Flashback: Why Does TVNZ Lie To Us About 9/11?

What follows are e-mails to and from TVNZ on the topic of Osama bin Laden being blamed for the 9/11 attacks, in conjunction with a subsequent complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, (BSA). These were published in Uncensored in the June 2006 issue. Artwork by Brocke Truthimage@internode.on.net By Clare Swinney Editor’s Note: Clare Swinney took out a formal complaint against Television New Zealand for its biased and misleading coverage of the events surrounding 9/11.  The following is a transcript of her interchange with David Edmunds of TVNZ. In an 1889 article, Oscar Wilde wrote that, with the possible exception of barristers’ speeches, lying as an art had decayed. Now, however, thanks to television, in unison with the marriage of the US Administration to media corporations, lying has achieved epidemic proportions. The mainstream media’s lying is the biggest story of the decade, but the majority of the public, hooked up as they are to the propaganda drip, are so oblivious to what they are really being fed, they don’t give the truth a second glance.   For example, when in January I tried to tell a senior newspaper journalist that the US Administration perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, he asked me: “What are you on?”  It doesn’t help those of us who embark on enlightening others, that devices such as: “Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists,” have brainwashed well-educated people into the belief that views other that those of Bush-cons are to be condemned. It is a great irony, that while we get shivers up our spines at the thought of a monopoly of information by the state, as Joseph Goebbels achieved for Hitler, we have the equivalent right now in the form of a monopoly of information by big business for Bush.  One of the largest companies in the US, General Electric Co., (GE), which contributed significantly to Bush’s election campaign and is one of the top defence contractors, owns NBC, owns the business network CNBC, and has a stake in the cable news channel MSNBC, amongst others.  As GE is making huge sums of money from the invasion of Iraq, it is no wonder their journalists disseminate “war on terror” lies.   Also, far from being unbiased and fair, the Fox News Channel is aiding right-wing agendas, as Rupert Murdoch, who is a Republican Party supporter, owns it.  As the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War of Journalism shows, employees are compelled to push Murdoch’s point of view, or they face being cast out. And so it goes on, just as it did for the producers fired by CNN for exposing evidence in June 1998, of use of nerve gas by the US forces in the Vietnam War. The “war on terror” is not really being fought against al-Qa’eda – it is being fought to control peoples’ minds –to distract you from what is really going on.  If you want to know the truth, use the Internet.  Sites such as Infowars.com, Informationclearinghouse.info and Whatreallyhappened.com, provide you with facts the mainstream media simply won’t.   Which brings us to TVNZ.  A classic example of a “news item” fresh from the bowels of the well-oiled greed-fuelled brainwashing machine aired during TV1’s 6pm news on January the 20th.  It was an NBC report.  The alleged spectre of Osama bin Laden appeared to threaten new attacks on the United States.

While viewers were fed the lie that a CIA official in Washington had said US intelligence analysts have authenticated the audio tape as genuine, the genuine information was omitted.  Despite clear evidence that the tape was a forgery, least of all that bin Laden died in 2001, TVNZ ran it as if it was gospel.  Although by no means the only news organization acting as a conveyor belt for Bush-con lies, I singled it out, as it is our government-sponsored broadcaster and has a duty under the Code of Broadcasting Practice to serve the public.  Consequently, I and ten others, including the editor of UNCENSORED made a formal complaint to the Programme Standards Manager, David Edmunds. The following are my letters, TVNZ’s replies and my subsequent letter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Reading the ensuing correspondence may prove enlightening.

Dear David,

Re: Formal Complaint Pursuant to the Code Of Broadcasting Practice, In Respect to the Breach of Standard 5: Accuracy.

Thank-you for your reply and the copy of the Code of Broadcasting Practice.

I wish to proceed with a formal complaint on the grounds that the broadcaster has failed in its responsibility to maintain accuracy in the news.  I make this assertion in relation to the item regarding US President, George Bush and Osama bin Laden that aired on the 20^th January 2006 during the 6pm presentation.

The broadcast breached the said grounds on the basis that terrorists wielding box cutters, under the control of Osama bin Laden, did not perpetrate the variety of atrocities of September the 11^th, 2001 – rather the US Administration did.  TVNZ failed to alert to public to the fact that the news item was not only misleading but a falsity, as all those on this topic before have been.

The evidence I wish to submit to validate this allegation is in the form of these documentaries, of which 3 of each are enclosed:

1) The one-hour long, 911 In Plane Site, which is hosted by David von Kleist of the US radio show, The Power Hour.  This shows news clips from a majority of the mainstream outlets that were shot on 9/11, that TVNZ can verify as being authentic.

2) The three-hour long, Confronting the Evidence: A Call to Reopen the 9/11 Investigation, which exposes critical evidence about the 9/11 attacks. This is hosted by actor and activist Ed Begley Jr. and includes input from David Ray Griffin, David von Kleist, Barry Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Kristina Borjesson, Karl Schwartz, Jeff King, Paul Thompson, Jenna Orkin, Christopher Scheer, Dr Robert Bowman, Christopher Bollyn, and John Prados. It includes parts of Eric Hufschmid’s DVD on 9/11, ‘Painful Deceptions,’ which indicates what it was that really hit the Pentagon.

3) The 2 hour, 20 minute long, 911 The Road To Tyranny by Alex Jones.  Jones is a nationally syndicated radio talkshow host in the US.  This information-packed documentary was made shortly after the 9/11.  Jones predicted the 9/11 attack in a July 2001 television taping when he warned that the Globalists were going to attack New York and blame it on their asset Osama bin Laden.  This videotape is available on the website Infowars.com. Since 9/11 Jones has broken many of the stories which later became the foundation of the evidence that the US government was involved.

As there has been so much propaganda regarding 911, my character is no doubt in question.  If so, please refer this posting from respected New Zealand scientist, Dr Robert Anderson of Tauranga, dated 6/1/06 and entitled: “When Is Our Media Going To Start Looking At the Facts?” at http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display_any/40572. You may derive from this that I am not the only one who is concerned that our mainstream media delivers propaganda on behalf of the US Administration without any scrutiny.

To conclude, 911 In Plane Site was shown on mainstream Australian TV on January the 5^th, (refer: www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press14.htm).

The question has to be asked: Why is the New Zealand public not being shown the truth?  Thousands of innocent civilians are being killed in Iraq and members of the public worldwide are giving their tacit approval on the basis of what they have been told by a US compliant media.  Let’s get the ball rolling like Australia and set an example for other TV stations to follow.

Thank-you for your attention to the contents herein.

Yours sincerely,

Clare Swinney, M.Sc. (Hons).

David Edmunds reply, dated 14^th February 2006:

Dear Ms Swinney

Further to my letter dated 1^st February, I advise that TVNZ’s Complaints Committee has completed its enquiry into your formal complaint about an item on One News shown on TV One at 6pm on 20^th January.

The item reported that an audio tape, purporting to carry the voice of  Osama Bin Laden, had been broadcast by a television network in the Middle East, and that in the tape the voice had warned of new terrorist actions against the United States.

Your complaint appeared to refer to a single phrase (which I have underlined) from the news report:

“In the tape that aired on Al Jazeera, Bin Laden threatened to again take revenge on America  as he did on nine-eleven”.

You wrote:

“The broadcast breached the said grounds on the basis that terrorists wielding box cutters, under the control of Osama Bin Laden, did not perpetrate the variety of atrocities on September 11^th, 2001 – rather the US administration did.  TVNZ failed to alert the public to the fact that the news item was no only misleading but a falsity, as all those on this topic before have been”.

Your complaint was considered in the context of standard 5 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice:

Standard 5 Accuracy

News, current affairs and other factual programmes must be truthful and accurate on points of fact, and be impartial and objective at all times.

5a Significant errors of fact should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

5b Broadcasters should refrain from broadcasting material which is misleading or unnecessarily alarms viewers.

5c Broadcasters must ensure that the editorial independence and integrity of news and current affairs is maintained.

5d Factual reports on the one hand, and opinion, analysis and comment on the other, should be clearly distinguishable.

5e Broadcasters must take all reasonable steps to ensure at all times that the information sources for news, current affairs and documentaries are reliable.

Having viewed the item, the committee noted first that the specific phrase you objected to was incidental to the news event being described. This news story was about an audio tape in which, it seemed, Osama Bin Laden – after a long absence – was delivering a new threat to the United States.  The “as he did on nine-eleven” remark simply reflected accurately the widely held view that Mr Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were involved with the nine-eleven attack, and gave a reason why Americans were taking notice of the new tape.

The committee wondered what it was in this item that prompted you to lodge this complaint when there have been numerous previous examples over the years of Mr Bin Laden being linked in news and documentary contexts with the 9/11 attack.

The committee saw little value in replying to specific points raised in the website pages and CD programmes which you have provided to support your challenge to the widely accepted view of what occurred on 9/11. It was conscious that for every controversial theory that has been put forward challenging the accuracy of 9/11 accounts, there’s a thorough response in circulation which explains the event in more orthodox terms.

The committee observed that Osama Bin Laden’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks was a factual assumption underlying the 576-page report of the 9/11 Commission. It was also stated explicitly by the Commission when it wrote, “the 9/11 attack was driven by Osama Bin Laden” who “built over the course of a decade a dynamic and lethal organisation” in al-Qaeda.   The committee also noted that Osama Bin Laden has himself claimed full credit for the 9/11 attacks stating (for example ) in his pre-United States election message in 2004:

“And I was looking at those towers that were destroyed (in Lebanon). It occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same, and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they tasted what we tasted”.

Any organisation which disseminates news has to use judicious selectivity in deciding what to publish, and what to set aside.  The sheer quantity of news dictates that approach, and the selection is done using professional judgement and discretion accumulated by senior journalists through many years of training and experience.

It comes down to this. TVNZ is satisfied with the integrity and credibility of its many news sources and, frankly, finds the evidence offered by you and some others to be neither credible nor convincing.

It was noted that this particular report (although not about 9/11 per se) was assembled by Andrea Mitchell, one of the best known reporters in Washington and one whose non-partisan credentials have carried her successfully through several presidencies as a senior reporter.

It was the opinion of the committee that to say “Bin Laden threatened to again take revenge on America as he did on nine-eleven” could not be shown to be inaccurate or untruthful and could not therefore be a breach of standard 5.

Your complaint was not upheld.

In accordance with section 7(3) of the Broadcasting Act you are hereby notified that it is your right, should you be dissatisfied with this decision, to refer the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, P O Box 9213, Wellington, as provided under section 8 of the Act, for the purpose of an investigation and review of the decision. A time limit of twenty working days is attached to the exercise of this right.

Should you refer this complaint to the Authority, I will forward your CDs to that body so that it has all the information TVNZ had in reaching this decision. If you do not take this matter further, please let me know and I will return the CDs to you.

Yours sincerely

David Edmunds

Programme Standards Manager

From: Clare SwinneySent: Thursday, 16 FebruaryTo: David Edmunds Subject: In Reply to Your Letter Dated 14 February 2006 Dear David, Thank-you for your reply. It is a shame the public broadcaster wishes to continue deceiving the New Zealand public. There is one paragraph in your letter that I can not understand and would appreciate clarification. You state on page 3: “TVNZ is satisfied with the integrity and credibility of its many news sources and, frankly, finds the evidence offered by you and some others to be neither credible nor convincing.” In regards to this, the documentary, 911: In Plane Site, provided as evidence to TVNZ, used footage from mainstream networks, that you have implied TVNZ regards as credible. How can you state that you do not regard my evidence as credible, when significant segments were derived from sources, such as Fox and CNN, that TVNZ evidently deems to be credible, because it screens clips from them frequently? I look forward to what I hope will be a credible reply. Please return the DVDs to the address below. Yours sincerely, Clare Swinney

From: David Edmunds

To: Clare Swinney

Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2006

“We looked at the “documentary” you describe, but we did not find it credible or convincing.

As you know anyone in the news dissemination business has to go through a process of selection – the sheer volume of news prevents any other course, quite apart from the need to preserve the integrity of news organisation concerned. Part of that selection involves professional assessment of the reliability and credibility of source material.

Nowadays there is a huge amount of what we would regard as unreliable material in circulation – on the internet, and in material such as that included in the CDs you provided. You are aware, I am sure, that most of the points of argument you raised through the CDs has prompted perfectly reasonable responses from other sources.

Your complaint was not an appropriate forum to counter each point, because the complaint was about an item on 20th January which didn’t mention those points.

Because of the statutory nature of the complaints process, TVNZ does not usually enlarge on its decision, once that decision is reached. If you are dissatisfied your proper course is to go to the Broadcasting Standards Authority to have the decision reviewed.

(End)

From: Clare Swinney

To David Edmunds

Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2006

Dear David,

You have not answered my question.  The documentary was comprised of news clips from sources you describe as credible.  Why did you not deem them so when you viewed them in the documentary?

regards,

Clare

To :  Clare Swinney

From: David Edmunds

Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2006

Critical point is context. I could get together any number of news reports and assemble them in such a way that they become be misleading (or at very least ambiguous) because they are out of  their original context. I would be interested to know if any of our major news overseas sources – BBC, ABC  or CNN for example – have reached the overall conclusion that would support your assertion that Osama Bin laden did not wreak havoc on the US on 9/11.

Please note, TVNZ is not meant to get into correspondence with complainants once its decision on a formal complaint is released. If you are unhappy about anything our committee has said, please tell the Broadcasting Standards Authority about it.

From: Clare Swinney

To: David Edmunds

Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2006

Dear David,

It is good that you regard context as critical.  In view of this, could you please advise me of the following:

1) What is this attachment on the underbelly of the plane that is shown on the CNN site currently – a site which TVNZ evidently regards as credible. Please refer:  http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/america.remembers/

2) Why did NONE of the footage shot by your credible sources at the Pentagon, display signs of wreckage from a Boeing, given that the official story was that a Boeing 757-200 had hit the building, while wreckage from a much smaller craft was visible?

And why none of the shots of the building showed a hole that was large enough to accommodate a Boeing 757?

You are aware that scholars worldwide dispute the official story and regard the 911 Commission report, which you quote, as a whitewash. (Refer: http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html).

It is unfortunate that you are compelled to take the official line of denial given the crimes against humanity that have been and are being perpetrated by the US Administration.

Thank-you for your attention to the contents herein.

Clare Swinney

From:  David Edmunds

To:  Clare Swinney

Sent:  Thursday, 16 February 2006

As I have tried to explain  – these matters are not relevant to your complaint. It is not the view of credible sources that Osama Bin Laden was not involved in the 9/11 attacks – and that was what the news item reflected.

(Although it is not part of your complaint, I offer the personal view that to anyone who has seen what happens when a plane at full power  – 900 kilometers an hour – hits an immovable object there should be no surprise at all that sizable pieces of wreckage were not found. They never are. It seems to me that the fact that the plane came to an instant stop as it hit the wall, and that part of the wall collapsed a fraction of a second later, explains why the gap isn’t big enough to accommodate a 767. The plane never entered the building. That which was not vaporised in an instant deceleration from 900kph, was left outside the wall in tiny pieces. But that’s a personal observation and cannot be represented as the view of the TVNZ Complaints Committee. Whatever happened to Ockham’s razor??!!!)

Regards

David Edmunds

From: Clare Swinney

To: David Edmunds

Sent: 22^nd February 2006

Dear David,

Further to your last e-mail of the 16th February, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) used DNA from the Pentagon crash site to identify “184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.”  Please refer the report at:  http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/ afip_pentvictimid.htm250 ft (Now: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/victims/dcmilitary.html)

It is also reported that the “FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive devices and conducted fingerprint identifications.”

Tissue and DNA are destroyed by heat.  In light of this, how is it that the heat, that you theorize was so intense that it vaporized the huge metal components of a Boeing 757, left enough DNA intact to enable the identification of all but one of the passengers of Flight 77?

Ockman’s Razor leads to the logical conclusion that the US Administration was behind the attacks, not Osama bin Laden.

Please find recent article below for additional information on this topic.

Regards,

Clare Swinney

TOP POLITICIANS, ECONOMISTS, LEADERS IN AMERICA AGREE 9-11 MAY HAVE  BEEN “INSIDE JOB” www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911

4th March 2006

Broadcasting Standards Authority,

P O Box 9213,

Wellington.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Breach of Standard 5 of Code In Regards To News Item Aired on TV1 on January the 20^th During the 6pm News Related To Osama bin Laden.

This complaint is not made lightly. I am an investigative journalist, with a M.Sc. (Hons). My work was in the finals of the Qantas Media Awards in 2003 and I have written for publication on this topic.

I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the abovementioned news item on the grounds that it not only lacked accuracy, but was also an outright fabrication. TVNZ claimed it did not uphold my complaint on the grounds that the evidence I provided was “neither credible nor convincing.”  This claim was illogical, as a significant portion of the evidence provided, shown in 911 In Plane Site, was from news sources they air frequently, and as David Edmunds points out: “TVNZ is satisfied with the integrity and credibility of its many news sources…”

The evidence I wish to provide to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, includes that which I sent to TVNZ, in conjunction with the following:

1)      Evidence indicates that the words that were supposedly those of bin Laden in the January 20th news item were not.  Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University in the US, Bruce Lawrence, who published: ‘Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden,’ a book which translates bin Laden’s writing, stated he was doubtful that the words were those of bin Laden.  Professor Lawrence has recently analyzed more than 20 complete speeches and interviews for his book and said the new message is missing several key elements, including that there is nothing in it from the Koran. (Please refer article: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=3828678).

2)      During the said news item, bin Laden is blamed for 911 attacks.  This is a serious factual error.  There is more than enough evidence, including on the documentaries provided you, to demonstrate that the US Administration perpetrated the attacks.  Please watch: Confronting The Evidence, 911 In Plane Site and 911: The Road to Tyranny.In addition, ‘Scholars for 9/11 Truth’, a group of non-partisan researchers devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, repudiates the official version of 911.  They claim that the US government’s account violates the laws of physics and engineering and they are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest. The group’s website is at: www.st911.org.

3)      THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN PERPETRATED THE ATTACKS OF 911.

FBI director Robert Mueller informed the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab terrorists to 911. The FBI produced 19 names within 72 hours of the attacks, but 7-8 of the names on that original list have been found living comfortably in other countries.

Furthermore, the videotaped evidence provided by the US government on the 13^th December 2001, which was to show bin Laden taking credit for 911, was an obvious fraud.  It showed a right-handed man, with a fat nose, wearing a large gold ring, who looked healthy. Bin Laden was left-handed, suffering from renal failure, his nose thin, and it was against his religious beliefs to wear jewellery.

4)      There is a vast array of evidence that suggests it could not possibly have been bin Laden who was threatening new attacks in the TV1 news item, for he died in 2001. This includes the following:

i) The videotape of him allegedly made on November the 19^th, 2001 that was broadcast on al Jazeera on December the 27^th, 2001, shows him looking ashen and weak, an appearance not unanticipated given his end stage renal failure and his likely exposure to radioactive dust from spent US forces’ depleted uranium shells.

(Refer: whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html).

ii) On January 18th, 2002, CNN reported that Pakistan’s president, General Pervez Musharraf said he thought bin Laden was most likely dead because he had been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.  Quote: “I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a … kidney patient.”

(Refer: http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/18/gen.musharraf.binladen/).

iii) Alex Jones, US radio show host and researcher, who predicted the 911 attacks on air several weeks before they occurred, states that he has privately and publicly interviewed many CIA and intelligence agents who advised him directly that bin Laden died of kidney failure shortly after 9/11. (Refer: prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/291004binladenappears.htm).

iv) According to an article by Washington-based Toby Harnden, in the Telegraph on 28/12/01, a video of bin Laden broadcast on al Jazeera on December the 27^th, 2001 was dismissed by the Bush administration as: “sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa’eda leader was already dead.” (Original article at: telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/28/wbin28.xml).

5)   TVNZ states in its letter that: “The committee observed that Osama bin Laden’s complicity in the 9/11 attacks was a factual assumption underlying the 576-page report of the 9/11 Commission.”

Please note that this 576-page report, as Professor David Ray Griffin contends in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, omitted to mention a vast array of facts, and far from lessening suspicions about official complicity – confirm them.  He lists over 100 omissions, which includes:

a)  The omission of that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent.

b)  The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape.

c) The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in conflict with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country.

d)   The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers, supposedly under bin Laden’s control – including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC – are still alive.

e)  The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta – such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — which conflicts with the Commission’s claim that he was fanatically religious.

If one scratches beneath the surface, it is obvious why the fake videos are being aired. Firstly, they are employed for political point scoring.  President Bush attributed his 2004 victory over John Kerry in part to a bin Laden videotape released on the eve of the election. Bush stated: “I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn’t want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush.”  Notably, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite stated on Larry King Live that the 2004 tape was a set up orchestrated by Karl Rove. (Refer: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2004/291004binladenappears.htm).

Secondly, bin Laden’s apparition is aiding the rapid rise of fascism, enabling the US Administration to undermine civil rights and balloon defence budgets.  Since 911, the US has invaded Iraq, implemented the USA Patriot Act and Model Emergency Health Powers Act; established concentration-style internment camps, which are now being constructed throughout the US; and practised torture and staged executions, without trials.

And thirdly, the pivotal reason sham news items are being produced lies within the corrupt major news organizations themselves.  The story that aired on TV1 was produced by NBC. Apart from wanting US forces to attack other countries so viewers stay glued to the TV in between commercials, there is a far more depraved reason underlying the wanton distortion of reality.  NBC is a subsidiary of General Electric Co. – a company that benefits hugely from the invasion of Iraq via highly lucrative military contracts.   It is thus easy to understand why NBC maintains the illusion of the bogeyman bin Laden, for his spectre provides a pretext for a never-ending war.

In conclusion, thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered and tortured in Iraq. If the mainstream media worldwide informed the public of the truth, these crimes could no longer be justified.  Please consider this judiciously when you make your decision.

I would appreciate your attention to the contents herein and thank-you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

CLARE SWINNEY.

I urge you to write to TVNZ and complain the next time you see Bush lies masquerading as “news.”  The media has a duty to serve you, not deceive you.

———————————————————————————————————–

The reply from the BSA can be viewed here.