A conflict of interest

The RTE piece confirms that the documentary was funded by the mining company proposing the project. A fact left out in earlier reports.

It seems this fairly extensive coverage of a fairly ordinary documentary has also become useful in criticising the Shell to Sea campaign.

No mention here again of the real benefits to the Irish people that the Corrib gas venture will bring. For those that aren't aware, there are none.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1102/primetime.html

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2006/

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1936510,00.html

And still no response to my questions:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=35395872

Out of interest, how much does Gabriel Resources stand to gain from this venture?

I understand there is something like 500,000 ounces of Gold to be harvested. What percentage of these profits are likely to filter down to the state and the local people?

Is the project aimed at allowing the poor of the region to exploit their natural resources or allowing foreign investors to eploit their resources? Essentially repeating the same process the director refers to; "Hundreds of years after we have become rich and comfortable by removing our forests and exploiting our natural resources."

Who funded this documentary? It appears from the Rocky Mountain News article that the mining company may have funded it. Is there any conflict of interest?

Environmentalism

An Irish ex-foreign correspondent for the Financial Times uncovers a campaign by Western environmentalists against a mine proposed by a Canadian mining company at Rosia Montana in the Transylvania region of Romania.

http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/index.htm

He writes:

"Hundreds of years after we have become rich and comfortable by removing our forests and exploiting our natural resources such as coal, oil, and gold we are now going to the poorest countries on the planet to prevent them from doing what we did and having what we have."

"Mine Your Own Business demolishes the cosy consensus that environmentalists are well meaning, agenda free, activists and shows them to be anti-development ideologues who think the poor are happy being poor and don't want the development that we, in the west, take for granted."

"Environmenalists are against growth."

"The documentary hacks away at the cosy image of environmentalists' as well meaning, harmless activists."

It appears that Phelim McAleer, with funding from Canadian mining company, Gabriel Resources, has exposed the true face of environmentalism.

"When a representative of Gabriel Resources asked me to write a brochure about the project I declined, but I did suggest that if they did not interfere editorially I would make a documentary."

http://insidedenver.com/drmn/speak_out/article

And the Blog:

http://mineyourownbusiness.blogspot.com/

A news report on today's RTE 6 O'Clock news 'discussed' the new film. The story resonates quite loudly, with the same criticisms being leveled at protesters here. With the Shell to Sea campaign, the media have attempted, at times, to portray the environmental aspect of the protest as one that is opposed to development, opposed to progress, opposed to profit etc etc. i.e. against the interests of the country.

This report again, 4 substantial minutes, was uncritical and acted merely as a movie preview. There was no reference to the fact the documentary was apparently funded by the mining company attempting to secure the venture.

"Stop development at the expense of the poor."

I left these questions on their blog:

Out of interest, how much does Gabriel Resources stand to gain from this venture?

I understand there is something like 500,000 ounces of Gold to be harvested. What percentage of these profits are likely to filter down to the state and the local people?

Is the project aimed at allowing the poor of the region to exploit their natural resources or allowing foreign investors to eploit their resources? Essentially repeating the same process the director refers to; "Hundreds of years after we have become rich and comfortable by removing our forests and exploiting our natural resources."

Who funded this documentary? It appears from the Rocky Mountain News article that the mining company may have funded it. Is there any conflict of interest?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1101/6news.html

IRC in Congo vs. Johns Hopkins in Iraq

Dear Ms. Treacy and Mr. Good,

In response to your explanations for RTE's non-reporting of the latest study into Iraqi mortality:

"There is contention about the number of civilian casualties in Iraq"

"This story was covered extensively [on] "Morning Ireland""

I have one question I hope you could find a moment to answer. Last month RTE reported on yesterday's elections in Congo:

"Congo's elections, the first free elections in the former Belgian colony for more than 40 years, will hopefully put an end to Africa's bloodiest conflict, a civil war that has killed 4 million people since 1998."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0930/print/congo.html

As did the Irish Times, The Guardian and the BBC.

The figures for mortality in the Congo were compiled using essentially the same methods and conducted by the same lead author, yet their reception in the media could not be more different. Could you explain this extraordinary disparity?

Yours sincerely,

1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6097990.stm
2.http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,,
3. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/
4. http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/