WARNING: may cause cognitive dissonance
and anxiety in disciples of Medialens…
I originally supported Medialens – until they began an unpleasant, error-ridden campaign against Iraq Body Count (Medialens has yet to respond to my 2009 ZNet article documenting their errors). The Observer’s Peter Beaumont described Medialens’s campaign as “deeply vicious”. Among other things, Medialens promoted the insane claim that IBC was “actively aiding and abetting in war crimes”.
Some criticisms of Medialens:
• George Monbiot, back in 2002, accused Medialens of being “narrow”, “not analytical, but ideological”, and guilty of “confronting one form of bias and intolerance with another”. More recently, Monbiot has charged Medialens with being “an apologist for genocidaires and ethnic cleansers”.
• Steven Poole (author of Unspeak) wrote, in a Guardian review, of Medialens’s “counterproductive tendency to bathe everything in childishly apocalyptic polemic”.
• Adam Curtis, writer/producer of the BBC series, The Power of Nightmares, characterised Medialens’s “media criticism” as “stamping your little feet and trying to whip up an attack of the clones”.
• Stephen Soldz, an antiwar campaigner, psychoanalyst and writer for ZNet, wrote of the “mob psychology” of Medialens: “I used to think that we needed a group like Media Lens in the US. Now I am simply thankful that this particular flavor of Stalinism hasn’t yet emigrated”.
• Noam Chomsky distanced himself from Medialens when I asked him to comment for the record on this. Prof Chomsky wrote: “I know almost nothing about medialens, their positions, or their reasons.” (email, Chomsky to Shone, 18/06/2011).
• Peter Wilby (former editor of New Statesman magazine) wrote that Medialens “don’t do humour”, and that “The only analogy I can think of for their self-appointed role as media irritants is Mary Whitehouse, who also represented nobody but herself, and was also completely ignorant of what she was criticising.”
• Peter Beaumont (the Observer’s foreign affairs editor) wrote that Medialens is “a closed and distorting little world that selects and twists its facts to suit its arguments”. He likened Medialens to “a train spotters’ club run by Uncle Joe Stalin”.
• ZNet has refused to publish several of Medialens’s articles. In one case, the rejection was due to a passage which “implied that a very excellent journalist, George Monbiot, was protecting corporate interests” (in the words of ZNet editor, Michael Albert, who added that “We refuse to give silly and destructive claims and formulations credibility”). Other cases of rejection are cited here by Medialens (as a kind of boast – as if it makes them more radical than ZNet).
• [2012 Update] Since I posted this blog, there have been many criticisms of Medialens from commentators on the left - Mehdi Hasan, Sunny Hundal, Richard Seymour, Owen Jones, New Left Project, etc. Almost too numerous to mention, and much of this criticism is via Twitter. A new Twitter account Media Lens Wipe has started to compile some of this criticism.
Quote source: Medialens message board 18/3/09
MENU – Medialens undone part 1
(externally published criticisms of Medialens):
- Media Lens’s errors on Iraq Body Count (ZNet article exposing the distortions in Medialens’s anti-IBC campaign. Medialens’s editors are aware of this article but have, to date, failed to respond).
- Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson on his run-in with Medialens (Tribune Magazine)
- Medialens’s “polite” smear campaign (News Frames)
- Counterproductive antiwar arguments (Comment Factory)
- How to deconstruct our lying media (Comment Factory)
- Medialens attack Nick Davies (Media Hell)
MENU – Medialens undone part 2
(Medialens-related entries at this blog)
- Final falsehoods from Medialens
- Quotes to cogitate on…
- Chomsky rubbishes Medialens?
- Medialens’s “silent” hypocrisy
- Medialens’s embarrassing archive [part 8] – CENSORSHIP
- “Shameful” double standards: Medialens on Monbiot & Pilger
- Evidence-based BS
- “Childishly apocalyptic polemic”
- Les Roberts’s new study
- Political cult rhetoric
- Medialens dittoheads on IBC (resurrected temporary post)
- How not to do media analysis
- Stephen Soldz on the “mob psychology” of Medialens
- Medialens on Flat Earth News – “It’s this stuff that finally kills people”
- BP and the New Statesman
- Full reply to Medialens
- Medialens, Monbiot, Wilby, Milne
- Medialens’s embarrassing archive (part 7) – betraying Monbiot
- Misrepresenting “science”
- Medialens’s embarrassing archive (part 6)
- Medialens’s embarrassing archive (part 5)
- Medialens’s embarrassing archive (part 4)
- Medialens’s embarrassing archive (part 3)
- Misrepresenting Iraq Body Count
- Medialens’s embarrassing archive (part 2)
- Medialens’s embarrassing archive (part 1)
Screen captures (from Medialens’s message board):
- Stephen Soldz on Medialens’s Stalinist tendencies
- David Edwards on the “erosion” of Stephen Soldz’s mind
- George Monbiot on my response to Medialens
- ZNet editor Michael Albert on Medialens’s “silly and destructive claims” (ZNet had refused to publish a Medialens article)
- Medialens’s regular poster “Stephen” on Medialens’s censorship, etc
- On Medialens’s tendency to accuse critics of being “fanatical”, “stalkers”
- Medialens complain about Steven Poole’s Guardian review of their book
- Abuse permitted by the Medialens editors
- Medialens SMEARS George Monbiot
- Gavin Esler on Medialens “robots”
- Professor Marc Herold unimpressed with Medialens
- Medialens criticised for petty attacks on former supporter Richard Seymour (aka “Lenin”).
- David Cromwell corresponds with BBC’s Paul Reynolds (hilarious and fairly typical. Incidentally, Cromwell’s claim about giving “the right of a published reply” is false. Medialens don’t guarantee any such right – here’s just one recent example where they refused to publish a reply to a serious published accusation).
Fun from the archives:
A little-known audio (CD) release from Medialens, circa 2001, featuring ingenious lyrics which equated the mainstream media (“MSM”) with Satan. A few of the songs used to be available on the Medialens YouTube channel, but they were removed due to popular demand: