Battleangel

Well, up until a couple of months ago, I hadn’t heard the name “Stockholm Spectator.” But all of a sudden it’s a term I see everywhere. So what is the “Stockholm Spectator?” Well, like the Matrix you cannot be told what the Stockholm Spectator (hereby known as “SS”) is, you have to see for yourself. So take the red pill and lets find out …

Structurally on the internet, the SS is comprised of a Content Management System (Mambo) located at spectator.se and a Blog (Wordpress) located at spectator.se/stambord. Apart from noting that the blog works much better than the CMS and that I should perhaps do the same for “Silent Nation” (Mambo) in order to make it more palatable and smoother, I notice that they have “neutered” Mambo in so far as it doesn’t provide any sort of licence or information whatsoever that the content generator is in fact Mambo. I can of course tell since I’ve had considerable experience with the source and set up two separate Mambo sites (which both feature conspicuous references to Mambo, both meta and visually). The actions of the SS do not break the GPL or any form of licensing that Stockholm Spectator may have with Miro, but is generally considered bad practise, considering that Mambo CMS is provided free of charge. Wordpress on the other hand is attributed as it should be.

SS has a self-proclaimed role as moderator and examiner of Sweden and Swedish media. As far as one can tell it is entirely run be an elusive and secretive cabal of mostly Americans living in Sweden and no doubt admired and cheered on by certain elements on the political right. As far as I can tell, the legitimate aim of privately overseeing the media, is nothing but a front for right-wing propaganda as most would see it. They may not see themselves in terms of left or right, they even use the term Libertarian at times, but from a non-American perspective it is abundantly clear that they first and foremost support American ideals, policy and that they let this thinking cloud their so called “media criticism.” If they indeed ever had the intention. Looking through their articles and external links in particular, it is clear that most originate in places like well known Republican William Kristol’s Weekly Standard which besides right-wing and, even worse, americocentric propaganda also sports banners from the CATO institute (right-wing think tank). Weekly Standard is of course in turn owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. In at least one case, SS was found linking to a printer version of a WS article, meaning that the rather telling mugshot of Kristol and CATO adverts were eliminated. True, the printer layout is preferred, but not when it deliberately obscures the true affiliations of the newspaper in question. The same article also notes, except for bashing contemporary Sweden and how we’re screwed, that Olof Palme never got to visit the White House. That tells you something about how these people think and it is something that I have no reason to doubt is also present with the SS gang.

Today I stumbled upon an article in Aftonbladet by SS Michael Moynihan who laments the lack of public corrections by the Swedish media. He seems to think not only that the Swedish media is particularly slanted, but also that New York Times is the pinnacle of self correction.
First of all, I think we can agree that the media should attempt to portray the news like they really are. But does self correction contribute to this? Maybe. But here is my problem with corrections - people just don’t read them. At least not to the extent that they read the original article. It may be good practise, but the story will still stand unless a follow-up is posted with the same prominence as the original story. And even then, the rule of first impression combined with foreknowledge and reader attitudes will still color the perception of the article. Come on Michael, just because you seem fixated with NYT corrections doesn’t mean that Joe Sixpack is. This is just another example of American subterfuge and an illusory sense of justice that has been integrated into the American core beliefs as a way to not have to deal with the real issues and the real fallacies and slants in their own media.
And looking at the examples given, which I admit signify meticulousness on NYT’s part, they include trivialities, like misspellings, decimal errors and so on. Using that as proof of some sort of correction publishing threshold is ludicrous. If anything it gives the illusion that the NYT cares and that they are humble enough to admit mistakes by calling on the little details. Details that they can also freely admit because none of them are serious enough to warrant suspicion. Moynihan also uses a NYT claim from 1920 that space travel was impossible, one that the editors offered to retract in 1969. If anything this is a farce. Moynihan also goes on to claim that American media is somehow much better in general at correcting themselves. He laments that Swedish Television broadcasted “Outfoxed” right before the US election, then goes on to indicate that he does in fact not grasp the ideas presented in the movie by making a gross oversimplification. He laments that Swedish media questioned the corporate Venezuelan media’s criticism of Hugo Chavez or even hinting that the same media may not present an accurate picture of events, or even favour the rich and powerful “white” elite, which have been deposed by Chavez popular support. According to Moynihan, Sweden should learn from the US example. He also goes on to make a nonsensical remark about the speed at which Al Franken’s latest book was translated. What an arrogant and clueless runt indeed.

So what else do they cover? Well on the very first page in the first article we can among other things read a rant about how ” .. most simply settled for Sartre; a reliable choice, steeped in the “correct” worldview (communist) and nationality (French).” A rant no doubt meant to lambast so called liberal students on campuses across America and detract from some fuzzy ideal of what threatens the US. And what about their blog? Just a few examples …

• Elision of the day McCormac thinks SVD and the Nordic countries should thank the US for liberating Iraq when the article is really about the people of Iraq.
• Did They Play a Show Too?Moynihan thinks it’s not Ok to criticize the US in popular media even if the band in question is superpatriotic and doesn’t hide the fact. Also if one does, one also has to criticise KRS-One and other bands that M considers “anti-American.”
• Today’s Rome? McCormac scolds Jan Eliasson for calling the US a “sole superpower… today’s Rome.” Then provides a link that proves many, if not all, of the correspondences.
• DN Kultur and “Liberalism’s degeneration” O’Mahony laments positive discrimination, which I could support, but also shows a deep resentment towards women and belittles the existing inequalities in a roundabout US dispositional way. Because everyone has the same chance right? If they don’t make the dream come true they’re either lazy or stupid.
• The Poverty of Debate IV: America Demystified Moynihan goes on about Swedish Television broadcasting six documentaries (Bowling for Columbine, Southern Comfort, Rosenbergs Grandchildren, Stevie, Why We Fight, Hoop Dreams) that present a negative image of the US. But he also admits that Fox News is slanted. I suppose you have to take what you get. And the negative image of the 6xUSA series is well deserved.
• Color-blind justice? McCormac thinks it’s biased when Swedish media points out that there are no African-Americans on the Michael Jackson jury. Quoted American sources instead go on and on about how one in the jury was Asian and one Hispanic. But Jackson isn’t Asian is he?
• Bueller? Bueller? Moynihan thinks that Chavez is nut for suggesting that the US could be in part responsible for the situation in Bolivia. Chavez knows what the US is about better than most, since he was almost deposed by a US-sponsored coup in 2002. Despite his deceptively simple appearance, he has proven to have a good grasp of globalization and so called free trade which the US pushes in the region.
• What DN Neglected to Mention Moynihan again lambasts Chavez and the centralization of land and enterprise. Even though he misses the point of who owns the land in question. He also goes on to bash the Sandinistas, and as such I suppose, supports the Contras and the US sponsored massacres in Nicaragua. What a crock.
• DN Kultur…oh, why bother McCormac doesn’t like that someone points out that Iraq in many ways was a well functioning society, among other things having the highest number of citizens with PhDs per capita. It’s all black and white to some people.
• Quotas in the boardrooms O’Mahony again drifts into American core beliefs of intrinsic capacity as opposed to social context and realities. He also thinks that “company boards should be answerable to nobody but their customers and shareholders.” Like in America where Monsanto was well on its way towards poisoning the entire nation and still got away with it when it was found out (the same Monsanto that makes / made “Terminator seeds”, Agent Orange and the carcinogenic Round-Up).
• “Anti-disengagement chicks are HOT!” McCormac gets away with a big quote and a hat tip, but apparently approves of the Israeli anti-disengagement movement, which should in all fairness get the same kind of respect that the Spectator would show the PLO or Hamas.

And people say I’m single-minded and arrogant. At least I’m humble enough to admit when I’ve been bested in that field.

Had the SS just kept to their side, I would have few problems with them. As it stands they have managed to shrewdly force a wedge between the somewhat startled Swedish media whose only fault in this case is being far too accommodating and naive. They should have never even responded to the SS imo. As it stands, the SS has moved into a position that few if any Swedish “bloggers” or private organizations enjoy and has further legitimized their propaganda platform. And in order to do this they have pitted one newspaper against another, effectively libeling one outlet in a competing newspaper for not taking their “criticism” to heart … rinse, repeat. Crafty devils …

I can see where this is going. If I was in a conspiratorial mood I’d say that SS is funded, staffed or operated as an instrument of the US government. It is nevertheless clear that these elements have more in mind than just “saving the Swedish media.” Above all they work to slander the Swedish system on a seemingly legitimate footing and become a player on the Swedish scene. This development is troubling, not because of what they may uncover but because of the irreparable damage they will do. It takes no rocket scientist to figure out how this fits into American contempt for “leftist” European governments and their welfare system which all in all seems to pay off. It’s not so unlike when Moscow apparatchiks claimed that Moscow had the world’s only subway. This being of course a ludicrous statement easily disproven but that is hardly the point. For the initiated, who surely knew the lay of the land, it signifies an encouragement to expand and destroy all other subways so that there is equilibrium, or cognitive consonance. It is in this dire context that we must see the Stockholm Spectator and its followers.

(Apart from Michael Moynihan, the list of people associated with SS is comprised of, but not necessarily limited to, Norton Tierra, Celia Farber, Paul O’Mahony, Joanna Andreasson, Aidan Isherwood and Billy McCormac)