>From www.newaus.com.au/index.html
}}>Begin
The New Australian
Why does Australia's media love Clinton and hate Reagan?
By Gerard Jackson
No. 142, 15-21 Nov. 1999
Rather than write on the state of the US economy I thought further reflections
on the curious phenomenon of the Australian media's obsessive defence of
Clinton's behaviour and its refusal to report on his scandals. Now Americans
who believe that the media has a moral duty to report facts as honestly as it
can have a justifiable complaint against the standard of reporting. But pity
poor Australians. At least Americans have access to a range of conservative
oriented magazines and papers while Australians have no genuine alternative
because left-wing groupthink literally prevades the whole of our media.
Though the fall of the Berlin Wall is a watershed in history that symbolises
the collapse of the Soviet empire, I could not find a single editorial or
column in any Australian paper or magazine that credited Reagan with
contributing to that momentous event. Not one. The situation is so bad
regarding Reagan that it is incredibly rare to find any favourable comments
about him in the media. Even the letters columns have been rigged with letters
defending Reagan being spiked while those abusing him were published. The
Australian Financial Review was particularly bad in this respect as was Rupert
Murdoch's Australian.
Even now our journalists cannot resist writing snide comments deriding Reagan's
presidency and denigrating his intelligence and convictions. The so-called
Iran/Contra scandal had our media in a frenzy with no dissenting voices. The
condemnation of Reagan was comprehensive and relentless. Yet the same media has
now put an embargo on Clinton's scandals, deliberately conveying the impression
to the Australian public that there was only Monica Lewinsky, that Whitewater
is old hat and doesn't amount to anything anyway and that there is little else
to report.
Rupert Murdoch's Australian is still spiking the news >>Photo<<
The Broaddrick rape was was buried, with Cameron Forbes, The Australian's
Washington correspondent, not only belittling her experience but also calling
Thomas Jefferson a liar and rapist. After all, according to Forbes' left-wing
reasoning, "the sins of William Jefferson Clinton [insinuating that Clinton is
innocent of any crimes] can be put in the context of the sins of Thomas
Jefferson." The same Forbes also impugned Kathleen Willey's motives by implying
that she acted out of greed. Peter Wilson was Forbes' predecessor and every bit
as bad. During his Washington stint he had no qualms in suggesting that the
Reagan administration was the most corrupt in modern history while at the same
time arguing that Clinton's scandals were mere peccadilloes. On his return
Wilson was made The Australian's deputy news editor.
It was suggested by some, perhaps unfairly, that Wilson's promotion and Forbes'
posting would ensure that there would be no in depth reporting on the Clinton
scandals. Coincidence or not, that is exactly what happened. On the other hand,
every other Australian newspaper and magazine did likewise.
Editorial after editorial came out in support of Clinton, arguing that he
should not be removed if impeached, with the left-wing Melbourne Age even
saying that "America would shame itself if it impeached Clinton." In each case
the reasoning was the same: it was all about sex between consenting adults. No
paper, to my knowledge, raised questions about perjury, intimidation or abuse
of power
Now that the sheer magnitude of Clinton's corruption can no longer be
rationalised away the Australian media has decided to censor it. This is why it
has said nothing, for example, about Johnny Chung or Charlie Trie. Even the
Waco scandal scarcely rated a mention. Anything whatsoever that seriously
embarrasses the Clinton administration is simply spiked. Only those Australians
fortunate enough to be on the Net have been able to learn what has really been
going on.
Why? Why are our journalists doing this? Of course, it has nothing to do with
loving Clinton and everything to do with ideology. These moral imposters are
Thomas Sowell's self-anointed. What matters to them is whether you share, or
appear to share, their left-wing view of the world. If so, then this exonerates
you of any wrongdoing because at least your heart is in the right place, unlike
evil conservatives. And it is this ideology that, in their moralising eyes,
justifies bending, twisting and suppressing the truth. This is why they still
mock and hate Reagan, even lying about him. He successfully defied them.
Bear in mind all that I have said and pity us poor Australians who have to put
up with the likes of Murdoch's antipodean media.
End<{{
>>One only needs to review the extent to which the So Koreans have gone to be
developers of Chinese infrastructure. Mollification of Kim Jong Il is probably
more likely an awareness of impending implosion of its impedimence to
imperialism (Chinese). A<>E<>R <<
}}>Begin
Looking Out
Peter Zhang's
Column
Korea: another move by Beijing to force the US back to Pearl?
No. 156, 19 June - 1 July 2000
In several of my articles I have emphasised that it is Beijing�s long term goal
to force America out of the Pacific-Asia region which China sees as its
rightful sphere of influence. The historic meeting between North Korea�s Kim
Jong-il and the South�s Kim Dae-jung. Welcome as the meeting surely is, the
possible long-term strategic consequences for the US of a significant and
genuine lessening of tension between the two states must be causing some
consternation among the military and the State Department�s better informed
personnel.
Beijing is a lot more pragmatic (or should I say Bismarckian) than she is
usually given credit for. Now that she has abandoned Marxist ideology and
embraced, in principle anyway, the capitalist road to prosperity, North Korea
has become a political and economic liability as well as an international
embarrassment to her. As for South Korea, it is not and never has been
considered a military threat. What Beijing does find humiliating rather than
threatening is the presence of some 37,000 US troops and their equipment.
Far better, in Beijing�s eyes, to have a unified and prosperous Korea free of
foreign (read American) political and military influence than one divided by
hostile armies. A thriving capitalist Korea would not only be an important
economic trading partner it would provide China with an invaluable political
and strategic asset. Once unification was underway the rational for an American
presence would evaporate and American and South Korean opinion would be easily
persuaded to support a military withdrawal.
Once US troops were out this would leave only Japan and Okinawa. How long would
it be, Beijing wonders, before Japanese opinion could be persuaded to seriously
reassess the American connection? Beijing need only point to Korea as an
example of her goodwill and benign intentions. What better example of Asian
cooperation and friendship than economic agreements and political treaties with
Beijing acting as guarantor. Of course, some might see this role evolving into
that of a menacing policeman. But rest assured, Beijing would know how to
subtly exploit the region�s desire for peace and stability.
Once American forces had been evicted (sorry, withdrawn) from the region it
would only be a matter of time before South East Asia decided that the
�correlation of forces�, as the Marxists used to say, have aligned themselves
in Beijing�s favour. The only favourable retreat in the Pacific-Asian region
for America would be Australia and New Zealand. The latter�s left-wing
reactionaries would make a permanent US military presence in the country an
impossibility. Beijing realises that this lot�s pathological hatred of the US
is such that it would prefer to sacrifice its nation�s independence and pay
political tribute to China rather than have the US guarantee its liberty.
Australia, on the other hand, might provide, despite its vociferous anti-
American elements, a favourable outpost. If that failed then America would soon
cease to be a Pacific power. The only fly in Beijing�s ointment at the moment
is Taiwan. The region is not only anxious to see how this problem is resolved
but also what role the US will play in the process. If Beijing and Taipei reach
an amicable agreement then there is no reason why the events I have described
should not unfold so long as China holds together.
My impression is that Kim Jong-il is virtually non-layer {{"non-Player" ? ]] in
Beijing�s long-term plans. He is not well regarded in Beijing and his eventual
retirement from the political scene would be welcomed. Such a move would add
even further to Beijing�s credibility among its neighbours, particularly Japan.
End<{{
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut." Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
