BBC Caught In Mass Public Deception With Iran Propaganda

by Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars, 18 June 2009


The BBC has again been caught engaging in mass public deception by using photographs of pro-Ahmadinejad rallies in Iran and claiming they represent anti-government protests in favor of Hossein Mousavi.

An image used by the L.A. Times on the front page of its website Tuesday showed Iranian President Ahmadinejad waving to a crowd of supporters at a public event.

In a story covering the election protests yesterday, the BBC News website used a closer shot of the same scene, but with Ahmadinejad cut out of the frame. The caption under the photograph read, ‘Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi again defied a ban on protests’.

The BBC photograph is clearly a similar shot of the same pro-Ahmadinejad rally featured in the L.A. Times image, yet the caption erroneously claims it represents anti-Ahmadinejad protesters.

“Well I guess it sure was a popular fictional rally for Mousavi, because I later noticed while browsing the news sites a familiar picture on the BBC’s lead Iran story - it shows the same crowd, zoomed in to cut out Ahmadinejad,” a reader told the WhatReallyHappened website. “It is clearly the same protest as in the background are the same tree and odd circular building. However, the BBC managed to outdo the LA times in quality reporting - their actual comment under the photo from the huge PRO-Ahmadinejad rally reads ‘Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi again defied a ban on protests’ - a blatant lie and deliberately misleading description of what is actually occurring in Iran!”

As soon as the truth about the misrepresented images surfaced on the WhatReallyHappened website yesterday, the BBC changed the photo caption on their original article.

This is not the first time the BBC has been caught red-handed using crude image and video framing techniques for the purposes of political propaganda.

During the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, the BBC and other mainstream news outlets broadcast closely framed footage of the “mass uprising” during which Iraqis, aided by U.S. troops, toppled the Saddam Hussein statue in Fardus Square.

The closely framed footage was used to imply that hundreds or thousands of Iraqis were involved in a Berlin Wall-style “historic” liberation, yet when wide angle shots were later published on the Internet, footage that was never broadcast on live television, the reality of the “mass uprising” became clear. The crowd around the statue was sparse and consisted mostly of U.S. troops and journalists. The BBC later had to admit that only “dozens” of Iraqis had participated in toppling the statue. The entire scene was a manufactured farce yet the propaganda technique of blocking wide-angle shots from being broadcast convinced the world that the event represented a triumphant and historic mass popular uprising on behalf of the Iraqi people.

Whatever your views on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad and the accuracy of the Iranian election results, the fact that the Anglo-American establishment and its media organs are exploiting and fanning the flames of chaos in Iran to provoke further instability is unquestionable.

Indeed, the U.S. State Department, which routinely demonizes the Internet as a tool of extremists and terrorists when it is used to criticize U.S. foreign policy, took the unprecedented step today of requesting that Twitter.com “delay planned maintenance work so that Iranian protesters can continue to use it to post images and reports of unrest,” according to a London Times report.


link:

 http://www.infowars.com/bbc-caught-in-mass-public-deception-with-iran-propaganda/

__________________


Dishonest reporting by the BBC: An open letter to the Press Complaints Commission



Sunday, 21 June 2009
Attn: Mr Simon Yip
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London
EC1N 2JD


Ref: BBC: Deliberate deception and Propaganda


Dear Mr Yip,

I have written to you on previous occasions with complaints about widespread bias in press reporting in general and the ongoing deception of the British public (and the general public of the western world at large for that matter) in political matters by a now globally and privately controlled media. I have also expressed the view that the scope of the provisions of the Code of Practice and terms of reference of the PCC are far too narrow to ensure that the media fulfils its most valuable function – that of informing and facilitating a healthy democracy - and that the PCC should be the primary force at work to address this problem.

The reporting of the current crisis in Iran is an extreme case of this problem. There is a clear intention in western reporting of the situation to inflame unrest within Iran and to discredit the Iranian political system. Open discussion of the prospect of destabilizing the government and the possibility of revolution in a situation of unrest within Britain would be unthinkable. The hypocrisy of engaging in such speculations about another country only accentuates the abject failure of our media to responsibly and properly perform its function of providing information objectively and truthfully as is essential for a healthy democracy.

However, as this is a matter “out of scope” for the PCC I can only mention it as context for my specific complaint against the BBC in relation to this clear and obvious case of willfully dishonest reporting. You will find the full details of the matter at:

 http://www.infowars.com/bbc-caught-in-mass-public-deception-with-iran-propaganda/


In summary, the issue is this:

The BBC has used a photograph of a public rally in Iran and presented it as a pro-Mousavi demonstration in protest of the election and in defiance of a ban on demonstrations.

The photograph is in fact a cut–down version of a photograph published in the LA Times in a story about a pro-Ahmadinejad rally. It is the same photograph! In the BBC version the frame has been cropped to exclude Ahmadinejad and include only the crowd.

I feel that the PCC should investigate the facts of this matter to confirm for yourselves that this is a clear and deliberate deception of the public, a betrayal of public trust and a demonstration of complete lack of integrity in reporting on the part of the BBC.

I also believe that this dishonest report should be traced to those responsible and steps taken to ensure that they are removed from positions in which their irresponsible actions pose a risk to the health of British democracy and international relations.

Yours Sincerely,

Allen L. Jasson

_________________

Editorial note: The ruthless exploitation of the death of Neda for political purposes is an egregious example of a propaganda war being waged by the enemies of Iran – everyone should be concerned, however, since the manipulation of the media and public opinion is a feature of domestic news coverage in the West as much as it is of reporting on a Middle Eastern state, notes Reza Esfandiari and Yousef Bozorgmehr.

__________________


A Memory Abused: No Rest or Peace for Neda Agha-Soltan


The tragic death of Miss Neda Agha-Soltan continues to reverberate five months after her shooting in Tehran. Documentaries have been made about it on British and American television and a scholarship has been awarded by no less than Oxford University in her honour. The pertinent question that needs to be asked is: why?

Why does the international media focus so much macabre interest in the dying moments of an Iranian woman? Why is there is such callous disregard for her right to privacy that her death should be viewed all over the world on Youtube and Twitter?

The answer, of course, is simple: Neda’s murder has been scurrilously exploited by those who seek to put a beautiful name and face to the “struggle for freedom” in Iran. These same people have decided to posthumously call her the “Angel of Freedom [1].”

Miss Agha-Soltan, it should be remembered, was not shot while in the act of any demonstration – the incident happened in a side street at least a kilometre away from where the protests were occurring. Moreover, the unassuming young woman was neither a political activist nor had any affiliation to a civic organisation. She was a student of Islamic philosophy with musical interests and who had a desire to become a tour guide.

If she intended to take part in any protest, she was certainly not any different from the hundreds of thousands who also did. And, unlike some of the more riotous elements among the demonstrators who also lost their lives, Neda did absolutely nothing to provoke any hostility from the security forces, let alone being shot at. She was a threat to none.

Yet we now have begun to hear that she was a high-profile “natural leader” [2] of the protest movement, “committed to the overthrow of Ahmadinejad” whom the Iranian regime had every reason to fear. And if that isn’t enough, she was determined not allow Iran to suffer the fate of a “tyranny worse than that of the Arab and Mongol” invaders of the past [3]. We are also told how she was prepared to be “shot through the heart” [4] in her pursuit of “freedom and democracy for the Iranian people”.

Of course, all of this is utter nonsense that only the most naive of individuals cannot see through. There are several points that the “investigative documentaries” failed to account for or delve into in any way.

A letter sent by the Iranian embassy in the UK to the Provost of Queen’s college [5], which has awarded the Neda scholarship sponsored by an undisclosed British citizen, correctly states that Neda had a high-resolution camera trained on her for a full 20 minutes before the incident took place – this, along with other important observations [6], does give the appearance of it being a pre-rehearsed and staged scenario.

The letter goes on to the mention the fact that Dr Arash Hejazi, a publishing student and medical doctor at Oxford Brookes university, had arrived only two days prior to Neda’s death and left the day after anxious to tell the story to the British media of an innocent woman being shot by a Baseej militiaman – this despite the fact that the Baseej never ever carry firearms outside of military compounds (they use sticks, chains and other household items).

The media has since accepted his testimony uncritically, in particular Times of London correspondent Martin Fletcher, who has been nothing short of an obsessed anti-regime propagandist in the wake of the June election. Indeed, Dr Hejazi changed his story early on – he had initially claimed that the assailant was a rooftop sharpshooter [7], but later said that Neda was shot by a man on a motorcycle [8].

Anyone with even a measure of circumspection would be suspicious of Dr Hejazi’s actions and motives as well as his possible involvement with British intelligence which regularly approaches Iranian students and residents in the UK to serve as informers in Iran. Yet, he is hailed as the “man who heroically tried to save” a bleeding Neda (although there is very little to show for it).

The stolen/lost ID card of a certain Abbas Kargar Javid, posted on the Web with the intention of inviting vigilante-like retribution [9], and the video of a semi-naked man being accosted by demonstrators [10] prove absolutely nothing. There is nothing that links any member of the Baseej force with the murder of Neda. These two pieces of “evidence” were both produced after several months had passed, indicating that they were most likely dug up among the myriad of video footage and documents from the days of the unrest. Moreover, other witnesses present at the scene deny that there was any security presence.

It is inconceivable that an Islamic regime which understands the power of martyrdom in its own culture would sanction the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and ordinary young woman on the streets of Tehran.

However it is every bit conceivable that those who thought the opposition movement needed a symbol and icon of resistance – recipients and supporters no doubt of a $400m CIA-backed destabilization program for Iran [11] - would have arranged this horrible murder and try and pin it on the Iranian authorities.

It is especially salient that the British TV station, Channel 4, whose investigative “Dispatches” program had exposed that policewoman Yvonne Fletcher had not in fact been killed by Libyan diplomats but by underworld operatives linked to the American Government [12], would be so compliant with the official version.

The appalling and brutal murder of an Egyptian woman, Marwa El-Sherbini, in a German courtroom in July of this year has – just a matter of weeks after Neda’s death - has largely been ignored even though it is one of the worst racially-motivated and Islamophobic killings in recent times. Will Mrs Sherbini, “the headscarf martyr”, be honoured in any way by a German university or have films made in commemoration of her? Of course not.

The ruthless exploitation of the death of Neda for political purposes is an egregious example of a propaganda war being waged by the enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran – everyone should be concerned, however, since the manipulation of the media and public opinion is a feature of domestic news coverage in the West as much as it is of reporting on a Middle Eastern state.

__________________


Notes:


[1]  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528441,00.html

[2]  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/neda-agha-soltan

[3]  http://nedasvoice.com/

[4]  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/6574330/Iranian-killed-in-protest-was-willing-to-be-shot-in-heart.html

[5]  http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/letter1.jpg

[6]  http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/who_killed_neda.html

[7]  http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0624/1224249417475.html

[8]  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8119713.stm

[9]  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6802669.ece

[10]  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ti-MnN3aY

[11]  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo

[12]  http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/573682

_____________________

Ian Tomlinson?

These people claim the Iranians have photoshoped this, I suspect it's the media sexing it up... anyway

 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread370355/pg1

This bloke seems to know what he's talking about:  http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/P28.html

U.S. intelligence has concluded that the document published recently by the Times of London, which purportedly describes an Iranian plan to do experiments on what the newspaper described as a "neutron initiator" for an atomic weapon, is a fabrication, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.

Philip Giraldi, who was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.

The Times of London story published Dec. 14 did not identify the source of the document. But it quoted "an Asian intelligence source" - a term some news media have used for Israeli intelligence officials - as confirming that his government believes Iran was working on a neutron initiator as recently as 2007.

The story of the purported Iranian document prompted a new round of expressions of U.S. and European support for tougher sanctions against Iran and reminders of Israel's threats to attack Iranian nuclear programme targets if diplomacy fails.

U.S. news media reporting has left the impression that U.S. intelligence analysts have not made up their mind about the document's authenticity, although it has been widely reported that they have now had a full year to assess the issue.

Giraldi's intelligence sources did not reveal all the reasons that led analysts to conclude that the purported Iran document had been fabricated by a foreign intelligence agency. But their suspicions of fraud were prompted in part by the source of the story, according to Giraldi.

"The Rupert Murdoch chain has been used extensively to publish false intelligence from the Israelis and occasionally from the British government," Giraldi said.

The Times is part of a Murdoch publishing empire that includes the Sunday Times, Fox News and the New York Post. All Murdoch-owned news media report on Iran with an aggressively pro-Israeli slant.

The document itself also had a number of red flags suggesting possible or likely fraud.

The subject of the two-page document which the Times published in English translation would be highly classified under any state's security system. Yet there is no confidentiality marking on the document, as can be seen from the photograph of the Farsi-language original published by the Times.

The absence of security markings has been cited by the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, as evidence that the "alleged studies" documents, which were supposedly purloined from an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons-related programme early in this decade, are forgeries.

The document also lacks any information identifying either the issuing office or the intended recipients. The document refers cryptically to "the Centre", "the Institute", "the Committee", and the "neutron group".

The document's extreme vagueness about the institutions does not appear to match the concreteness of the plans, which call for hiring eight individuals for different tasks for very specific numbers of hours for a four-year time frame.

Including security markings and such identifying information in a document increases the likelihood of errors that would give the fraud away.

The absence of any date on the document also conflicts with the specificity of much of the information. The Times reported that unidentified "foreign intelligence agencies" had dated the document to early 2007, but gave no reason for that judgment.

An obvious motive for suggesting the early 2007 date is that it would discredit the U.S. intelligence community's November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran had discontinued unidentified work on nuclear weapons and had not resumed it as of the time of the estimate.

Discrediting the NIE has been a major objective of the Israeli government for the past two years, and the British and French governments have supported the Israeli effort.

The biggest reason for suspecting that the document is a fraud is its obvious effort to suggest past Iranian experiments related to a neutron initiator. After proposing experiments on detecting pulsed neutrons, the document refers to "locations where such experiments used to be conducted".

That reference plays to the widespread assumption, which has been embraced by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran had carried out experiments with Polonium-210 in the late 1980s, indicating an interest in neutron initiators. The IAEA referred in reports from 2004 through 2007 to its belief that the experiment with Polonium-210 had potential relevance to making "a neutron initiator in some designs of nuclear weapons".

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the political arm of the terrorist organisation Mujahedeen-e Khalq, claimed in February 2005 that Iran's research with Polonium-210 was continuing and that it was now close to producing a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon.

Sanger and Broad were so convinced that the Polonium-210 experiments proved Iran's interest in a neutron initiator that they referred in their story on the leaked document to both the IAEA reports on the experiments in the late 1980s and the claim by NCRI of continuing Iranian work on such a nuclear trigger.

What Sanger and Broad failed to report, however, is that the IAEA has acknowledged that it was mistaken in its earlier assessment that the Polonium-210 experiments were related to a neutron initiator.

After seeing the complete documentation on the original project, including complete copies of the reactor logbook for the entire period, the IAEA concluded in its Feb. 22, 2008 report that Iran's explanations that the Polonium-210 project was fundamental research with the eventual aim of possible application to radio isotope batteries was "consistent with the Agency's findings and with other information available to it".

The IAEA report said the issue of Polonium-210 – and thus the earlier suspicion of an Iranian interest in using it as a neutron initiator for a nuclear weapon - was now considered "no longer outstanding".

New York Times reporters David Sanger and William J. Broad reported U.S. intelligence officials as saying the intelligence analysts "have yet to authenticate the document". Sanger and Broad explained the failure to do so, however, as a result of excessive caution left over from the CIA's having failed to brand as a fabrication the document purporting to show an Iraqi effort to buy uranium in Niger.

The Washington Post's Joby Warrick dismissed the possibility that the document might be found to be fraudulent. "There is no way to establish the authenticity or original source of the document...," wrote Warrick.

But the line that the intelligence community had authenticated it evidently reflected the Barack Obama administration's desire to avoid undercutting a story that supports its efforts to get Russian and Chinese support for tougher sanctions against Iran.

This is not the first time that Giraldi has been tipped off by his intelligence sources on forged documents. Giraldi identified the individual or office responsible for creating the two most notorious forged documents in recent U.S. intelligence history.

In 2005, Giraldi identified Michael Ledeen, the extreme right-wing former consultant to the National Security Council and the Pentagon, as an author of the fabricated letter purporting to show Iraqi interest in purchasing uranium from Niger. That letter was used by the George W. Bush administration to bolster its false case that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons programme.

Giraldi also identified officials in the "Office of Special Plans" who worked under Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith as having forged a letter purportedly written by Hussein's intelligence director, Tahir Jalail Habbush al-Tikriti, to Hussein himself referring to an Iraqi intelligence operation to arrange for an unidentified shipment from Niger.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

because as far as I can see, there is nothing in your posting that says "U.S. Intelligence Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged". You quote one person who left the intelligence service in 1992 - 17 years ago ... and ... nothing else.

And Giraldi? Well:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Giraldi

Nuff said.

Oh, and given that the half life of Polonium 210 is only 138 days, can you tell us exactly what credible civilian uses it can be put to? No?

Actually Polonium 210 has quite a lot of civilian uses.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium

In particular, anti-static brushes sold to photographers. You can buy these online and if you have the equipment, extract enough Polonium 210 to kill someone.

Polonium-210 is around 250,000 times more toxic than hydrogen cyanide.

Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko was murdered in 2006 by Polonium 210 poisoning.

Right - so the Iranians were producing Po210 foir anti static brushes, were they?

'A lot of civilian uses' turns out to mean anti static brushes, batteries for satellites 9Really an everyday application), some laboratory uses, and ... [continued page 94. Hang on, there isn't a page 94. That because there aren't any other uses.]