For most of its 110 pages the review’s mental contortions explain why “defending” Australia is going to have to look a whole lot like preparing to pick a fight with an Asian nation thousands of kilometers away, writes Caitlin Johnstone.
Journalist, author and filmmaker John Pilger, who has spent decades studying governments’ nefariousness, tells Katie Halper how to spot propaganda.
The British public is being misinformed about the U.K. government’s role in shaping coverage of global events such as the war in Ukraine, John McEvoy and Mark Curtis report.
Thirty named journalists at three major papers are covering “bombshell” revelations about Russian cyberattacks in a manner worth examining.
Among the latest pieces of unforgivable militarist smut is an article that frames Washington’s military encirclement of China as a defensive move by the U.S., writes Caitlin Johnstone.
The facts are in and the case is closed: U.S. unipolar hegemony is unsustainable. The problem is that the U.S. empire itself does not know this.
Of all the appalling revisionist war-crime apologia spewed during the 20th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the worst is an article in National Review by the genocide walrus himself.
The veteran investigative journalist writes that Biden administration officials have been feeding the press false stories to “protect a president who made an unwise decision and is now lying about it.”
There’s a reason the Australian corporate media is trumpeting the views of a few China hawks. If the rulers don’t make sure the public is propagandized they could have a revolution on their hands.
The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age just produced an immense example of conflict-of-interest journalism. A former prime minister called it “the most egregious and provocative news presentation” he had ever witnessed in over 50 years of public life.