<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><A
href="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=5614">http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=5614</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><!--StartFragment --> <TR><TD align="center">
<P><B><FONT face=Times color=#cc3300 size=6 roman,times,serif="" new="">Media
Alternatives - Part 1</FONT></B> <BR></TD></TR><TR><TD align="center"
valign="top"><B><FONT face=Arial color=#cc3300 size=4>by David
Edwards</FONT></B> <BR><FONT face=Arial color=#4c4c4c size=2><B>May 28,
2004</B></FONT> </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<TABLE cellSpacing=8 align=right border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top rowSpan=2><A href="http://www.zmag.org/"><IMG
height=74
src="http://www.zmag.org/content/images/znet_mast_small_1.gif"
width=43 border=0></A> </TD>
<TD vAlign=top><A href="http://www.zmag.org/"><IMG height=59
src="http://www.zmag.org/content/images/znet_mast_small_2.gif"
border=0></A> </TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top><FONT face=Arial size=1><A
href="http://www.zmag.org/watching_mainstream_media.htm">MAINSTREAM
MEDIA </A></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>On February 4,
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger emailed us the following
challenge:</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>"Dear
David,</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>I continue to be
very pressed. You make an nteresting critique of the general position
regarding the funding of newspapers - and you draw the implication you choose
to draw. That's an interesting debate, if hardly a new one. I'd be interested
to know what alternative business model you propose for newspapers which would
sustain a large, knowledgeable and experienced staff of writers and editors,
here and abroad, in print as well as on the web. Do you prefer no advertising
lest journalists are corrupted or influenced in the way you imagine? If so,
what cover price do you propose? Or, in the absence of advertising, what other
source of revenue would you prefer?</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>These are all
interesting debates, and I wish you well. I can only answer as to my
experience. alan." (Email to David Cromwell, February 6,
2004)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Several readers
have asked us why we failed to reply to these specific points. Rusbridger's
response came after a long debate, and scores of complaints sent by Media Lens
readers, on the issue of the Guardian's dependence on advertising. (See:
'Rapid Response Media Alert: Climate Catastrophe - The Ultimate Media
Betrayal', January 8, 2004, and subsequent alerts on January 20, 23, and 27,
</FONT><A href="http://www.medialens.org/"><FONT
size=2>www.medialens.org</FONT></A><FONT size=2>, Media Alerts
archive)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>We had asked
Guardian journalists how they could propose environmentally friendly
initiatives to combat global warming in the same edition of a paper that was,
as usual, packed with adverts for major car manufacturers and airlines. We
also asked why the Guardian consistently fails to report the true extent and
ferocity of big business opposition to action on climate
change.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>In response, we
received repeated denials and diversions from Rusbridger, from environment
editor Paul Brown, and from the readers' editor, Ian Mayes, who bluntly stated
that no one on the paper saw the rejection of fossil fuel advertising as a
serious option. Finally, we received the above challenge from
Rusbridger.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>The question of
alternatives is reasonable enough, of course, when posed by someone willing to
recognise the existence of a problem. But when used as a device to reinforce
the idea that there is no problem - in the absence of alternatives a problem
becomes, after all, a fact of life - then it seems to us an unreasonable
response to an important argument.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Problems And
Solutions</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>In response, the
first point to make is that we are not obliged to respond to the question of
alternatives at all. Anyone is entitled to point out an important problem
without offering a solution - raising problems for discussion is itself an
important and legitimate activity.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>To our knowledge,
Media Lens is the first serious attempt to provide a regular, radical response
to mainstream propaganda in the UK. Criticising actual or potential employers
means career-death for journalists, as it does in any industry, and so the
well-intentioned have by and large attempted to do what they can from inside
the media, stepping cautiously around important media
toes.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>This is not an
unreasonable strategy, particularly prior to the internet revolution when
dissident outreach was limited in the extreme. Nevertheless, dozens of
brilliant media dissidents have long worked at the margins of the mainstream
in the United States, while Britain has managed to produce a tiny handful and,
otherwise, a complacent, stifling silence.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>This complacency
may in part be explained by the co-option of dissent by a more 'liberal'
section to the left of the British media spectrum - the Guardian, Observer and
Independent - than exists in the United States. The existence of this more
liberal component may, in turn, be explained by the fact that pre-Blair
Britain had a version of left parliamentary opposition to state-corporate
power. Now that our political system has 'converged' in the way of US politics
(dominated by two pro-business parties), our media may also be converging
towards a similarly closed and intolerant, US-style media system. The recent
high-profile dismissals of journalists and politicians challenging power - the
BBC's Andrew Gilligan, the Daily Mirror's Piers Morgan, and Labour MP George
Galloway - for the loss of zero pro-war journalists and politicians may be
evidence of this.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>The point is that
the appearance of dissident journalists in the UK 'liberal' press - rare
indeed in the US media (Paul Krugman of the New York Times is a conspicuous
example) - has had an impact on liberal perception that is far greater than
their impact on wider public opinion and politics.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Dissident
appearances in the mainstream act as a kind of liberal vaccine inoculating
against the idea that the media is subject to extremely tight restrictions and
control. Thus, many people see papers like the Guardian and Independent as
genuinely enlightened, open and honest (just as many people see the BBC as
benevolent 'Auntie Beeb'). As a result, the atrocious performance of these
media in failing to challenge even the most banal government deceptions
facilitating attacks on the Third World goes unnoticed. Blame is heaped on
governments, but the pivotal role of the media is ignored. Even as we finished
preparing this Media Alert, yet one more example was provided by an editorial
in the Independent:</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>"The US-led
multinational force will continue to guarantee security [in Iraq] for as long
as needed. But its performance so far leaves a lot to be desired, to put it
mildly." (Leader, 'President Bush's latest plan for Iraq is constructed on the
flimsiest of foundations', May 26, 2004)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Imagine if the
Soviet press had said the same of the Soviet army in Afghanistan. Imagine if
Saddam's press had said the same of the Iraqi army in Kuwait. To suggest that
the illegal slaughter and mutilation of tens of thousands of Iraqis on utterly
fraudulent pretexts "leaves a lot to be desired" is an obscenity. To suggest
that an illegal occupying army ruling a country from the barrel of a gun "will
continue to guarantee security" is propaganda of the most insidious kind. And
yet this paper is often considered a fiercely independent watchdog - even by
the honest journalists who write for it.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>As a 'corporate
free press' clearly represents a major contradiction in terms, an attempt to
explore these issues is vital, and is justified quite regardless of whether
someone making the attempt has solutions to offer. We can imagine somebody
interrupting a Town Hall meeting to report that the local school is on fire
and that children are being burned alive. Such a person would presumably not
be chastised for failing, also, to come up with an idea on how best to
extinguish the fire. To suggest, as Rusbridger in effect intended, that such a
(perceived) failure is a further reason to ignore such warnings, is cynical in
the extreme.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>So we +could+
argue that people should decide for themselves what to do about the problems
we are highlighting, that we are simply doing what almost nobody else is doing
in saying: 'There is a +major+ problem with the corporate media.' We could
reasonably argue that, although we don't.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>The Citizen
Reporter Revolution</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>We do much more
than talk about practical solutions - Media Lens is +itself+ a practical
solution. The promotion of public participation in media criticism is vital
work. Writing to the media, for example, is a powerful and practical part of
the solution we are proposing. Journalists, particularly liberal journalists,
commonly see themselves as 'the good guys'. Moreover, they generally see
themselves as admired, respected, even loved - broadcast journalists often
clearly view themselves as celebrities. This makes them supremely sensitive to
even the mildest 'left' criticism denting their 'good guy'
status.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Challenges of
this kind confront their notion of who they are, puncturing their complacency
and wounding their egos, so that they are rarely able to resist responding.
These responses, in turn, often provide precious insights into the astonishing
moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the media - a closed world of elite
privilege largely protected from honest criticism. Important results can
include heightened public awareness of media realities and even an improvement
in journalistic performance. The media depends on self-delusions normally
protected from criticism - rational challenge therefore often leaves
journalists unable to justify (even to themselves) obviously erroneous
arguments and emphases.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>The role of the
alternative media has never been more important than it is today. For the
first time, non-corporate journalists are able to instantly reach a mass
audience at minimal cost. Writing at the internet site, First Draft,
journalist Tim Porter notes that photographs revealing both US military
caskets and torture inside Abu Ghraib prison were based on digital photographs
made, not by journalists, but by participants in both stories. Porter
comments:</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>"Imagine how
quickly the slaughter of innocents at My Lai would have become known had it
been captured by a palm-sized digital camera (or phone) instead of reported by
letter." (Porter, Digital Proof, Human Source, May 6, 2004, </FONT><A
href="http://www.timporter.com/firstdraft/archives/000309.html"><FONT
size=2>www.timporter.com/firstdraft/archives/000309.html</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Digital and
internet-based technologies mean that participants in any event are now
potentially irrefutable witnesses to what really happened. Backed up by a
multitude of websites and bloggers around the world, these "citizen reporters"
represent a very real challenge to the compromised intermediaries of corporate
journalism.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>History may judge
that one of the defining events of our time was the appearance of photographs
of the Abu Ghraib tortures on the streets of Baghdad a few minutes after they
were published on the net - and a few months after the mainstream press had
blanked the story. Writing at spiked-online.com, Brendan O'Neill
observes:</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>"The driving
force for the torture scandal was not in Washington's or New York's
newsrooms... it was effectively handed to the media by disgruntled military
men." (Brendan O'Neill Article, 'Leaking self-doubt', 13 May 2004, </FONT><A
href="http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA521.htm"><FONT
size=2>http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA521.htm</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>American media
analyst, Edward Herman, told us:</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>"My own view is
that the media response is heavily dominated by the need to focus on an
unwanted topic, their hands forced by outsiders who obtained and began
circulating the photos. The photos are inherently sensational, and so wildly
contrary to the self-portrayals of the Bushies as liberators, that they would
be hard to keep under the rug." (Ed Herman, email to David Edwards, May 13,
2004)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>It seems likely
that last year's unprecedented, global anti-war protests were similarly driven
by information flooding out of web-based sites. And while the mainstream media
kept well out of harm's way during the recent US assault on Fallujah, Arabic
journalists and Western bloggers emailed a steady flow of horrific images and
reportage fuelling deep outrage across the Arab world and beyond. Jo Wilding's
brave and compassionate reporting (</FONT><A
href="http://www.wildfirejo.org.uk/"><FONT
size=2>www.wildfirejo.org.uk</FONT></A><FONT size=2>), and Dahr Jamail
dispatches for Newstandard </FONT><A
href="http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/"><FONT
size=2>http://blog.newstandardnews.net/iraqdispatches/</FONT></A><FONT
size=2>) are two inspirational examples. Pressing home the onslaught in the
face of this visible carnage, became politically
impossible.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>We appear to be
living through an era when, for the first time, ordinary "citizen reporters"
are becoming able to impose a news agenda on the
mainstream.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Journalism In
Chains</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>The 'problem' for
our argument, we are told, is that the structural realities of the corporate
media remain to restrict journalistic freedom and to punish and marginalise
dissent. Some readers, feeling sympathy for the plight of journalists we have
criticised, have responded: 'Well, what on earth are they supposed to
do?'</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>We should be
clear that, beyond marginal improvements, the main rationale for challenging
journalists is to generate the kind of debates that illustrate to +readers+
just how constrained and narrow the existing media system is - our hope is not
at all that editors and journalists will respond by somehow revolutionising
the system from within by, for example, refusing to carry fossil fuel
advertising. That has never been our intention.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Instead, we have
talked many times of how we hope that increased public awareness of the limits
of political and media freedom will generate truly democratic, alternative
media with the power to impose a news agenda on the mainstream, or to replace
it as source of news. The above examples of internet-led news stories are
exactly what we have in mind.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Ideally, beyond
even this, powerful alternative media should aspire to inform and motivate
large popular movements, and even new, libertarian political parties, which
might then be in a position to reform media structures to limit the influence
of corporate interests.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>In an article in
The New York Times last year, Howard French reported of South
Korea:</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>"For years,
people will be debating what made this country go from conservative to
liberal, from gerontocracy to youth culture and from staunchly pro-American to
a deeply ambivalent ally - all seemingly overnight... But for many observers,
the most important agent of change has been the Internet." (French, 'Online
Newspaper Shakes Up Korean Politics', The New York Times, March 6,
2003)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>South Korea has
fast, broadband connections in 70 percent of all households. A Western
diplomat in Seoul said: "This is the most online country in the world. The
younger generation get all their information from the web. Some don't even
bother with TVs. They just download the programmes." (Jonathan Watts, 'World's
first internet president logs on: Web already shaping policy of new South
Korean leader', The Guardian, February 24, 2003)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>As elections
approached in South Korea in 2002, more and more people began to get their
information and political analysis from internet news services instead of from
the country's conservative newspapers. The most influential internet service,
OhmyNews, registered 20 million page views per day around election time in
December 2002. In March 2003, the service still averaged around 14 million
visits daily, in a country of 40 million people. OhmyNews was started four
years ago by Oh Yeon Ho, 39, who says:</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>"My goal was to
say farewell to 20th-century Korean journalism, with the concept that every
citizen is a reporter... The professional news culture has eroded our
journalism, and I have always wanted to revitalize it. Since I had no money, I
decided to use the Internet, which has made this guerrilla strategy
possible."</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Relying almost
solely on ordinary readers, OhmyNews helped generate a huge national movement
that resulted in the election of Roh Moo Hyun, a reformist lawyer, in December
2002. Before OhmyNews got involved, the new president had been a relative
unknown. After his election, he granted OhmyNews the first interview he gave
to any Korean news organization. "Netizens won," Oh says of the election.
"Traditional media lost." (Mark L. Clifford and Moon Ihlwan, 'Korea: The
Politics of Peril', Business Week, February 24, 2003)</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>This is a
remarkable story of tremendous importance to anyone interested in challenging
state-corporate control of society. The success of libertarian, internet-based
sites in South Korea suggests that internet media relying mostly on
contributions from ordinary readers represent a potent democratising
force.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>But if the
question Rusbridger and others intend is, 'What can newspapers and journalists
do within the system as it actually is now?' - the answer is that, like
everyone else, they can do the best they can within tight limits while
supporting efforts at radical change through alternative media and movements.
Beyond that their options are indeed limited.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>But that really
is our whole point. We are trying to point out to readers just how stuck
journalists and the media are, to raise awareness that change is precisely in
the +public's+ hands - journalists just cannot do that much. To expect
genuinely democratic and libertarian 'gifts from above' is naïve and pointless
- progress has only ever been achieved as a result of popular awareness and
energetic demands for change.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Part 2 will
follow shortly...</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif
size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>SUGGESTED
ACTION</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>The goal of Media
Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing
letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite,
non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.</FONT></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Write
to:</FONT></FONT></P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Alan Rusbridger,
editor of the Guardian: Email: </FONT><A
href="mailto:alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk"><FONT
size=2>alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk</FONT></A></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Ian Mayes, the
Guardian readers' editor: Email: </FONT><A
href="mailto:ian.mayes@guardian.co.uk"><FONT
size=2>ian.mayes@guardian.co.uk</FONT></A></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Please also send
all emails to us at Media Lens: Email: </FONT><A
href="mailto:editor@medialens.org"><FONT
size=2>editor@medialens.org</FONT></A></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Visit the Media
Lens website: </FONT><A href="http://www.medialens.org/"><FONT
size=2>http://www.medialens.org</FONT></A></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>Please consider
donating to Media Lens: </FONT><A
href="http://www.medialens.org/donate.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.medialens.org/donate.html</FONT></A></FONT></P><FONT
face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif size=2><FONT size=2>This media alert
will shortly be archived at: </FONT><A
href="http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.html"><FONT
size=2>http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html</FONT></A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></DIV>
<P><FONT face="Arial Black" color=#800080 size=2>----</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face="Arial Black" color=#800080>Mark and
Andrea<BR>Beechwood<BR>Ochil Road<BR>Menstrie<BR>FK11 7BW<BR><BR>Tel. 01259
769007</FONT> </FONT></P>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>