Steven,
A thought provoking presentation, I’ve been tempted to do similar a number of times, though from a slightly different tack.

It's notable how many times a charge is given loud & long headline coverage but, the rebuttal, if it’s reported at all, is assigned a short segment in the back sections.

PS: good to see you back on board –OLO needs more white hats

Not even the supposedly 'objective' Guardian or BBC dared to question whether these homecoming military parades through the streets are in themselves highly provocative, especially for wars that are internationally condemned as illegal and/or immoral.

Foxy, Horus, thank you for your kind words.

(1) Do media ORGANISATIONS attempt to manipulate public opinion?

(2) Do INDIVIDUALS within the media attempt to manipulate public opinion?

I think the answer to the SECOND question is unquestionably "yes." Some individuals do try to influence public opinion in two ways:

--In their selection of material. Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and David Marr are the poster boys for this approach to journalism.

--In the way they present their material. Philip Adams is Australia's maestro in this category of journalism but Bolt, Akerman and Marr are quite good as well.

I think the answer to the first question is a little more subtle than an attempt at outright manipulation. Executives at successful media organisations have a good idea of how their respective audiences would like to see controversial stories covered and they do their best to oblige.

In short it is the goal of most successful media organisation to cater to the tastes of their readers or viewers.

But it seems to go even deeper than that. Take Foxnews. They certainly know their audience – mostly conservative Republicans in the US. No one can deny that they cater, some would say pander, to the tastes of their target audience.

But Foxnews executives also seem to understand how those on the OTHER SIDE OF POLITICS would like to see them covering events. I know people who may be described as being on the "Left" who are avid "Fox watchers." Watching the shenanigans of Foxnews presenters makes them feel virtuous and clever.

So Foxnews wins both ways. It attracts those that like them and those that hate them. At low cost it attracts a large audience and the advertising revenue flows in.

QUESTION:

One of the Luton protestors, Jalal Ahmed, was fired from his job as a baggage handler at Luton airport.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2317177.ece

Was this the right decision?

Dear Steven,

You're welcome!

I agree with you that newspaper editors are out
to cater to their readers. Afterall if they
didn't, their sales would go down - right?

As for Andrew Bolt - et al? Yes, he and quite
a few others do have their own agendas - and
they certainly try to influence public opinion.
I actually can't name one commentator on world
affairs who doesn't try to influence people.
Possibly George Negus -
who tries to present the entire picture.

As for the 21 year old being fired?
Airport security is a sensitive area - and image
is everything. So - from the air-port's point of
view - they possibly did the right thing.
Was it fair? Possibly not. But, the guy should
have known better. There are risks involved
in certain forms of behaviour.

You can't rock up to an airport and joke that you've
got a bomb in your suitcase - and expect nothing to
happen to you. This guy attracted media attention
in a very public deminstration. It's not an image
that his bosses would find desirable to promote.

Hi Foxy,

Supposing a baggage handler from Luton Airport called, not Jalal Ahmed, but John Smith had participated in a similar protest. Suppose further that the protesters had called themselves "Christians for Peace" or some such.

Would you have considered it reasonable for Luton Airport to fire John Smith of "Christians for Peace"?

Is there a difference between Jalal Ahmed, the Muslim, and John Smith the Christian?

Under what circumstances is it reasonable to sack someone for participating in a street demonstration while he is off duty?

Under what circumstances is it unreasonable?

Do we have any evidence that Jalal Ahmed intended any harm?

Is a Muslim in Ahmed's position more vulnerable to being recruited by terrorist organisations than a Christian? Is that a reason to sack him?

What if John Smith's fellow protesters had called themselves "Christian Soldiers" rather than "Christians for Peace?"

Would your answer change if the group called itself "Atheists for Peace?"

I don't pretend to have any easy answers to these questions; but I am interested in what you and other posters think.

I don't see too many christians strapping bombs to their bellies, or to their children's, or declaring outright war on entire societies or countries. Given the harsh realities of current Geo-politics, and the mounting body-count of innocent victims, on both sides, I figure it was a reasonable security-risk assessment, and action. The man put his religion before his job, as is his right, but must accept the consequences there-of, that's what we all have to do in the real world.