states:

The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put their side until the strike was over. So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since.

A latter day example

A demeaning latter-day example of BBC subservience was provided by the treatment accorded Andrew Gilligan, one of its reporters, over his broadcast claims about the 'sexing up' of the 'Iraq Dossier' used to justify the UK's participation in the invasion of Iraq and which led to the death of UN Weapons Inspector Dr David Kelly. In spite of Gilligans claims being largely vindicated by subsequent revelations, he was forced to resign from the BBC, as was its Chairman Gavyn Davies and its Director General Greg Dyke.

Control by Deep State interests

Further evidence of the covert control exercised over the BBC throughout the post WWII period to about the mid 1980's is provided by widely reported and well substantiated revelations of the systematic MI5 vetting of senior (and not-so-senior) BBC appointments and projects. See the WikiSpooks Document "MI5 and the Christmas Tree Files" for full details.

An outrageous example of BBC 'Impartiality'

Following Operation Cast Lead against Gaza by the Israeli military, in which 1,500 people - mostly women and children were killed and much of the physical infrastructure required to support the population was systematically destroyed, the Disasters Emergency Committee launched a public appeal to support its humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza. The BBC, alone among the UK MSM refused to broadcast it on grounds of "Upholding the BBC's hard won reputation for impartiality" and stood firm in its decision despite widespread criticism - not to say outrage from the public at large. A couple of representative examples:

Question: When is a humanitarian disaster not a humanitarian disaster?

Answer: When it is perpetrated by the Zionist Israeli State and the arbiter of the question is a 'Rabbit-caught-in-the-headlights' functionary (Mark Thompson) who is married to a Zionist and just happens to be the Director General of the BBC. His decision not to screen this is absolutely indefensible on ANY grounds. On alleged grounds of 'Upholding our hard won reputation for impartiality' it is the height of tendentious hypocrisy.

....the demand of Israel and its supporters has been: "cover up our war crimes, and don't do anything to help our victims, otherwise you're biased." That agenda is essentially what the BBC has acceded to."

There are further referenced examples of real-world BBC "Impartiality" in action on the 'Spin-Profiles' web site BBC page. and, with particular focus on the BBC coverage of Operation Cast Lead at the 'Beyond The Fringe' web site.

Conclusion

Whilst inquirers will undoubtedly be informed that these were all unfortunate aberrations from which lessons have been learned, there is every reason to suppose that, just like the Ronnie Corbett character in that John Cleese-Ronnie Barker-Ronnie Corbett video sketch, when it comes to deep political issues of the British Establishment, the BBC continues to "know its place".

Wikipedia and its use of sources

With a casual readership that dwarfs the largest MSM publications, co-option of Wikipedia to the serried ranks of the MSM was all but inevitable and so it has turned out.

Wikipedia has a policy of "Reliable Sources", known as WP:RS. Unfortunately, its concept of questionable sources is defined in ways very much biased towards the understanding of western readers - on top of this is the problem of highly uneven enforcement. Policies such as this weigh against even eye-witness evidence unless it has been published by western sources.

See Also

• WikiSpooks BBC Page