Daily Mail's Propaganda War against Shell to Sea

by Newspapers Sat Oct 07, 2006 16:32

The mainstream need the paper generated by cutting trees, and the oil/gas
avilable to import their shite rags all over the world. Its GLOBALISATION dear.

Yes, also the ad revenues and the political management of the crony parties
through ego massage. the sooner the whole fucked up house o cards goes the better.
Think about your supermarkets, your consumption habits- we buy food
from all over the world instead of growing it in our unique agricultural climate.

Jet fuel, mass press marketting, language and cultural monoculture, the Mail
supports that and anyone who buys the rag supports it too.

Also:- SKY, O Reilly, Murdoch, Tesco, Lidl, Aldi. I think about what I buy Miriam,
its called consumer choice- don' t be surprised _BOYCOTT.

by Miriam Cotton Sat Oct 07, 2006 17:33

Yes, I know all that, dear!

It seems you have missed the point of the article. The objective was to break down and analyse that specific example of pro-Shell spin. That objective arises from a heightened personal awareness of all the phenomena you mention. But I'm glad to see you are aware of them all too. Welcome to the club. And let me be very clear on one thing - I dont buy the Daily Mail, either. Christ no! As much as anything else, it's seriously bad for the reputation to be seen with it. But if you do happen on a copy lying around in a cafe, and nobody is looking - which happened to me this morning - you might leaf through it in anticipation of all the usual right-wing raving and ranting to be found in its pages. And sure enough I wasn't disappointed. I dont suppose anyone with half an ounce of grey matter would actually have been surprised to find Paul Palmer's insidious style of propaganda in the Mail but that doesnt mean we shouldnt attempt to counter it, though, does it? We do not want the stuff he is pedalling to go unchallenged. So where better to do it? The alternative is to write a letter to the Mail which almost certainly will not get printed. There is a major effort going into spinning the Shell situation at the moment in favour of Shell and to undermine the national support base for the cause. The article above is just one small arrow aimed at the spin campaign's underbelly, for what its worth.

by Terry Sat Oct 07, 2006 20:23

Now Ireland's a very funny place Sir it's a strange and troubled land
And the Irish are a very funny race Sir every girls in the Cumann na mBan
Every doggie got a tri-coloured ribbon tied firmly to its tail
And it wouldn't be surprising if there'd be another rising
Said the man from the Daily mail

Every bird upon my word is singing "Yoho, I'm a Provo"!
Every hen it's said is laying hand-grenades over there Sir I declare Sir
And every cock in the farmyard stock crows in triumph to Sinn Fein
And it wouldn't be surprising if there' be another rising
Said the man from the Daily Mail

Well the other day I travelled down to Clare Sir I spied in an old boreen
A bunch of silly gooses there Sir dressed in orange white and green
They marched to the German goose step as they whistled Granne Wale
And I'm shaking in me shoes as I'm sending out the news said the man from the Daily Mail

Every bird upon my word is singing "Yoho, I'm a Provo"!
Every hen it's said is laying hand-grenades over there Sir I declare Sir
And every cock in the farmyard stock crows in triumph to Sinn Fein
And it wouldn't be surprising if there' be another rising
Said the man from the Daily Mail

Now the whole place is seething with sedition it's Sinn Fein through and through
All the bhoys are joining local units and the passwords Sinn Fein too
Well the IRA just sent me a timebomb in the mail
And I'm shakin' in me shoes as I'm sending out the news
Said the man form the Daily Mail

Every bird upon my word is singing treble - I'm a rebel
Every hen it's said is laying hand-grenades over there Sir I declare Sir
And every cock in the farmyard stock crows in triumph for the gale
And it wouldn't be surprising if there' be another rising
Said the man from the Daily Mail

by m.m.mccarron - o.s.i Sat Oct 07, 2006 21:25

Thanks for all the above. I was taken aback by so many less than facts. Last Monday night in the Bellanaboy trailer as we waited for the Gardai there were repeat programmes on the radio around 2 am. One had a long interview with Mr. Cosgrove. Several people sat and listened quietly as they were berated. There was not one comment: rather a resigned silence. I was there in an observer role as I have been, in many international situations. In my presence at least there was no hostility, bitterness verbally expressed.
It would be a mark of respect if those individuals who speak out in support of Shell visit the households of those in fear of the pipe and the toxics of the refinery to try to get their perspective. I do not think journalist or commentator can actually speak for a homeowner. The Connaght Telegraph contained several such items all speaking at those whose right to health and safety is primary to the right to protest and the right to work. No one would want to pursue the right to work if it is to initiate destruction of life and property, to destroy the body and soul of Erris. It has already started. What is my position and why - is the true question for each member of the public. There is something enormously wrong if the State has to put 200 Gardai at Bellanaboy in the middle of the night. Doesn't the number of Gardai equate to the size of the problem. Four to every protestor. Think seriously and truthfully.
There was a comment supposedly from a Bantry resident in the Mail. I have been there too. One cannot compare a busy tourist and fishing town not too far from Cork city to the remote distant and sparsely populated Erris. I am surprised that someone could make such an idle comparison. Each day sees 200 protestors and every one represents an extended family of children, spouses, elderly parents and relatives. I would suggest that the protest represents between 2000 and 3000 people. The number of Gardai sent would seem to confirm that projection.

by newspapers Sat Oct 07, 2006 21:54

Why would one write to the Daily Mail, then would would have to buy it
to see if one's letter was published, its only good for wiping your arse
with- everyone knows that.
again - BOYCOTT.

Give over, let em say what they want, it doesn't really matter-only the truly
warped would believe it, mention it or write to them.....

by cool j Sun Oct 08, 2006 03:33

Anyone who knows about the long estaiblished English version of this paper knows thats its a virulently anti- Irish, anti-black,racist, hate-filled, jingoistic rag. The Irish version pretends to be something different but has failed miserably as can be seen with that laughable article. It quotes a certain Paddy Cosgrove who is a failed FG councilor who still hasn't gotten over his rejection by the local people - and you can see way he got barely 100 votes in the last local election with the rubbish he's spouting!!

PS - Expect more govenrment/shell proghanda in todays Sunday papers from the usual sources!!

by paul palmer - irish daily mail Fri Oct 13, 2006 17:39

I'm afraid the very tone and selective complaints posted in response to my article in the Irish Daily Mail rather proves most of my points.

But, briefly, such was the absurdly selective nature that I simply had to respond to the most laughable examples: as for quoting 'supposedly' a Bantry, Co. Cork resident, in fact the person whom I quoted is - as stated in the article - a long-standing environmental campaigner. Strange that wasn't mentioned in the posting - could it have been anything to do with the fact that that long-standing campaigner was highly critical of the Shell To Sea campaign? Or does the campaign have a monopoly on the environmental high ground? It would appear so.

To also arrogantly dismiss the Bantry campaign as being irrelevant to Rossport is the height of arrogance.

One contributor said that, and quite why this is impirtant baffles me, since Bantry is a tourist town and 'is near' to Cork city, somehow the environmental issues there are less worthy. What arrogance: in fact, the area affected by the proposed pylons scheme is about as near to Cork as the Erris peninsula is to that fishing tourist destination, Ballina.

Furthermore, strangely in the selective quoting from my article, no mention was made of my personal campaign on behalf of the Bantry protestors against our home-grown big business, the ESB, and the Mail's continued campaign on the issue also.

Might that have been to do with the fact that to acknowledge that would have made a mockery of the claim that both I personally and the newspaper itself are consumed by some dark conspiracy on behalf of dastardly multi-nationals? As for 'newspaper sales' in Co. Mayo: well, I don't take it upon myself to try and up-sales in the places from which I report, but for you rinformation, we did sell out. Alot of coffee shops must have been busy.

Also, no mention was made of how in the article I stated my instinctive support for the Rossport campaign from what I had previously read, and the TV reports I had watched. This being my first time in the area, I reported and commented on what I saw and what I learned. But I may as well talk to the trees for how much relevance that has to the people posting here.

Finally, quite how a reference to John Monaghan's passion is 'sarcastic' again baffles me. I'm afraid it is a pathetically predictable case of you reading what you want into whatever you read, regardless of the details in the article.

Moreover, Miriam Cotton says that I deliberately skewed parts of the article. But she then goes on to quote directly from it on which she states as being the most important message of the whole Shell To Sea campaign, namely John Monaghan's quotes about a state's duty to protect its citizens.

If I was engaged in such crafty propoganda, why then did I include - by her own words - such a crucial statement? And if I am some propogandist for the government, Gardai and big business allies, you might care to read tomorrow's Mail and my dossier on the Gort shooting. And pigs might fly.

All I do know is that, sadly and unavoidably, none of the above will make the slightest bit of difference!

by CG Fri Oct 13, 2006 22:17

Hi Paul,
You know, I was reading your response with an open mind, until I read this sentence:
"All I do know is that, sadly and unavoidably, none of the above will make the slightest bit of difference!"

Unfortunately, you have alienated me right there. The only time I read such a sentence - and I have read it many, many times - is when the writer is tring to deflect criticism and yes, propagandising. It expresses the following: "I'm *trying* to *explain* to you, being, as I am, a part of the besieged minority, but you are emotional and unreasonable. Also, I am invalidating any reply you may make, since you are obviously too biased to respond in an intelligent manner."

"I'm afraid the very tone and selective complaints posted in response to my article in the Irish Daily Mail rather proves most of my points."

You are obviously all Shell to Sea TERRORISTS, aren't you?
OK, so you didn't exactly say that, but if you can extrapolate wildly inaccuarate assumptions from a few Indymedia posts, well, I have little compunction with regard to you.
The people of Rossport are threatening people. I have the proof - and it's in anonymous Indymedia comments! That should go in the next article.

by paul palmer - irish daily mail Sat Oct 14, 2006 00:29

Dear CG,

Your response is reasoned and valid. And given the efficacy and seriousness of this issue, it is fantastic to have this debate.

But, again as an outside observer with no former agenda; sorry correct, that: as an outside observer whose instincts were initially supportive of the Shell To Sea campaign, I despair.

You focus on my last line in the posting: and from that you extrapolate, with entire disregard to what I had stated, everything set out above. Given what I had said, how can you possibly infer from what I had written in my previous message that all Rossport campaigners are, to employ your usage, 'TERRORISTS'?

Where on earth did I say that? My point about very little making any difference is proven by your sweeping generlisations.

Let's be clear: the Rossport campaign had support, and rightly so.

Accept this or not, but this is the hard truth: You are losing it. Not because your campaign has been unsuccessful. I stated in my original article that were it not for the campaign, Shell would not have been forced to undertake the refinements it has.

Whether those changes are right, acceptable or valid is a matter that can consume much time, and already has.

But you have to face one fact, and it is a catastrophic mistake the Shell To Sea campaign has made: it is laughable to say that in some way Shell has press-ganged the media to its cause. Read the papers and watch the TV news. If that is a Shell conspiracy, they should sack the person in charge.

No, it is not that: this campaign, whether it is perception or reality, is now seen as politicised, generalised and global with its intent and ambitions. Is Erris the vanguard of anti-globalisation? If it has become so, what a terrible error you have made.

I go back to Bantry. Is that campaign still irrelevant? Not as important? Is, to quote one contributor, Erris so unqiue that no other Irish community is both valid and reasoned in its environmental campaigns?

You like last lines. I give you this one.

I despair.

by supp Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:03

What you don't realise is that everyone was prepared to get a snide response from celtic tiger citizens and tabloid journalist like yourself so they did have to expand their appeal, because people here the words ShelltoSea and pretend not to understand the demands.

by M Cotton Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:27

Paul

You have to ask yourself some searching questions. You went on a mission to Mayo - to prove a particular point of view. For many your article was offensive in its inattention to detail and also woefully misleading about the position of the Shell to Sea campaign. I live near Bantry, as it happens, have spoken to several of the people involved in that situation, and know very well that there is a lot of mutual support between the two campaigns - both of which are beset by the same government-supported obsctacles and obfuscations.

Your treatment of John Monaghan was condescending and innaccurate to the point of insult. The detailed information which he offered you and which you dismissed under the caricature 'passionate' completely defeats your thesis - but isn't that exactly why you sneered at it and left it out? To take just one example from Monaghan - a TG4/MRBI poll shows that 65% of people in Mayo do not want the Bellanaboy refinery. And only 15 people out of 2,500 Erris homes disagreed with Shell to Sea. And there you were claiming that the majority of Mayo people want the project to proceed. But here below is John Monaghan in his own words from this week's edition of the Western People. As a critical analysis of the situation, it would be hard to beat. If anyone has any doubt about the Shell to Sea campaign they really ought to read this letter:

"CORRIB PROJECT IS BASED ON FANTASY

Sir
Having followed for some time Shell's and the Government's conduct on the proosd Corrib Gas project I feel it is now worth noting a few glaring facts that have recently become clear.

Terry Nolan, second-in-command for SEPIL, is currently announcing to all and sundry' Shell's intention to proceed with the onshore gas refinery at Bellanaboy. This decision has been
based, by the Corrib partners' own admission on the following;

1. The Advantica safety review
2. Cassells mediator report
3. Existing statutory consents
4. Forthcoming public consultation

The stance has been taken that the project has the green light and will proceed as planned and as soon as possible. This is Shell's fantasy.

When the true facts are examined the reality is quite different, and can be broken down as follows:

1. By Advantica's own admission their safety review had very narrow terms of reference, and for this reason most local opposition to the project publicly abstained from involvement. In spite of this Minister Noel Dempsey pushed on regardless, and a raft of extra safety measures were recommended for a 144 bar reduced pressure pipeline (down from 345), even though no technical solution to acheve this reduction has yet been adopted. On top of this Advantica will only stand by their calculations up to 120 bar...and they still say a rupture would kill people over 203 meters away. Minister Dempsey has since repeatedly stated a distance of 3 (three) meters is perfectly safe!

2. Peter Cassells role as mediator was to get two opposing sides to meet and discuss common ground. When he unsurprisingly failed to achieve this he miracuously produced so-called 'ingredietns' for progress, based on his declaration that the vast majority of Erris and Mayo people want the project. Wrong. Last week's TG4/MRBI poll indicated a total of 65% of Mayo people don't want the Bellanaboy refinery, a recent door-to-door canvass reveealed 15 individuals disagreed with Shell to Sea out of around 2,500 Erris homes, and to date well over 500 people living within a 5 mile radius of Bellanaboy have signed a petition stating opposition to the current development.

3. After local opposition at EVERY stage in the process, planning permission for the Bellanaboy refinery was eventually granted by An Bord Peanala against its own technical advice, following direct lobbying from Shell. The pipeline itself has never been through the planning process, and a large section of the onshore pipeline was constructed without the required ministerial consent, which they still do not have. The refinery does not have the necessary licence to pollute from the environmental Protection Agency, and th developers 'have failed to provide all details of planned emissions to the EPA for its application. A pipeline access road through a Special Area of Conservation was built without planning or due regard to the environment, and the European Commission recently ruled that Ireland breached the EU Habitats Directive in allowing the project to proceed through the protected area of Broadhaven Bay. A number of aspects of the Corrib Gas project are currently being investigated by the Irish and European courts, and Corrib has never been dealt with as a whole, consistently being reduced to smaller and more isolated parts. This method, known as 'project-splitting', is entirely illegal under European law.

4. A seven-stage consultation process has been announced on a theoretical new pipeline route almost seven years AFTER the current design concept (including the pipeline route) was first chosen...and the existing route is still on the cards. Clear and continued opposition to the refinery itself has not been acknowledged at all in this process, and loud declarations of listening to local consent ring very hollow given the drive to now force in the refinery ahead of any supposed agreement. This is even more frightening now that the use of state force is becoming ever more likely, with increasing Garda numbers effectively acting as a private security for the developers agains a 15-month long peaceful protest.

In spite of all of the above (and not even getting into the issues of national interst andnatural resources andinjunctions and jailings and pickets and rallies and protests and a very black history of decades of proven human rights abuses and fatal lapses in safety procedures and environmental degradation) Shell, Statoil and Marathon are no doubt going to continue to ignore the facts, and peddle the same lines day-in-day-out until they believe no-one will care any more.

If fantasy is allowed to become reality, we will all be in trouble.
Yours etc
John Monaghan
Rossport South
Ballina
Co Mayo"

On top of all of that, we are now witnessing a flagrant attempt to criminalise and distort the public perception of the peaceful protest. The only violence so far has been the violence inflicted on the protestors. On RTE yesterday both Pat Kenny and Joe Duffy joined in the outrageous and concerted RTE efforts to smear the protestors. Boycott their programmes folks. Let RTE feel the cold in Mayo - let them feel it all over the country. Dont listen to them. Duffy behaved like a bully - talking through people and not for the first time this week on RTE, Shell to Sea supporters were cut off mysteriously during the programme or difficult to hear because of some sort of interruption in sound quality - coincidence? Duffy had no problem at all with the violence on protestors which he didnt even remark on but chose instead to pretend to be worked up about the fact that Maura Harrington refused assistance from a Shell ambulance. That tells you a lot about his priorites. But despite all that Maura Harrington was more than good enough for him.

by Seán Ryan Sat Oct 14, 2006 13:30

It strikes me as funny that there is a debate going on. The media (all of them) have been in denial for so long that they cannot see the truth of what they are. Nobody believes that the Daily Mail is the exclusive property of Shell. That argument is ludicrous. The Daily Mail is a whore for anyone who's got the dough.

Mr. Palmer would have us believe that those poor souls who buy and read the Daily Mail are its customers. This is the primal piece of propaganda. RTE with its license are the same. Big business is the customer. The sheep are the product.

Baa!!

by W. Finnerty. Sat Oct 14, 2006 14:53

The main text of an e-mail sent earlier today (by me) to a number of individuals and groups relating to the matter of "media supported corruption", as I see it, has been reproduced below.

The full text, and the full list of addressees, together with what I understand was the text of the article which appeared in yesterday's Irish Times, can be viewed at the following location:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm

Fur future reference purposes, Yahoo e-mail message identification and tracking information has been included at the above address.

The main text of the e-mail in question is as follows:

"What have The Irish Times done to help? What sort of people are they?
 
Why have the Irish Times repeatedly and consistently buried their heads in the sand regarding the MAJOR human rights and environmental issues which lay at the root of many (possibly all?) of the extremely serious social problems which have by now so well established themselves in Irish society: the same set of problems The Irish Times was yesterday self-indulgently "wondering aloud" about in public apparently?
 
Why, for example, have the Irish Times more or less completely ignored - year after year - the kind of amazing and deeply serious Republic of Ireland Constitutional issues relating to the United Nations Aarhus Convention Agreement Ireland signed in 1998, and raised in e-mails to them such as that at the following address?
http://www.constitutionofireland.com/EddieHoltIrishTime...l.htm
 
Though they do not appear to realise it, or are slyly pretending not to realise it, The Irish Times and its disastrous and extremely shoddy habit of "cherry-picking" with regard to reality (i.e. "what is"), has greatly helped the overall "nasty little country" problem to develop, and to grow to the point where its monstrous and stinking-rotten wings have now spread all over (and under) the place - has it not? 
 
Similarly for all the other traditional "Media-Baron / Bilderberg" driven sources of public information - including the state broadcasters?
 
You can tell the type of tree from the fruit it produces - can you not?
 
Related link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=aarhus%2C+iris...earch "

by Loaded Sat Oct 14, 2006 16:59

We all know that the independent mediator appointed to the Shell debacle
was the election manager appointed to return Noel Dempsey to the Dail
(along with his running mate- right?)

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77621
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77600
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76312

Thats a given- right.

We all know about the sell-out.

We all know that mainstream colludes in Community isolation.

We all know that this scandal should spread to the corruption lobby.

What is then needed is a concerted anti-propaganda campaign against the
vested interests who are working with the elitist elements in our communities
to dispossess a people.

The question is why and what they think they will accomplish in terms of ecological
abuse and heritage wrecking?

its money, power and abuse.
Plain and simple.

But people vote with their feet- as k the unions why the workers are
allowed break picket with the aid of the government.
Think about what you are putting in you car.
Think about the newspapers you buy.

It will be for nothing unless this issue is exposed for the prurience it is.

by paul palmer - irish daily mail Mon Oct 16, 2006 00:30

A short line re. Miriam Cotton's repeated assertion that I came to Co. Mayo 'on a mission': that obviously being because I was readily pre-poisoned against the Shell To Sea campaign.

That is so ludicrous - and, again, makes one almost scream with frustration - because as I stated in my article, and as my support both professionally and personally for the Bantry campaign illustrates, if anything I came to Rossport (again, as stated in my Mail article) instinctively on your side.

That I think is where your chagrin lies: but because someone disagrees with you, it is juvenille, facile and frankly self-derisive to blithely say that, because someone disagrees with you, they must by necessity have had some pre-planned agenda against you. Quite frankly, Miriam, if you are so infurtiatingly wrong and predjudiced on that fact, why on earth should I personally accede to anything else you say?

As stated above (and strangely, glossed-over by responses here) the Rossport campaign has squandered its support because of the wilful damning of people who are instinctively on your side, but whose views you dismiss because they do not fit your agenda. The only reason I am bothering with posting here is because I personally had thought the campaign was reasoned and justified. Have none of you any notion, out of your incestuous, self-aggrandising milieu, the damage your are doing to your cause?

As for I should ask myself some searching questions: what on earth do you think I did when I was in Erris?

And again, as a ridiculous own goal, for you to dismiss RTE as being itself biased against Rossport, as being in the hands of cloak-and-dagger figures conspiring against you, well, that is so laughable as to make me almost speechless.

You know, Miriam: a similar response was handed to me today from some elements of the Gardai because of my expose in the Irish Daily Mail yesterday regarding questions about their shooting of the poor man in Gort: forensically, I had gone through Gardai statements and revealed their inconsistencies and contradictions, appallingly similar to Abbeylara. Is that the behaviour of a journalistic whore, to quote one posting, and a capitalist newspaper in the pay of the FF state?

They said I was wrong, pandering (in this instance) to a liberal/left prejudice against the State and its uniformed officers, sarcastic and crafty in what I had exposed...well, I must be doing something right. I tell you one thing: we are the only newspaper, or media outlet including this site, to have bothered to spend time exposing the actions of our state-controlled armed officers in the shooting of one of its citizens. Does that fit into anyone's summation that the newspaper, and I personally, are some kind of right-wing automatons?

Paul Palmer

by Seán Ryan Mon Oct 16, 2006 03:07

It seems Paul, that you just can't help yourself. My comment was very short and still you managed to spin it into something that I didn't say. I didn't say you were a whore - I said your newspaper was one.

Furthermore I didn't say the paper you worked for was in the pay of the FF State. I said it was in the service of anyone with the bucks to afford it.

Now, if you cannot reiterate such a small piece without taking extreme poetic license, how is it that you expect our readers to believe you can accurately report on substantive issues?

I'd like to draw your attention to another Indy piece (there are many, but this one stands out), and I don't want to derail this thread, so please see this as an example and not a new topic for you to spin. Two faced Sindo sneers at and applauds Ken Loach Film http://indymedia.ie/article/76450 I refer to this article in particular because it illustrates vividly my point about the media being whores. Remember Paul just because you work for a whore, it doesn't make you one. I wasn't personalising what I had to say, so please don't use my words to fuel some ill deserved martyr complex.

Sláinte

by mutineer Mon Oct 16, 2006 09:15

right-wing freedom instituter Richard Waghorne has joined Associated Newspapers Ireland as Chief Political Commentator for the Irish Daily Mail and the Irish Mail on Sunday.

by redjade Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:11

Paul Palmer says... 'Does that fit into anyone's summation that the newspaper, and I personally, are some kind of right-wing automatons?'

Gosh Paul, I can't imagine why anyone would think that?!

Appointment
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
I have agreed to join Associated Newspapers Ireland as Chief Political Commentator
for the Irish Daily Mail and the Irish Mail on Sunday.
Posted by Richard Waghorne :: 9/27/2006
http://siciliannotes.blogspot.com/2006/09/appointment.html

by supp Mon Oct 16, 2006 15:52

I wonder if Palmer would tell us on what basis he supported the Rossport 5 demands re Shell last year or whenever and what has changed since then in his expert opinion, IM not talking about what he perceives is public opinion what are the facts in relation to the developement, if he supported the premise of SHELLTOSEA last year why not now?DId not understnad last year? Did he support them last year because of public sympathy or has opinion change now because of the mainstream says they shouldn't be? Isn't that what Daily Mail reporters get paid for to swing in the populist wind.