< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: See No Bias, Hear No Bias, Write No Bias

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

See No Bias, Hear No Bias, Write No Bias

Which of our resident commenters was telling us there was no left-wing media bias, and that the Sir Humphrey's crew are all just a bunch of black-helicopter-grade paranoid delusional freaks for daring to suggest such a thing? And how does this Sunday Star Times article from todayfit into that hypothesis?
Kiwi could put Britain in dock - Pilger
by Emily Watt

Crusading journalist John Pilger says a Kiwi fighting to prove the Iraq war is illegal could force Britain before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
Describing Pilger as anything but a cheerleader for anti-American tyranny, and giving him an entire puff piece for his usual Americans-are-the-real-terrorists sermon, shows the SST has an ignorance of the the dearth of morals and accuracy in Pilger's work

I recommend Emily Watt, and whichever editor let this article through for publishing, read the following expose of Pilger (and Robert Fisk) as a refresher. A few of our commenters (and by that I mean "Ackers") could do with reading it also.

Over to you, Keith Windshuttle:
Pilger, however, is rather confused about the identity of today’s fascists. He gives his political support in Iraq to the pro-Saddam insurgents and suicide bombers, or what he calls “the Iraqi resistance.” He says American armed forces are illegal occupiers and are the moral equivalent of the Nazis in France. He has described coalition troops as “legitimate targets.” That is, he supports the killing of American, British, and Australian soldiers in Iraq. He says “we have no choice,” meaning we of the political left have no choice, “but to support the resistance, for if the resistance fails, the ‘Bush gang’ will attack another country.” In other words, this journalist is an activist for the other side. Pilger is one of the more depressing manifestations of the adversary culture that grips much of our media today. Cheering for the enemy is a sure path to celebrity.
...and this:
Between them, Pilger and Fisk represent the nadir of Western journalism in our time. They take us back to those apologists of the Soviet era in the 1930s, such as Walter Duranty, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times, who lavished praise on Stalin and the USSR at a time when hundreds of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians were dying of starvation or perishing before the regime’s firing squads. In his day, Duranty, who won the 1932 Pulitzer Prize for his efforts, was as celebrated as Pilger and Fisk are now, but what stuck in the long run was the epithet another Moscow correspondent, Malcolm Muggeridge, later gave him: “the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in 50 years of journalism.” Duranty and his successors betrayed their profession.
· Linked Article

Posted by RightWingDeathBeast | 10/30/2005 11:45:00 AM

14 Comments:

Blogger Ackers1 said...

Oh that Windschuttle. The one who fried his brains at uni and emerged on the wrong side of the history wars. Sad man.
http://www.sleepybrain.net/2005/05/recipe-for-lsd-who-ya-gonna-call.html

10/30/2005 03:35:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

John Quiggin has a nice post on Windschuttle's "repeated political and methodological somersaults"

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/09/13/windschuttle-flips-again/#comments

To describe Pilger and Fisk as representiong the nadir of Western journalism in our time really does mean we operate in separate universes but hey you didn't need me to tell you that! I saw Fisk at Sydney uni a couple of weeks ago and have almost finished his latest book. A remarkable man and a brilliant book.

10/30/2005 03:49:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

So was Goebells

10/30/2005 04:21:00 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

I have an off-topic question for ackers1. Do you read, or comment at, any other blogs? (just curious).

10/30/2005 05:48:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

Did you actually read Windshuttle's article ackers? Which of its facts do you dispute?

10/30/2005 06:09:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Roger, a very perceptive question. Is it possible Ackers1 is someone else? Let's see now. RB? JC?

10/30/2005 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Read other blogs yes of course. Comment on them, rarely though occasionally on DPF when there is a stoush on. And no I'm not RB, that would be flattery.

Of course I didn't read Windschuttle before commenting RWDB. Do I have to? He is always so predictable and tedious.

Having now gone back and read him I can only thank you for the pleasure of confirming my predjudices.

It also confirms what Quiggin says:

"The kind of large-scale claims about the moral and ethical perfection of European Christian civilisation that Windschuttle’s target market wants to read cannot be supported by primary research or footnote-checking, any more than the politically-driven denunciations of ‘dead white males’ that Windschuttle criticised in The Killing of History. Polemics of this kind rely on a sympathetic audience, willing to suspend disbelief as they are presented with claims that contradict well-established historical facts.

The basic problem for supporters of the polar positions in this debate is the obvious fact that, like all other civilisations, the European Christian civilisation is responsible for both great achievements and great crimes. It is possible to disagree about the relative balance of the two. But an approach like Windschuttle’s, in which the crimes are absolutely denied is no more credible than the kind of revisionist history in which all the achievements of European civilisation are alleged to have been stolen from Arabs and Africans."

10/30/2005 08:45:00 PM  
Blogger RightWingDeathBeast said...

Ackers you obtuse tit, there is not a single sentence about the "moral and ethical perfection of European Christian civilisation" in the article.

It is about your "brilliant man" getting his kicks by licking the posteriors of Osama and Saddy through the power of the written word. Deal with it.

A word or two of your own in rebuttal please, rather than copying John Quiggin. Quote JQ once more and I'll have AL delete your comment!

10/30/2005 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger fm said...

"Oh that Windschuttle". Was a journalist for 12 years, an academic for 20 before becoming a publisher. Wrote for every mainstream Australian newspaper I can think of, including the Australian Financial Review where Quiggan provides us with his bountiful insights. Has written numerous books (and made a living out of it), been published in Washington Times and the New York Post, and has done a bit of lecturing at various respected universities, including Princeton. Has been writing for a few years now for The New Criterion alongside the likes of Steyn, Dalrymple, VDH, Derbyshire and others -- though perhaps you don't recognise these names Ackers. If he did "fry his brains" at university (I pickled mine), it appears he has ample reserves. Based on the quality of your retort, I wonder whether the same could be said of you Ackers.

"Sad man". Indeed.

10/30/2005 10:30:00 PM  
Blogger fm said...

"Oh that Windschuttle". Was a journalist for 12 years, an academic for 20 before becoming a publisher. Wrote for every mainstream Australian newspaper I can think of, including the Australian Financial Review where Quiggan provides us with his bountiful insights. Has written numerous books (and made a living out of it), been published in Washington Times and the New York Post, and has done a bit of lecturing at various respected universities, including Princeton. He has been writing for The New Criterion for a few years now alongside the likes of Steyn, Dalrymple, VDH, Derbyshire and others -- though perhaps you don't recognise these names Ackers. If he did "fry his brains" at university (I pickled mine), it appears he had ample reserves. Based on the quality of your retort, I wonder whether the same could be said of you Ackers.

"Sad man". Indeed.

10/30/2005 10:35:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

Coming up with a statement such as this in relation to Fisk "This same hankering after the trappings of aristocracy, or anything that smacks of aristocracy, is behind much of the anti-American and anti-Jewish sentiment that now emanates from the European news media, especially in the writings of European leftists such as Fisk" is so completely ridiculous I'm surprised you can take anything Windschuttle has to say seiously.

Said would turn in his grave and I'm sure Fisk will be laughing uproariously.

10/30/2005 10:42:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Isn't Windschuttle the guy who showed several academic historians hadn't presented much reliable evidence to support their claims of major atrocities committed against the Aborigines during the 19th and 20th centuries?

10/30/2005 10:49:00 PM  
Blogger Ackers1 said...

He is AL. A major contributor to the so called "History Wars" that have been raging over here. He is Rupert Murdoch and John Howard's favourite historian. It's no surprise to see him taking the Bernard Lewis side in this debate.

10/31/2005 10:07:00 AM  
Blogger fm said...

"Oh that Windschuttle". Was a journalist for 12 years, an academic for 20 before becoming a publisher. Wrote for every mainstream Australian newspaper I can think of, including the Australian Financial Review where Quiggan provides us with his bountiful insights. Has written numerous books (and made a living out of it), been published in Washington Times and the New York Post, and has done a bit of lecturing at various prestigious universities, including Princeton. He has been writing for The New Criterion for a few years now alongside the likes of Steyn, Dalrymple, VDH, Derbyshire and others -- though perhaps you don't recognise these names Ackers. If he did "fry his brains" at university (I pickled mine), it appears he had ample reserves.

10/31/2005 01:42:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home