Thanks to Alastair Brett for the publicity he has given to Media Lens by his stupid threat of legal action - now I and many others will read Media Lens to see what other innacuracies his paper is guilty of.

Thanks again for the publicity Mr Brett, and please pass on our thanks to your political masters!

Murdoch is a murderous racist zionist psychopath, and best friend of Blair, and all his New Labour scumbag butchers, so what do you expect. Well, obviously those of you still kicking about this place haven't a real clue.

May I respectfully suggest something that may strike some of you as a little bit unusual- namely reading some books. The UK is busy building a police state beyond the dreams of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and countless less known names from earlier centuries from the times when ruthless criminals understood that their ultimate achievements could only occur with absolute political power.

Research previous police states- understand the mechanisms that built them. Discover how populations were finessed over time to accept as normal the most vile forms of repression. Realise that a police state is ***always*** about you hating your neighbour: their troublesome kids, their different appearance, their religious activities, their lifestyle, their outlook on life, their sexual differences, their political differences, and on and on and on.

Read what happens to the media in a police state (or indeed look what has happened in present day Russia, Italy, France). Did you know that despite what you imagine, populations almost ***always*** sleepwalk into a police state across a very long period of time, all the while declaring that no way will they be anything like the last 'boogie man' regime that previously horrified the world.

Media Lens crawls on its belly, and then complains that Murdoch's terrorist thugs still kick it. To a police state, it isn't the amount of crawling you do, it is purely ***what*** you say. Nothing personal. Oppose Murdoch, and you oppose Blair. Oppose Blair, and you oppose a monster that has carried out the genocide of multiple millions of Humans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The only (and I mean only) reason that New Labour doesn't have an AC3 gunship rip you and your family apart as they do daily in those parts of the globe where Blair and Cheney are absolute rulers lies in the strange paradox of power and powerbases. In the land that is the powerbase itself, state violence can rarely be military based, for fear of destabilising that very base.

No,we will not see our best fall to missile strikes on their homes. Here in the UK, Blair must rely on Human weapons- a massive army of uniformed goons, each of whom calculates "safer in than out". Some of the goons, like the newspaper journalists, wear the uniform on the inside.

Remember all those police state poster, some real, some hyper-real parodies attempting to wake people before it is too late? "Keep your mouth shut". "Keep your thoughts to yourself". "Never question authority". "They are not your children, they belong to the state" "Your vote is magic, representing 100% of all the political thinking and activity required from the citizen for each 5 year period"

See, that's the appeal of the police state. Unlike those nations that we put to the sword, here at home choosing to sell our soul pretty much ensures that we get to keep our life, at least until that time when the fires set raging by our monsters burn fierce enough to consume us too.

Now I know most of what I say goes straight over the heads of those for whom activism is a sad hobby not unlike making crop-circle patterns. You can rest assured that you won't be targetted for anything worse than redirection. Meantime, the state will choose its targets carefully, and act without mercy.

Bronwen Maddox dreams of a time when those that object to her attempts to spread nazi-style wars of aggression to all muslim lands will be rounded up at her say so, and placed in camps. Why does this suprise anyone? Those books I mentioned earlier, they will show you how many times exactly such genocidal racism has occured in such highly structured ways in the past. Are ***you*** so racist that you think your own nation immune to the evil that has appeared in so many different places on this planet in the past.

Murdoch only had to suggest that the nazi attack dog might woof in the direction of Media Lens, for them to back down. Here's my free advice to them:

"Media Lens, I know you belly crawl as low as you can at the moment, but there is always more a worm can do to grovel. Perhaps you can dig a trench. Perhaps you can make 80% of your emails apologies and humble thanks. Perhaps you can study the technique of BBC journalists, when they thank an Israeli butcher for their time, after inviting said butcher onto the BBC to smirkingly explain why murdering a bunch of palestinian kids was the white thing to do."

The BBC, ITN, Sky... the Independent, Guardian, Telegraph, Times... each of these machines have ruthlessly pushed the lies and propaganda required to murder men, women, and children in the millions, and to ruin the lives of tens of millions of others. Those that work for these machines do so willingly, and unlike most of you here, are well aware of the purposes and mechanisms of radio, TV and newspaper journalism. Here lies the clue to the real purpose of Media Lens.

Media Lens exists solely to legitimise mainstream journalism, by suggesting the bad stuff is a mistake, or by a few rotten apples. The great fear held by those behind Media Lens is that more and more people will reject mainstream journalism entirely, and move from the 'push' system (where the elite decide what 'news' you will hear) to a 'pull' system where the interested reader will follow their own news interests through research on the internet.

Media Lens wants you ***never*** to hear of atrocities in Iraq or Afghanistan as they happen, or to see the images of utter depraved rampages carried out by 'our boys'. No, Media Lens wants you to read about such events days or weeks later, sanitised and safe, images removed, in the words of some state stooge like Pilger or Galloway (stooges who, you'll notice, never mind sharing the intimate company of people they tell you are war-criminals).

Indeed, muslims here are now sent to prison for the very crime of creating their own networks of 'news', disseminating images and narratives directly from New Labour's killing fields. You see, the truth stirs people up, and stirring people in a police state is ***always*** a crime against the state. 99.99% of all so-called 'extremism' is actually a victim group raising awareness of horrific crimes against their group, and stating that this should stop.

Like I said, read. The game is always played the same, only the teams change. However, with each passing century, the outcome tends to get worse. There is a famous photo of an old-lady, with her wheelbarrow, collecting rubble in some completely destroyed german city. Back then, of course, we didn't have nukes, jets, or computers.

Please, give up your fatal dependence on newspapers, broadcast TV, the radio (which tends to be even worse) etc. Use the towering achievement of the internet to select that information you aquire each day. Be your own editor. Never forget the reason why the TV in Orwell's 1984 could never be switched off, or why today, Murdoch's foul output plays endlessly in buses, trains, and other places we have to be during the day.

Breaking off that tentacle that plugs straight into your brain is not about getting a more honest source of news (although that is possible, if you make any kind of real effort). No, you remove the tentacle to defeat the centralised programming of the masses. Even if then, people mostly find complete dribble online, at least they will be free of the ravages of carefully created messages designed to control their thoughts in a uniform way. Randomness can never serve the state. So-called 'push' media is designed to bring us into alignment, like creating a magnet by aligning all the millions of tiny domains in the same direction. Media Lens is just trying to extend the life of 'push' media by helping it become more opaque in its methods.

Oh dear, where to start with this awful response? Herein lies the problem with independent publishing - not that I would challenge your rights to post here - the system allows you to add your diatribe without you checking your facts first. It is an irony that you would urge readers to learn more when your response is so substantially shot through with errors.

Of course there is a concern about the police state in the UK, and you are right to point out both substantial media bias and the limitations of a "democracy" that does not permit citizens regular and informed control over the systems that affect their lives.

However, it is hardly fair to direct your petty rudeness to Media Lens - they are quite right to ask correspondents to be polite to journalists and editors, and that they do so does not mean that they are "grovelling" or are being excessively "humble". Your analysis forgets that some journalists often do not like the system they work within and in some cases - perhaps in the "liberal" end of the market - polite and well-informed emails from readers may in some cases help correct bias and improve the quality of coverage. Also, no journalist or editor will response positively to rude or offensive emails - why would they do so when they are not even obliged to response to polite ones?

Your suggestion that Media Lens "exists solely to legitimise mainstream journalism" is completely without foundation - you have clearly chosen to speak on a topic you know very little about. As a long-term subscriber to their thoughtful and intelligent Media Alerts, I can attest to the fact that the two Davids are substantially *opposed* to the bias and omission that affects much mainstream journalism. In fact, the Propaganda Model that they use - proposed by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky - specifically rejects the idea that examples of bias are the result of a few bad apples. In fact it states that it is inherent in the structure of the corporate media system, and it provides a number of reasons why this is the case (read Manufacturing Consent by these authors if you wish to know more).

Similarly, the idea that ML wants media reporting of the war to be dumbed down and sanitised is completely without basis. Their position is that the war needs to be reported more fully and more accurately, and I am confident that they would support the publishing of the bloodiest pictures of war in newspapers - in fact, if you can be polite, I suggest you email them and ask them their view on this. Their email address is on their website.

Meanwhile, your suggestion that people "give up [their] fatal dependence" on the media demonstrates your gullibility. Do you think that if *you* were to make these exhortations to media consumers, they would listen to you? Since much Western media output is biased in favour of Western elite opinion, then surely if people were substantially aware of this they would have boycotted it already. That they have not done so suggests that they are not aware of the bias and are too apolitical to understand the issue (or they like bias in their newspaper). Accordingly, even if you spread your "don't read newspapers" message far and wide, readers in the main will *not* listen to you.

Accordingly, media outlets need to improve the quality of their coverage, not be switched off entirely. In fact it is worth remembering that with Internet connectivity still very uneven across socioeconomic lines in the UK and elsewhere (the "digital divide") so telling everyone to use the Internet instead is at best an incomplete solution. Newspaper and TV news, in short, must improve.

As well as recommending to you Manufacturing Consent, I would also recommend the two Davids' own book, Guardians of Power. It will remove any notion from you that they are stooges of the system - and surely that they have met with legal repression from the Times ought to help show that too.

On a final note, I would say that the efforts of the editors of Media Lens to correct the rubbish and propaganda in the mainstream media are exemplary and long-standing. Meanwhile, your response is undignified and ill-informed. Perhaps in your response you could say what you have done to counter systemic media bias and how long you have been doing it?