What do you think?
Rate this book
Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting
Paul Joseph Goebbels, Third Reich Minister of Propagands said in 1942: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Blacklisted from gainful employment in a field in which he excelled for 30 years, and muzzled by mainstream media for daring to expose the truth, Peter Brock's Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting is now in its second edition.
This book is written about more than 30 foreign correspondants who lied, manipulated, omitted and fabricated their stories about the Civil Wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. In essence they deceived the world, yet most people today still believe that "350,000" were killed, according to President Clinton's last inaugural address. By the time this book was published in 2005, it was a well known fact that less than 90,000 were killed on all sides according to the ICRC and most human rights organizations, but the media continues to remain silent and still resort to repeating the 300,000 figure as though this were true.
The "Breadline Massacre" attributed to the Serbs and used to place sanctions on Serbia has turned out to be the war crimes of Bopsnian Muslims who were willing to slaughter their own people with Claymore mines placed under the food tables in this Sarajevo market, in order to gain internaitonal sympathy.
The stories of "60,000 Bosnia rape victims," was another hoax perpetrated on the ignorant world much like the hoax that "Durbovnik was destroyed" according to Anthony Lewis of the New York Times who repeated this hideous lie numerous times when the truth was know that the Croats burned old auto tires through out the walled city, then had the area photographed with telephoto lenses to look like Dubrovnik was burning... NO IT WAS ONLY SMOKING. But those lies did not stop and images of destroyed parts of Dubrovnik were sent throughout the world's media by the mayor of Dubrovnik. Those photographs turned out to be images of bombed Vukovar several years earlier.
David Binder, former Foreign Correspondent in the Balkans for the New York Times wrote the foreword for this book, knowing full well that he would be going against his former employer and exposing their omission, if not, their dishonest reporting. Here is what Binder says about Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting:
"Throbbing like a muffled drumbeat throughout this book is the contention that in the Balkan conflicts the media served as a co-belligerent clearly taking one side media travesties catalogued here involve such past notables of The New York Times as correspondent, Roger Cohen, and columnists William Safire and Anthony Lewis. Brock also nails the late Peter Jennings of ABC News, Tom Gjelten of National Public Radio, Christiane Amanpour of CNN, Christian Science Monitor s David Rohde and Mary Battiata of The Washington Post."
- GenresNonfictionHistory
Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
3 people are currently reading
28 people want to read
About the author
Peter Brock
85 books5 followersA specialist in the history of pacificsm and Eastern Europe, Peter Brock studied at Exeter College, Oxford, where he came under the influence of pacifist ideas, particularly those of Bart de Ligt. During the Second World War, he declared as a conscientious objector and was briefly imprisoned before spending the remainder of the war on alternative service.
After the war, Brock worked with a Quaker relief mission to Germany and Poland, sparking his interest in Eastern Europe. After the mission ended, Brock took graduate study at Jagiellonian University, receiving a doctorate in history in 1950. He earned a second doctorate at Oxford in 1954 and subsequently emigrated to Canada, where he taught at the University of Toronto from 1966 until his retirement.
After the war, Brock worked with a Quaker relief mission to Germany and Poland, sparking his interest in Eastern Europe. After the mission ended, Brock took graduate study at Jagiellonian University, receiving a doctorate in history in 1950. He earned a second doctorate at Oxford in 1954 and subsequently emigrated to Canada, where he taught at the University of Toronto from 1966 until his retirement.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 18, 2024
Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting' should be a required text, or at least part of it, for students doing media studies. For the first victim of war was the truth. In the Balkan war the first victim was indeed the truth. What proceeded was a host of propaganda from many sides. The Bosnian Ministry of Health became the Ministry of propaganda. The Bosnian PM even stated that 70,000 people were killed in the town of Bihac when only five were found dead. Journalists often sourced their stories of the day not from the field, but directly from the Bosnian government. Peter Brock called the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo as the defacto PR annex. Indeed, he reckoned that up to forty percent of all news content came from public relation press releases.
In the Western media, it perceived Serbia as the people that were the main root of war in what was known as Yugoslavia. They were perceived as people from the East and as such they were seen as primitive communists. While the Croats were, on the other hand, seen as the more developed, wealthier and more advanced civilisation. "Croats, Slovenes, and Bosnia abandoned the Yugoslavian federation to avoid Serb domination". Serbia occupied land that belonged to Croats and Muslims. It was Serbia that committed atrocities. It was Serbia that committed mass rapes on Muslim women. It was Serbia that had snipers who shot at children. It was Serbia, Serbia, Serbia!
Yet, in this multi-dimensional war, the Western media reported only two sides of the equation. The 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' and Washington had decided who that was going to be. It was not going to be Serbia. Yet, there were many sides at play in this terrible war. There were many antagonists and there were many groups of people that suffered from others. For, when the former Yugoslavia did exist, it included six republics and two independent states that made up the federation. In Bosnia, for example, there were not only Bosnians, of course living there, but there was also Bosnian muslims and even Bosnian Serbs all living side by side one another. So to simply divide the war into just two sides, the good guys and the bad guys, is to reduce the Balkan war down to an incredible simplistic concept; It is intellectually confronting and too basic even to garner comment. Indeed, between 1991 - 2001, there were two major wars (in Bosnia and in Kosovo) and at least four more civil wars and insurgencies that broke out which torn apart what was once the land known as Yugoslavia.
It was one of the great failures of Western media to accurately cover the fracturing and the terrible break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's. The Western media was biased, overly simplistic, it misunderstood certain situations and on many occasions it was just simply got wrong on what was reported in the Balkan War. It is important to stand up and say that the Western media is no longer the guardian of truth, but rather it can be seen to pro port more the ideas and values of the Establishments of the White House and London in newspapers, radio and, of course, on TV. It didn't stop with the Balkan War, but has continued to be seen from the reporting of Iraqi Wars, in Afghanistan, the little known proxy war in Syria and now with the current proxy war in the Ukraine and the conflict in the Gaza.
The fore-mentioned wars all had the backing of the White House and London and the Western media have all been to happy to pro-port their ideas. The media's role in the present student riots in the US (May 2024), for example, is to distract the public from the genocide that Israel is doing upon the Palestinian people ~ making themselves complicit ~ and instead have some sort of public outrage against the students for standing up for the Palestinian's. Where is the balanced journalism of at least showing two sides to the argument. Clearly Israel is getting a 'get out of jail' card from the Western media because how can the killing of up to 40,000 people (including at least 15,000 children) be ever justified?
"if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to be believe it". Goebbels, Third Reich, Ministry of Propaganda. (1942).
In the Western media, it perceived Serbia as the people that were the main root of war in what was known as Yugoslavia. They were perceived as people from the East and as such they were seen as primitive communists. While the Croats were, on the other hand, seen as the more developed, wealthier and more advanced civilisation. "Croats, Slovenes, and Bosnia abandoned the Yugoslavian federation to avoid Serb domination". Serbia occupied land that belonged to Croats and Muslims. It was Serbia that committed atrocities. It was Serbia that committed mass rapes on Muslim women. It was Serbia that had snipers who shot at children. It was Serbia, Serbia, Serbia!
Yet, in this multi-dimensional war, the Western media reported only two sides of the equation. The 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' and Washington had decided who that was going to be. It was not going to be Serbia. Yet, there were many sides at play in this terrible war. There were many antagonists and there were many groups of people that suffered from others. For, when the former Yugoslavia did exist, it included six republics and two independent states that made up the federation. In Bosnia, for example, there were not only Bosnians, of course living there, but there was also Bosnian muslims and even Bosnian Serbs all living side by side one another. So to simply divide the war into just two sides, the good guys and the bad guys, is to reduce the Balkan war down to an incredible simplistic concept; It is intellectually confronting and too basic even to garner comment. Indeed, between 1991 - 2001, there were two major wars (in Bosnia and in Kosovo) and at least four more civil wars and insurgencies that broke out which torn apart what was once the land known as Yugoslavia.
It was one of the great failures of Western media to accurately cover the fracturing and the terrible break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's. The Western media was biased, overly simplistic, it misunderstood certain situations and on many occasions it was just simply got wrong on what was reported in the Balkan War. It is important to stand up and say that the Western media is no longer the guardian of truth, but rather it can be seen to pro port more the ideas and values of the Establishments of the White House and London in newspapers, radio and, of course, on TV. It didn't stop with the Balkan War, but has continued to be seen from the reporting of Iraqi Wars, in Afghanistan, the little known proxy war in Syria and now with the current proxy war in the Ukraine and the conflict in the Gaza.
The fore-mentioned wars all had the backing of the White House and London and the Western media have all been to happy to pro-port their ideas. The media's role in the present student riots in the US (May 2024), for example, is to distract the public from the genocide that Israel is doing upon the Palestinian people ~ making themselves complicit ~ and instead have some sort of public outrage against the students for standing up for the Palestinian's. Where is the balanced journalism of at least showing two sides to the argument. Clearly Israel is getting a 'get out of jail' card from the Western media because how can the killing of up to 40,000 people (including at least 15,000 children) be ever justified?
"if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to be believe it". Goebbels, Third Reich, Ministry of Propaganda. (1942).
May 18, 2024
Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting' should be a required text, or at least part of it, for students doing media studies. For the first victim of war was the truth. In the Balkan war the first victim was indeed the truth. What proceeded was a host of propaganda from many sides. The Bosnian Ministry of Health became the Ministry of propaganda. The Bosnian PM even stated that 70,000 people were killed in the town of Bihac when only five were found dead. Journalists often sourced their stories of the day not from the field, but directly from the Bosnian government. Peter Brock called the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo as the defacto PR annex. Indeed, he reckoned that up to forty percent of all news content came from public relation press releases.
In the Western media, it perceived Serbia as the people that were the main root of war in what was known as Yugoslavia. They were perceived as people from the East and as such they were seen as primitive communists. While the Croats were, on the other hand, seen as the more developed, wealthier and more advanced civilisation. "Croats, Slovenes, and Bosnia abandoned the Yugoslavian federation to avoid Serb domination". Serbia occupied land that belonged to Croats and Muslims. It was Serbia that committed atrocities. It was Serbia that committed mass rapes on Muslim women. It was Serbia that had snipers who shot at children. It was Serbia, Serbia, Serbia!
Yet, in this multi-dimensional war, the Western media reported only two sides of the equation. The 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' and Washington had decided who that was going to be. It was not going to be Serbia. Yet, there were many sides at play in this terrible war. There were many antagonists and there were many groups of people that suffered from others. For, when the former Yugoslavia did exist, it included six republics and two independent states that made up the federation. In Bosnia, for example, there were not only Bosnians, of course living there, but there was also Bosnian muslims and even Bosnian Serbs all living side by side one another. So to simply divide the war into just two sides, the good guys and the bad guys, is to reduce the Balkan war down to an incredible simplistic concept; It is intellectually confronting and too basic even to garner comment. Indeed, between 1991 - 2001, there were two major wars (in Bosnia and in Kosovo) and at least four more civil wars and insurgencies that broke out which torn apart what was once the land known as Yugoslavia.
It was one of the great failures of Western media to accurately cover the fracturing and the terrible break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's. The Western media was biased, overly simplistic, it misunderstood certain situations and on many occasions it was just simply got wrong on what was reported in the Balkan War. It is important to stand up and say that the Western media is no longer the guardian of truth, but rather it can be seen to pro port more the ideas and values of the Establishments of the White House and London in newspapers, radio and, of course, on TV. It didn't stop with the Balkan War, but has continued to be seen from the reporting of Iraqi Wars, in Afghanistan, the little known proxy war in Syria and now with the current proxy war in the Ukraine and the conflict in the Gaza.
The fore-mentioned wars all had the backing of the White House and London and the Western media have all been to happy to pro-port their ideas. The media's role in the present student riots in the US (May 2024), for example, is to distract the public from the genocide that Israel is doing upon the Palestinian people ~ making themselves complicit ~ and instead have some sort of public outrage against the students for standing up for the Palestinian's. Where is the balanced journalism of at least showing two sides to the argument. Clearly Israel is getting a 'get out of jail' card from the Western media because how can the killing of up to 40,000 people (including at least 15,000 children) be ever justified?
"if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to be believe it". Goebbels, Third Reich, Ministry of Propaganda. (1942).
In the Western media, it perceived Serbia as the people that were the main root of war in what was known as Yugoslavia. They were perceived as people from the East and as such they were seen as primitive communists. While the Croats were, on the other hand, seen as the more developed, wealthier and more advanced civilisation. "Croats, Slovenes, and Bosnia abandoned the Yugoslavian federation to avoid Serb domination". Serbia occupied land that belonged to Croats and Muslims. It was Serbia that committed atrocities. It was Serbia that committed mass rapes on Muslim women. It was Serbia that had snipers who shot at children. It was Serbia, Serbia, Serbia!
Yet, in this multi-dimensional war, the Western media reported only two sides of the equation. The 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' and Washington had decided who that was going to be. It was not going to be Serbia. Yet, there were many sides at play in this terrible war. There were many antagonists and there were many groups of people that suffered from others. For, when the former Yugoslavia did exist, it included six republics and two independent states that made up the federation. In Bosnia, for example, there were not only Bosnians, of course living there, but there was also Bosnian muslims and even Bosnian Serbs all living side by side one another. So to simply divide the war into just two sides, the good guys and the bad guys, is to reduce the Balkan war down to an incredible simplistic concept; It is intellectually confronting and too basic even to garner comment. Indeed, between 1991 - 2001, there were two major wars (in Bosnia and in Kosovo) and at least four more civil wars and insurgencies that broke out which torn apart what was once the land known as Yugoslavia.
It was one of the great failures of Western media to accurately cover the fracturing and the terrible break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's. The Western media was biased, overly simplistic, it misunderstood certain situations and on many occasions it was just simply got wrong on what was reported in the Balkan War. It is important to stand up and say that the Western media is no longer the guardian of truth, but rather it can be seen to pro port more the ideas and values of the Establishments of the White House and London in newspapers, radio and, of course, on TV. It didn't stop with the Balkan War, but has continued to be seen from the reporting of Iraqi Wars, in Afghanistan, the little known proxy war in Syria and now with the current proxy war in the Ukraine and the conflict in the Gaza.
The fore-mentioned wars all had the backing of the White House and London and the Western media have all been to happy to pro-port their ideas. The media's role in the present student riots in the US (May 2024), for example, is to distract the public from the genocide that Israel is doing upon the Palestinian people ~ making themselves complicit ~ and instead have some sort of public outrage against the students for standing up for the Palestinian's. Where is the balanced journalism of at least showing two sides to the argument. Clearly Israel is getting a 'get out of jail' card from the Western media because how can the killing of up to 40,000 people (including at least 15,000 children) be ever justified?
"if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to be believe it". Goebbels, Third Reich, Ministry of Propaganda. (1942).
May 18, 2024
Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting' should be a required text, or at least part of it, for students doing media studies. For the first victim of war was the truth. In the Balkan war the first victim was indeed the truth. What proceeded was a host of propaganda from many sides. The Bosnian Ministry of Health became the Ministry of propaganda. The Bosnian PM even stated that 70,000 people were killed in the town of Bihac when only five were found dead. Journalists often sourced their stories of the day not from the field, but directly from the Bosnian government. Peter Brock called the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo as the defacto PR annex. Indeed, he reckoned that up to forty percent of all news content came from public relation press releases.
In the Western media, it perceived Serbia as the people that were the main root of war in what was known as Yugoslavia. They were perceived as people from the East and as such they were seen as primitive communists. While the Croats were, on the other hand, seen as the more developed, wealthier and more advanced civilisation. "Croats, Slovenes, and Bosnia abandoned the Yugoslavian federation to avoid Serb domination". Serbia occupied land that belonged to Croats and Muslims. It was Serbia that committed atrocities. It was Serbia that committed mass rapes on Muslim women. It was Serbia that had snipers who shot at children. It was Serbia, Serbia, Serbia!
Yet, in this multi-dimensional war, the Western media reported only two sides of the equation. The 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' and Washington had decided who that was going to be. It was not going to be Serbia. Yet, there were many sides at play in this terrible war. There were many antagonists and there were many groups of people that suffered from others. For, when the former Yugoslavia did exist, it included six republics and two independent states that made up the federation. In Bosnia, for example, there were not only Bosnians, of course living there, but there was also Bosnian muslims and even Bosnian Serbs all living side by side one another. So to simply divide the war into just two sides, the good guys and the bad guys, is to reduce the Balkan war down to an incredible simplistic concept; It is intellectually confronting and too basic even to garner comment. Indeed, between 1991 - 2001, there were two major wars (in Bosnia and in Kosovo) and at least four more civil wars and insurgencies that broke out which torn apart what was once the land known as Yugoslavia.
It was one of the great failures of Western media to accurately cover the fracturing and the terrible break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's. The Western media was biased, overly simplistic, it misunderstood certain situations and on many occasions it was just simply got wrong on what was reported in the Balkan War. It is important to stand up and say that the Western media is no longer the guardian of truth, but rather it can be seen to pro port more the ideas and values of the Establishments of the White House and London in newspapers, radio and, of course, on TV. It didn't stop with the Balkan War, but has continued to be seen from the reporting of Iraqi Wars, in Afghanistan, the little known proxy war in Syria and now with the current proxy war in the Ukraine and the conflict in the Gaza.
The fore-mentioned wars all had the backing of the White House and London and the Western media have all been to happy to pro-port their ideas. The media's role in the present student riots in the US (May 2024), for example, is to distract the public from the genocide that Israel is doing upon the Palestinian people ~ making themselves complicit ~ and instead have some sort of public outrage against the students for standing up for the Palestinian's. Where is the balanced journalism of at least showing two sides to the argument. Clearly Israel is getting a 'get out of jail' card from the Western media because how can the killing of up to 40,000 people (including at least 15,000 children) be ever justified?
"if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to be believe it". Goebbels, Third Reich, Ministry of Propaganda. (1942).
In the Western media, it perceived Serbia as the people that were the main root of war in what was known as Yugoslavia. They were perceived as people from the East and as such they were seen as primitive communists. While the Croats were, on the other hand, seen as the more developed, wealthier and more advanced civilisation. "Croats, Slovenes, and Bosnia abandoned the Yugoslavian federation to avoid Serb domination". Serbia occupied land that belonged to Croats and Muslims. It was Serbia that committed atrocities. It was Serbia that committed mass rapes on Muslim women. It was Serbia that had snipers who shot at children. It was Serbia, Serbia, Serbia!
Yet, in this multi-dimensional war, the Western media reported only two sides of the equation. The 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' and Washington had decided who that was going to be. It was not going to be Serbia. Yet, there were many sides at play in this terrible war. There were many antagonists and there were many groups of people that suffered from others. For, when the former Yugoslavia did exist, it included six republics and two independent states that made up the federation. In Bosnia, for example, there were not only Bosnians, of course living there, but there was also Bosnian muslims and even Bosnian Serbs all living side by side one another. So to simply divide the war into just two sides, the good guys and the bad guys, is to reduce the Balkan war down to an incredible simplistic concept; It is intellectually confronting and too basic even to garner comment. Indeed, between 1991 - 2001, there were two major wars (in Bosnia and in Kosovo) and at least four more civil wars and insurgencies that broke out which torn apart what was once the land known as Yugoslavia.
It was one of the great failures of Western media to accurately cover the fracturing and the terrible break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990's. The Western media was biased, overly simplistic, it misunderstood certain situations and on many occasions it was just simply got wrong on what was reported in the Balkan War. It is important to stand up and say that the Western media is no longer the guardian of truth, but rather it can be seen to pro port more the ideas and values of the Establishments of the White House and London in newspapers, radio and, of course, on TV. It didn't stop with the Balkan War, but has continued to be seen from the reporting of Iraqi Wars, in Afghanistan, the little known proxy war in Syria and now with the current proxy war in the Ukraine and the conflict in the Gaza.
The fore-mentioned wars all had the backing of the White House and London and the Western media have all been to happy to pro-port their ideas. The media's role in the present student riots in the US (May 2024), for example, is to distract the public from the genocide that Israel is doing upon the Palestinian people ~ making themselves complicit ~ and instead have some sort of public outrage against the students for standing up for the Palestinian's. Where is the balanced journalism of at least showing two sides to the argument. Clearly Israel is getting a 'get out of jail' card from the Western media because how can the killing of up to 40,000 people (including at least 15,000 children) be ever justified?
"if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to be believe it". Goebbels, Third Reich, Ministry of Propaganda. (1942).
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews