Talk:Daniel Brett

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The material on this page is constantly being deleted by the subject of the article. The accuracy or the information has not been challenged, or when inaccuracies have been pointed out, they have been corrected. Any desired changes should be noted here and then SW staff can assess whether the request is valid.--Judith Siers-Poisson 17:48, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)

I am no longer a journalist, I am an emerging markets consultant for an international publishing house. I no longer live in India. I no longer advertise for my services as a freelancer. I am no longer a member of the Young Fabians. I have written to Judith Siers Poisson regarding this matter, but she has refused to answer. Instead, she copies and pastes information from a blog. It's not what I would call high-class investigative journalism.--Dandan 17:59, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)

You website states: "PR Watch specializes in blowing the lid off today's multi-billion dollar propaganda-for-hire industry, naming names and revealing how public relations wizards concoct and spin the news, organize phony 'grassroots' front groups, spy on citizens, and conspire with lobbyists and politicians to thwart democracy. We expose the hidden activities of secretive, little-known mega-firms such as Hill & Knowlton, Burson-Marsteller and Ketchum PR--the "invisible men" who control our political debates and public opinion, twisting reality and protecting the powerful from scrutiny."

It is clear that you have an agenda to dish dirt on "invisible men" but I am at a loss as to understand how I fall into this category. Apart from my past membership of the Young Fabians (I have exceeded the age limit for membership), please tell me how I can be considered a propagandist, a spy trying to thwart democracy or any of the other labels you concoct to use against those you believe are part of some malevolent Illuminati.--Dandan 18:11, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)

Actually, you are quoting from the website. The mission for SourceWatch, where this article appears, is "SourceWatch [is] a collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda. SourceWatch's primary focus is on documenting public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. Over time, SourceWatch has broadened to include others involved in public debates including media outlets, journalists and government agencies." --Judith Siers-Poisson 18:19, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)

Oh, come on, the Fabians cannot be considered an industry-funded or industry-friendly organisation. It is a socialist organisation set up by George Bernard Shaw, the Webbs and Emmeline Pankhurst, among others. Secondly, I think that the Young Fabians would be overwhelmingly flattered if you think they have any power to influence the public agenda. Thirdly, why am I more worthy of an entry than Shami Chakraborti, the Director of Liberty, or Tom Bentley, the Director of Demos, or Nick Pearce, the Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research? It is bizarre. These are the heads of some of the most powerful think tanks and pressure groups in the UK, yet you think I am of some special interest. In fact, I get a longer entry than leading journalists Robert Fisk and John Pilger combined! Your editorial priorities are strange.--Dandan 18:35, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)

Dan, a few points in response: a) pages in SourceWatch are contributed by a pool of people interested in diverse topics; so it is not as if everyone is working progressively down a list of the world's most influential people and organisations; b) no it is not that you are some special interest but that you have been a contributor on public policy debates. The SourceWatch page simply aims to answer the question "Who is Daniel Brett?" for anyone who comes across articles you have published. The page on you was originally created by someone who was a passing contributor, so it is not as if CMD staff made a decision you warranted a page. --Bob Burton 20:27, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)
So, a "passing contributor" can write about me, but I have no power to edit what is written about me by people who know nothing about me? If I am of greater importance than the people I have listed above, where is the bar set with regards to the subject for an article? It just looks like a free-for-all for any rookie hack who has some agenda to follow.--Dandan 21:23, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)
Wow, and I have been categorised as Iranian for writing something on Iran! It seems even the Ayatollah doesn't warrant an article, yet I get categorised under Iran. I cannot see Nobel Peace Prize Winner Shirin Ebadi, whose human rights organisation is now banned in Iran, or the pioneering activist journalist Akbar Ganji, who almost starved to death in prison, under your Iran category. Obviously, they don't figure in your crusade to "promote media literacy and citizen journalism." Are you people running a witch-hunt? Or are you simply ignorant and prejudiced?--Dandan 21:49, 19 Sep 2006 (EDT)

IMHO Daniel Brett is very much a person of interest to SW. His archived website bios speak for themselves. His articles contain considerable reseach material. Artificial Intelligence 08:13, 20 Sep 2006 (EDT)

PS: Blame it on Shakespeare ... protesting too much peaks my interest. :-))

Edit note

Edit notes from a review of the page.--Bob Burton 05:19, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

  • [Brett was] "a defence advisor who has worked with business and security intelligence companies as well as governments in Europe and the Middle East."
The url did not support the statement that So I have changed the lead to match what the url currently states.
  • re HJS "whose supporters are among the most powerful people in Britain and the United States, including the former directors of the MI6 and CIA."
maybe they are, but this is unreferenced so I have removed it.
  • "With the HJS, Brett has organised joint meetings in the British Houses of Parliament with leading policy-makers. Joint activities include attempting to bring together Arab Shi'ite sheikhs behind an anti-Iranian front.[1]"
The cited reference doesn't support the statement:
  • "BAFS has been accused of being a front for British intelligence and the US's CIA, assisting with Arab insurgents ile evienside Iran.[2] "
an anonymous post to a website making a claim without any credible evidence in support of it doesn't mean that the allegation should be simply repeated.
  • "His articles on Iran have been published on the website of the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) [3], an anti-Iran terrorist group aligned with Turkey's Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), that was outlawed by the administration of President Barack Obama.[4]:
in fact, the reference link was to a single article on the BAFs website quoting Brett; there was no indication that there was more than one article or that it was reproduced there with the permission of BAFS. So there is no obvious direct link between Brett and PJAK.