Stephen Pollard’s delusions


by Sunny
16th July, 2011 at 3:05 pm    

This has got to be framed somewhere. The odious Stephen Pollard writes:

As it happens, my own view is that Rupert Murdoch is one of the few genuinely great men of our times, a man who has done more to enrich our lives than any other single human being of the past generation and who should be a hero for his commitment to freedom.

Awesome! HE IS THE GREATEST, WHY CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT YOU EVIL LIBRULS?!


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Humour,Media






7 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Refresh — on 16th July, 2011 at 7:52 pm  

    Pollard is only interested in a media which will push his agenda morning, noon and night. Murdoch did that with gusto. So much so that significant sections of the public no longer can sift, unaided, fact from fiction.

    Read and digest:

    ‘Robert Fisk: Why I had to leave The Times
    When he worked at The Times, Robert Fisk witnessed the curious working practices of the paper’s proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. Despite their jocular exchanges, the writer knew he couldn’t stay…’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/robert-fisk-why-i-had-to-leave-the-times-2311569.html

  2. Golam Murtaza — on 16th July, 2011 at 9:11 pm  

    Pollard is delusional.

  3. Golam Murtaza — on 16th July, 2011 at 9:17 pm  

    ….sorry that was meant to be a slightly longer post. Just wanted to add that Pollard should express his idiotic statement while standing face to face with some of the innocent people who have had their lives wrecked by Murdoch’s media. Go on Pollard, I dare you.

  4. Chris — on 17th July, 2011 at 8:34 pm  

    “standing face to face with some of the innocent people who have had their lives wrecked by Murdoch’s media”

    That’s most of the population of Britain. We live in a nasty spiteful country thanks to Murdoch and his like.

  5. Ben — on 18th July, 2011 at 3:25 am  

    “When he worked at The Times, Robert Fisk …”

    systematically suppressed information on how in the late sixties and early seventies the Lebanese Government turned over the south of the country to the PLO and its allies for attacks against Israel. He trivialized the significance of how the Lebanese authorities facilitated the establishment of bases from which Palestinian terror organizations carried out murders of Israelis and Diaspora Jews that cost the lives of many hundreds and the maiming and wounding of thousands throughout the seventies. To this day he seeks to obfuscate the fact that it was these attacks that caused Israel to take military action against the Lebanese-based PLO, and he repeatedly lies that Israel attacked Lebanon without provocation and without legal justification.

    Fisk also minimized the magnitude of the crimes the PLO committed against the Lebanese Christians, before and in the early years of the civil war. Practically the only facts of the civil war that he recounts today are the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, which he blames on Israel even though it was perpetrated by the Arab Syrian agent Hobeika in revenge for the killing of the Lebanese Christian President Gemayel and tens of his associates.

    Rupert Murdoch rightly decided that Fisk’s brand of mendacity and hate-propaganda was not the way the Times should report on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Fisk continued dissemninating falsehoods at the Independent. He accused Israel of deliberately killing refugees at Qana, even though the evidence that the deaths were caused in error is incontrovertible. He repeatedly and vehemently denied that there was a buildup of Hezbollah rockets in South Lebanon, and only after the 2006 terror-attacks against Northern Israel did he admit that it had occurred, when it was no longer possible to deceive. And he deals humurously with Hezbollah’s Nazi-like anti-Jewish ideology, as if it’s of no import.

    It is Fisk and his likes who have turned Britain into a nasty spiteful country.

  6. Sarah AB — on 18th July, 2011 at 6:35 am  

    I agree with MattPryor and David T in the comments to that piece – Pollard doesn’t really do full justice to the playfulness of David Mitchell’s little article. As I don’t define odious as ‘being really quite a bit more right wing than me’ I’m not quite sure why Pollard is odious – but he’s not someone I regularly read, though I did read his Spectator blog.

  7. Kismet Hardy — on 18th July, 2011 at 3:34 pm  

    I like Murdoch. He made the newspapers pun

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.