Media Lens: Difference between revisions

| url = {{URL|httphttps://www.medialens.org/}}

| launch_date = {{start date and age|2001}}<ref name="Clarke2013"/>

'''Media Lens''' is a [[United Kingdom|British]] [[mass media|media]] analysis [[website]] established in 2001 by [[David Cromwell]] and [[David Edwards (journalist)|David Edwards]].<ref name="Clarke2013">{{cite news|last=Clarke|first=Joe Sandler|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/joe-sandler-clarke/media-lens_b_3879133.html|title=Interview: David Cromwell and David Edwards - Media Lens|work=[[HuffPost]]|date=6 November 2013|accessdateaccess-date=24 January 2018}}</ref> Cromwell and Edwards are the site's editors and only regular contributors.<ref name="Jones210316">{{cite news|last=Jones|first=Owen|url=https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/obsessive-angry-detractors-96db53739675#.gqzwrgrvh|title=Obsessive Angry Detractors|quote=Media Lens, or rather two men called Dave who have appointed themselves watchdogs of the corporate media|work=Medium|date=21 March 2016|accessdateaccess-date=21 February 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/about-us/who-are-we.html|title=Who Are We?|work=Media Lens|date=22 December 2016|accessdateaccess-date=10 September 2017}}</ref> Their aim is to scrutinise and question the [[mainstream media]]'s coverage of significant events and issues and to draw attention to what they consider "the systemic failure of the [[corporate media]] to report the world honestly and accurately".<ref name=MLObj>{{cite web|title=What is Our Objective?|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=20|publisher=Media Lens|accessdateaccess-date=14 December 2012}}</ref><ref name=OBB>{{cite journal|last=Boyd-Barrett|first=Oliver|title=Newspeak in the 21st Century - Book Review|journal=Media, War & Conflict|year=2010|volume=3|page=371|doi=10.1177/17506352100030030903|s2cid=147200571}}</ref>

Media Lens is financed by donations from website visitors.<ref name=OBB/> The editors issue regular "Media Alerts" concentrating on mainstream media outlets such as the [[BBC]] and [[Channel 4 News]] which are legally obliged to be impartial or on outlets such as ''[[The Guardian]]''<ref name="Wilby2">{{cite news|last=Wilby|first=Peter|url=http://www.newstatesman.com/node/152483|title=On the margins|work=New Statesman|date=30 January 2006}}</ref> and ''[[The Independent]]'' which are usually considered [[Left-wing politics|left-leaning]].<ref name="Clark">{{cite news|last=Clark|first=Neil|url=http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-left-vs-the-liberal-media/|title=The Left vs. the Liberal Media|work=The American Conservative|date=15 May 2013}}</ref> The site's editors frequently draw attention to what they see as the limits within which the mainstream media operates,<ref name="Murphy">{{cite web|last=Murphy|first=Elliot|url=https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/there-will-be-tweets-media-lens-and-the-death-of-friendship/|title=There Will Be Tweets: Media Lens and the Death of Friendship|publisher=Z net|date=6 May 2014|accessdateaccess-date=22 January 2016}}</ref> and provide "a riveting exposeexposé of the myth of liberal media based on a variety of empirical case studies", according to Graham Murdock and Michael Pickering.<ref name=GMMP2008>{{cite book|last1=Murdock|first1=Graham|last2=Pickering|first2=Michael|title=Narrating Media History|year=2008|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0415419154|page=169|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=szrjHK30trkC&lpg=PA169&dqq=%22Edwards%20and%20Cromwell%22&pg=PA169#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref>

Media Lens is admired by [[John Pilger]], who has called the website "remarkable" and described the writers as "the cyber guardians of honest journalism".<ref name="Pilger2007">{{cite news|last=Pilger|first=John|url=http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2007/11/pilger-iraq-western|title=The cyber guardians of honest journalism|work=New Statesman|date=29 November 2007}}</ref> Other journalists, in particular [[Peter Oborne]],<ref name=PO2008>{{cite book|last=Oborne|first=Peter|title=The Triumph of the Political Class|origyearorig-year=2007|year=2008|publisher=Pocket Books|isbn=978-1416526650|page=272|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V9yBJwAACAAJ}}</ref> have also made positive comments about the group, although it has come into conflict with other journalists. ''[[The Observer]]''{{'}}s foreign editor [[Peter Beaumont (journalist)|Peter Beaumont]] asserted that the group ran a "campaign" against [[John Sloboda]] and the [[Iraq Body Count project|Iraq Body Count]] for underestimating the number of deaths in Iraq.<ref name="Beaumont">{{cite news|last=Beaumont|first=Peter|url=https://www.theguardian.com/observer/comment/story/0,,1800328,00.html|title=Microscope on Medialens|work=The Observer|date=18 June 2006}} See also {{cite web|last1=Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=462:a-superb-demolition-part-3&catid=20:alerts-2006&Itemid=39|title=A Superb Demolition – Part 3 – Squeaky Spleen – Beaumont Strikes Back|work=Media Lens|date=28 June 2006}}</ref> [[George Monbiot]] wrote that Media Lens was "belittling the acts of genocide" in their defence of [[Edward S. Herman]], who had questioned the number of deaths in the [[Srebrenica massacre]].<ref name="Monbiot1">{{cite news|last=Monbiot|first=George|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/13/left-and-libertarian-right|title=Left and libertarian right cohabit in the weird world of the genocide belittlers|work=The Guardian|date=13 June 2011}}</ref>

By the late 1990s, [[David Edwards (journalist)|David Edwards]] had concluded that there was a "media suppression of the truth about the effect of the [[Sanctions against Iraq|sanctions]]" against Iraq, and an indifference to [[Global warming|climate change]]: "the media were still celebrating the idea that Britain might soon be blessed with a Mediterranean climate". Another motivation came from interviewing [[Denis Halliday]], former head of the UN’s humanitarian aid program, after concluding its actions in Iraq were "[[Genocide|genocidal]]".<ref name="UKIM-NTM">{{cite web|last=Walby|first=Sam|url=http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/05/479234.html|title=Interview with David Edwards from Media Lens|publisher=UK Indymedia|date=10 May 2011}} Interview also reproduced at {{cite web|url=http://nowthenmagazine.com/issue-38/media-lens/|title=Interview with David Edwards|work=Now Then|url-status=dead|archiveurlarchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110517040852/http://nowthenmagazine.com/issue-38/media-lens/|archivedatearchive-date=17 May 2011}}</ref>

Central to Media Lens analysis is the [[Propaganda model]], first developed by [[Edward S. Herman|Edward Herman]] and [[Noam Chomsky]], in their book ''[[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media|Manufacturing Consent]]'' (1988).<ref name=DF2009/><ref name=GoP2005>{{cite book|last1=Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|title=Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media|year=2006|publisher=Pluto Press|isbn=0745324827|pages=4–5|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=29xoAAAAIAAJ&dqq=editions:ISBN0745324835}}</ref> The theory posits that the way in which news media is structured (through [[advertising]], [[Concentration of media ownership|media ownership]], government sourcing and others) creates an inherent [[conflict of interest]] which leads to [[systemic bias]] and propaganda for undemocratic forces.<ref name=DF2009/><ref name=GoP2005/> Edwards has also cited [[Erich Fromm]], who thought "a society that subordinates people and planet to profit is inherently insane and toxic",<ref name="UKIM-NTM"/> and his practice of [[Buddhism]] as influences.<ref>See the last chapter of ''Newspeak in the 21st Century'' (London: Pluto, 2009) where Edwards explains this part of his life.</ref>

Media Lens has expressed admiration for Australian born journalist [[John Pilger]] on several occasions. Around 2006, Media Lens said ''The Guardian'' would not publish Pilger "because he’s honest about the media" and "draws attention to the vital role of the entire liberal media establishment in crimes against humanity. So he is ''persona non grata''".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://medialens.org/index.php/bookshop/interviews-about-the-books/119-uk-watch-interviews-media-lens.html|title=UK Watch Interviews Media Lens|work=Media Lens|date=15 January 2013|orig-year=c. 2006|accessdateaccess-date=17 February 2018}}</ref> In a 2007 interview, Media Lens said Pilger was a "huge inspiration" and, while discussing his work in the mainstream media, stated that "on the one hand, his work has a tremendous effect in enlightening a lot of people. On the other hand, his work is used to strengthen the propaganda system‘s false claims of honesty and openness". <ref name="Pilger2013">{{cite web|last1=Pilger|first1=John|last2=Albert|first2=Michael|url=http://www.zcommunications.org/the-view-from-the-ground-by-john-pilger|title=The View From The Ground|work=Z net|publisher=Z Communications|date=16 February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130219060727/http://www.zcommunications.org/the-view-from-the-ground-by-john-pilger|archive-date=19 February 2013|quote=I have worked all my career in the mainstream. I’ve done this by expending a huge amount of energy in maintaining my place, and fighting my corner. It has been often and literally a struggle, but in time I learned to navigate through and sometimes around institutions. Learning to navigate is critical for young, principled journalists.}}</ref><ref name="alterzoom"/>

In 2001, Media Lens began issuing regular online Media Alerts, scrutinising media coverage, the arguments used, [[Source (journalism)|source]] selection, and the [[Framing (social sciences)#Framing in mass communication research|framing]] of events to highlight bias, omissions and direct lies.<ref name="Townend2009">{{cite web|last=Townend|first=Judith|url=http://www.journalism.co.uk/news-features/q-amp-a-media-lens--our-book-will-likely-be-more-or-less-ignored-as-other-similar-books-have-been-/s5/a536740/|title=Q&A: Media Lens – 'Our book will likely be more or less ignored, as other similar books have been'|work=Journalism|date=2 December 2009}}</ref><ref name="Pilger2002">{{cite news|last=Pilger|first=John|url=https://www.newstatesman.com/node/192546|title=John Pilger prefers the web to TV news - it's more honest online|work=New Statesman|date=5 December 2002|accessdateaccess-date=20 April 2018}}</ref> The media alerts are distributed without charge by email to an international readership. According to Media Lens, the readership was around 14,000 people in 2009. Funding is through reader subscriptions and donations.<ref name="Townend2009"/><ref name=OBB/>

The editors engage in email and [[Twitter]] exchanges with British journalists and editors.<ref name="OBB"/><ref name="Murphy"/> They also invite their readers to challenge journalists, editors and programme producers directly via email, specifically discouraging abusive contact.<ref name=DF2009>{{cite journal|last=Freedman|first=Des|title= 'Smooth Operator?' The Propaganda Model and Moments of Crisis|journal=Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture|year=2009|volume=6|issue=2|pages=59–72|url=http://eprints.gold.ac.uk/5958/1/WPCC-Vol6-No2-Des__Freedman.pdf|accessdateaccess-date=22 March 2013|doi=10.16997/wpcc.124|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="Alert1">At the end of each alert is the advice: "The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others ... we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone." See for example: {{cite web|last1=Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=632:three-little-words-wikileaks-libya-oil&catid=24:alerts-2011&Itemid=68|title=Three Little Words: WikiLeaks, Libya, Oil|work=Media Lens|date=22 June 2011}}</ref><ref name=BB2011>{{cite book|last=Brock-Utne|first=Birgit|title=Expanding Peace Journalism: Comparative and Critical Approaches|year=2011|publisher=Sydney University Press|isbn=978-1920899707|page=86–|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xNPySJJ7kpYC&lpg=PA86&dqq=%22media%20lens%22%20Edwards&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false}}.</ref><ref>See for example {{cite web|last1=Cromwell|first1=David|last2=Edwards|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=582:the-balance-of-power-exchanges-with-bbc-journalists&catid=23:alerts-2009&Itemid=35|title=The Balance of Power – Exchanges With BBC Journalists|work=Media Lens|date=15 October 2009}}</ref>

According to Cromwell and Edwards, journalists in the mainstream media articulate an "'official' version of events ... as Truth. The testimony of critical observers and participants" and "especially those on the receiving end of Western firepower – are routinely marginalised, ignored and even ridiculed".<ref name="alterzoom"/> The editors "reject all conspiracy theories. Instead, we point to the inevitably corrupting effects of 'market forces' operating on, and through, media corporations seeking profit in a society dominated by corporate power ... Media employees are part of a corporate system that, unsurprisingly, selects for servility to the needs and goals of corporate power". They believe that mainstream journalists gradually absorb an unquestioning corporate mindset as their careers progress, becoming unwilling to question their occupations or governments claims, but not consciously lying. They also say that the limitations of the corporate media are not unexpected as "[w]e did not expect the Soviet Communist Party's newspaper [[Pravda]] to tell the truth about the Communist Party, why should we expect the corporate press to tell the truth about corporate power?"<ref name="mlabout">{{citation|last=Media Lens|title=About Us|url=http://www.medialens.org/about/|accessdateaccess-date=2 March 2010|url-status=dead|archiveurlarchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100224055453/http://www.medialens.org/about/|archivedatearchive-date=24 February 2010}}</ref>

In Cromwell and Edwards' opinion, western government actions have followed an "historical pattern of deception" going back several centuries,<ref name="Barker">Quoted in {{cite news|last=Barker|first=Dan Raymond|url=http://www.newint.org/blog/books/2011/01/12/rax-interview-media-lens/ |title=Rax Interview with Media Lens|work=New Internationalist|date=12 January 2011}}</ref> and "the corporate media is the source of some of the greatest, most lethal illusions of our age".<ref name="Barker"/> Edwards wrote that, because of these corporate distortions, "we believe, society is not told the truth about the appalling consequences of corporate greed for poor people in the Third World, and for the environment".<ref>{{cite web|last=Edwards|first=David|url=http://www.dharmalife.com/issue22/mediacompassion.html|title=An eye to media compassion|work=Dharma Life|issue=22|date=Spring 2004|access-date=18 December 2014|archive-date=23 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923214214/http://www.dharmalife.com/issue22/mediacompassion.html|url-status=dead}}</ref>

According to Cromwell and Edwards, the centre-left wing of the mainstream media are gatekeepers "of acceptable debate from a left or Green perspective, 'thus far and no further'"<ref>{{cite news|last=Sinclair|first=Ian|url=http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/37665|title=All Eyes on Media Lens|work=Morning Star|date=13 November 2006}}</ref>{{dl|access-date=July6 2020August 2011|archive-date=28 May 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120528091620/http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/37665|url-status=dead}}</ref> and that dissenting views have difficulty gaining attention in a corporate system.<ref name="OBB"/><ref name="Clark"/> They have contrasted positive comments the mainstream media make about western leaders, with the epithets used to describe politicians such as [[Hugo Chávez]], Venezuela's former President.<ref>{{cite news|last=Barnfield|first=Graham|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409008|title=Newspeak in the 21st Century|work=Times Higher Education|location=London|date=12 November 2009}} For Media Lens articles on this point see {{cite web|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=452:ridiculing-chavez-the-media-hit-their-stride-part-1&catid=20:alerts-2006&Itemid=9|title=Ridiculing Chavez – The Media Hit Their Stride – Part 1|work=Media Lens|date=16 May 2006}} and {{cite web|last=Edwards|first=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/724-death-of-a-bogeyman-the-corporate-media-bury-hugo-chavez.html|title=Death Of A Bogeyman - The Corporate Media Bury Hugo Chávez|work=Media Lens|date=13 March 2013}}</ref>

In 2013, Media Lens described the corporate media as "an extremist fringe" from which progressives should completely dissociate themselves.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sinclair|first=Ian|url=http://peacenews.info/node/7200/fourth-estate-agents%EF%BB%BF|title=Fourth estate agents|work=Peace News|issue=2556|date=April 2013}}</ref>

In May 2011,<ref name="UKIM-NTM"/> and more extensively in January 2015, Media Lens advocated "a collective of high-profile writers and journalists willing to detach themselves from corporate and state media, and to place themselves entirely at the mercy of the public" with their output freely available "from a single media outlet" and financed by donations.<ref>{{cite web|last=Edwards|first=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/785-feral-journalism-rewilding-dissent.html|title=Feral Journalism - Rewilding Dissent|work=Media Lens|date=29 January 2015}}</ref> "The support would be vast, ''if'' the initiative was posited as an alternative to the biocidal, corruption-drenched corporate media", they said in an interview with The Colossus website in January 2016.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://bsnews.info/an-interview-with-media-lens/|title=An Interview with Media Lens|work=BS News|date=5 January 2016|accessdateaccess-date=24 January 2018}} (Original published as {{cite news|url=https://thecolossus.co/2016/01/04/an-interview-with-media-lens/|title=An interview with Media Lens|work=The Colossus|date=4 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160910030501/https://thecolossus.co/2016/01/04/an-interview-with-media-lens/|archive-date=10 September 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Cromwell wrote in 2016 that, to find coverage of the [[Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)|Yemeni Civil War]], "[n]ot unusually, one has to go to media such as" the Russian television network [[RT (TV network)|RT]] and the Iranian news network [[Press TV]], which are "so often bitterly denigrated as 'propaganda' operations by corporate journalists".<ref>{{cite news|last=Cromwell|first=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2016/826-menwith-menace-britain-s-complicity-in-saudi-arabia-s-terror-campaign-against-yemen.html|title=Menwith Menace: Britain's Complicity In Saudi Arabia's Terror Campaign Against Yemen|work=Media Lens|date=13 September 2016|accessdateaccess-date=29 September 2016}}</ref>

In December 2002, eighteen months after the site's creation, Australian journalist John Pilger described Media Lens as "becoming indispensable".<ref name="Pilger2002"/> In a ''[[New Internationalist]]'' interview in 2010, Pilger said Media Lens "has broken new ground with the first informed and literate analysis and criticism of the liberal media".<ref name="Pilger2010">{{cite news|url=https://newint.org/features/2010/12/01/john-pilger-interview|title=Interview with John Pilger|work=New Internationalist|date=1 December 2010|accessdateaccess-date=17 February 2018}}</ref> Regarding their work on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, he wrote that "Without [Media Lens'] meticulous and humane analysis, the full gravity of the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan might have been consigned to bad journalism's first draft of bad history".<ref name="Pilger2007"/> In a 2007 article about them, John Pilger mentioned their first collaborative book, ''[[Guardians of Power]]'' (2006), and wrote that "not a single national newspaper reviewed the most important book about journalism I can remember",<ref name="Pilger2007"/> including the left-wing ''[[Morning Star (UK newspaper)|Morning Star]]''. The ''Morning Star'' did review their second book, ''Newspeak In The 21st Century'', in 2009.<ref>{{cite news|last=Coysh|first=Daniel|url=http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/81096|title=''Newspeak In The 21st Century''|work=Morning Star|date=25 September 2009|access-date=20 June 2012|archive-date=4 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304112912/http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/81096|url-status=dead}}</ref>

[[Peter Barron]], former editor of the BBC's ''[[Newsnight]]'' commented in 2005: "In fact I rather like them. David Cromwell and David Edwards, who run the site, are unfailingly polite, their points are well-argued and sometimes they're plain right."<ref>{{cite web|last=Barron|first=Peter|title=Could you do better|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4426334.stm|accessdateaccess-date=11 November 2005|work= BBC News|date= 11 November 2005}}</ref>

In June 2006, [[Peter Beaumont (journalist)|Peter Beaumont]] wrote in June''The 2006Observer'' that Media Lens "insist that the only acceptable version of the truth is theirs alone and that everybody else should march to the same step", and described them as "controlling [[Politburo]] lefties". He likened the group's email campaigns to "a train spotters' club run by Uncle Joe Stalin".<ref name="Beaumont"/> Media Lens responded that "Beaumont was unwilling to challenge even one of the thousands of arguments and facts published in 2,000 pages of Media Alerts and in our book ''Guardians Of Power'' – so, instead, our 'nastiness' was the focus of attention".<ref name="ml280606">{{cite web |title=A superb demolition - Part 3 |url=https://www.medialens.org/2006/a-superb-demolition-part-3/ |website=Media Lens |access-date=16 August 2020 |date=28 June 2006}}</ref>

On 2 December 2007, Edwards and Cromwell were awarded the [[Gandhi International Peace Award]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Greenslade|first=Roy|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2007/nov/30/medialenswingandhiawardfo|title=Media Lens win Gandhi award for exposing the faults of liberal journalists|work=The Guardian|date=30 November 2007|accessdateaccess-date=17 January 2016}}</ref> The award was presented by Denis Halliday, the former [[United Nations]] Humanitarian Co-ordinator in [[Iraq]], and himself a recipient of the award in 2003.<ref name="gipb">{{cite web|last=Hayat|first=Omar|url=http://gandhifoundation.org/2007/12/02/2007-peace-award-media-lens|title=Gandhi International Peace Award 2007 citation|date=2 December 2007|access-date=20 November 2008|archive-date=20 February 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090220235510/http://gandhifoundation.org/2007/12/02/2007-peace-award-media-lens/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Oliver Boyd-Barrett, an academic specialising in Communications Studies, said in 2010 that Media Lens possess a "relentless commitment" to assessing the media "on criteria of rationality and humanity, for what they write and fail to write, and doing so in a tone that is determinedly polite and respectful, even when the content is highly critical".<ref name=OBB/>

In February 2011, John Rentoul wrote about his interactions with what he called Media Lens "adherents". He said an email exchange,<blockquote>"may continue until journalist is too busy to reply or until the snarl of Chomskian-Pilgerism is unwittingly betrayed and journalist realises he or she has not been engaging with a reasonable person. At this point, Media Lens adherent then posts the email chain on the sect's website, without notice or permission [beginning a thread]. This is supposed to embarrass the apologist for the corporate media/torture/Tony Blair and expose him to ridicule by other sect members".<ref>{{cite news|last=Rentoul|first=John|url=http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/02/27/banging-the-drum-against-human-rights/|title=Banging the Drum Against Human Rights|work=The Independent|date=27 February 2011|url-status=dead|archiveurlarchive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120620145619/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/02/27/banging-the-drum-against-human-rights/|archivedatearchive-date=20 June 2012|df=dmy-all}}</ref></blockquote>

In January 2012, ''The Guardian''{{'}}s [[Michael White (journalist)|Michael White]], accused Media Lens of suggesting the newspaper's two most left-wing writers, Milne and [[George Monbiot]] "trim their sails and pull their punches to accommodate their paymasters".<ref name="White2012">{{cite news|last=White|first=Michael|url=https://www.theguardian.com/global/2012/jan/27/media-lens-picture-michael-white|title=Media Lens shows it doesn't get the whole picture|work=The Guardian|date=27 January 2012}} White was responding to {{cite web|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=662:silence-of-the-lambs-&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69|title=Silence Of The Lambs: Seumas Milne, George Monbiot & 'Media Analysis' In ''The Guardian'' Wonderland|work=Media Lens|date=25 January 2012}}</ref> TheHe responseadded: to"Media WhiteLens doesn'st articledo wassubtle. Nor do its more acceptable heroes, such as John Pilger or [''The Independent''{{cite'}}s] web|url[[Robert Fisk]]".<ref name=http:"White2012"//medialens> Media Lens responded that corporate journalists did more than merely “trim sails”.org/index.php/component/acymailing/archive/view/listid-3-alerts-precis/mailid-121-snow-white- There were “whole areas of thought and- discussion are demonstrably off the-two-daves- agenda” and “the corporate nature of the-guardian-responds mass media tends to produce performance that defends and furthers the goals of the corporate system”.html<ref name="ml020212">{{cite web |title=Snow, White And The Two Daves –- The Guardian Responds |workurl=https://www.medialens.org/2012/snow-test/ |website=Media Lens |access-date=217 FebruaryAugust 2020 2012|accessdatedate=212 JanuaryFebruary 20182012}}</ref> HeIn added:May "Media2016, LensWhite doesn'twrote dothat subtle.their Norwork dosuggests its"their moreown acceptableediting heroes,priorities suchmay be as Johnpartisan Pilgerand orun-self-aware [''Theas Independent''{{'}}s]the [[Robertcorporates Fisk]]they so severely condemn".<ref name="White2012White2016">{{cite news|last=White|first=Michael|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2016/may/16/iraq-syria-and-the-cost-of-intervention-and-non-intervention|title=Iraq, Syria and the cost of intervention (and non-intervention)|work=The Guardian|date=16 May 2016|access-date=17 May 2016}}</ref>

In February 2012, the philosopher [[Rupert Read]] criticised Media Lens' use of [[Michel Chossudovsky]] asand aarticles sourceby [[Robert Dreyfuss]] and Aisling Byrne as sources for the situation in Syria.<ref name="Read1">{{cite web|last=Read|first=Rupert|url=http://www.opendemocracy.net/rupert-read/syria-my-enemy%E2%80%99s-enemy-is-not-my-friend|title=Syria: my enemy's enemy is not my friend|work=Open Democracy|date=19 February 2012}} Specifically Read was responding to a two-part alert ({{cite web|url=http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=665:travesty-un-resolutions-of-mass-destruction-part-1&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69|title=UN 'Travesty': Resolutions Of Mass Destruction – Part 1|work=Media Lens|date=14 February 2012}} and {{cite web|url=http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=666:un-travesty-resolutions-of-mass-destruction-part-2&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69|title=.Part 2|work=Media Lens|date=16 February 2012}}) These alerts were reprinted on the ''New Internationalist'' website [http://www.newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2012/02/20/un-resolutions-of-mass-destruction-part-one/ here] and [http://www.newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2012/02/22/un-travesty-part-two/ here]. Media Lens responded to Rupert Read on [https://web.archive.org/web/20120327202655/http://medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3285 their forum] on 21 February. (Archived from the (unavailable) [http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3285 original] on 27 March 2012.) A later version of Read's piece: {{cite web|url=http://www.newint.org/blog/2012/02/23/left-support-for-syria/|title=The Left must support the Syrian uprising|work=New Internationalist|date=23 February 2012 }} was partially [http://www.newint.org/blog/2012/02/24/-media-lens-rupert-read-second-thoughts/ disowned] by NI. Read had written about Media Lens use of sources earlier in {{cite web|url=http://leftfootforward.org/2011/10/pro-basher-al-assad-useful-idiots-exposed/|title=Exposed: The pro-Assad useful idiots in our midst|work=Left Foot Forward|date=22 October 2011|accessdateaccess-date=3 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="Kamm2">{{cite news|last=Kamm|first=Oliver|url=http://timesopinion.tumblr.com/post/34099782611/oliver-kamm-media-lens|title=Media Lens: a warning|work=The Times|date=22 October 2012}}</ref>

When one of the Media Lens' editors suggested on [[twitter]] in 2018 that young writers should "follow your bliss" (a term coined by the American writer [[Joseph Campbell]]) and contribute "what you absolutely love to write to inspire and enlighten other people" rather than bothering about prestige or financial reward, extensive responses were posted on the social media platform.<ref>{{cite web|last=Edwards|first=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018/864-follow-your-bliss-the-tweet-that-brought-corporate-journalism-to-the-brink-of-a-nervous-breakthrough.html|title='Follow Your Bliss' - The Tweet That Brought Corporate Journalism To The Brink Of A Nervous Breakthrough|work=Media Lens|date=7 March 2018|accessdateaccess-date=8 March 2018}}</ref> Journalist [[James Ball (journalist)|James Ball]] responded that writers should try the mainstream first to gain attention for their work as "virtually all of the best journalism comes out of 'corporate' or 'mainstream' media", such as the [[United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal|parliamentary expenses scandal]], "the exposure of [[Panama Papers|offshore leaks]]", "[[Iraq War documents leak|Iraq War Logs]]", "[[Libor scandal|Libor rigging]]", and "dozens of other major pieces of accountability stories".<ref>{{cite news|last=Ball|first=James|url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/03/journalists-follow-your-bliss-writing-free-anti-socialist-left|title=Telling journalists to "follow your bliss" by writing for free is as anti-socialist as you can get|work=New Statesman|date=2 February 2018|accessdateaccess-date=2 March 2018}}</ref>

In 2002, prior to the [[Iraq War]], Media Lens argued that it was fraudulent for the UK and US governments to justify a war on the basis that Iraq still possessed a credible [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction]] (WMD) threat and had an active WMD programme.<ref name="ML02">{{cite news|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2002/219-iraq-and-arms-inspectors-the-big-lie-part-1.html|title=Iraq and Arms Inspectors - The Big Lie, Part 1|accessdateaccess-date=20 March 2013|work=Media Lens|date=28 October 2002}}</ref> Media Lens cited the work of former chief UN arms inspector [[Scott Ritter]], who had stated 4 years previously that a thorough investigation by UN inspectors had found that Iraq had "fundamentally disarmed" with 90–95 per cent of its WMD capability eliminated. Media Lens further cited Ritter's opinion that it would have been impossible for Iraq to rearm "from scratch" within the four years since the UN had left, given the level of scrutiny they were under.<ref name="ML02"/>

A 30 April 2003 Media Lens database search, covering the period leading up to and including the [[2003 invasion of Iraq|invasion of Iraq]] found that, of the 5,767 articles published by ''The Guardian'' and its sister paper ''The Observer'', only twelve made any mention of Scott Ritter. According to Edwards, this constituted "a shocking suppression of serious and credible dissident views", which he said were "soon to be entirely vindicated".<ref name=DE2010>{{cite book|last=Edwards|first=David|title=Peace Journalism, War and Conflict Resolution|year=2010|publisher=Peter Lang Publishing|isbn=978-1433107269|page=309|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lHIo5dmjEVQC&lpg=PA309&dqq=Iraq%20WMD%20%22media%20lens%22%20-.medialens.org&pg=PA309#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref><ref>Cromwell and Edwards wrote in ''The Guardian'' in December 2004 about the limited media references to [[Denis Halliday]] and [[Hans von Sponeck]], both of whom resigned from the UN over the sanctions they had administered in Iraq. See {{cite news|last1=Cromwell|first1=David|last2=Edwards|first2=David|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/dec/15/media.pressandpublishing|title=Balance in the service of falsehood|work=The Guardian|date=15 December 2004}}</ref> Eddie Girdner agreed with Media Lens and cited it as one of the few who had drawn this conclusion before the war began.<ref name=EG2008>{{citecitation bookneeded|lastdate=Girdner|first=Eddie|title=USANovember and the New Middle East|year=2008|publisher=Gyan Publishing House|isbn=978-8121210010|pages=26, 532020}}</ref>

According to Richard Alexander, writing in 2010 about the Iraq war, Edwards and Cromwell "trenchantly dissected the servant role the British media played in bolstering the lies to the British public purveyed by the UK government".<ref name=RA2010>{{cite book|last=Alexander|first=Richard|title=Framing Discourse on the Environment|year=2010|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-415-88835-6|page=110|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cqcLmKSo4c0C&pg=PA228&dqq=Edwards+and+cromwell+2005+%22Guardians+of+power%22#v=onepage&q&fpg=falsePA228}}</ref> After referring to the "mountain of evidence" assembled by Cromwell and Edwards for their argument, John Jewell wrote for ''[[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]]'' website: "It must be remembered that the press was not completely united in its support for Blair" pointing to the opposition of the <!-- A 2003 Guardian quote is cited by ML, this uses the full title. -->''[[Daily Mirror]]'' to the invasion of Iraq as an example. Jewell's assertion about the "anti-war" ''Mirror'' was not entirely shared by Media Lens who criticised its respect for Blair's "patent sincerity".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://theconversation.com/tony-blair-took-britain-to-war-in-2003-but-most-of-fleet-street-marched-with-him-62065|title=Tony Blair took Britain to war in 2003 – but most of Fleet Street marched with him|work=The Conversation|date=5 July 2017|accessdateaccess-date=17 February 2017}} For his assertion about Media Len's "mountain of evidence", Jewell cites: {{cite web|last=Edwards|first=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/alerts-2013/725-blair-speech.html|title=The Iraq War Was Not A Media Failure|work=Media Lens|date=10 June 2013|accessdateaccess-date=17 February 2017}} Media Len's assertion about the ''Mirror'' is also taken from this source.</ref>

[[Nick Robinson (journalist)|Nick Robinson]] in ''Live From Downing Street'' (2012), refers to an exchange between Media Lens and then Head of BBC News [[Richard Sambrook]] in late 2002 a few months before the invasion of Iraq:<blockquote>"[W]e believe you are a sincere and well-intentioned person ... but you are at the heart of a system of lethal, institutionalised deception. Like it or not, believe it or not, by choosing to participate in this propaganda system, you and the journalists around you may soon be complicit in mass murder. As things stand, you and your journalists are facilitating the killing and mutilation of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of innocent men, women and children".<ref name="Robinson393">{{cite book|last=Robinson|first=Nick|url=https://books.google.co.ukcom/books?id=aqApxIpmrpIC&pg=PA393&lpg=PA393|title=Live from Downing Street: The Inside Story of Politics, Power and the Media|location=London|publisher=Bantam Press|year=2012|page=393|isbn=9780593066805}} Robinson cites from: {{cite web|last1=Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2003/232-update-bbc-director-of-news-responds-on-channeling-government-propaganda.html|title=Update: BBC Director of News Responds on Channeling Government Propaganda|work=Media Lens|date=1 January 2003|accessdateaccess-date=24 January 2018}}</ref></blockquote> Robinson responded to this argument: "It is absurd – not to mention offensive – to suggest that journalists who report both the case for war and the case against it are morally responsible for those who die in it".<ref name="Robinson393"/>

The 2004 ''Lancet'' survey was discussed by mathematician [[John Allen Paulos]] in an article published in ''The Guardian''. Following criticism of the article by Media Lens, Paulos acknowledged he had been wrong to use a "largely baseless personal assessment", to call into question the findings of ''The Lancet'' study.<ref name="MLLancetUpdate">{{cite web |title=Burying The Lancet - Update |url=https://www.medialens.org/2005/burying-the-lancet-update/ |website=Media Lens |accessdateaccess-date=3 August 2020 |date=12 September 2005}}</ref><ref name=SM2007/><ref name="MLLancet2">{{cite web|title=Burying the Lancet - Part 2|date=6 September 2005|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2005/409-burying-the-lancet-part-2.html|publisher=Media Lens|accessdateaccess-date=23 March 2013}}</ref>

In 2005, Media Lens challenged ''The Independent''{{'}}s senior leader writer on foreign affairs, Mary Dejevsky, to explain why an editorial in the paper said the results of the 2004 ''Lancet'' study were obtained "by extrapolating from a small sample" and that "[w]hile never completely discredited, those figures were widely doubted". Dejevsky responded that, while the sample may have been standard, it seemed small from her "lay perspective". Her main point "was less based on my impression than on the fact that this technique exposed the authors to the criticisms/dismissal that the govt duly made, and they had little to counter those criticisms with, bar the defence that their methods were standard for those sort of surveys". The response was considered incoherent by [[Edward S. Herman|Edward Herman]] who called it "Massive incompetence in support of a war-apologetic agenda".<ref name="MLLancet1">{{cite web |title=Burying The Lancet - Part 1 |url=https://www.medialens.org/2005/burying-the-lancet-part-1/ |website=Media Lens |accessdateaccess-date=3 August 2020 |date=5 September 2005}}</ref><ref name=SM2007/> According to Mukhopadhyay, the exchange was evidence that journalists, who do not have the statistical expertise to evaluate technical reports, "do not always take the obvious step of seeking expert advice".<ref name=SM2007/> Reviewing Media Lens' engagement with press coverage of ''The Lancet'' study, Arvind Sivaramakrishna drew a similar conclusion stating, "Political correspondents are clearly ignorant of [[sampling frame]]s and techniques, [[confidence limit]]s, [[significance level]]s, [[Maximum likelihood|likelihood estimators]], and so on."<ref name=AS/>

The 2004 survey findings were described as exaggerated and flawed by the US and UK governments which cited a much lower figure, a position which was largely supported in US and UK media coverage. Media Lens said the media "fell into line" with the governments' view despite earlier accepting the estimates from a similar study by the same researchers, using the same methods, which had estimated 1.7 million deaths in the Congo.<ref name=BB2011/><ref name=AS>{{cite news|last=Sivaramakrishna|first=Arvind|title=Critique of the mainstream press|url=http://www.hindu.com/br/2010/02/23/stories/2010022350211500.htm|accessdatearchive-url=https://archive.today/20130411030522/http://www.hindu.com/br/2010/02/23/stories/2010022350211500.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=11 April 2013|access-date=22 March 2013|work=The Hindu|date=23 February 2010}}</ref>

The [[Iraq Body Count project]] (IBC) was set up by Hamit Dardagan and [[John Sloboda]] as an attempt to record civilian deaths resulting from the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Project volunteers examined news stories for reports of civilian casualties. Each incident reported by at least by two independent news sources was included in a database.<ref name="bbc280406js">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4950254.stm|title=Interview transcript – John Sloboda|work=Newsnight|publisher=BBC|date=28 April 2006|accessdateaccess-date=26 September 2012}}</ref> As at the middle of 2006, the IBC study estimated between 38,725 and 43,140 civilian deaths arising from the 2003 invasion.<ref>{{cite web |title=Iraq Body Count |url=https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ |website=www.iraqbodycount.org |accessdateaccess-date=4 August 2020}}</ref>

Starting in January 2006, Media Lens began examining the IBC project.<ref name="bbc280406">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4951508.stm|title=Iraq Body Count – Media Lens responds|work=Newsnight|publisher=BBC|date=28 April 2006|accessdateaccess-date=26 September 2012}}</ref><ref name="bbc280406vw"/> Its criticisms were that IBC results were not produced by experts in [[epidemiology]] and were not peer reviewed, unlike the two ''Lancet'' surveys. They also said that studies similar to that of the IBC had been found to only capture a fraction of actual deaths. The lower count produced by the IBC’s method was, Media Lens argued, used by politicians and journalists "particularly of the pro-war variety" (they named ''[[Herald Sun]]'' journalist [[Andrew Bolt|Adam Bolt]](sic) and the [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrats]] as their examples) to "downplay the tragedy of the civilian death toll" and "suggest, for example, that the results of the invasion have been far less severe than the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power".<ref name="ml100406">{{cite web|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2006/445-iraq-body-count-a-shame-becoming-shameful.html|title=Iraq Body Count – A Shame Becoming Shameful|date=10 April 2006|accessdateaccess-date=21 January 2018}}</ref><ref name="bbc280406"/><ref name="bbc280406vw">{{cite news|last=Fuller|first=David|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4951320.stm|title=Virtual war follows Iraq conflict|publisherwork=BBC News|date=28 April 2006}}</ref>

In June 2006, Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor for ''[[The Observer]]'' newspaper, accused the Media Lens editors' of a "campaign apparently designed to silence" John Sloboda and the Iraq Body Count project, because it produced a victim count lower than ''The Lancet'' study.<ref name="Beaumont"/><ref name="ml100406"/><ref name="Sloboda1">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4950254.stm|title=Transcript of an interview with David Fuller for ''Newsnight''|publisherwork=BBC News|date=2006}}</ref>

On 31 October 2005, ''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper published an interview with Noam Chomsky conducted by [[Emma Brockes]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Brockes |first=Emma |url=https://chomsky.info/20051031/|title=The Greatest Intellectual? |work=The Guardian |date=31 October 2005|accessdateaccess-date=21 January 2018}} As reproduced on chomsky.info/. The readers' editor had advised the paper to remove the interview from their online archive, see {{cite news|last=Mayes |first=Ian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/dec/12/commentanddebate.mainsection |title=Open door |work=The Guardian |date=12 December 2005 }} The removal was something Chomsky had not asked ''The Guardian'' to do, and it is his official website on which it is reproduced.</ref> Chomsky complained about the interview in a letter to the readers’ editor, [[Ian Mayes]], on 3 November 2005, after which Media Lens responded with their first article on this issue on 4 November.<ref>{{cite news|last=Mayes|first=Ian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/dec/12/commentanddebate.mainsection|title=Open door|work=The Guardian|date=12 December 2005|accessdateaccess-date=23 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=419:smearing-chomsky-the-guardian-in-the-gutter&catid=19:alerts-2005&Itemid=65|title=Smearing Chiomsky – ''The Guardian'' in the Gutter|work=Media Lens|date=4 November 2005}}</ref> Within a few weeks, ''The Guardian'' apologised to Chomsky for three significant errors in the story including that Brockes had misrepresented Chomsky's views on the Srebrenica massacre and the nature of his support for [[Diana Johnstone]]. ''The Guardian'' also wrote that "[n]either Prof Chomsky nor Ms Johnstone have ever denied the fact of the massacre".<ref name="Chomsky1">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/17/pressandpublishing.corrections|title=Corrections and Clarifications|work=The Guardian|date=17 November 2005|accessdateaccess-date=23 September 2012}}</ref> Media Lens responded to ''The Guardian'' {{'}}s apology in a second article posted on 21 November.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=420:smearing-chomsky-the-guardian-backs-down&catid=19:alerts-2005&Itemid=65|title=Smearing Chomsky – The Guardian Backs Down|work=Media Lens|date=21 November 2005}}</ref> The repercussions of the Brockes interview continued for some time. Ian Mayes, then the readers' editor of ''The Guardian'', wrote on 12 December 2005 that he and Brockes had received "several hundred" emails from Media Lens followers, who were protesting about Chomsky’s treatment.<ref>{{cite news|last=Mayes|first=Ian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2005/dec/12/commentanddebate.mainsection|title=Open door|work=The Guardian|date=12 December 2005}} This article was in response to a complaint about the newspaper's retraction of Brockes' interview with Chomsky by [[David Aaronovitch]], Oliver Kamm and [[Francis Wheen]].</ref>

In December 2009, Media Lens removed [[Edward S. Herman]] and David Peterson’s article, ''Open Letter To Amnesty International'' from its site. It explained to its readers that the removal was in response to "ill-tempered" comments from some readers and to avoid "publishing defamatory statements from either side". Soon after, Kamm wrote in his blog for ''The Times'' newspaper that the article Media Lens had removed repeated false claims about Serb-run detention camps in Bosnia which had led in 2000 to a successful libel action brought against ''[[Living Marxism#ITN vs. LM|LM]]'' magazine (originally ''Living Marxism'') by [[ITN]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Kamm|first=Oliver|url=http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/12/retreat-of-the-srebrenica-deniers.html|url-status=unfit|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100712111412/http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/12/retreat-of-the-srebrenica-deniers.html|title=Retreat of the Srebrenica deniers|work=The Times|date=10 December 2009|archive-date=12 July 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3043|url-status=unfit|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100224030335/http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3043|title=Deleted Thread: 'Open Letter To Amnesty International'|publisher=Media Lens (forum)|date=6 December 2009|archive-date=24 February 2010}}</ref><ref>See also {{cite web|last=Simpson|first=Daniel|url=http://balkanwitness.glypx.com/MediaLens-Simpson.htm|title=On Media Lens, Lying, and the Balkans|work=Balkan Witness|date=23 January 2010|accessdateaccess-date=2 January 2016}}</ref>

In 2009, Media Lens summarised Herman and Peterson’s articles on Srebrenica by saying that, although Herman and Peterson were "not denying that mass killings took place at Srebrenica", they "do not accept the figure cited by Kamm and others, but that they are perfectly entitled to do".<ref name="ML1">{{cite web|last1= Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=585:dancing-on-a-mass-grave-oliver-kamm-of-the-times-smears-media-lens&catid=23:alerts-2009&Itemid=35|title=Dancing on a Mass Grave – Oliver Kamm of ''The Times'' Smears Media Lens|work=Media Lens|date=25 November 2009|accessdateaccess-date=21 September 2012}}</ref> In June 2011, [[George Monbiot]] wrote that Media Lens "maintained that Herman and Peterson were 'perfectly entitled' to talk down the numbers killed at Srebrenica".<ref name="Monbiot1"/> He also wrote that Herman and Media Lens had taken "the unwarranted step of belittling the acts of genocide committed by opponents of the western powers".<ref name="Monbiot1"/> In response, Media Lens said their argument had been that Herman and Peterson were "perfectly entitled" to debate the facts not that "they are entitled to falsify, mislead, wilfully deceive, or whatever 'talk down' was intended to suggest". They also wrote that journalists reporting on the effects of the Iraq war were not accused of ‘genocide denial’ if they chose to use the IBC’s estimate of 100,000 deaths over the Lancet study’s estimate of 655,000 Iraqi dead in 2006. They said "typically, someone is adjudged guilty of ‘genocide denial’ only when they question accounts of crimes committed by official enemies of the West".<ref name="ML2">{{cite web|last1=Edwards|first1=David|last2=Cromwell|first2=David|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=637:a-malign-intellectual-subculture-george-monbiot-smears-chomsky-herman-peterson-pilger-and-media-lens&catid=24:alerts-2011&Itemid=68|title=A 'Malign Intellectual Subculture' – George Monbiot Smears Chomsky, Herman, Peterson, Pilger And Media Lens|work=Media Lens|date=2 August 2011}} Monbiot returned to this subject in a slightly later article: {{cite web|url=http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/04/media-cleanse/|title=Media Cleanse|website=monbiot.com|date=4 August 2011}} See also {{cite web|url=http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3203|title=Our response to Monbiot's June 13, 2011 article|work=Media Lens forum|date=16 June 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121116203149/http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3203|archive-date=16 November 2012}}</ref> Regarding the use of the term 'genocide' they wrote:

[[Rupert Read]], an academic and [[Green Party of England and Wales|Green Party]] politician said that Media Lens tends to talk up the numbers of victims of western actions but minimise those of governments in conflict with the west, such as those of [[Bashar al-Assad]] in Syria and [[Slobodan Milošević]].<ref name="Read1"/> He described the articles by Aisling Byrne and [[Robert Dreyfuss]], which Media Lens had used as sources for fatalities in the [[Syrian uprising (2011–present)|conflicts in Syria]], as "dubious".<ref name="Read1"/> He said the effect of this is "tacitly to increase the credibility of Assad's black propaganda".<ref>Rupert Read [https://newint.org/blog/2012/02/23/left-support-for-syria/ "The Left must support the Syrian uprising"] cited above.</ref> David Edwards responded that there was already enough media coverage of the "crimes of official enemies" which, he said, tended to empower the "US-UK war machine". He said Media Lens preferred to "challenge the false assumption of US-UK benevolent intentions, the hypocrisy in media reporting, and the belief that war is the only alternative".<ref name="Response to Rupert Read's latest">{{cite web|url=http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3285|title=Response to Rupert Read's latest|work=Media Lens forum|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120327202655/http://medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3285|archive-date=27 March 2012}}</ref>

In May 2012, Media Lens had an exchange on twitter with cartoonist and writer [[Martin Rowson]].<ref name="Rowson">{{cite news|last=Rowson|first=Martin|url=http://www.tribunemagazine.org/2012/06/martin-rowson-21/|title=Life through Medialens – but not as we know it|archive-url=httphttps://archive.istoday/2eHKj#selection-40120120619183212/http://www.150-401tribunemagazine.170co.uk/2012/06/martin-rowson-21/|archive-date=2319 JanuaryJune 20142012|work=Tribune|date=17 June 2012}}</ref><ref name="ML10">{{cite web|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=682:the-houla-massacre&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69|title=The Houla Massacre|work=Media Lens|date=31 May 2012|quote=We recognise the bloody ruthlessness of the Syrian Baathists, epitomised by Assad's father and continued now by his son, Bashar}}</ref> Rowson had published a cartoon after the [[Houla massacre]] depicting a bloodstained Bashar al-Assad. The cartoon also depicted "[[Angela Merkel]] and [[Christine Lagarde]] lashing a pile of human bones with euro-laden cats-o’-nine-tails".<ref name="Rowson"/> Media Lens asked Rowson what evidence about the massacre he had used in drawing his cartoon. When Rowson replied that he had "no more evidence than media & UN reports, like anyone else. Also used cartoonist’s hunch", Media Lens asked whether he would "rely on a “hunch” in depicting Obama and Cameron with mouths smeared with the blood of massacred children?"<ref name="Rowson"/><ref name="ML10"/> ''[[Tribune (magazine)|Tribune magazine]]'' published an article by Howson about the exchange in which he asked why Media Lens had not sought his "evidence for alleging that Merkel and Lagarde have really truly desecrated corpses, as depicted in my cartoon". He said one possible reason was they were "shilling for tyrants".<ref name="Rowson"/>

In February 2017, Media Lens compared the media coverage of comments made on Syria by [[Jeremy Corbyn]]’s spokesperson [[Seumas Milne]] in October 2016 with the coverage of UK foreign secretary [[Boris Johnson]]’s comments in January 2017. Media Lens wrote that Johnson’s change in policy, announced in January 2017, to accept that President Bashar al-Assad should be allowed to stand for election and remain in power, was the result of newly elected President Trump’s opposition to Obama’s war for [[regime change]] in Syria. They said Milne’s comments were "not defending Assad, merely calling for greater attention to US-UK atrocities". They described the media reaction as "ferocious criticism of Milne’s innocuous comments and the complete absence of any criticism of Johnson’s policy shift". According to them, the reason for the difference was that "the corporate media system is ideologically aligned against an authentically left-wing Labour leader, is working to undermine his reputation, and to protect the reputation of the Conservative government". Media Lens described the media’s "supposed compassion for the Syrian people" as "manufactured, fake".<ref>{{cite news|last=Edwards |first=David |url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2017/837-undermining-democracy-corporate-media-bias-on-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-and-syria.html |title=Undermining Democracy – Corporate Media Bias on Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson and Syria |work=Media Lens |date=6 February 2017 |accessdateaccess-date=6 February 2017 }} See also {{cite news|last=Edwards |first=David |url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=750:the-media-s-hypocritical-oath-mandela-and-economic-apartheid&catid=51:alerts-2013&Itemid=202 |title=The Media's Hypocritical Oath - Mandela And Economic Apartheid |work=Media Lens |date=13 December 2013 |accessdateaccess-date=28 February 2017 }} In this article, Edwards writes: "Oborne compared the results of Mandela's strategy with those of the West's Official Enemies: 'Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein. The list goes on and on.'" In Peter Oborne's original article about Nelson Mandela, the quote is introduced as follows: "This epic generosity of spirit is rare in the history of political action. Just think of the 20th century and the monsters it created: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin..." See {{cite news|last=Oborne |first=Peter |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100249502/few-human-beings-can-be-compared-to-jesus-christ-nelson-mandela-was-one/ |title=Few human beings can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela was one |work=The Daily Telegraph |date=6 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131209164350/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100249502/few-human-beings-can-be-compared-to-jesus-christ-nelson-mandela-was-one |archive-date=9 December 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

In June 2017, the German newspaper ''[[Die Welt]]'' published an article by [[Seymour Hersh]] in which he said the attack by the Syrian government at [[Khan Shaykhun chemical attack|Khan Shaykhun]] in April 2017 did not involve [[sarin]] and that US intelligence knew this. Hersh wrote that his sources said the attack struck a building which housed "fertilisers, disinfectants and other goods".<ref name="welt240617">{{cite news |last1=Hersh |first1=Seymour M. |title=Syria: Trump‘sTrump's Red Line |url=https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html |accessdateaccess-date=13 August 2020 |work=Die Welt |publisher=Die Welt |date=24 June 2017}}</ref> Media Lens tweeted that their search of a newspaper database showed no mention of Hersh’s report. In June 2017, journalist [[Brian Whitaker]] criticised Media Lens for being unconcerned that Hersh had not provided the sources for his story. Whitaker wrote that Media Lens had previously criticised ''The Guardian'' for quoting "unnamed American officials" in a story about Iraq.<ref>{{cite news|last=Whitaker|first=Brian|url=http://al-bab.com/blog/2017/07/syria-seymour-hersh-and-sarin-denialists|title=Syria, Seymour Hersh and the Sarin denialists|work=Al-bab|date=1 July 2017|accessdateaccess-date=1 July 2017}}</ref>

* ''Propaganda Blitz: How the Corporate Media Distort Reality'', London: Pluto Press, September 2018 <small>{{ISBN|978-0-7453-3811-8}}</small><ref>{{cite book |last1=Edwards |first1=David |last2=Cromwell |first2=David |title=Propaganda Blitz: How the Corporate Media Distort Reality |date=September 2018 |publisher=Pluto Press |location=London |isbn=978-0-7453-3811-8 |pages=336 |url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php/bookshop/propaganda-blitz.html |accessdateaccess-date=5 December 2018 |archive-date=5 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181205061429/http://www.medialens.org/index.php/bookshop/propaganda-blitz.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>

* [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]]<ref name=RHWC>{{cite book|last1=Hackett|first1=Robert|last2=Carroll|first2=William|title=Remaking Media: The Struggle to Democratize Public Communication|year=2006|publisher=Routledge|isbn=0203969928|page=63|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JM6AA5jtJmUC&lpg=PP1&dqq=Glasgow%20University%20Media%20Group%20%22media%20lens%22&pg=PA63#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref>

* [http://gandhifoundation.org/2007/12/02/2007-peace-award-media-lens Gandhi International Peace Award acceptance speech] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090220235510/http://gandhifoundation.org/2007/12/02/2007-peace-award-media-lens/ |date=20 February 2009 }}

[[Category:Gandhi International Peace Award Recipientsrecipients]]