Great to see pilger recalling the history of the media in other conflicts. What strikes me is the the observor is becoming more of a tabloid these days. Their reporters sink to hearsay and hype ad police propaganda. I recall the report of Samuri swords of Mayday(never happened) and their recent "scoop" of linking bin ladens links to oxfam was a total hype with no facts at all. I spoke to the press officer at oxfam who said-the observor phoned up to ask about an islamic charity which stated on their website that they had worked with oxfam in the past. The oxfam press officer didnt know about the charity so said he would look into it and get back to the reporter. This was reported in the paper as oxfam first denied knowledge of any links to bin laden..and then went on to raise ineuendos without any facts!
This sort of crap has to stop before reporters cause more trouble that exists already.

Does anyone know what is going on in the Observor and why they are churning out this crap?

As our politicians get more and more blatant in their manipulation of the media, and some of them are now boasting about it quite openly, it is good to go back through the archives and read their justification for bombing Serbian TV and killing a make up girl. Still, I don't think they have make up girls in Kabul, so I don't suppose that will be a problem this time round, will it?

I teach Media students (at HE level), and can say that most leave with a strong level of enquiry and sceptisism. Its what happens to them in employment that seems to muddy the waters. Its a sad fact that money/mortgages/pensions and promotion become the important reasons for staying in the job, and the 'news culture' that young journalists (within the first few years of work) find within their news offices clouds any vision they may have had.
But, I promise you, a lot of us at this side of the classroom keep trying to get it right