manni: Interesting read - thanks for the link. In general it's a really bad newspaper, the Guardian, but this was interesting.
Cont'd:"Are we really to believe that a newspaper embedded in these establishment and corporate networks, and dependent on advertisers for 75 per cent of its revenues, can provide uncompromised coverage of a world dominated, and exploited, by these same powerful interests?
The Guardian claims to “desire to build trust in the media by becoming increasingly transparent about the decisions we reach and the way we implement them in both our editorial and commercial operations.” (LOV, p. 3)
A good place to start would be for GNM to tell us exactly how much money it takes from oil giants, car companies, airlines and other businesses heavily dependent on fossil-fuel consumption."
Well worth a read - The hidden history of the Guardian newspaper:http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2617
Herman and Chomsky's elucidation of the Propaganda Model under which the media operate is illuminating, as are Media Lens' books "Guardians of Power" and "Newspeak in the 21st century".
The Guardian is subject to the same need for advertising revenue as all the above papers. Yet, they refuse to ever discuss the role this plays in their "reporting".
They unquestioningly reported govt lies about Iraq's weapons inspectors being impeded by Saddam Hussein (rather than their being "advised" to leave by the USA), and refused to interview Scott Ritter (head inspector) on the lack of WMDs and the implacable march to war.
They did it all over again with lies about Libya & now Syria.
"The report makes no mention of the fact that members of the Guardian Media Group Board and/or the Scott Trust have links with the corporate media, New Labour, Cadbury Schweppes, KPMG Corporate Finance, the chemicals company Hickson International Plc, Fenner Plc, the investment management company Rathbone Brothers Plc, global investment company Lehman Brothers, global financial services firm Morgan Stanley, the Bank of England..."http://www.medialens.org/alerts/11/081126_living_our_values.php
peweuk: I wonder if Sigma have done a deal with the Olympic Organisers to allow this.
The Olympics committee has special legal 'powers' to insist that any photographic or video content of anything that involves the games is removed from public view. This definately includes imagery taken at the games, but the 'grey' area is how far beyond that it goes.For example the two words 'London' and '2012' whilst OK individually, cannot be used together as 'London 2012' in anything that can be deemed 'commecially beneficial'. This competiton is 'commercially beneficial to Sigma.
Private individuals have been warned that to put images of the games on social networking sites is prohibited - so how are Sigma going to publish the results??
Unless of course they have paid vast licensing fees to the Organisers.
Any reading of Olympic history reveals the true motives of each host city. It is the necessity to shock, to fast track the dispossession of the poor and marginalised as part of the larger machinations of capital accumulation. The architects of this plan need a spectacular show; a hegemonic device to reconfigure the rights, spatial relations and self-determination of the city’s working class, to reconstitute for whom and for what purpose the city exists. Unlike any other event, the Olympics provide just that kind of opportunity."
As with previous host cities, the displacement of residents is not limited to direct government policy. In some East London boroughs landlords have begun evicting tenants in places where rents are fetching fifteen times their standard rates, flats are now being advertised as “Olympic lets” and imposing hefty “penalty” clauses for tenants who refuse to leave.
The story in each city remains almost identical. Once selected, a city expends vast amounts of public resource to begin a program of forced displacement, rental speculation, urban renewal projects, demolition of public housing and gentrification. In fact, if there is one thread that runs through almost every Olympic event it is that the poor of each Games subsidise their own violent dispossession.
The Games are not simply hosted to ‘clean up’ the city, but to fundamentally reconfigure it, to ‘cleanse’ it of its poor and undesirable; to not only make way for a city by and for the rich, but to expand the terrain of profitable activity.
In 2007, the UN-funded Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) released a report detailing the effects of the Olympics between 1988 and 2008. It concluded that the Olympic games, having evicted more then two million people in the past twenty years, are one of the top causes of displacement and real-estate inflation in the world.
Ceasefire Magazine, The Olympics & Social Cleansinghttp://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/olympics-opportunity-cleanse-city/
"But the real gains for the rich can be witnessed in the long-term implications, once the crowds have gone home. Contrary to popular belief, the devastation inflicted on the poorest and historically marginalised communities is not simply an adverse side-effect, but goes to the very essence of why cities battle to host the Games.
The Olympics have always been utilised as a means to pursue what David Harvey calls ‘accumulation by dispossession,’ from visible policies of forced evictions to veiled ones such as gentrification. This violent process is intimately connected to reconfiguring the landscape for capital accumulation and, indeed, is a prime motivation for the very purpose of the Olympics itself.