punditman says...
Punditman has learned over time that things are rarely as they appear to be in the Big media, with the exception of perhaps sports scores (they usually get that right). The rest is usually spin.
How can punditman make such a broad statement? Easily. The "spin" on any given story fulfills certain assumptions about the way journalists, editors and owners look at the world. Granted, this varies somewhat across the spectrum, from centre-right to centre-left to further right with a few token lefties, libertarians and odd balls thrown in to make it all seem fun and fair.
But the range of allowable thought is actually a lot narrower than many people assume, especially when one starts digging into specific stories that play out when new information comes to light. Big Media don't like to admit they were wrong or lazy; in particular when getting it right the first time involves prowling around the edges of the "dark side" of government espionage, covert deception and official malfeasance. For the most part, these institutions are heavily invested in the status quo's way of looking at the world. They don't like complexity if complexity puts egg on their face. It's much easier to toe the White House/White Hall line.
What externality is punditman babbling about? The recent release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahiin in the Lockerbie bombing case is a perfect example of what punditman is prattling about. If you have fifteen minutes to spare and the ability to employ elementary logic you will easily see that this act of mass murder, this tragedy, this "court case," wreaked of intrigue, coverups and "more than meets the eye" from the very beginning. The "powers that be" were definitely up to something. But what? And why? Eric Margolis believes this case was a frame up and said so in his August 30th column, Muammar Qaddafi: Mad Like a Fox. He ends it with "Happy birthday, Moammar." That makes punditman feel a bit uncomfortable and slightly perplexed. After all, Margolis believes that Libya was "guilty as hell" of another atrocity—the bombing of the French UTA airliner in 1989—but the column is well researched. And it is in the Toronto Sun, an example of one of those contrarian columnists that occasionally break the mold.
But for the most part the rest of the media remain in la la land when it comes to the background intrigue to this case. A sense of renewed rage about Megrahi's release is understandable only if it is a clear-cut case, which it is not.
So what was the Lockerbie bombing all about? Was Iran behind it, in a tit-for-tat response to this:
1988: The U.S. intervenes on Iraq's side in its eight-year war against Iran. A U.S. navy Aegis cruiser, Vincennes, violates Iranian waters and "mistakenly" shoots down an Iranian civilian Airbus airliner in Iran's air space. All 288 civilians aboard die. Then vice-president George H.W. Bush vows, "I'll never apologize ... I don't care what the facts are."If indeed Iran was culpable, why the kangaroo court case that followed? What "bigger" issues were involved? Did the West need Iran all of a sudden as it prepared to launch the Gulf War against Iraq? What facts and suppressed evidence do Western governments not want exposed to the light of day? Is it all about oil?
The Vincennes' trigger-happy captain is decorated with the Legion of Merit medal for this crime by Bush after he becomes president. Washington quietly pays Iran $131.8 million US in damages.
John Pilger scolds the media, who aside from a few notable exceptions, have put on a disgraceful performance in the service of state power. Good job, John.
by John Pilger
The hysteria over the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber reveals much about the political and media class on both sides of the Atlantic, especially Britain. From Gordon Brown’s "repulsion" to Barack Obama’s "outrage," the theater of lies and hypocrisy is dutifully attended by those who call themselves journalists. "But what if Megrahi lives longer than three months?" whined a BBC reporter to the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond. "What will you say to your constituents, then?"
Horror of horrors that a dying man should live longer than prescribed before he "pays" for his "heinous crime": the description of the Scottish justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, whose "compassion" allowed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya to "face justice from a higher power." Amen.
The American satirist Larry David once addressed a voluble crony as "a babbling brook of bullsh*t." Such eloquence summarizes the circus of Megrahi’s release.
No one in authority has had the guts to state the truth about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 above the Scottish village of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 in which 270 people were killed. The governments in England and Scotland in effect blackmailed Megrahi into dropping his appeal as a condition of his immediate release. Of course there were oil and arms deals under way with Libya; but had Megrahi proceeded with his appeal, some 600 pages of new and deliberately suppressed evidence would have set the seal on his innocence and given us more than a glimpse of how and why he was stitched up for the benefit of "strategic interests."
![[In an interview published on Tuesday, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, pictured here in 2008, called the threat from Iran "hyped" and that there was no evidence that Tehran will soon have nuclear weapons. (AFP/File/Samuel Kubani)]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u60yujqiq2fFPclxm_bzm4wOk6miISYZ5Cj4ZYeDTAmSf86Qqc8IUjwssuJqZcFI2zNeDA7q0fBFf9s2UNSDfBsFVq0L3DnigYnFrpxpN3G_vPxeLWKRFbS08DWBGJ11MgVcQTxUdN=s0-d "iranthreathyped.jpg")
In an interview published on Tuesday, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, pictured here in 2008, called the threat from Iran "hyped" and that there was no evidence that Tehran will soon have nuclear weapons. (AFP/File/Samuel Kubani)
