June 30, 2000
THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE
La censura nelle democrazie liberali post-moderne:
il caso dell'immagine che ha preso in giro il mondo
Perche' Living Marxism ha perso la causa contro l'ITN
di THOMAS DEICHMANN
(per una introduzione sull'argomento si veda anche:
IL CASO LM / ITN
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/142?&start=115 )
CENSORSHIP IN POST-MODERN “LIBERAL DEMOCRACY”:
THE CASE OF “THE PICTURE THAT FOOLED THE WORLD”D
WHY LM LOST THE LIBEL CASE
Il video "Judgement", con tutta la documentazione usata da Thomas
Deichmann per svelare la truffa mediatica di Trnopolje, si puo' ordinare
attraverso il sito internet http://www.emperors-clothes.com
You can order the video "Judgement' at http://www.emperors-clothes.com
with all the documentation Deichmann used to prove the accepted frauds.
Na http://www.emperors-clothes.com moze da se naruci kaseta Judgement
koja dokumentuje sve sto Deichmann kaze.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A stunning new film -
"JUDGMENT!"
http://www.emperors-clothes.com
At last we have visual proof that the media lied about Yugoslavia...
To order now, click here
We just finished production work on the English version of a stunning
new
film - "JUDGMENT!" It exposes the tricks used to concoct phony pictures
of a
nonexistent Serbian 'death camp' in 1992. These doctored images --
especially the famous emaciated man behind barbed wire -- were broadcast
worldwide to dehumanize the Serbs. They led to the deaths of thousands
and
great suffering for millions of human beings.
"JUDGMENT!" PROVES THOSE PICTURES WERE CYNICAL FABRICATIONS.
We urge you: Buy this film today Give a copy to a friend who doesn't
want to
believe the mass media would fabricate phony atrocity pictures. Show
this
film on TV stations, show it to local organizations, get it reviewed in
local papers. It will change people's minds. It will change your mind.
TELLING THE TRUTH, AND OTHER CRIMES
Last week the British alternative magazine, LM, was fined over $500,000
US
for libel. LM had printed a story that that charged British news station
ITN
and reporters Penny Marshall and Ian Williams with fraud. LM said ITN
had
faked the "death camp" pictures to demonize the Serbs.
The Judge in the libel case admitted that ITN might have made some
mistakes.
But he argued: the LM people weren't in Bosnia that day. So how could LM
be
sure what was really happening there?
IN FACT another film crew was present the entire time. They filmed the
footage used in "JUDGMENT!"
"JUDGMENT!" proves LM was simply telling the truth. "JUDGMENT!" proves
Penny
Marshall lied. "JUDGMENT!" shows how Marshall produced the picture that
fooled the world and justified a war.
The ITN crew visited a POW center and a refugee camp. By sheer luck they
were accompanied by a crew from Serbian television (RTS). The RTS crew
filmed the ITN crew at work. Using this RTS footage, a small Yugoslav
film
studio has recreated the events of that day. Emperors-Clothes edited the
Yugoslav movie to produce the English language film, "JUDGMENT!"
RTS is the TV station that NATO bombed in April, 1999, killing 20
people.
The film is dedicated to those dead, whose murders began with the ITN
pictures. We say this because the images that Penny Marshall fabricated
in
1992 began the dehumanization of the Serbian people. ITN and Penny
Marshall
laid the political basis for the bombing of the Bosnian loyalist
government
and of Serbia itself a year ago.
WHAT THIS FILM PROVES
1) The Loyalist ("Serbian") Authorities were humane.
>From the pictures that ITN produced one would think that Marshall and
her
crew had sneaked into a death camp and shot their film when nobody was
watching. Not so. The ITN crew visited two surprisingly casual and
humane
locations. They were protected but not controlled by the loyalist
authorities whom they later compared to Nazi's.
2) Marshall KNEW the loyalists were humane.
She and the crew from RTS interviewed POWs', their wives, non-POW
refugees,
a doctor, at least one red cross worker, the commander of the POW
Center.
The film shows these interviews. Marshall simply suppressed this
evidence of
humane treatment. Instead she staged some pictures. These were then
doctored
to produce Nazi-like images for mass consumption. The height of cynicism
and
dishonesty.
3) The refugees SAID they were treated decently.
Marshall is shown arguing with one refugee. She tries to coerce the man
to
say something anti-Yugoslav. He refuses. "No, no," he protests
vehemently.
"Not a prison. No, no. REFUGEE center. They treat us very kind. No, no,
very
kind." Undeterred, Marshall used this very location to stage her phony
death
camp shots.
4) Marshall staged the death camp sequence seen around the world.
She went out of her way to film from inside an awkward storage area.
Why?
Because one side had what she wanted: a fence, mainly chicken wire but
with
a few strands of barbed wire at the top. Shooting through the barbed
wire,
Marshall talked to refugees OUTSIDE the fence. She then doctored the raw
footage to produce false images of prisoners behind barbed wire.
5) Marshall and Ian Williams were filmed in the act of lying.
The amazing thing is -- the RTS people were filming a few feet away.
They
caught the same shots from a slightly different angle. They got pictures
of
Marshall, Ian Williams, a cameraman, a man holding a mike. You will see,
step by step, just how Marshall doctored her pictures to produce the
look of
a Nazi death camp. That is, the film takes footage shot by RTS and then
proceeds to alter it, as you watch, producing the phony ITN photos of
Nazi-like atrocities.
This film will change people's minds.
It documents that Marshall and ITN have committed the worst crime
against
humanity: they lied to millions of people in order to justify a war.
1. Order now by Phone, Mail or secure Server
VHS TAPES NOW AVAILABLE (Prices on PAL and SECAM tapes, often used
outside
US, as soon as possible)
Base price, $19.95 * Add $1 tax ONLY in Massachusetts
TOTAL PRICE including shipping and handling:
In US - $25.00 (2-3 days)
In Massachusetts - $26.00 (1 day)
With NEXT DAY SHIPPING in US but outside Massachusetts - $36.00
Total cost in Europe - $26.50 (about 5 days)
Total cost in New Zealand, Australia and Japan - $30.00 (about 6 days)
Total cost in rest of Asia, Africa, former Soviet Union, etc. - $22.00
(6-10
days)
Total cost in Canada - $26.00 (2-4 days)
(For Special and Quantity Shipping - please email to
emperors1000@... or
call shipper at 617-916-1705)
2. HOW TO ORDER
BY MAIL - Send check and instructions to EMPERORS CLOTHES, PO Box
610-321,
Newton, MA 02461-0321 Please state how you heard about the film.
BY PHONE - all 617-916-1705 from 8:30 am to 4:30 PM Eastern Standard
Time
BY SECURE SERVER - Go to http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
Pay
the appropriate amount AS A DONATION. Then PLEASE email us stating the
amount donated and the number of films desired and shipping
instructions.
Send that email to emperors1000@... This MUST be done so we'll know
your
donation is to pay for the film! Please also tell us how you heard about
the
film. Please tell us any ideas for increasing distribution. Thanks!
WE PRESENTLY HAVE FILMS IN STOCK. WE CAN REPLENISH STOCK WITHIN ONE DAY.
VIEW "JUDGMENT!" SHOW it to friends. MAIL IT to friends and relatives.
SHOW
it to organizations, churches, unions, at schools. GET it on TV.
NOTE TO WEBSITES, MAGAZINES AND NEWSPAPERS AND TV STATIONS: IF YOU
ADVERTISE
THIS FILM YOUR ORGANIZATION CAN RECEIVE A COMMISSION FOR EVERY FILM YOU
HELP
TO SELL. Drop us an email for details. Emperors1000@... . So far the
film is being distributed by www.emperors-clothes.com and
www.antiwar.com .
Would you care to join us?
=======================================================================
June 30, 2000
THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE
Thomas Deichmann:CENSORSHIP IN POST-MODERN “LIBERAL DEMOCRACY”:
THE CASE OF “THE PICTURE THAT FOOLED THE WORLD”
Our regular readers will recall that just over two months ago we
published a commentary by the
British historian Michael Stenton on the use of libel laws in the UK as
a means of silencing
views at odds with the received wisdom of the ruling mainstream (Libel
and the truth: Bosnia
and “holocaust denial” – April 20). One of three cases invoked by Dr.
Stenton to illustrate the
use of libel laws as a means of muzzling free speech, and censoring
politically incorrect ideas,
concerned the lawsuit by one of Britain’s most powerful media
conglomerates – “Independent
Television News” (ITN) against the LM Magazine (formerly known as
“Living Marxism”). The
defendants had pointed out some inaccuracies in a TV report about the
Trnopolje POW camp in
Bosnia in summer 1992. LM had gone on to complain that misleading TV
pictures had helped
mislead the world about what was happening in Bosnia at the time.
Needless to say the side
with most money, once again, won the action.
While the outcome of the trial was dealt with briefly and only provided
a peg for Dr. Stenton’s general point about the threat to
the freedom of thought and expression in our time, some of our readers
have expressed an interest in the details of the case
itself. It seemed incredible that Great Britain, the world’s oldest
democracy, could allow such miscarriages of justice to get
legal sanctification. In the meantime we have received a more
comprehensive account of the now infamous LM trial from a key
figure in this complex case, German journalist Thomas Deichmann. His
1997 article “The picture that fooled the world,” in
which he exposed the ITN manipulations with images from Bosnia, caused
the controversy in the first place.--S.T.
WHY LM LOST THE LIBEL CASE
by Thomas Deichmann
The High Court in London delivered its harsh verdict on March 14th 2000.
The editor of the British magazine LM (previously
Living Marxism), its publisher Helene Guldberg and her publishing house
Informinc were found liable in defamation
proceedings after eleven days of court room proceedings. They were
ordered to pay the British news channel Independent
Television News (ITN) and two of its reporters, Penny Marshall and Ian
Williams massive damages. This comprised 75,000
pounds sterling payable to ITN and an additional 150,000 pounds payable
to each of the two reporters. The defendants were
also ordered to pay the legal fees of the claimants – an additional
300,000 pounds. The total is calculated as more than one
million dollars.
After the verdict Informinc went into liquidation, and Mick Hume and
Helene Guldberg prepared for personal bankruptcy.
Another immediate consequence was that most of LM’s Website
(www.informinc.co.uk) had to be shut down on the same
day. A few hours after the conclusion of the legal battle LM received a
letter from ITN asking when payment of the money
could be expected.
Censorship for Hire
A tragic chapter in modern media history was thus brought to an end. It
may usher in a
threatening new era. London, the Mecca of the Libel Suit, was used for
the first time by a mighty
media corporation to censor an important debate and to knock an unloved
and weaker opponent
out of the running. The arrogant behavior of ITN, represented during the
hearing by its Chief
Editor Richard Tait, and the two ITN reporters Penny Marshall and Ian
Williams, represents a
blow to every journalist. It is a warning especially to investigative
reporters whose job it is to
go against the mainstream and to help bring to light inconvenient
truths.
The publication of my article ‘The Picture that fooled the World’ in the
February 1997 edition
of LM was the catalyst which began the saga. This article had already
been printed in highly
regarded European publications and later been copied many times over. In
the article I showed
in great detail that the famous ITN-pictures of an emaciated Bosnian
Muslim behind a barbed
wire fence taken at the Bosnian Serb camp of Trnopolje in August 1992
were misleading and
fooled the world.
ITN won the case at the High Court but the victory left a foul
aftertaste – so openly did the
media giant attempt to manipulate the debate from the start. Immediately
after the verdict, ITN
set its PR-apparatus in motion in order to mislead the public anew.
Statements by both reporters
and the news channel tried to leave the uninformed viewer with the
impression that the trial jury
found that the central allegation against the ITN reporters in my LM
article of February 1997
was incorrect. The opposite is true.
ITN Reporter Behind Barbed Wire
In my 1997 article, I showed in great detail, first, that there was no
barbed wire fence
surrounding Trnopolje and the Muslims filmed there in August 1992.
Secondly, that the barbed
wire on the (in)famous ITN pictures belonged to a small agricultural
compound neighbouring the
Trnopolje camp grounds. I further explained that the British reporters
stood inside this
compound surrounded by the barbed wire fence and that from inside there
they filmed the
(in)famous pictures. Thirdly, I explained that nowhere else in Trnopolje
did any barbed wire
fence exist; and fourthly, that the conclusions drawn by politicians and
the media worldwide that
Trnopolje was a concentration camp similar to Auschwitz and
Bergen-Belsen, were wrong and
based on a very misleading image.
The first three aspects of my story were proved during the court
proceedings of the Case. In
particular, the uncut ITN tapes, the so-called ‘rushes’, were important.
This was more or less
the same material I used during my research beginning in late 1996. The
fourth point was not
dealt with during the proceedings. However, by this stage, nobody
questioned that Trnopolje
was not a Nazi-style concentration camp.
Judge Morland gave his summary the day before the end of the case and
stressed with his own
words to the jury that the reporters were surrounded by a barbed wire
fence in August 1992:
‘It is a matter for you but, having seen the rushes and the bundles of
Mr. Deichmann’s
photographs, is it not clear that before the civil war there was fencing
surrounding the area
containing the barn, the garage and the electricity transformer? That
fence was made of tall
metal posts with barbed wire strands on top, and below chicken wire,
with a gate on the east
road. Clearly Ian Williams and Penny Marshall and their TV teams were
mistaken in thinking
they were not enclosed by the old barbed wire fence.’
Facts Don’t Matter
Judge Morland elaborated at this point of his summary: ‘But does it
matter?’ By raising this
question he wished to remind the members of the jury what this libel
case was about. The
central question which the jury had to decide on was this: did the ITN
reporters in 1992
deliberately publish a misleading image. The case therefore did not
mainly consider if this
happened or not, instead it dealt first of all with the question if the
reporters publicized their
barbed wire shots with clear intent to fool the world. The Judge
formulated at the beginning of
his summation some sympathy for my investigative reporting. However, he
then defined what
this libel case was about:
‘Members of the jury, you may well think that in a democratic society it
is vital that journalists
are fearless, investigative reporters. It is, you may well think, of the
utmost importance that they
are accurate and fair reporters. It is right that one journalist, if he
considers that another
journalist has been inaccurate, unfair and misleading, should say so.
But this case, you may
think, is not about whether Penny Marshall and Ian Williams have been
inaccurate, unfair or
misleading; the nub of this case is whether the defendants have
established that Penny Marshall
and Ian Williams have deliberately – I emphasize that word
‚deliberately’ – compiled
misleading television footage.’ Nick Higham, media correspondent of the
BBC, recapitulated
these explanations of the Judge in a news commentary on the day of the
verdict in the following
manner: ‘Mr. Justice Morland told the jury LM’s facts might have been
right, but he asked, did
that matter?’
The judge’s summary finally brought to the surface the scale of dirty
tricks ITN and its reporters
had used with their libel suit against LM. They did not merely hid for
three years (that is how
long it took to come to trial) behind the repressive English libel laws
that are considered so
frightening inside media circles. ITN argued that the central libelous
connotation of my article,
an accompanying leader by Mick Hume, and a LM press release circulated
in January 1997,
was that LM made the ordinary reader believe that ITN and its reporters
with full and complete
knowledge deliberately lied to the world. Actually, I am of the opinion
that the reporters must
have known exactly what they were doing at the time. However, I did not
state this in my article.
Instead I wrote, ‘Whatever the British news team’s intentions may have
been, their pictures
were seen around the world as the first hard evidence of concentration
camps in Bosnia.’
But ITN put this point at center stage of the libel suit because their
lawyers from Biddle & Co.
knew that in this manner they could not lose the case. Their task was
made easier by the fact that
in English libel law the burden of proof lies with the defendant (a
further indication of the
absurdity of this law). LM had to prove the bad intent of the ITN
reporters in order to win the
case. Therefore the verdict did not come as a surprise to the LM-team.
Editor Mick Hume
commented: ‘We had to prove the unprovable.’
Memory Gaps
Gavin Millar, LM’s barrister, despite all this did a great job and first
worked to convince the
jury of the correctness of my explanation of where the barbed wire fence
was located. He
further exerted himself to establish that the two ITN reporters must
have known that at the time
they took the famous pictures that they were standing in the small
compound surrounded by
barbed wire.
But none of the ITN witnesses, with the exception of Penny Marshall’s
cameraman, remembered
that this was the case. Ian Williams was the first witness giving
evidence. He, for example, was
asked by Millar how he was able to reach from the fenced-in compound the
open field just to the
west of it. Williams answered he simply walked around the corner. When
he then was
confronted with the ITN rushes which clearly showed a barbed wire fence
there at the corner
and all along the Western side of the compound he then could not
remember the exact details of
his movements any more. In any event, at the end of his testimony, on
the fourth day of the
courtroom proceedings he again stated that it was a ‘lie’ that the
reporters were surrounded by
barbed wire.
But during the testimony of the next witness, only a few hours later,
Judge Morland intervened
and gave his opinion that after viewing the ITN tapes various times now,
he was convinced that
this was precisely the situation. He asked the ITN lawyer not to waste
any more time disputing
this point. The next day, Ian William’s sound man indicated a new
version of the story:
William’s team reached the open field through the barbed wire fence
somewhere further south,
possibly through a hole in the fence. This again did not show up on the
ITN tapes.
Penny Marshall also had memory gaps specifically regarding the fenced in
compound, even
though it was uncontested that she had entered it through a gap in the
barbed wire fence from the
southern side next to a small electricity transformer building and that
she had passed the barn
situated in the middle of this compound. But she could not remember that
she was surrounded by
barbed wire. Nor could she remember how she exited the fenced in
compound.
Gavin Millar, LM’s barrister, further questioned the statements of the
ITN reporters that it never
had crossed their minds in August 1992 that the (in)famous pictures of
the emaciated Muslim
taken behind barbed wire could trigger comparisons with the Holocaust.
He also raised doubts
concerning ITN’s explanation that the news reporters were not under any
pressure to come up
with a camp scoop given the widely disseminated speculative reports of
possible
‘Concentration Camps’ and ‘Death Camps’ in Northern Bosnia. Millar
succeeded numerous
times in entangling the ITN employees in contradictions – but he was
unable to establish ITN’s
deliberate manipulation – what was in their minds at the time.
Disappearing Videotapes and Witnesses
Besides memory gaps there were other obstacles with which LM had to
contend. One of these was that an important video
tape of the ITN rushes had been lost in the ITN archives. This tape
could have shown Penny Marshall continuously moving on
the compound surrounded by the barbed wire fence, and perhaps her
commenting on the situation, and exiting from there.
Only a short sequence of this tape could be seen in the courtroom having
been taken from an ITN news broadcast in August
1992. The first time the subject of the disappearing videotape came up,
ripples of surprise and speculation ran through the
courtroom. The video tape of a Bosnian-Serbian cameraman in military
uniform, which was shot on the same day in Trnopolje
as Penny Marshall filmed, could not make up for the loss of this part of
the ITN rushes. However, it did show that Marshall
interviewed at least two other men before she shook hands with the
emaciated man and talked to him through the barbed wire.
This contradicted the way the matter was presented in the ITN news and
in later interviews she gave. One of these interviewed
men, wearing a blue overall, introduced himself as Mehmet. He repeatedly
stressed when questioned by the British reporters,
that Trnopolje was not a prison but a refugee camp and he felt safe
there. This did not feature in the report.
Finally the ITN lawyers were able to make use of the repressive nature
of English libel laws in
a way, that all further witnesses for the Defense were struck out of the
case before they could
give evidence. The most prominent was John Simpson, BBC World Affairs
Editor, one of the
world’s most highly regarded reporters. Also denied the opportunity to
take the witness stand
for LM was the well known and highly respected former war correspondent
Phillip Knightley,
author of the book ‘The First Casualty’. In addition, the London Queen’s
Counsel barrister
Steven Kay was prevented from testifying. Only LM editor Mick Hume and
myself were
allowed to give evidence for the defence. For good measure, even my own
testimony was
severely reduced.
Smear Campaign
But that wasn’t all. In 1997, at the outset, ITN had charged LM with
malice on top of libel after
the publication of my article. ITN tried to prevent the distribution of
LM and demanded the
destruction of all copies of the edition. This happened one day after LM
circulated a press
release announcing my article and even before ITN even had read my
piece. Despite this ITN
claimed that my article was outrageous and untrue.
In ITN’s subsequent ‘malice’ claim LM and I were described as intending
to spread
pro-Serbian propaganda and that this intent was the real reason for the
publication of my article
in LM. As supposed proof of this charge, ITN provided an odd list of
articles appearing in LM
dealing with the Balkan War and related topics. For example it included
an excerpt from an
interview I had done with the famous Austrian novelist Peter Handke in
the Spring of 1996. I
had offered to let LM along with other publications in Europe publish
the interview.
However the malice charge invited the wildest denunciations against LM
and myself.
Impertinent lies and gossip quickly made the rounds. For example, that I
was an agent of the
Serbs and received payment from them. Even one week before the start of
the court hearings, I
received for the n-th time a telephone call from a reporter (this time
from the British paper ‘The
Guardian’) who wished to know if I was married to a Serb. Despite
repeated explanations that I
was not, and that I had no connections to the Serb authorities, and that
I supported none of the
parties involved in the Bosnian civil war, there were many such rumors –
all thanks to ITN’s
malice suit. Ed Vulliamy, the Guardian reporter who had also visited the
North Bosnian camps
along with the ITN teams in August 1992, contributed to the mood with
repeated hysterical
defamations, while ITN, Marshall and Williams kept quiet and let their
lawyers act.
Interesting enough, the malice charge was dropped when the case came to
court. ITN’s lawyer
Tom Shields let it go without a murmur because there was not the
slightest evidence for such
conspiracy theories. This made clear to me that the malice charge was
only added to the libel
suit in the first place in order to support a smear campaign against
myself and LM.
Historical Revisionism
ITN’s QC barrister Tom Shields stressed during the trial the miserable
conditions in Trnopolje
in summer 1992. To prove this the Plaintiffs brought as a witness a
Muslim doctor who under
the guard of Bosnian Serb authorities cared for the camp’s inmates and
locals in 1992. At the
time he was also interviewed by Penny Marshall and gave her a camera
with an undeveloped
film. The photos on it where published in August 1992 in some British
papers. They showed
Bosnian Muslims who had been beaten by Serbian guards. The doctor
described on the witness
stand how he met the ITN teams in summer 1992, and confirmed the stories
of the rape and
assault of defenseless civilians in Trnopolje – stories which I and LM
have never disputed, and
in fact reported in my article. His very short testimony was of cause
moving, but my impression
was that he was only invited to give evidence for ITN to score moral
points for the Plaintiffs.
LM barrister Millar declined to cross examine the doctor.
Tom Shields for ITN used the testimony of the doctor to give the utterly
false impression that I
wished to excuse those who were guilty of evil acts in Trnopolje and
elsewhere. The ITN
lawyer further exerted himself to question my description of Trnopolje
as a refugee and transit
camp in which many Muslims sought safety from the bloody civil war going
on around them.
During my testimony it became clear that Shields, despite his hectoring
me with morally laden
catch-phrases, didn’t have the slightest idea what had happened during
the Bosnian civil war.
Trnopolje was surely a chaotic and awful place, but it was also surely
not a detention camp or
prison and most surely it was not a concentration camp comparable with
Auschwitz or
Bergen-Belsen as suggested by the famous ITN shots with the barbed wire.
The single positive feature of the proceedings in the High Court in
London was that they finally
proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither Trnopolje camp nor the
filmed Bosnian
Muslims were surrounded by a barbed wire fence as suggested by ITN’s
shots. Rather, it was
the journalists who were surrounded by barbed wire as my article ‘The
picture that fooled the
world’ had shown.
But on the other hand, the verdict spelled the end of LM and now hangs
like a sword of
Damocles over every English journalist. LM, an opinionated magazine with
intelligent articles
contrary to the Zeitgeist, was brought to ruin. One can only hope that
other media organizations
and journalists will not follow ITN’s example but instead follow the
example of publications
like LM and its creators.
Thomas Deichmann, 37, is a freelance journalist and author and editor of
the bimonthly German magazine Novo.
Further information on the libel case including the original article in
German language is available on
http://www.novo-magazin.de/itn-vs-lm Deichmann’s article ‘The picture
that fooled the world’ was reprinted in the
U.S. in Ramsey Clark et al: ‘NATO in the Balkans. Voices of Opposition’,
International Action Centre, New York
1998. An analytical piece on the same story with the title
‘Misinformation: TV Coverage of a Bosnian Camp’
appeared in CovertAction Quarterly, Fall 1998. Deichmann’s study of Roy
Gutman’s war reporting recently appeared
in the US under the title ‘The Pulitzer Price and Croatian Propaganda’
in ‘War Lies & Videotape. How Media
Monopoly stifles truth’, International Action Centre, New York 2000. You
may call Thomas Deichmann in Frankfurt
at +49 69 722271; send him a fax at 720913; or send him an e-mail at
Thomas.Deichmann@...
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE
La censura nelle democrazie liberali post-moderne:
il caso dell'immagine che ha preso in giro il mondo
Perche' Living Marxism ha perso la causa contro l'ITN
di THOMAS DEICHMANN
(per una introduzione sull'argomento si veda anche:
IL CASO LM / ITN
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/142?&start=115 )
CENSORSHIP IN POST-MODERN “LIBERAL DEMOCRACY”:
THE CASE OF “THE PICTURE THAT FOOLED THE WORLD”D
WHY LM LOST THE LIBEL CASE
Il video "Judgement", con tutta la documentazione usata da Thomas
Deichmann per svelare la truffa mediatica di Trnopolje, si puo' ordinare
attraverso il sito internet http://www.emperors-clothes.com
You can order the video "Judgement' at http://www.emperors-clothes.com
with all the documentation Deichmann used to prove the accepted frauds.
Na http://www.emperors-clothes.com moze da se naruci kaseta Judgement
koja dokumentuje sve sto Deichmann kaze.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A stunning new film -
"JUDGMENT!"
http://www.emperors-clothes.com
At last we have visual proof that the media lied about Yugoslavia...
To order now, click here
We just finished production work on the English version of a stunning
new
film - "JUDGMENT!" It exposes the tricks used to concoct phony pictures
of a
nonexistent Serbian 'death camp' in 1992. These doctored images --
especially the famous emaciated man behind barbed wire -- were broadcast
worldwide to dehumanize the Serbs. They led to the deaths of thousands
and
great suffering for millions of human beings.
"JUDGMENT!" PROVES THOSE PICTURES WERE CYNICAL FABRICATIONS.
We urge you: Buy this film today Give a copy to a friend who doesn't
want to
believe the mass media would fabricate phony atrocity pictures. Show
this
film on TV stations, show it to local organizations, get it reviewed in
local papers. It will change people's minds. It will change your mind.
TELLING THE TRUTH, AND OTHER CRIMES
Last week the British alternative magazine, LM, was fined over $500,000
US
for libel. LM had printed a story that that charged British news station
ITN
and reporters Penny Marshall and Ian Williams with fraud. LM said ITN
had
faked the "death camp" pictures to demonize the Serbs.
The Judge in the libel case admitted that ITN might have made some
mistakes.
But he argued: the LM people weren't in Bosnia that day. So how could LM
be
sure what was really happening there?
IN FACT another film crew was present the entire time. They filmed the
footage used in "JUDGMENT!"
"JUDGMENT!" proves LM was simply telling the truth. "JUDGMENT!" proves
Penny
Marshall lied. "JUDGMENT!" shows how Marshall produced the picture that
fooled the world and justified a war.
The ITN crew visited a POW center and a refugee camp. By sheer luck they
were accompanied by a crew from Serbian television (RTS). The RTS crew
filmed the ITN crew at work. Using this RTS footage, a small Yugoslav
film
studio has recreated the events of that day. Emperors-Clothes edited the
Yugoslav movie to produce the English language film, "JUDGMENT!"
RTS is the TV station that NATO bombed in April, 1999, killing 20
people.
The film is dedicated to those dead, whose murders began with the ITN
pictures. We say this because the images that Penny Marshall fabricated
in
1992 began the dehumanization of the Serbian people. ITN and Penny
Marshall
laid the political basis for the bombing of the Bosnian loyalist
government
and of Serbia itself a year ago.
WHAT THIS FILM PROVES
1) The Loyalist ("Serbian") Authorities were humane.
>From the pictures that ITN produced one would think that Marshall and
her
crew had sneaked into a death camp and shot their film when nobody was
watching. Not so. The ITN crew visited two surprisingly casual and
humane
locations. They were protected but not controlled by the loyalist
authorities whom they later compared to Nazi's.
2) Marshall KNEW the loyalists were humane.
She and the crew from RTS interviewed POWs', their wives, non-POW
refugees,
a doctor, at least one red cross worker, the commander of the POW
Center.
The film shows these interviews. Marshall simply suppressed this
evidence of
humane treatment. Instead she staged some pictures. These were then
doctored
to produce Nazi-like images for mass consumption. The height of cynicism
and
dishonesty.
3) The refugees SAID they were treated decently.
Marshall is shown arguing with one refugee. She tries to coerce the man
to
say something anti-Yugoslav. He refuses. "No, no," he protests
vehemently.
"Not a prison. No, no. REFUGEE center. They treat us very kind. No, no,
very
kind." Undeterred, Marshall used this very location to stage her phony
death
camp shots.
4) Marshall staged the death camp sequence seen around the world.
She went out of her way to film from inside an awkward storage area.
Why?
Because one side had what she wanted: a fence, mainly chicken wire but
with
a few strands of barbed wire at the top. Shooting through the barbed
wire,
Marshall talked to refugees OUTSIDE the fence. She then doctored the raw
footage to produce false images of prisoners behind barbed wire.
5) Marshall and Ian Williams were filmed in the act of lying.
The amazing thing is -- the RTS people were filming a few feet away.
They
caught the same shots from a slightly different angle. They got pictures
of
Marshall, Ian Williams, a cameraman, a man holding a mike. You will see,
step by step, just how Marshall doctored her pictures to produce the
look of
a Nazi death camp. That is, the film takes footage shot by RTS and then
proceeds to alter it, as you watch, producing the phony ITN photos of
Nazi-like atrocities.
This film will change people's minds.
It documents that Marshall and ITN have committed the worst crime
against
humanity: they lied to millions of people in order to justify a war.
1. Order now by Phone, Mail or secure Server
VHS TAPES NOW AVAILABLE (Prices on PAL and SECAM tapes, often used
outside
US, as soon as possible)
Base price, $19.95 * Add $1 tax ONLY in Massachusetts
TOTAL PRICE including shipping and handling:
In US - $25.00 (2-3 days)
In Massachusetts - $26.00 (1 day)
With NEXT DAY SHIPPING in US but outside Massachusetts - $36.00
Total cost in Europe - $26.50 (about 5 days)
Total cost in New Zealand, Australia and Japan - $30.00 (about 6 days)
Total cost in rest of Asia, Africa, former Soviet Union, etc. - $22.00
(6-10
days)
Total cost in Canada - $26.00 (2-4 days)
(For Special and Quantity Shipping - please email to
emperors1000@... or
call shipper at 617-916-1705)
2. HOW TO ORDER
BY MAIL - Send check and instructions to EMPERORS CLOTHES, PO Box
610-321,
Newton, MA 02461-0321 Please state how you heard about the film.
BY PHONE - all 617-916-1705 from 8:30 am to 4:30 PM Eastern Standard
Time
BY SECURE SERVER - Go to http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
Pay
the appropriate amount AS A DONATION. Then PLEASE email us stating the
amount donated and the number of films desired and shipping
instructions.
Send that email to emperors1000@... This MUST be done so we'll know
your
donation is to pay for the film! Please also tell us how you heard about
the
film. Please tell us any ideas for increasing distribution. Thanks!
WE PRESENTLY HAVE FILMS IN STOCK. WE CAN REPLENISH STOCK WITHIN ONE DAY.
VIEW "JUDGMENT!" SHOW it to friends. MAIL IT to friends and relatives.
SHOW
it to organizations, churches, unions, at schools. GET it on TV.
NOTE TO WEBSITES, MAGAZINES AND NEWSPAPERS AND TV STATIONS: IF YOU
ADVERTISE
THIS FILM YOUR ORGANIZATION CAN RECEIVE A COMMISSION FOR EVERY FILM YOU
HELP
TO SELL. Drop us an email for details. Emperors1000@... . So far the
film is being distributed by www.emperors-clothes.com and
www.antiwar.com .
Would you care to join us?
=======================================================================
June 30, 2000
THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE
Thomas Deichmann:CENSORSHIP IN POST-MODERN “LIBERAL DEMOCRACY”:
THE CASE OF “THE PICTURE THAT FOOLED THE WORLD”
Our regular readers will recall that just over two months ago we
published a commentary by the
British historian Michael Stenton on the use of libel laws in the UK as
a means of silencing
views at odds with the received wisdom of the ruling mainstream (Libel
and the truth: Bosnia
and “holocaust denial” – April 20). One of three cases invoked by Dr.
Stenton to illustrate the
use of libel laws as a means of muzzling free speech, and censoring
politically incorrect ideas,
concerned the lawsuit by one of Britain’s most powerful media
conglomerates – “Independent
Television News” (ITN) against the LM Magazine (formerly known as
“Living Marxism”). The
defendants had pointed out some inaccuracies in a TV report about the
Trnopolje POW camp in
Bosnia in summer 1992. LM had gone on to complain that misleading TV
pictures had helped
mislead the world about what was happening in Bosnia at the time.
Needless to say the side
with most money, once again, won the action.
While the outcome of the trial was dealt with briefly and only provided
a peg for Dr. Stenton’s general point about the threat to
the freedom of thought and expression in our time, some of our readers
have expressed an interest in the details of the case
itself. It seemed incredible that Great Britain, the world’s oldest
democracy, could allow such miscarriages of justice to get
legal sanctification. In the meantime we have received a more
comprehensive account of the now infamous LM trial from a key
figure in this complex case, German journalist Thomas Deichmann. His
1997 article “The picture that fooled the world,” in
which he exposed the ITN manipulations with images from Bosnia, caused
the controversy in the first place.--S.T.
WHY LM LOST THE LIBEL CASE
by Thomas Deichmann
The High Court in London delivered its harsh verdict on March 14th 2000.
The editor of the British magazine LM (previously
Living Marxism), its publisher Helene Guldberg and her publishing house
Informinc were found liable in defamation
proceedings after eleven days of court room proceedings. They were
ordered to pay the British news channel Independent
Television News (ITN) and two of its reporters, Penny Marshall and Ian
Williams massive damages. This comprised 75,000
pounds sterling payable to ITN and an additional 150,000 pounds payable
to each of the two reporters. The defendants were
also ordered to pay the legal fees of the claimants – an additional
300,000 pounds. The total is calculated as more than one
million dollars.
After the verdict Informinc went into liquidation, and Mick Hume and
Helene Guldberg prepared for personal bankruptcy.
Another immediate consequence was that most of LM’s Website
(www.informinc.co.uk) had to be shut down on the same
day. A few hours after the conclusion of the legal battle LM received a
letter from ITN asking when payment of the money
could be expected.
Censorship for Hire
A tragic chapter in modern media history was thus brought to an end. It
may usher in a
threatening new era. London, the Mecca of the Libel Suit, was used for
the first time by a mighty
media corporation to censor an important debate and to knock an unloved
and weaker opponent
out of the running. The arrogant behavior of ITN, represented during the
hearing by its Chief
Editor Richard Tait, and the two ITN reporters Penny Marshall and Ian
Williams, represents a
blow to every journalist. It is a warning especially to investigative
reporters whose job it is to
go against the mainstream and to help bring to light inconvenient
truths.
The publication of my article ‘The Picture that fooled the World’ in the
February 1997 edition
of LM was the catalyst which began the saga. This article had already
been printed in highly
regarded European publications and later been copied many times over. In
the article I showed
in great detail that the famous ITN-pictures of an emaciated Bosnian
Muslim behind a barbed
wire fence taken at the Bosnian Serb camp of Trnopolje in August 1992
were misleading and
fooled the world.
ITN won the case at the High Court but the victory left a foul
aftertaste – so openly did the
media giant attempt to manipulate the debate from the start. Immediately
after the verdict, ITN
set its PR-apparatus in motion in order to mislead the public anew.
Statements by both reporters
and the news channel tried to leave the uninformed viewer with the
impression that the trial jury
found that the central allegation against the ITN reporters in my LM
article of February 1997
was incorrect. The opposite is true.
ITN Reporter Behind Barbed Wire
In my 1997 article, I showed in great detail, first, that there was no
barbed wire fence
surrounding Trnopolje and the Muslims filmed there in August 1992.
Secondly, that the barbed
wire on the (in)famous ITN pictures belonged to a small agricultural
compound neighbouring the
Trnopolje camp grounds. I further explained that the British reporters
stood inside this
compound surrounded by the barbed wire fence and that from inside there
they filmed the
(in)famous pictures. Thirdly, I explained that nowhere else in Trnopolje
did any barbed wire
fence exist; and fourthly, that the conclusions drawn by politicians and
the media worldwide that
Trnopolje was a concentration camp similar to Auschwitz and
Bergen-Belsen, were wrong and
based on a very misleading image.
The first three aspects of my story were proved during the court
proceedings of the Case. In
particular, the uncut ITN tapes, the so-called ‘rushes’, were important.
This was more or less
the same material I used during my research beginning in late 1996. The
fourth point was not
dealt with during the proceedings. However, by this stage, nobody
questioned that Trnopolje
was not a Nazi-style concentration camp.
Judge Morland gave his summary the day before the end of the case and
stressed with his own
words to the jury that the reporters were surrounded by a barbed wire
fence in August 1992:
‘It is a matter for you but, having seen the rushes and the bundles of
Mr. Deichmann’s
photographs, is it not clear that before the civil war there was fencing
surrounding the area
containing the barn, the garage and the electricity transformer? That
fence was made of tall
metal posts with barbed wire strands on top, and below chicken wire,
with a gate on the east
road. Clearly Ian Williams and Penny Marshall and their TV teams were
mistaken in thinking
they were not enclosed by the old barbed wire fence.’
Facts Don’t Matter
Judge Morland elaborated at this point of his summary: ‘But does it
matter?’ By raising this
question he wished to remind the members of the jury what this libel
case was about. The
central question which the jury had to decide on was this: did the ITN
reporters in 1992
deliberately publish a misleading image. The case therefore did not
mainly consider if this
happened or not, instead it dealt first of all with the question if the
reporters publicized their
barbed wire shots with clear intent to fool the world. The Judge
formulated at the beginning of
his summation some sympathy for my investigative reporting. However, he
then defined what
this libel case was about:
‘Members of the jury, you may well think that in a democratic society it
is vital that journalists
are fearless, investigative reporters. It is, you may well think, of the
utmost importance that they
are accurate and fair reporters. It is right that one journalist, if he
considers that another
journalist has been inaccurate, unfair and misleading, should say so.
But this case, you may
think, is not about whether Penny Marshall and Ian Williams have been
inaccurate, unfair or
misleading; the nub of this case is whether the defendants have
established that Penny Marshall
and Ian Williams have deliberately – I emphasize that word
‚deliberately’ – compiled
misleading television footage.’ Nick Higham, media correspondent of the
BBC, recapitulated
these explanations of the Judge in a news commentary on the day of the
verdict in the following
manner: ‘Mr. Justice Morland told the jury LM’s facts might have been
right, but he asked, did
that matter?’
The judge’s summary finally brought to the surface the scale of dirty
tricks ITN and its reporters
had used with their libel suit against LM. They did not merely hid for
three years (that is how
long it took to come to trial) behind the repressive English libel laws
that are considered so
frightening inside media circles. ITN argued that the central libelous
connotation of my article,
an accompanying leader by Mick Hume, and a LM press release circulated
in January 1997,
was that LM made the ordinary reader believe that ITN and its reporters
with full and complete
knowledge deliberately lied to the world. Actually, I am of the opinion
that the reporters must
have known exactly what they were doing at the time. However, I did not
state this in my article.
Instead I wrote, ‘Whatever the British news team’s intentions may have
been, their pictures
were seen around the world as the first hard evidence of concentration
camps in Bosnia.’
But ITN put this point at center stage of the libel suit because their
lawyers from Biddle & Co.
knew that in this manner they could not lose the case. Their task was
made easier by the fact that
in English libel law the burden of proof lies with the defendant (a
further indication of the
absurdity of this law). LM had to prove the bad intent of the ITN
reporters in order to win the
case. Therefore the verdict did not come as a surprise to the LM-team.
Editor Mick Hume
commented: ‘We had to prove the unprovable.’
Memory Gaps
Gavin Millar, LM’s barrister, despite all this did a great job and first
worked to convince the
jury of the correctness of my explanation of where the barbed wire fence
was located. He
further exerted himself to establish that the two ITN reporters must
have known that at the time
they took the famous pictures that they were standing in the small
compound surrounded by
barbed wire.
But none of the ITN witnesses, with the exception of Penny Marshall’s
cameraman, remembered
that this was the case. Ian Williams was the first witness giving
evidence. He, for example, was
asked by Millar how he was able to reach from the fenced-in compound the
open field just to the
west of it. Williams answered he simply walked around the corner. When
he then was
confronted with the ITN rushes which clearly showed a barbed wire fence
there at the corner
and all along the Western side of the compound he then could not
remember the exact details of
his movements any more. In any event, at the end of his testimony, on
the fourth day of the
courtroom proceedings he again stated that it was a ‘lie’ that the
reporters were surrounded by
barbed wire.
But during the testimony of the next witness, only a few hours later,
Judge Morland intervened
and gave his opinion that after viewing the ITN tapes various times now,
he was convinced that
this was precisely the situation. He asked the ITN lawyer not to waste
any more time disputing
this point. The next day, Ian William’s sound man indicated a new
version of the story:
William’s team reached the open field through the barbed wire fence
somewhere further south,
possibly through a hole in the fence. This again did not show up on the
ITN tapes.
Penny Marshall also had memory gaps specifically regarding the fenced in
compound, even
though it was uncontested that she had entered it through a gap in the
barbed wire fence from the
southern side next to a small electricity transformer building and that
she had passed the barn
situated in the middle of this compound. But she could not remember that
she was surrounded by
barbed wire. Nor could she remember how she exited the fenced in
compound.
Gavin Millar, LM’s barrister, further questioned the statements of the
ITN reporters that it never
had crossed their minds in August 1992 that the (in)famous pictures of
the emaciated Muslim
taken behind barbed wire could trigger comparisons with the Holocaust.
He also raised doubts
concerning ITN’s explanation that the news reporters were not under any
pressure to come up
with a camp scoop given the widely disseminated speculative reports of
possible
‘Concentration Camps’ and ‘Death Camps’ in Northern Bosnia. Millar
succeeded numerous
times in entangling the ITN employees in contradictions – but he was
unable to establish ITN’s
deliberate manipulation – what was in their minds at the time.
Disappearing Videotapes and Witnesses
Besides memory gaps there were other obstacles with which LM had to
contend. One of these was that an important video
tape of the ITN rushes had been lost in the ITN archives. This tape
could have shown Penny Marshall continuously moving on
the compound surrounded by the barbed wire fence, and perhaps her
commenting on the situation, and exiting from there.
Only a short sequence of this tape could be seen in the courtroom having
been taken from an ITN news broadcast in August
1992. The first time the subject of the disappearing videotape came up,
ripples of surprise and speculation ran through the
courtroom. The video tape of a Bosnian-Serbian cameraman in military
uniform, which was shot on the same day in Trnopolje
as Penny Marshall filmed, could not make up for the loss of this part of
the ITN rushes. However, it did show that Marshall
interviewed at least two other men before she shook hands with the
emaciated man and talked to him through the barbed wire.
This contradicted the way the matter was presented in the ITN news and
in later interviews she gave. One of these interviewed
men, wearing a blue overall, introduced himself as Mehmet. He repeatedly
stressed when questioned by the British reporters,
that Trnopolje was not a prison but a refugee camp and he felt safe
there. This did not feature in the report.
Finally the ITN lawyers were able to make use of the repressive nature
of English libel laws in
a way, that all further witnesses for the Defense were struck out of the
case before they could
give evidence. The most prominent was John Simpson, BBC World Affairs
Editor, one of the
world’s most highly regarded reporters. Also denied the opportunity to
take the witness stand
for LM was the well known and highly respected former war correspondent
Phillip Knightley,
author of the book ‘The First Casualty’. In addition, the London Queen’s
Counsel barrister
Steven Kay was prevented from testifying. Only LM editor Mick Hume and
myself were
allowed to give evidence for the defence. For good measure, even my own
testimony was
severely reduced.
Smear Campaign
But that wasn’t all. In 1997, at the outset, ITN had charged LM with
malice on top of libel after
the publication of my article. ITN tried to prevent the distribution of
LM and demanded the
destruction of all copies of the edition. This happened one day after LM
circulated a press
release announcing my article and even before ITN even had read my
piece. Despite this ITN
claimed that my article was outrageous and untrue.
In ITN’s subsequent ‘malice’ claim LM and I were described as intending
to spread
pro-Serbian propaganda and that this intent was the real reason for the
publication of my article
in LM. As supposed proof of this charge, ITN provided an odd list of
articles appearing in LM
dealing with the Balkan War and related topics. For example it included
an excerpt from an
interview I had done with the famous Austrian novelist Peter Handke in
the Spring of 1996. I
had offered to let LM along with other publications in Europe publish
the interview.
However the malice charge invited the wildest denunciations against LM
and myself.
Impertinent lies and gossip quickly made the rounds. For example, that I
was an agent of the
Serbs and received payment from them. Even one week before the start of
the court hearings, I
received for the n-th time a telephone call from a reporter (this time
from the British paper ‘The
Guardian’) who wished to know if I was married to a Serb. Despite
repeated explanations that I
was not, and that I had no connections to the Serb authorities, and that
I supported none of the
parties involved in the Bosnian civil war, there were many such rumors –
all thanks to ITN’s
malice suit. Ed Vulliamy, the Guardian reporter who had also visited the
North Bosnian camps
along with the ITN teams in August 1992, contributed to the mood with
repeated hysterical
defamations, while ITN, Marshall and Williams kept quiet and let their
lawyers act.
Interesting enough, the malice charge was dropped when the case came to
court. ITN’s lawyer
Tom Shields let it go without a murmur because there was not the
slightest evidence for such
conspiracy theories. This made clear to me that the malice charge was
only added to the libel
suit in the first place in order to support a smear campaign against
myself and LM.
Historical Revisionism
ITN’s QC barrister Tom Shields stressed during the trial the miserable
conditions in Trnopolje
in summer 1992. To prove this the Plaintiffs brought as a witness a
Muslim doctor who under
the guard of Bosnian Serb authorities cared for the camp’s inmates and
locals in 1992. At the
time he was also interviewed by Penny Marshall and gave her a camera
with an undeveloped
film. The photos on it where published in August 1992 in some British
papers. They showed
Bosnian Muslims who had been beaten by Serbian guards. The doctor
described on the witness
stand how he met the ITN teams in summer 1992, and confirmed the stories
of the rape and
assault of defenseless civilians in Trnopolje – stories which I and LM
have never disputed, and
in fact reported in my article. His very short testimony was of cause
moving, but my impression
was that he was only invited to give evidence for ITN to score moral
points for the Plaintiffs.
LM barrister Millar declined to cross examine the doctor.
Tom Shields for ITN used the testimony of the doctor to give the utterly
false impression that I
wished to excuse those who were guilty of evil acts in Trnopolje and
elsewhere. The ITN
lawyer further exerted himself to question my description of Trnopolje
as a refugee and transit
camp in which many Muslims sought safety from the bloody civil war going
on around them.
During my testimony it became clear that Shields, despite his hectoring
me with morally laden
catch-phrases, didn’t have the slightest idea what had happened during
the Bosnian civil war.
Trnopolje was surely a chaotic and awful place, but it was also surely
not a detention camp or
prison and most surely it was not a concentration camp comparable with
Auschwitz or
Bergen-Belsen as suggested by the famous ITN shots with the barbed wire.
The single positive feature of the proceedings in the High Court in
London was that they finally
proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither Trnopolje camp nor the
filmed Bosnian
Muslims were surrounded by a barbed wire fence as suggested by ITN’s
shots. Rather, it was
the journalists who were surrounded by barbed wire as my article ‘The
picture that fooled the
world’ had shown.
But on the other hand, the verdict spelled the end of LM and now hangs
like a sword of
Damocles over every English journalist. LM, an opinionated magazine with
intelligent articles
contrary to the Zeitgeist, was brought to ruin. One can only hope that
other media organizations
and journalists will not follow ITN’s example but instead follow the
example of publications
like LM and its creators.
Thomas Deichmann, 37, is a freelance journalist and author and editor of
the bimonthly German magazine Novo.
Further information on the libel case including the original article in
German language is available on
http://www.novo-magazin.de/itn-vs-lm Deichmann’s article ‘The picture
that fooled the world’ was reprinted in the
U.S. in Ramsey Clark et al: ‘NATO in the Balkans. Voices of Opposition’,
International Action Centre, New York
1998. An analytical piece on the same story with the title
‘Misinformation: TV Coverage of a Bosnian Camp’
appeared in CovertAction Quarterly, Fall 1998. Deichmann’s study of Roy
Gutman’s war reporting recently appeared
in the US under the title ‘The Pulitzer Price and Croatian Propaganda’
in ‘War Lies & Videotape. How Media
Monopoly stifles truth’, International Action Centre, New York 2000. You
may call Thomas Deichmann in Frankfurt
at +49 69 722271; send him a fax at 720913; or send him an e-mail at
Thomas.Deichmann@...
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------