Some Western media corporations seem to have abandoned the 'impartial
style' in their news presentation, and instead cater to public sentiments
or reflect government policy. For example, according to a report in the
International Herald Tribune (5 December 2001), the US Fox News Channel,
which makes no secret during its broadcasts of how it feels about Osama bin
Laden, 'has pushed American televison news...to unabashed and vehement
support of a war effort...'. There is growing concern for the role of the
media in the current 'war against terrorism' and the impact its reporting
has on both those under attack, as well as those whose nations are leading
the attack.
By John Pilger
Here we are again: the same old footage of planes against the sunrise, the
same military jargon used by reporters:
During the Falklands war in 1982, the BBC's Weekly Review Board met to
discuss how the war should be presented to the public. The minutes show
that senior executives decided that the news ought to be shaped to suit
'the emotional sensibilities of the public' and that the weight of BBC
coverage would be concerned with government statements of policy. An
'impartial style' was felt to be 'an unnecessary irritation'.
Argentina's acceptance, bar three minor amendments, of a Peruvian peace
plan was ignored by the BBC. The Thatcher government was not interested;
BBC news reflected this, along with the deception that Argentina was to
blame for the plan's 'failure'. ITN, whose reporting was little different,
claimed that '70% [of the British public] want to launch an invasion'.
However, the same poll showed that 76% of those questioned wanted the
United Nations to occupy the Falklands while Britain and Argentina
negotiated. This was never reported. Instead, the poll results were
interpreted on the news as showing that British public opinion was
'hardening'.
Here we go again. Last Sunday, the Observer reported that '65% [of the
public] support the use of targeted "surgical" air strikes against
countries harbouring terrorists'. The paper's poll did not say what
'surgical' air strikes were. It did not say whether its pollsters had
explained to people that, during the Gulf war, 70% of the 88,500 tons of
bombs dropped on Iraq and Kuwait missed their targets completely, causing
tens of thousands of civilian deaths, or that in NATO's attack on
Yugoslavia two years ago, the majority of targets were also missed.
'Surgical strike' is a misleading term. So why did they use it?
The same poll, however, disclosed that 60% of people opposed 'massive air
strikes'. MOST BRITONS OPPOSE AIR STRIKES was the banner headline that the
Observer failed to publish, yet, by any true journalistic standard, that
was the headline story. Instead, the front page was given over to 'the net
tightening on Osama bin Laden' and Britain's role as America's 'most potent
war partner'. There was a breathless tone of 'pressing ahead'. The sources
were British and American intelligence and the Ministry of Defence.
Journalism sourced to unnamed officials whose job in these circumstances is
to manipulate the news has a history. Pick any one of 'our' recent wars or
slaughters and write down the 'intelligence' and 'diplomatic' lies that
emerged later. The list is long.
Take George Bush Senior's attacks on Panama and Somalia just over 10 years
ago. Both were
promoted as Wild West pursuits of bad guys, General Noriega in Panama and
General Aidid in Somalia.
'Sources' were quoted as saying that few civilians had been killed. In
fact, more than 2,000 civilians were killed by American helicopter gunships
in the shanties of Panama City and, according to a CIA estimate, between
7,000 and 10,000 were killed in Somalia in what the Pentagon called 'Operation
Restore Hope'. This was not reported.
In 1998, President Clinton destroyed a harmless pharmaceutical factory in
Sudan with cruise missiles. 'Intelligence sources' were widely quoted in
the American and British media as being 'beyond doubt' that this was where
Osama bin Laden's organisation was making nerve gas. Clinton's attack
killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people.
There is said to be a UN report on how many were killed and which is
suppressed under pressure from Washington. The sum of the dead from all
these attacks is several times that of the number killed in America on 11
September.
Regardless of an admirable strain of dissent in the Guardian and
Independent, the overriding impression given by television and the press is
that of a familiar rush to war. There is the same old footage of ships and
planes against the sunrise, the same old 'experts', the same old Boy's Own
maps, the same old instant 'evidence', the same old military jargon used by
reporters ('surgical strikes' and 'assets' are favourites), the same old
warm-up stories about SAS derring-do, the same old demonising of nations
and cultures, the same old nonsense about anti-Americanism (now in the
realm of self-parody, with criticism of American policy described as
'racist') and the same old 'approval rating' polls drawn from a public
denied credible information from independent sources, not to mention the
perspective that Washington is using the 11 September disaster to
accelerate American control over much of humanity, with immediate dangers
for all of us.
Surely, journalists must ask themselves: is it not possible to break away
from the pack? And do the media courses turning out the next generation
examine and analyse such institutional failure (honourable exceptions
aside) to keep the record straight? Are media students warned that true
journalists must be sceptical of all authority, and that their job is to
push back screens and lift rocks, especially at a time like this?
It seems that the mantra 'giving the public what it wants', meaning giving
the public no choice, has bred those who believe cynicism of the public,
not their masters, ordains them as journalists. Long ago, John Milton put
it succinctly: 'They who put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their
blindness.'
Nothing justified the murder of innocent people in America, and nothing
justifies the murder of innocent people anywhere else. That is the
unassailable truth in this surreal time. Those who contribute to the
current propaganda that says there is no other way but war might reflect
that they, too, are likely to end up with blood on their hands. - Third
World Network Features
-ends-
About the writer: John Pilger, the Australian-born war correspondent,
film-maker and playwright, has won numerous awards in journalism and
broadcasting.
The above article first appeared in Action (No. 239, November 2001),
published by the World Association for Christian Communication (WACC).
When reproducing this feature, please credit Third World Network Features
and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine and agency involved in the
article, and give the byline. Please send us cuttings.
*****
Third World Network Features is a unique, reliable, independent features
service, monitoring the world through Third World Eyes, rather than blindly
reproducing the self-serving assertions of the Western media. The feature
service is available by email. We have special low rates for medium and
small newspapers.
Our phone numbers: 91-832-263305; 256479
Fax: 91-832-263305
Email:
oib@goatelecom.com Postal address:
Third World Network Features
Above Mapusa Clinic
Mapusa 403 507
Goa
India
URL::