Peter Oborne's resignation from the Telegraph (18th February 2015) poses questions we should all be asking about our Media, our 'Free' press, and our public service broadcaster, the BBC.
WHO OWNS AND CONTROLS OUR MEDIA?
WHO DECIDES WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE PASSED ON TO US, AND WHAT INFORMATION IS KEPT SHROUDED, OR EVEN SECRET?
WHAT INFORMATION IS CENSORED BY OUR 'FREE' PRESS AND WHY?
CAN WE BELIEVE ANYTHING OUR 'FREE' PRESS TELLS US?
CAN WE BE SURE WE ARE BEING TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH?
Our 'Free' press is not under the control of politicians and governments - hence we call it 'free' and are proud of this when we compare what happens in countries that are more autocratic.
What Oborne has brought attention to is that there are other forces within society that makes our 'free' press less free than we assume. He talks of the power of advertisers. But advertisers are big, powerful, wealthy, multilateral, organisations - Big Corp. No major news organisation, perhaps with the exception of the BBC, could survive without them. If Big Corp threaten to withdraw their advertising, most news organisations would not be viable.
It remains to be seen how much HSBC Bank payrolls the Telegraph, or how much its wealthy owners are in league with the bank. Oborne complains that democracy itself was being undermined by “shadowy” media executives “who determine what truths can and what truths can’t be conveyed” by news organisations.
This blog has been making this point, and asking these questions for many years now, specifically in relation to the information the public is given about the Conventional Medical Establishment, that controls our national health service (NHS), and similar services throughout the world. In particular, it asks important questions about the activities of the pharmaceutical industry, Big Pharma.
WHO OWNS AND CONTROLS OUR MEDIA?
WHO DECIDES WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE PASSED ON TO US, AND WHAT INFORMATION IS KEPT SHROUDED, OR EVEN SECRET?
WHAT INFORMATION IS CENSORED BY OUR 'FREE' PRESS AND WHY?
CAN WE BELIEVE ANYTHING OUR 'FREE' PRESS TELLS US?
CAN WE BE SURE WE ARE BEING TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH?
Our 'Free' press is not under the control of politicians and governments - hence we call it 'free' and are proud of this when we compare what happens in countries that are more autocratic.
What Oborne has brought attention to is that there are other forces within society that makes our 'free' press less free than we assume. He talks of the power of advertisers. But advertisers are big, powerful, wealthy, multilateral, organisations - Big Corp. No major news organisation, perhaps with the exception of the BBC, could survive without them. If Big Corp threaten to withdraw their advertising, most news organisations would not be viable.
It remains to be seen how much HSBC Bank payrolls the Telegraph, or how much its wealthy owners are in league with the bank. Oborne complains that democracy itself was being undermined by “shadowy” media executives “who determine what truths can and what truths can’t be conveyed” by news organisations.
This blog has been making this point, and asking these questions for many years now, specifically in relation to the information the public is given about the Conventional Medical Establishment, that controls our national health service (NHS), and similar services throughout the world. In particular, it asks important questions about the activities of the pharmaceutical industry, Big Pharma.
- Why is it the new Big Pharma drugs are regularly and routinely presented as 'new breakthroughs', as 'wonder drugs', as developments that will 'change our experience' of serious illness - all without serious question?
- Why is it that when Big Pharma drugs and vaccines are found to be ineffective, harmful, or downright dangerous our Media regularly and routinely fail to tell us?
- Why is it when drug companies are found to be fraudulent, in their commercial activities, in their drug testing, in their drug marketing, in their refusal to share full information, they are not taken to task by our Media?
- Why do Alternative Medical Therapies, such as Homeopathy, receive nothing but derision and dismissal from our mainstream media?
- Why is there not more attention paid to comparison about the 'outcomes' of medical treatment as opposed to RCT's (randomised controlled tests) which is the favour domain of the drug companies?
To demonstrate this, one important medical story broke during September 2014 and it has been almost totally ignored by the mainstream media. The story can be simply outlined:
- The link between the MMR vaccine and the rising epidemic of Autism was widely discussed during the late 1990's and early 2000's. The result was a reduction in the number of parents who had their children immunised with this vaccine.
- Andrew Wakefield was pilloried by the mainstream media for drawing attention to this possible link, and eventually lost his job, and moved to the USA.
- In 2004, a major study was published that found no evidence of any link between MMR and Autism. As a result of this all further discussion about the link has been stopped within mainstream Media.
- In September 2014, 10 years after the study, one of the co-authors admitted that important evidence that should have been included in the 2004 study had been excluded, information that would have indicated that the link did exist.
Is this a newsworthy event. Is it not in the public interest for this information to be thoroughly investigated? Have thousands of children been vaccinated for the last 10 years and contracted Autism as a result?
Not for the mainstream media, either in the USA, Britain, or Europe where it has been completely and utterly ignored. Even the BBC, our public services broadcaster, not funded by advertising, but directly by the public via the licence fee, has not told its paymasters about the story. Indeed, the BBC has been one of the most serious offenders during the last 10 years in its failure and refusal to debate the MMR-Autism link.
So Peter Oborne has raised an important issue about our 'free' press. However, it is likely that he will now be pilloried by the Media he will have offended. Worse, he will be ignored. Worse, the questions he has asked will not be seriously addressed because Big Corp will not want them to be addressed.
The question he has asked is not one that concerns the Telegraph and HSBC. He asks a much bigger question than this, and it is this.
Can we believe anything, on any subject, that our 'Free Press is telling us?