(U.K.) Targeting Iran - An Exchange With The BBC's Newsnight Editor

[Guest guest]

> Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:51:00 +1000

> Medialens Media Alerts <noreply

 

> Targeting Iran - An Exchange With The BBC's

> Newsnight Editor

>

> MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of

> the corporate media

>

> September 9, 2004

>

> MEDIA ALERT: TARGETING IRAN

>

> AN EXCHANGE WITH THE BBC’S NEWSNIGHT EDITOR

>

>

> Public Versus Power Intellectuals

>

> The one truth that cries out to be heard as a result

> of everything we now know about the invasion of Iraq

> is this: the media failed, catastrophically, to

> challenge the official version of events prior to

> the attack. Journalists may claim that Iraq was a

> media one-off, that special circumstances somehow

> conspired to obstruct them. This is emphatically not

> the case.

>

> In fact media performance on Iraq was not, properly

> speaking, a failure at all – it was rooted in the

> basic structure of the media, in the media’s

> fundamental assumptions about its role in society.

> As we discussed recently, journalists take for

> granted that their primary role is to communicate

> the thoughts, intentions and actions of power (See

> Media Alert: ‘The Bias in Balanced Journalism’, July

> 28, 2004, www.medialens.org).

>

> It is assumed that ‘balance’ means communicating the

> thoughts, intentions and actions of the government

> on one hand, and of the party political opposition

> on the other. Reporting the opinions of informed and

> credible voices that fall outside these mainstream

> categories is +not+ deemed the media’s

> responsibility. Indeed, moving beyond this

> self-assigned role to focus on such people is

> perceived as ‘biased’, ‘committed’, ‘crusading’,

> ‘polemical’, and ‘unprofessional’ journalism. Thus,

> the New York Times on Michael Moore:

>

> " Of course, Mr. Moore is being selective in what he

> chooses to include in his movie; he's a polemicist,

> not a journalist.” (Frank Rich, New York Times, May

> 23, 2004)

>

> And Oliver Robinson in the Observer:

>

> " Since 11 September, 2001, the appetite for Noam

> Chomsky's polemics has rocketed.” (Robinson, The

> Observer, May 23, 2004)

>

> And Roy Hattersley on John Pilger:

>

> “[He] can never end his criticisms and condemnation

> at the point when most people would think it

> reasonable to stop. " (Hattersley, The Guardian, July

> 20, 2002)

>

> More accurately, Edward Herman and David Peterson

> have distinguished between what they call “public

> intellectuals” and “power intellectuals”:

>

> “We believe the term ‘public intellectuals’ should

> be reserved for those strong thinkers who lack

> access to the public precisely because they are

> independent and would speak effectively to that

> public’s concerns. Their access is blocked, and

> their work and ideas are rendered invisible, by

> vested interests who control the flow of information

> to the public and are able to exclude from the print

> media and airwaves those who challenge their

> interests and preferred policies. That is, effective

> freedom of expression – freedom of expression

> combined with outreach to large numbers - is limited

> to the ‘power intellectuals’.” (Edward Herman and

> David Peterson, ‘Public Versus Power Intellectuals’,

> Part 1, Znet, May 11, 2001)

>

> Public intellectuals are often motivated by

> compassion for suffering and injustice, by a sincere

> urge to uncover the genuine causes of, and solutions

> to, the problems afflicting our world. So what

> motivates power intellectuals? BBC political editor

> Andrew Marr provides some clues in describing why he

> accepted the editorship of the Independent:

>

> “So, why had I done it? There were, looking back,

> two crucial factors in my mind. The first was

> vanity. The second was greed. To be a national

> newspaper editor is a grand thing. Even at the

> poor-mouse Independent, though I didn't have a

> chauffeur, I was driven to and from work in a

> limousine, barking orders down my mobile phone. Even

> as the poorest-paid of my contemporary national

> editors, I was soon on £175,000, which was much more

> than I was worth. One is not supposed to admit those

> things matter but they do, of course.

>

> “In the office, I was the commander. Eyes swivelled

> when I arrived and people at least pretended to

> listen when I spoke. The Indy might be small, but

> she was mine. It was a little like one of those

> naval novels, where the officer gets command of his

> first ship and doesn't care that it has only two

> masts... Outside the office, I could visit the Prime

> Minister, archbishops, famous actors and fellow

> editors. I would be watched and written about in the

> trade press and the media columns of other papers.”

> (Marr, The Daily Telegraph, September 2, 2004)

>

> Marr adds as an aside: “I am selling myself a little

> short. Ideals matter, too, and did then.”

>

> Marr’s honesty is really admirable, but the weight

> and positioning he gives the factors motivating him

> are of real significance in understanding why the

> mainstream media fails us so catastrophically.

> Imagine Edward Herman, Milan Rai, Noam Chomsky, John

> Pilger, Robert Fisk, Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, Mark

> Curtis or Robert Jensen describing their dissident

> career perks before adding: “Ideals matter, too, and

> did then.”

>

> Or compare and contrast Marr’s comments with this

> advice from Atisa, a much earlier dissident:

> “As if they were stones on a narrow slippery path,

> you should clear away all ideas of gain and respect,

> for they are the rope of the devil. Like snot in

> your nose, blow out all thoughts of fame and praise,

> for they serve only to beguile and confuse.”

>

> If this all seems a little hard on journalists like

> Marr, it is because the media succeeds in obscuring

> an awesome truth about our world – that innocent

> people pay with their lives for the performance of

> professional journalists.

>

>

> Who Are You, Really?

>

> Mainstream media reporting is an excellent example

> of how professional ethics – which are not god-given

> but merely invented by people – regularly

> subordinate human ethics, rationality and

> compassion. The fact is that mainstream political

> parties represent a very narrow range of vested

> interests which, if we are honest, are only balanced

> by individuals, organisations and ideas marginalised

> by the mainstream political system. The professional

> media, in other words, provides a highly prejudiced,

> elite version of the world with almost zero genuine

> balance.

>

> The media, however, implicitly blinkers itself to

> this reality. After all, if we accept that the role

> of the media is to report the views of officialdom,

> then it cannot be the role of the media to question

> the legitimacy and credibility of officialdom,

> because these are subjects that officialdom does not

> discuss. The media cannot challenge officialdom

> because officialdom does not challenge officialdom.

> The technical term is: Catch 22.

>

> The result, as we have seen in Iraq, is that elite

> officials are freed to deceive, dissemble, obfuscate

> and lie to an astonishing degree with minimal public

> exposure. Vast abuses of military and economic power

> are made possible as a result.

>

> Media professionals often appear to be sincere in

> holding to their sense of right and wrong. But it is

> hardly an accident that the bedrock assumptions of

> professional journalism benefit and empower the same

> privileged state-corporate interests of which the

> media is a part and on which it depends.

> Historically, professional media ethics, quite

> obviously, have evolved through a mixture of cynical

> design and convenient self-deception to promote the

> interests that dominate society.

>

> Especially in the light of events in Iraq, an honest

> media response would be to accept that genuine

> balance beyond the sham of party political ‘debate’

> is +vital+ if the public is to access even the most

> elementary truths. Instead, we find – for example in

> the current targeting of Iran – that the media are

> yet again heavily promoting the official, demonising

> government line +exactly+ as they did prior to the

> invasion of Iraq.

>

> The reason is simple: media performance is not

> primarily shaped by a reasoned and compassionate

> response to the world; it is shaped by the

> requirements of power. Because these requirements

> remain essentially consistent and unvarying over

> time, media reporting likewise traces similar

> patterns with similar omissions, ignorance and

> destructiveness.

>

> The bottom line for many journalists is that they

> are professionals first and human beings second.

> While most of us would accept that we have a clear

> moral responsibility to relieve suffering and save

> lives wherever we are able, professionals insist

> they ‘have a job to do’. Surely one of the great

> tragedies of our time lies in the fact that so many

> are willing to define their responsibilities on the

> basis of an alienated conception of who they really

> are. Many modern individuals, in effect, stand in

> the middle of a school gymnasium surrounded by

> suffering children and refuse to act because the job

> description on their company badge reads

> ‘journalist’, or ‘salesman’, rather than ‘doctor’ or

> ‘firefighter’.

>

> These comments give an idea of the kind of thinking

> that informed a recent email we sent to Newsnight

> editor, Peter Barron, on his programme’s August 26

> interview with John Bolton, US under-secretary for

> arms control. Barron responded rapidly and

> graciously, and we are grateful to him. We sent the

> following email on August 31, 2004:

>

> Dear Peter

>

> Hope you're well.

>

> In introducing a Newsnight report on August 26,

> Gavin Esler referred to " Iran's nuclear threat " .

> Would Esler not have been better advised to refer to

> Iran's +alleged+ nuclear threat?

>

> In the same programme, Esler interviewed John

> Bolton, US under-secretary for arms control. Bolton

> repeatedly claimed that Iran posed a threat to the

> West. Esler's response was not to challenge Bolton's

> credibility in identifying such threats, but to

> repeatedly ask if the US reserved the right to

> attack Iran. For example, Esler asked:

>

> " Is there a deadline by which you would say: 'If the

> UN hasn't acted, we the United States reserve the

> right to take action because we are +so+ concerned

> about this'? "

>

> Bolton responded:

>

> " We don't have a deadline, but I guess I'd put the

> question this way: For those who are content to

> allow Iran to continue to pursue nuclear weapons,

> what are you gonna say if time goes on and time goes

> on, and one day Iran says, 'We now have a weapon'?

> What are you gonna say then? "

>

> By failing to challenge Bolton, Esler gave the

> impression that he was an uncontroversial and

> credible source on 'threats' to the West. But in

> September 2002, Bolton insisted that no new

> international mandate was needed to launch a war

> against Iraq:

>

> " You don't have to wait for a mushroom cloud before

> you take appropriate action. " (Bolton, quoted

> 'Kremlin gives short shrift to US hawk over Iraq',

> Ian Traynor, The Guardian, September 12, 2002)

>

> Bolton made this statement at a time when no

> credible commentators were proposing that Iraq

> possessed nuclear weapons capability.

>

> In January 2003, Bolton said Washington had " very

> convincing " evidence of an extensive Iraqi programme

> for the production of banned weapons, which it would

> reveal " at an appropriate time " . ('Iraq: no nuclear

> evidence', Julian Borger, Brian Whitaker and Richard

> Norton-Taylor The Guardian, January 25, 2003)

>

> As we now know, the claim was completely fraudulent

> – no such evidence has ever been revealed.

>

> In November 2002, Bolton said the " son of star wars "

> anti-missile programme would go ahead " as soon as

> possible " to " protect the US, our deployed forces,

> as well as friends and allies against the growing

> missile threat " . He made clear that the " growing

> missile threat " he had in mind was emerging from

> powers such as Iraq, Libya and Iran. ('Missiles R Us

> takes on the world', Simon Tisdall, The Guardian,

> November 21, 2002) We now know that Iraq and Libya

> possessed nothing remotely resembling

> intercontinental missile capability of this kind.

>

> In late 2001, Bolton accused Cuba, no less, of

> developing deadly biological weapons with which to

> threaten the world. Bolton's claims were part of a

> propaganda campaign " so obvious as to be comical " ,

> British historian Mark Curtis comments. (Web Of

> Deceit, Vintage, 2003, p.78)

>

> Why were Bolton's earlier deceptions on 'threats'

> from 'rogue states' not raised by Esler when

> discussing Bolton's latest warnings on Iran?

>

> Best wishes

>

> David Edwards

>

> Peter Barron responded on September 3:

>

> Dear David,

> Thank you for your e-mail of 31 August concerning

> our item on Iran's nuclear capability.

> The item was built around an interview with the US

> under secretary for arms control John Bolton. The

> purpose of the interview was to try to ascertain

> what the response of the US administration might be,

> given their firm belief that Iran is trying to

> develop nuclear weapons, and in the context of the

> war on Iraq and the US government's doctrine of

> pre-emptive action.

> The piece which preceded the interview quoted the

> IAEA assessment of Iran's nuclear capability and

> noted their concerns. It did not state that Iran has

> nuclear weapons, and in his interview nor did John

> Bolton claim that they have nuclear weapons, only

> that they are in a position to develop them, which

> is also the IAEA's view. The piece twice put forward

> Iran's point of view, that they have no plans to

> develop nuclear weapons and that Tehran says that it

> has cleared up all outstanding ambiguities on the

> nuclear question. I agree with you that we could

> have put this point to Mr Bolton.

> I also accept the point you make about previous US

> claims about Iraq's capability, but this interview

> was designed to find out more about the US position

> on Iran. I believe it's hugely important to show our

> viewers what American thinking is on the next phase

> of their foreign policy. Our viewers can then make

> up their minds on whether or not that policy is

> correct.

> Best wishes

> Peter Barron

> Editor, Newsnight

>

>

> SUGGESTED ACTION

>

> The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality,

> compassion and respect for others. In writing

> letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to

> maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive

> tone. Write to the editors below and ask them to

> conduct open, public self-assessments of their

> reporting on Iraq.

>

> Write to Peter Barron, editor of Newsnight:

> Email: peter.barron

>

> Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:

> Email: editor

>

>

********************************************************

> This is a free service, intended as a compassionate

> response to suffering. However, financial support is

> vital in allowing us to focus more of our time and

> energy on Media Lens and less on other paid work.

> Currently only one of us is able to work full-time

> on this project. Please consider donating to Media

> Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

>

********************************************************

>

> Visit the Media Lens website:

> http://www.medialens.org

>

> This media alert will shortly be archived at:

> http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html

>