Our Controlled Media
75% of mainstream media owned or
controlled by jews.
Our major news outlets are on a
chronic anti-Christian campaign.
Half of Americans believe our media
is "biased and inaccurate".
To mediots: Lenin
was a Christian and Stalin was a jew.
Mediots adhere to Talmudic principles rather than Christian principles.
about who was behind 9-11!
From The Guardian [UK], Monday,
August 29, 2011.
. Our thanks to Walter Jaehnig, SIUC retired, for
bringing this piece to our attention.
Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist
Academic publishers charge vast fees to access
research paid for by us. Down with the knowledge
By George Monblot
Who are the most ruthless capitalists in the
western world? Whose monopolistic practices make
Walmart look like a corner shop and Rupert
Murdoch a socialist? You won't guess the answer
in a month of Sundays. While there are plenty of
candidates, my vote goes not to the banks, the
oil companies or the health insurers, but - wait
for it - to academic publishers. Theirs might
sound like a fusty and insignificant sector. It
is anything but. Of all corporate scams, the
racket they run is most urgently in need of
referral to the competition authorities.
Everyone claims to agree that people should be
encouraged to understand science and other
academic research. Without current knowledge, we
cannot make coherent democratic decisions. But
the publishers have slapped a padlock and a "keep
out" sign on the gates.
You might resent Murdoch's paywall policy, in
which he charges �1 for 24 hours of access to the
Times and Sunday Times. But at least in that
period you can read and download as many articles
as you like. Reading a single article published
by one of Elsevier's journals will cost you
$31.50. Springer charges �34.95, Wiley-Blackwell,
$42. Read 10 and you pay 10 times. And the
journals retain perpetual copyright. You want to
read a letter printed in 1981? That'll be $31.50.
Of course, you could go into the library (if it
still exists). But they too have been hit by
cosmic fees. The average cost of an annual
subscription to a chemistry journal is $3,792.
Some journals cost $10,000 a year or more to
stock. The most expensive I've seen, Elsevier's
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, is $20,930. Though
academic libraries have been frantically cutting
subscriptions to make ends meet, journals now
consume 65% of their budgets, which means they
have had to reduce the number of books they buy.
Journal fees account for a significant component
of universities' costs, which are being passed to
Murdoch pays his journalists and editors, and his
companies generate much of the content they use.
But the academic publishers get their articles,
their peer reviewing (vetting by other
researchers) and even much of their editing for
free. The material they publish was commissioned
and funded not by them but by us, through
government research grants and academic stipends.
But to see it, we must pay again, and through the
The returns are astronomical: in the past
financial year, for example, Elsevier's operating
profit margin was 36% (�724m on revenues of
�2bn). They result from a stranglehold on the
market. Elsevier, Springer and Wiley, who have
bought up many of their competitors, now publish
42% of journal articles.
More importantly, universities are locked into
buying their products. Academic papers are
published in only one place, and they have to be
read by researchers trying to keep up with their
subject. Demand is inelastic and competition
non-existent, because different journals can't
publish the same material. In many cases the
publishers oblige the libraries to buy a large
package of journals, whether or not they want
them all. Perhaps it's not surprising that one of
the biggest crooks ever to have preyed upon the
people of this country - Robert Maxwell - made
much of his money through academic publishing.
The publishers claim that they have to charge
these fees as a result of the costs of production
and distribution, and that they add value (in
Springer's words) because they "develop journal
brands and maintain and improve the digital
infrastructure which has revolutionised
scientific communication in the past 15 years".
But an analysis by Deutsche Bank reaches
different conclusions. "We believe the publisher
adds relatively little value to the publishing
process � if the process really were as complex,
costly and value-added as the publishers protest
that it is, 40% margins wouldn't be available."
Far from assisting the dissemination of research,
the big publishers impede it, as their long
turnaround times can delay the release of
findings by a year or more.
What we see here is pure rentier capitalism:
monopolising a public resource then charging
exorbitant fees to use it. Another term for it is
economic parasitism. To obtain the knowledge for
which we have already paid, we must surrender our
feu to the lairds of learning.
It's bad enough for academics, it's worse for the
laity. I refer readers to peer-reviewed papers,
on the principle that claims should be followed
to their sources. The readers tell me that they
can't afford to judge for themselves whether or
not I have represented the research fairly.
Independent researchers who try to inform
themselves about important scientific issues have
to fork out thousands. This is a tax on
education, a stifling of the public mind. It
appears to contravene the universal declaration
of human rights, which says that "everyone has
the right freely to � share in scientific
advancement and its benefits".
Open-access publishing, despite its promise, and
some excellent resources such as the Public
Library of Science and the physics database
arxiv.org, has failed to displace the
monopolists. In 1998 the Economist, surveying the
opportunities offered by electronic publishing,
predicted that "the days of 40% profit margins
may soon be as dead as Robert Maxwell". But in
2010 Elsevier's operating profit margins were the
same (36%) as they were in 1998.
The reason is that the big publishers have
rounded up the journals with the highest academic
impact factors, in which publication is essential
for researchers trying to secure grants and
advance their careers. You can start reading
open-access journals, but you can't stop reading
the closed ones.
Government bodies, with a few exceptions, have
failed to confront them. The National Institutes
of Health in the US oblige anyone taking their
grants to put their papers in an open-access
archive. But Research Councils UK, whose
statement on public access is a masterpiece of
meaningless waffle, relies on "the assumption
that publishers will maintain the spirit of their
current policies". You bet they will.
In the short term, governments should refer the
academic publishers to their competition
watchdogs, and insist that all papers arising
from publicly funded research are placed in a
free public database. In the longer term, they
should work with researchers to cut out the
middleman altogether, creating - along the lines
proposed by Bj�rn Brembs of Berlin's Freie
Universit�t - a single global archive of academic
literature and data. Peer-review would be
overseen by an independent body. It could be
funded by the library budgets which are currently
being diverted into the hands of privateers.
The knowledge monopoly is as unwarranted and
anachronistic as the corn laws. Let's throw off
these parasitic overlords and liberate the
research that belongs to us.
PHOTO SIDEBAR: 'Though academic libraries have
been frantically cutting subscriptions to make
ends meet, journals now consume 65% of their
budgets.' Photograph: Peter M Fisher/Corbis
* A fully referenced version of this article can
be found on George Monbiot's website -- see
http://www.monbiot.com/. On Twitter,
DRUDGE REPORT FRI NOV 30 2001 15:21:37 ET
CBS NEWS VETERAN CALLED 'TRAITOR'; WRITES BOOK EXPOSING ELITE BIAS
In the first defection of its kind, a 28-year veteran of CBS NEWS has written a
tell-all book which names names and exposes elite media bias and slanted coverage of
The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained the first copy of BIAS, A CBS INSIDER EXPOSES HOW THE
MEDIA DISTORT THE NEWS -- an explosive new work by CBS NEWS veteran Bernard Goldberg.
The book set for release in January, presents an unprecedented blueprint of media bias
as documented by an insider.
"Bernie Goldberg is a G-ddamn traitor," a CBS NEWS executive said late
Friday. "The book is trash written by a bitter man who is now determined to settle a
Writing that he's never voted for a Republican for elected office, Goldberg exposes the
bias he witnessed first hand during the nearly three decades he spent at the network.
Goldberg zeros in on CBS NEWS anchor Dan Rather and current CBS NEWS President Andrew
Heyward, who is quoted as saying: "Look Bernie, of course there's a liberal bias in
the news. All the networks tilt left."
The book's pending release has caused a desperate scramble among media players trying
to learn its content.
WASHINGTON POST media critic Howard Kurtz is preparing a summary based on transcripts
for Monday runs.
Expanding on a pair of op-ed columns penned for the WALL STREET JOURNAL, Goldberg goes
223 pages on his personal war story from the newsroom battlefront.
Anchorman Rather is described as being in a state of "fury" at Goldberg's
Half in Poll Say Media Biased and Inaccurate
80% say censorship of war news is a "good idea." But press' standing with the
public improves in other areas.
Almost half the people in America think the news media are generally inaccurate and
politically biased, according to a poll released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for
the People and the Press. Slightly more than half of those polled said the media try to
cover up their mistakes and get in the way of society solving its problems.
Only 35% of the respondents said the media are careful not to be biased, willing to admit
their mistakes and help society solve its problems.
The 1,500 adults polled in the nationwide telephone survey conducted Nov. 13 to 19 were
almost evenly split over whether news organizations "usually get the facts
Overall, Americans remain deeply divided over how good a job the news media are doing
these days--and what they should be allowed to do--especially in covering the war in
Afghanistan and terrorism in the United States.
The Pew poll showed that Americans continue to support the military, for example, in any
dispute over what should be published or broadcast. Eighty percent said censorship of news
from Afghanistan is a "good idea"--similar to the numbers recorded during the
Gulf War--and 62% gave the same answer about news on anthrax.
Asked which is more important--the government's ability to censor any news it believes is
"a threat to national security" or the media's ability to report news they
believe is "in the national interest"--respondents favored the government 53% to
39%. Asked whether the military should have more control over the media or whether the
media should decide how to report, they again sided with the military, by a margin of 50%
But previous polls have shown a larger margin favoring military control--generally by a
2-1 ratio--and the media's standing with the public also improved in other areas. Indeed,
69% of the respondents said the news media "stand up for America"--an increase
from 43% in early September, before the terrorist attacks--and 60% said the media
"protect democracy." Only 17% said the media are "too critical of
America"; 19% said the media "hurt democracy."
The number who say the media care about people has doubled, from 23% to 47%, since early
September, and the number who say the media are moral has increased from 40% to 53%.
When asked specifically in the current Pew poll about the quality of media coverage of
terrorism, 77% of the respondents answered favorably; 30% said it was excellent and 47%
said it was good. In mid-September, a few days after the terrorist attacks, the favorable
rating was 89%, with 56% saying coverage was excellent and 33% saying it was good.
Americans clearly want news, not propaganda. More than twice as many respondents said the
media should be neutral rather than "pro-American," and 73% said the media
should "show all points of view," rather than the 20% who said they should be
"pro-American." By a much smaller margin, they said journalists should "dig
hard to get all the facts" (52%), rather than just "trust officials" (40%)
to tell them the truth.
Respondents also said, by a 54% to 32% margin, that media criticism of political leaders
prevents wrongdoing rather than keeping the officials from doing their jobs. That margin
was greater in earlier surveys, though--67% to 17% in June 1985--and public opinion on
most of these questions is clearly volatile. In every case where the same questions were
asked in previous Pew surveys, the media fared very well in the mid-1980s, declined
sharply in February 1999 and early September of this year and rebounded in the current
survey, though not to the same levels as in the mid-1980s.
In October 1985, for example, those who said the news media usually get the facts straight
outnumbered those who said reporting is usually inaccurate by a 55% to 34% margin. By
February 1999, those numbers were almost exactly the opposite--58% to 37% saying the media
are usually inaccurate. The current 46% accuracy rating is the highest for the news media
since 1992. On war coverage in particular, 65% of respondents said it has been accurate,
compared with 17% who said the media have made too many mistakes.
As has been true in other polls over the years, conservatives tend to be more critical of
the media and more supportive of government censorship, while liberals tend to be more
supportive of the media and more critical of the government.
Among Republicans, 61% say the media are biased; among Democrats, the figure is 42%.
Among conservative Republicans, 89% said the government withholds information to
"protect troops and public safety"; only 57% of liberal Democrats agreed. But
32% of liberal Democrats said the government withholds information to "maintain
political support," while only 8% of conservative Republicans agreed.
There are gender and education differences, as well as ideological differences, in
Americans' perceptions of the news media. Women and high school graduates are more likely
than men and college graduates to say the media "stand up for America," for
By and large, people who say they follow the news closely tend to regard the news media
more highly than do those who aren't especially attentive to the news. Overall, two-thirds
of the people said they are now more interested in the news than they were before Sept.
Cable television remained the major news source on terrorism for most Americans--53%,
compared to 34% for newspapers, 19% for radio, 18% for local TV news, 17% for network TV
and 13% for the Internet, according to the survey. But 44% said they get at least some
news about issues related to terrorism from talk radio.