Joe Emersberger seems a well-intentioned chap, and credit to him for at least acknowledging the existence of the WHO/IFHS study in his emails to journalists (the Medialens editors could learn from him on this).

But I sometimes get the impression he doesn't *check* facts which appear to contradict his beliefs. In the case you mention, he seems to assume that those horrible attacks on Monbiot must have been posted by people *other* than the Medialens editors (who, being saints, would never post anything but "respectful criticism"). And yet the ML eds did post those crazy, slanderous attacks on Monbiot (from their own crazy, slanderous supporters) - just as they posted several pieces of sheer dingbat lunacy about IBC - eg the claim they were "actively aiding and abetting in war crimes".

I saw the same thing in the Medialens forum. Joe Emersberger reported that a correspondent of his claimed that a Medialens editor said Stephen Soldz's mind had been eroded by establishment propaganda (Soldz was a former ML supporter who had a falling out with ML). Emersberger, disbelieving this (but not bothering to check it) replied to his correspondent: "To even say that 'in effect' the Eds claimed his mind was eroded is quite a distortion." http://tinyurl.com/63mrwdp

As it turns out, Medialens editor (and polite, respectful saint), David Edwards, did indeed write that Soldz's mind was "showing the signs of what might be called propaganda weathering and erosion" - as this screen capture shows: http://dissident93.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/soldz-edwards.jpg

Joe Emersberger seems a well-intentioned chap, and credit to him for at least acknowledging the existence of the WHO/IFHS study in his emails to journalists (the Medialens editors could learn from him on this).

But I sometimes get the impression he doesn't *check* facts which appear to contradict his beliefs. In the case you mention, he seems to assume that those horrible attacks on Monbiot must have been posted by people *other* than the Medialens editors (who, being saints, would never post anything but "respectful criticism"). And yet the ML eds did post those crazy, slanderous attacks on Monbiot (from their own crazy, slanderous supporters) - just as they posted several pieces of sheer dingbat lunacy about IBC - eg the claim they were "actively aiding and abetting in war crimes".

I saw the same thing in the Medialens forum. Joe Emersberger reported that a correspondent of his claimed that a Medialens editor said Stephen Soldz's mind had been eroded by establishment propaganda (Soldz was a former ML supporter who had a falling out with ML). Emersberger, disbelieving this (but not bothering to check it) replied to his correspondent: "To even say that 'in effect' the Eds claimed his mind was eroded is quite a distortion." http://tinyurl.com/63mrwdp

As it turns out, Medialens editor (and polite, respectful saint), David Edwards, did indeed write that Soldz's mind was "showing the signs of what might be called propaganda weathering and erosion" - as this screen capture shows: http://dissident93.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/soldz-edwards.jpg

Tony S provides a good example of the "have you stopped beating your wife" fallacy:-

"do you now accept that you were wrong to claim Edwards and Cromwell ignore examples which do not support the central premise of the PM?"

Tony, your presupposition is false - I've never claimed that "Edwards and Cromwell ignore examples which do not support the central premise of the PM". You are confusing "central premise of the PM" (which I've referred to precisely ZERO times) with the specific "truths" (of Edwards/Cromwell) which I've been addressing at length (you might have noticed this if you'd actually read my article) - eg their "truth" that IBC's figures are "favoured" by the media "because they are very low". When I last looked, that "truth" wasn't in the Herman/Chomsky book, and doesn't form any part of the "central premise of the PM" - although you can perhaps see how Edwards & Cromwell arrived at it by applying their wacky ideological illogic to the starting points they *derived* from the PM.

This is obvious to anyone with more than a few inches of forehead, which is why I gave you a shorter version in my previous reply to you ("One can interpret the Propaganda Model as useful and basically valid *without* building an ideology around it").

In short, I credited you with enough intelligence to see your own error (even though you'd already falsely attributed claims to me - see my initial replies to you). But, instead, you went running to Medialens to post some straw-man drivel titled "Shone's evasions".

Tony S (at Medialens) - I got your further message which was forwarded to me by the CF editor. (Is it really that difficult to post a comment here, Tony?)

I think you've misread my whole argument. One can interpret the Propaganda Model as useful and basically valid (along with various other models) *without* building an ideology around it. I have no problem with the PM, per se, and my article wasn't about the PM (or Robinson's take on it). What I have a problem with is ideologues who go around accusing people of "marginalising" their ideologies (which they confuse with "truth"), etc.

Tony S has responded to my previous comment. Tony - why not post your points here where I can respond to them directly (I'm not permitted to post at Medialens)?

Tony writes: "Mr Shone claims that he is not trying to show that the Eds' analysis is self -refuting. However, that is clearly what he is hinting at in the final paragraph."

On the contrary, I'm "hinting" at nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating that it was bizarre to see such daily praise of Indie/Guardian antiwar content while the belief in their complicity in war crime was maintained as "truth". I don't make any inference from this that the ML eds' analysis is "self-refuting" (whatever that means).

Tony continues: "Furthermore, [Shone] claims to have read Robinson's work but fails to mention that Pockets of Resistance was also greatly inspired by the Propaganda Model."

Why would I mention it? Piers Robinson says that the Propaganda Model was one of several he took into account for Pockets of Resistance. He didn't give it any special precedence. In fact, the Medialens editors wrote to Robinson: "Anyway, this is pretty much all you have to say in explaining the propaganda model, which is marginalised in your analysis".

So, you might want to check this with the ML eds, Tony. You say the Pockets of Resistance study was "greatly inspired" by the Propaganda Model, but the ML eds say it "marginalised" that model! Both of you can't be right.

Either way it makes little difference to my own article - since the only reference in it to the Propaganda Model is the point that Medialens derives its starting points from that model. Robinson's position on the model makes absolutely no difference to this point. With respect, Tony, I think you're trying to read into my article all sorts of claims which I'm not in fact making.

Tony S (at Medialens) writes: "Shone also claims that the Eds' analysis is self-refuting because they use the mainstream media as a source of information."

Er... no I don't. Not even close. (The Steven Poole quote I include mentions - correctly - that Medialens rely on the corporate media for factual reference, but Poole doesn't say that their analysis is therefore "self-refuting". Anyway, it's Poole's statement, not mine).

Tony S also writes: "Shone clearly didn't read Robinson's reply to the Eds. In it he claims that the Propaganda Model was also a central part of Pockets of Resistance... [etc]"

I've read not only Robinson's reply to the ML eds, but also his previous comments on the Propaganda Model (from earlier work). It's pure non sequitur for Tony S to imply that it follows that I "clearly didn't read Robinson's reply to the Eds". It doesn't follow at all. Logic was never a strong point for the Medialens devotees.

In fact, the direct comparison between the WHO study and Lancet 2006 is on violent deaths:

Lancet 2006: 601,000
WHO: 151,000

That's a disagreement of 450,000 violent deaths. The comparison on "total" deaths is less direct (requires acceptance of more assumptions - as the WHO study authors have pointed out, both in the study and in a published reply to Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the Lancet study). Even then there's a difference of a quarter of a million deaths (655,000 vs 400,000). That's hardly what you'd call an "agreement".

Joe Emersberger deserves some credit, though - he seems pretty much alone among Medialens's followers in actually citing the WHO study at all, and he's at least making some effort to inform himself on the subject. The Medialens editors could learn from his example.

I see that my article has been mentioned on the Medialens site - this is a first! (the usual response from the Medialens crowd is to pretend I don't exist). One of Medialens's subscribers comments: "More holes than an Emmental cheese... and I look forward to the demolition." Ken Waldron - if you're reading this, why not list the "holes" that you imagine you've spotted? (I suspect that you haven't even read the article). I, too, look forward to any "demolition" of what I've written... whether from the ML "masters" or their loyal disciples... ;)

Yes, Medialens are being dishonest here. They're framing it as a battle between Lancet (science) and IBC ("amateurs", "guitarist", etc) - but if they gave a full account (or even an accurate summary) of the science to date, it would completely undermine (in fact reverse) their argument. So they leave scientific research out of it, while claiming to be on the side of science.

Their attempt at "media analysis" was bizarre:

"UK Broadsheets
‘Wikileaks’: 103 mentions
‘Wikileaks’ and ‘Iraq Body Count’: 17
‘Wikileaks’ and ‘Lancet’: 0" (etc)

So they spent all this time (it took three of them apparently - Edwards, Cromwell and David Peterson) analysing media content - to arrive at the *shocking* conclusion that on the Wikileaks story, IBC got more coverage than "Lancet".

I mean, who would've expected that? IBC worked with Wikileaks on the data. IBC's John Sloboda was at the Wikileaks press conference. The Wikileaks data is at an individual level, like IBC's. The Wikileaks data has nothing to do with epidemiological surveys (eg Lancet study).

Iraq Body Count (IBC) worked closely with Wikileaks on the recently leaked Iraq documents. While some (but not all) media attempted to smear Assange, David Edwards (of Medialens) continues to smear IBC at every opportunity. Medialens's most recent attack on IBC occurred after the BBC published some of my comments in a BBC News piece about Wikileaks & IBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11613349

After somebody at Medialens posted a link to my BBC comments, the Medialens editors responded to an article I'd written for the Comment Factory (on IBC & the Chilcot Inquiry) by writing that: "Shone repeatedly misrepresents Dougherty as a 'scientist'. He’s not; he’s a guitarist."

That was false. Dougherty (Josh) is a researcher with IBC who has authored peer-reviewed scientific research, but who isn’t a “professional” scientist. Contrary to Medialens’s assertion, I’ve never once labelled Josh a “scientist” (never mind “repeatedly”). Of course, I no longer expect mere facts to get in the way of Medialens's attacks on myself or IBC, but I expected at the very least that Medialens would have the courtesy to post my response to their message board, to set the record straight about what I had and hadn't said. But no, they won't do that. Their worldview mustn't be contradicted by awkward things like facts.

Relevant ML posts in reverse order: http://www.webcitation.org/5u26YEszG http://www.webcitation.org/5u26fVSgJ http://www.webcitation.org/5u26m04NR http://www.webcitation.org/5u26qerkD

Medialens works on a principle which is exactly the opposite to that of Wikileaks. Openness is the watchword for Wikileaks; Medialens is closed to any evidence which refutes its closed belief system.
http://dissident93.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/medialens-falsehood/