{"id":222811,"date":"2022-10-31T12:01:19","date_gmt":"2022-10-31T12:01:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=222811"},"modified":"2022-10-31T12:23:00","modified_gmt":"2022-10-31T12:23:00","slug":"wicked-leaks-part-1-how-the-media-quarantined-evidence-on-nord-stream-sabotage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/10\/wicked-leaks-part-1-how-the-media-quarantined-evidence-on-nord-stream-sabotage\/","title":{"rendered":"Wicked Leaks (Part 1): How the Media Quarantined Evidence on Nord Stream Sabotage"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

26 Oct 2022 – <\/em>Last week, Alex Nunns, author of \u2018The Candidate \u2013 Jeremy Corbyn\u2019s Improbable Path to Power\u2019<\/em> and former Corbyn speechwriter, described<\/a> the current assault on democracy within the Labour Party:<\/p>\n

\u2018What\u2019s happening in the Labour Party is new. The Labour right, having had the shock of their lives in 2015, are now intent on eradicating the left entirely. This isn\u2019t how their predecessors thought. It\u2019s a new departure in Labour history that\u2019ll have long term consequences.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So why<\/a> the change<\/a>?<\/p>\n

\u2018Previous generations of Labour right bureaucrats accommodated the left not because they were nicer than the current lot but because 1) the left was part of a power bloc which they needed to advance their own ends & 2) they were confident in containing the left within that bloc.<\/p>\n

\u2018This generation of Labour right bureaucrats acts differently because 2) has changed, but 1) hasn\u2019t. Their predecessors weren\u2019t all stupid, so there will be a long-term cost.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the Labour right is \u2018eradicating the left entirely\u2019 because, as the Corbyn near-miss in 2017 showed, the level of public support for left policies is now so high that it threatens to surge uncontrollably through any window of opportunity.<\/p>\n

This rings true, and not just for the Labour Party. What we have often called the \u2018corporate media\u2019, but which in truth is a state-corporate media system, has followed essentially the same path for the same reasons.<\/p>\n

Where once the likes of John Pilger, Robert Fisk and Peter Oborne were granted regular columns in national newspapers and magazines, and even space for prime-time documentaries, their brand of rational, compassionate dissent has been all but banished. Pilger commented<\/a> recently:<\/p>\n

\u2018In recent years, some of the best journalists have been eased out of the mainstream. \u201cDefenestrated\u201d is the word used. The spaces once open to mavericks, to journalists who went against the grain, truth-tellers, have closed.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In October 2019, Peter Oborne published an article on \u2018the way Boris Johnson was debauching Downing Street by using the power of his office to spread propaganda and fake news\u2019. (Peter Oborne, \u2018The Assault on Truth,\u2019 Simon & Schuster, 2021, p.130). The media response:<\/p>\n

\u2018This article marked the end of my thirty-year-long career as a writer and broadcaster in the mainstream British press and media. I had been a regular presenter on Radio 4\u2019s The Week in Westminster for more than two decades. It ceased to use me, without explanation. I parted company on reasonably friendly terms with the Daily Mail after our disagreement\u2026<\/p>\n

\u2018The mainstream British press and media is to all intents and purposes barred to me.\u2019 (p.132 and p.133)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As with the Labour Party, the reason is that the game \u2013 and it always was a game \u2013 has changed. In the age of internet-based citizen journalism \u2013 heavily filtered by algorithms and \u2018shadow-banning\u2019 though it is \u2013 elite interests can no longer be sure that the truth can be contained by the \u2018free press\u2019 and its obedient ranks of \u2018client journalists\u2019.<\/p>\n

In our media alert of 26 July 2002, we wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018This does not mean that there is no dissent in the mainstream; on the contrary the system strongly requires the appearance<\/em> of openness. In an ostensibly democratic society, a propaganda system must incorporate occasional instances of dissent. Like vaccines, these small doses of truth inoculate the public against awareness of the rigid limits of media freedom.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That was true two decades ago when we started Media Lens. But, now, the state-corporate media system relies less on inoculation and more on quarantine: inconvenient facts, indeed whole issues, are simply kept from public awareness. We have moved far closer to a totalitarian system depending on outright censorship.<\/p>\n

An example was provided by a remarkable leading article<\/a> in the Observer, titled, \u2018The Observer view on the global escalation of Russia\u2019s war on Ukraine\u2019. The title notwithstanding, this October 9 article made no mention at all of the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines just two weeks earlier, on September 26. But why?<\/p>\n

The pipelines are multi-national projects operated by Swiss-based Nord Stream AG, with each intended to supply around 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually from Russia to Europe through pipelines laid beneath the Baltic Sea connecting to a German hub. Completed a decade ago, Russian gas giant, Gazprom, has a 51 percent stake in the project that cost around $15 billion to build. US media watch site, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), made<\/a> the key point:<\/p>\n

\u2018Any serious coverage of the Nord Stream attack should acknowledge that opposition to the pipeline has been a centerpiece of the US grand strategy in Europe. The long-term goal has been to keep Russia isolated and disjointed from Europe, and to keep the countries of Europe tied to US markets. Ever since German and Russian energy companies signed a deal to begin development on Nord Stream 2, the entire machinery of Washington has been working overtime to scuttle it.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The evidence for this is simply overwhelming. For example, FAIR noted that during his confirmation hearings in 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told Congress he was \u2018determined to do whatever I can to prevent\u2019 Nord Stream 2 from being completed. Months later, the US State Department reiterated that \u2018any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline risks US sanctions and should immediately abandon work on the pipeline\u2019.<\/p>\n

If that doesn\u2019t make US hostility to the pipelines clear enough, President Joe Biden told reporters in February:<\/p>\n

\u2018If Russia invades\u2026then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Asked by a reporter how the US intended to end a project that was, after all, under German control, Biden responded:<\/p>\n

\u2018I promise you, we will be able to do that.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No surprise, then, that, following the attack, Blinken described the destruction of the pipelines as a \u2018tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy,\u2019 adding that this \u2018offers tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come\u2019.<\/p>\n

Former UN weapons inspector and political analyst Scott Ritter commented<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018Intent, motive and means: People serving life sentences in U.S. prisons have been convicted on weaker grounds than the circumstantial evidence against Washington for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In a rare moment of \u2018mainstream\u2019 dissent echoing Ritter\u2019s conclusion, Columbia University economist, Jeffrey Sachs, surprised his interviewer by saying<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018I know it runs counter to our narrative, you\u2019re not allowed to say these things in the West, but the fact of the matter is, all over the world when I talk to people, they think the US did it. Even reporters on our papers that are involved tell me, \u201cOf course [the US is responsible],\u201d but it doesn\u2019t show up in our media.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sachs added<\/a>: \u2018there\u2019s direct radar evidence that US helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk were circling over this area\u2019.<\/p>\n

Despite all of this, FAIR reported of US corporate media coverage:<\/p>\n

\u2018Much of the media cast their suspicions towards Russia, including Bloomberg (9\/27\/22), Vox (9\/29\/22), Associated Press (9\/30\/22) and much of cable news. With few exceptions, speculation on US involvement has seemingly been deemed an intellectual no-fly-zone.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, the possibility of US involvement has been intellectually quarantined. Instead, US media have been tying themselves in knots trying to find alternative explanations. The New York Times wrote:<\/p>\n

\u2018It is unclear why Moscow would seek to damage installations that cost Gazprom billions of dollars to build and maintain. The leaks are expected to delay any possibility of receiving revenue from fuel going through the pipes.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In Britain, the Guardian affected <\/a>similar confusion:<\/p>\n

\u2018Nord Stream has been at the heart of a standoff between Russia and Europe over energy supplies since the start of the Kremlin\u2019s war in Ukraine, but it is not immediately clear who stands to benefit from the destruction of the gas infrastructure.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If not \u2018immediately clear\u2019, it surely becomes clear after a moment\u2019s honest reflection. Another Guardian report commented<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and the US \u2013 including its former president Donald Trump \u2013 have been fierce critics of the Nord Stream pipeline, and Germany has announced its intention to wean itself off Russian gas completely and Gazprom has wound down deliveries to almost zero.<\/p>\n

\u2018For a Nato ally to have carried out an act of sabotage on a piece of infrastructure part-owned by European companies would have meant much political risk for little gain, but for Russia to destroy its own material and political asset would also seem to defy logic.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The risk is not, in fact, that great in a world where politicians and media like the Guardian refuse to point the finger of blame at the world\u2019s sole superpower. As we have seen, the assertion that an attack by a Nato ally would be \u2018for little gain\u2019 was publicly contradicted by Blinken\u2019s own comment that the destruction of the pipelines \u2018offers tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.\u2019<\/p>\n

The Guardian added:<\/p>\n

\u2018Some European politicians suggested Russia could have carried out the blasts with the aim of causing further havoc with gas prices or demonstrating its ability to damage Europe\u2019s energy infrastructure.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But as the Guardian acknowledged, this \u2018logic\u2019 seemed \u2018to defy logic\u2019 and suggested journalists were burying their heads in the sand at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. A further Guardian report noted<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018A senior Ukrainian official also called it a Russian attack to destabilise Europe, without giving proof.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Or any reasoning. The report continued:<\/p>\n

\u2018British sources said they believed it may not be possible to determine what occurred with certainty.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

How convenient. The Telegraph reported<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, said that if it was confirmed it was an act of sabotage by Russia it would be \u201cin nobody\u2019s interest\u201d.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, a statement directly contradicted by Blinken himself. His \u2018in nobody\u2019s interest\u2019 comment was the main focus of most media coverage.<\/p>\n

FAIR discussed <\/a>a tweet from a Polish member of the European Parliament, Radek Sikorski \u2013 a one-time Polish defence minister as well as a former American Enterprise Institute fellow, who was named one of the \u2018Top 100 Global Thinkers\u2019 in 2012 by Foreign Policy. FAIR reported:<\/p>\n

\u2018Sikorski tweeted a picture of the methane leak in the ocean, along with the caption, \u201cAs we say in Polish, a small thing, but so much joy.\u201d He later tweeted, \u201cThank you, USA,\u201d with the same picture.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These comments were<\/em> occasionally reported in the UK press, but Sikorski later tweeted against the pipeline, noting:<\/p>\n

\u2018Nord Stream\u2019s only logic was for Putin to be able to blackmail or wage war on Eastern Europe with impunity.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He added:<\/p>\n

\u2018Now $20 billion of scrap metal lies at the bottom of the sea, another cost to Russia of its criminal decision to invade Ukraine. Someone\u2026did a special maintenance operation.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This was clearly an ironic reference to the term \u2018special military operation\u2019 used by Russia to describe its illegal invasion of Ukraine.<\/p>\n

Significantly, the Telegraph reported <\/a>some but not all of this:<\/p>\n

\u2018Sikorski posted a photo of the Nord Stream methane bubbling to the Baltic\u2019s surface, with the brief message: \u201cThank you, USA.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u2018Sikorski has since deleted his tweet, and has not since elaborated on it\u2026 [but] it was widely seized upon by pro-Russian media seeking to make the case for American sabotage.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But as we have seen, Sikorski certainly had<\/em> elaborated on it; and media didn\u2019t need to be \u2018pro-Russian\u2019 to believe the comments pointed towards Western sabotage.<\/p>\n

The Daily Mail also struggled <\/a>to understand:<\/p>\n

\u2018On Twitter Radoslaw Sikorski posted a picture of a massive methane gas spill on the surface of the Baltic Sea with the comment: \u201cThank You USA\u201d. The hawkish MEP later tweeted that if Russia wants to continue supplying gas to Europe it must \u201ctalk to the countries controlling the gas pipelines\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u2018Whatever did he mean?\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In fact, Sikorski had been very clear about what he meant.<\/p>\n

In a single, casual comment in the Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens may be the only \u2018mainstream\u2019 journalist to actually affirm the likely significance of Sikorski\u2019s comments:<\/p>\n

\u2018Radek Sikorski may have given the game away. First, he tweeted \u201cThank you, USA\u201d with a picture of the gas bubbling up into the Baltic. Then, when lots of people noticed, he deleted it. That made me think he was on to something.\u2019 (Hitchens, \u2018How could I know\u2026\u2019 Mail on Sunday, 2 October 2022)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Curiously, non-corporate journalists like Jonathan Cook<\/a>, Caitlin Johnstone<\/a>, Glenn Greenwald<\/a>, Aaron Mat\u00e9<\/a>, Bryce Green<\/a>, even hippy Russell Brand<\/a>, were able to find all the evidence and arguments omitted by \u2018mainstream\u2019 journalists supported by far greater resources.<\/p>\n

And this makes the point with which we began this alert: there is now so much high-quality journalism exposing the establishment outside<\/em> the state-corporate \u2018mainstream\u2019, that the task of the \u2018mainstream\u2019 now is to protect the establishment by acting as a buffer blocking citizen journalism from public awareness.<\/p>\n

The Observer editorial<\/a> which failed to even mention this major terror attack on civilian infrastructure talked of a \u2018Putin plague\u2019, describing the Russian leader as \u2018a pestilence whose spread threatens the entire world. Ukraine is not its only victim\u2019. That\u2019s the Bad Guy. So who are the Good Guys in this fairy-tale? The editors added:<\/p>\n

\u2018In this developing confrontation, much more is at stake than Ukraine\u2019s sovereignty. On life support, it seems, is the entire postwar consensus underpinning global security, nuclear non-proliferation, free trade and international law.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is easy to understand why the Observer<\/em> would prefer to quarantine the possibility of US involvement in a terror attack that would make a nonsense of the editors\u2019 lofty rhetoric about a \u2018postwar consensus\u2019 based on \u2018international law\u2019.<\/p>\n

Also no surprise, the Observer<\/em> once again found answers in the favoured, fix-all solution beloved of the Western press \u2013 regime change:<\/p>\n

\u2018If the Putin plague is ever to be eradicated, if the war is ever to end, such developments inside Russia, presaging a change of leadership, full military withdrawal from Ukraine and a fresh start, represent the best hope of a cure.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

__________________________________________<\/p>\n

Read Part 2 HERE<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> Media Lens is a UK-based media watchdog group headed by David Edwards and David Cromwell. In 2007,<\/em> Media Lens was awarded the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Prize<\/a>.\u00a0We have written three co-authored books<\/em>:\u00a0Guardians of Power-The Myth of the Liberal Media <\/a>(Pluto Press, 2006),<\/em> Newspeak-In the 21st Century<\/a> (Pluto Press, 2009), and<\/em> Propaganda Blitz<\/a> (Pluto Press, 2018)<\/em>. Contacts: David Edwards: editor@medialens.org<\/a> – David Cromwell: editor@medialens.org<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original – medialens.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

26 Oct 2022 – It is easy to understand why the Observer would prefer to quarantine the possibility of US involvement in a terror attack that would make a nonsense of the editors\u2019 lofty rhetoric about a \u2018postwar consensus\u2019 based on \u2018international law\u2019.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":121823,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[242],"tags":[922,120,2314,550,378,1855,234,91,2937,112,818,278,2711,880,639,961,70,2110],"class_list":["post-222811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-exposures","tag-bias","tag-conflict","tag-corporate-media","tag-corruption","tag-journalism","tag-mainstream-media-msm","tag-media","tag-nato","tag-nordstream-2","tag-pentagon","tag-proxy-war","tag-russia","tag-staged-terrorism","tag-state-terrorism","tag-uk","tag-ukraine","tag-usa","tag-yellow-journalism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222811","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=222811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222811\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/121823"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}