Silence Is Green - The Green Movement And The Corporate Mass Media

[Guest guest]

Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:08:39 UT

" Medialens Media Alerts " <noreply

 

 

Silence Is Green - The Green Movement And The Corporate Mass

Media

 

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

 

February 3, 2005

 

 

MEDIA ALERT: SILENCE IS GREEN

 

The Green Movement And The Corporate Mass Media

 

 

Lethal Dreams

 

It is one of the great ironies of our time that, as evidence of

environmental catastrophe has inexorably mounted, so the visibility of

radical

environmental movements has collapsed. In the late 1980s, public

outrage at environmental devastation propelled the likes of Greenpeace,

Friends of the Earth and the Green Party onto the media stage. With

airwaves

filled with endless talk of 'going green', BBC presenter John Humphrys

declared he would flush his toilet less often to save water; Marks &

Spencer's posted green placards in their stores that read: " Please return

your trolley - protect your environment. "

 

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, people like Bob Williams - a consultant

to the oil and gas industry - were clarifying industry`s real priority:

 

" To put the environmental lobby out of business... There is no greater

imperative... If the petroleum industry is to survive, it must render

the environmental lobby superfluous, an anachronism. " (Williams, US

Petroleum Strategies in the Decade of the Environment. Quoted, Sharon

Beder, Global Spin - The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, Green

Books

1997, p.22)

 

Since then the eruption of global mass consumerism has been awesome to

behold, with elites in China, India and elsewhere lunging at their

slice of the Western dream. In the two decades since 'sustainable

consumerism' hit the headlines, epidemics of obesity have broken out

everywhere

from Australia to Brazil to Spain to Britain, as the affluent have

gorged themselves like never before.

 

Humanity has chosen to floor the consumer accelerator just as warnings

of imminent catastrophe are piling up. Consider the impact, for

example, of " global dimming " - the phenomenon by which tiny airborne

particles

of soot and other pollutants reflect sunlight back into space. The

cooling effect of dimming, it seems, has offset the impact of global

warming caused by industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. But with

atmospheric particulate pollution being brought under control, this

man-made

break on climate change is being released. Scientists now believe

temperatures could rise twice as fast as previously thought, with

catastrophic

and irreversible damage just twenty-five years away. ('Global Dimming',

Horizon, BBC2, repeat broadcast, January 15, 2005;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml)

 

As the world heats up, reservoirs of frozen methane at the bottom of

the ocean could melt, with consequences that would be terminal for human

life:

 

" At this point, whatever we did to curb our emissions, it would be too

late. Ten thousand billion tons of methane... would be released into

the atmosphere. The Earth's climate would be spinning out of control,

heading towards temperatures unseen in four billion years. But this is

not

a prediction - it is a warning. It is what will happen if we clean up

pollution while doing nothing about greenhouse gases. However, the easy

solution - just keep on polluting and hope that Global Dimming will

protect us - would be suicidal. " (Horizon, ibid)

 

 

Great Green Hope

 

The public has long placed its faith and trust in the resolute

sincerity of the Green movement. We were promised an end to 'grey

politics' -

with its endless greed, sleaze, compromise and corruption - and a new

" Solar Age " of sanity and hope. Many assumed a breakthrough was just

around the corner: Green lambs would lie down with corporate lions in

cancelling public subsidies to the fossil fuel industries, promoting a

massive shift to renewable energy, supporting public transport,

cutting road

building, and so on.

 

Compromise was the key - after all, chief executives love their

children, too! It was common sense that they would also not wish to

destroy

the world around them. Alas, Greens did not recognise the truly

psychopathic nature of a system driven by short-term profit.

 

A key player in the ensuing demolition of the Green movement - which is

what happened - is the mass media, the means by which environmental

concerns might have reached and mobilised a mass audience. The media is

part of the same corporate system, one that naturally protects

traditional centres of power and short-term profits against rational

challenges

of exactly the kind Greens had in mind. Thus, despite all the evidence,

Greens and progressives have continued to be ignored, marginalised and

vilified.

 

Media Lens decided to find out what key elements of the British Green

movement have to say about this problem. We wondered to what extent

Greens are aware of the systemic bias in the media opposing their

aims. We

wondered why they have not targeted the corporate media in their

campaigning.

 

 

Through Green-Coloured Spectacles

 

We asked Green activists: " Why do you not address the inherent bias in

corporate media reporting in your campaigns? How can this be reasonable

given that the mass media system essentially involves big business

reporting on the activities of big business? "

 

Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, managed to avoid

referring to the corporate nature of the media at all:

 

" The media is not one dimensional nor is it the same in every country.

If we take the issue of climate change, how it is reported (or not!) in

the USA, is very different to how it is reported in the UK. But

acceptance of climate change, even if it has taken time to filter into

the

main stream media in the UK, is still infected by its strange

adherence to

so called 'balance'. For example 1000 scientists saying climate change

is real is balanced off against one sceptic. This always raises

questions marks about the seriousness of the issue useful for those in

power

who wanted to wriggle off the hook.

 

" But media reporting has also been affected by governments and

companies (including major oil companies) accepting for example that

climate

change is a problem but then denying their role in finding a solution.

Often either blaming the consumer or 'public' or doing very small, pretty

insignificant activities given the scale of the problem, which are then

overblown with greenwash to show how they are seriously responding.

 

" This is where the media is often at its weakest, failing to hold those

with the power and responsibility to account. " (Email to Media Lens,

January 12, 2005)

 

This is largely nonsense. The media +is+ fundamentally one-dimensional

- it is globally corporate, after all, and consistently promotes a

mass-consumption, pro-business agenda the world over. Many British

liberals

like to imagine that the British press is far more sophisticated and

honest than the American media. As Channel 4 news reader Jon Snow told

us: " We don't look to the United States for quality journalism. "

(Interview with Media Lens, January 9, 2001) But Noam Chomsky, one of the

world's most experienced and astute media watchers, takes a different

view:

 

" I don't really agree that the British media are better than here [the

US]. Different, but not really better. If I was stuck with one

newspaper to read, it would be the NY [New York] Times. When I'm in

England I

find that I have to buy half a dozen papers even to get a general sense

of what's happening in the world. " (Email to David Edwards, December

12, 2004)

 

It is false to suggest that reporting on climate change is

significantly better in Britain than in the United States. There is

substantial

reporting of the mounting scientific evidence in Britain, but close to

zero analysis of the key extent of big business opposition to action on

the climate.

 

The failure of Greenpeace to acknowledge or address the fact that the

media are themselves an integral part of the corporate problem largely

responsible for environmental collapse is astonishing.

 

Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth in the UK,

also replied. We had already gleaned an idea of his views on the media

from his praising of the traditional standard-bearers of liberal

reporting

in Britain:

 

" The Guardian is certainly considered the voice of progressive and

sound environmental thinking both in the UK and in Europe. " (Juniper,

quoted, Ian Mayes, 'Flying in the face of the facts. The readers'

editor on

.... promotion, pollution and the Guardian's environment policies', The

Guardian, January 24, 2004)

 

This of a newspaper that forever pushes mass consumer advertising of

the most destructive kind - '2 for 1' transatlantic flight offers being a

particular favourite. Readers of Media Lens will be aware of the

" progressive " and " environmental " credentials of the Guardian Media

Group,

owners of publications such as Auto Trader, Bike Trader, Truck Trader and

the UK's busiest automotive web site, www.autotrader.co.uk.

 

In his reply to us, Juniper noted that British journalism has " a

reputation for accuracy, quality and depth " that " is not always

deserved " . He

observed that " the corporate controlled media is reluctant to engage

with an agenda that apparently speaks against its interests " .

 

As we have often pointed out, the media is not in fact " corporate

controlled " , it is made up of corporations. It would be absurd to suggest

that Shell, for example, was +controlled+ by corporations. Given that

corporations are legally bound to generate profit for their shareholders

(with some 75% of revenues earned from advertisers), it is false to

suggest that the media are merely " reluctant " to engage critically with

those interests. Juniper compounds this error when he writes of FoE

" embrac[ing] the role of corporations in delivering sustainable

development. "

He added:

 

" Friends of the Earth's response is not to abandon the mainstream

media " but to " debate both with it and the corporate interests that lay

behind it [sic], for example through our work on corporate

accountability. "

 

In reality, corporate " accountability " and " social responsibility " are

the latest versions of " green consumerism " and " corporate

responsibility " - cynical public relations campaigns that have

successfully duped

the public for two decades while big business has sent global consumption

through the roof.

 

Juniper does, however, point to some welcome initiatives in grassroots

power:

 

" We are also engaged in parallel with efforts to gain greater access to

official information [the new Freedom of Information act that came into

effect in January 2005] so that we can either publish previously hidden

information ourselves, for example though the internet, or ensure that

it is in the right hands to make a difference in local struggles. We

are also investing in building our networks so to be able to work with

people directly. "

 

We invited Juniper to talk about the obvious problem that the mass

media is corporate in nature, and is therefore structurally tied into

stock

markets, maximised profits and hell-for-leather devastation of the

planet. This he was apparently unwilling to do.

 

 

Traditions Of Independence And Objectivity

 

Green and social justice groups +are+ aware that there is a problem

with media reporting; they are not totally complacent. Many of them,

including Amnesty International, Oxfam and Friends of the Earth, are

members

of a coalition group called the Third World and Environment

Broadcasting Project (3WE).

 

3WE campaigns for more and better media reporting of global development

issues. Last year they published a report, `The World on the Box,'

which examined factual television coverage of the developing world. The

authors found that such coverage was at the lowest level ever recorded.

Factual programming about the developing world had actually halved since

surveys began in 1989. Astonishingly, BBC 1 and ITV1's coverage was

each less than twenty hours in one year. Equally astonishing, climate

change was mentioned briefly - literally once - in the 32-page report. As

Don Redding, 3WE co-ordinator, said: " How are UK citizens supposed to

understand the world if they aren't even told about it? " He added:

 

" The British public are having blinkers slapped on them by TV bosses

who are violating the letter and the spirit of their public service

obligations. " ('TV under fire over factual shows', BBC news online, 4

July,

2004;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3865285.stm)

 

Redding also responded to our email:

 

" The UK public are reasonably media literate and understand that

newspapers are owned by corporations which may not be providing objective

information. Every opinion poll shows that the public, rightly, place far

higher trust in television news than in other forms of media. We in the

UK have been fortunate, first, that a strong tradition of independence

and objectivity has been maintained across mainstream television news

(whoever provides it); second, that we have the BBC as a pre-eminent

provider of news and current affairs across television, radio and online,

which tends to keep standards high; and third, that our tradition

includes an internationalised perspective. " (Email to Media Lens, 11

January, 2005)

 

Once again the complacency is staggering. The idea that there is

independence and objectivity " across mainstream television " is almost too

absurd to discuss. On the one hand we have the BBC with senior managers

appointed by the government. On the other hand we have a largely

unaccountable corporate news provider structurally locked into

business goals

and values.

 

Redding is right to mention the BBC's reputation as a " pre-eminent

provider of news and current affairs... which tends to keep standards

high "

- this is indeed the claim - but he is wrong to take it seriously. As

we have documented many times, BBC reporting on Iraq bears comparison

with the appalling output of many formal state propaganda organs. When a

handful of journalists attempted to buck that trend, the government hit

back with overwhelming force, quickly crushing the dissent.

 

It is astonishing that a coalition of the major environment and social

justice NGOs in this country has literally +nothing+ to say about the

inherent, deep-rooted establishment and corporate bias of the BBC and

other major media. It is equally remarkable that it has nothing to say

about the catastrophic media performance that empowered British

government propaganda in pursuit of a war of aggression on Iraq.

 

 

The Pragmatic View

 

If there is one Green group that would campaign to expose the corporate

nature of the mainstream media, it must surely be the Green Party.

Alas, no. Spencer Fitzgibbon, press officer for the party in England and

Wales, explains:

 

" Many Greens have a strong instinct to criticise the media. Those of us

that seek to publicise the party and its policies have to take a

pragmatic view. Given our lack of resources, and the fact that most local

Green Parties are only able to distribute local newsletters etc over a

small part of one constituency on their patch, almost everyone in the

country would never hear about the Green Party - apart from a

Euro-election

leaflet once every five years - except via the mass media.

 

" So, notwithstanding one's critique of the media - its agendas, who

owns it, etc - we simply must work with it, or be invisible, which would

mean utterly failing to ever have a chance of implementing the policies

we believe in. "

 

Fitzgibbon adds: " if we made general sweeping criticisms of the media,

we'd just piss off journalists who would then be less likely to write

about us. This would not be a functional way for a political party to

behave. " (Email to Media Lens, 11 January, 2005)

 

We note, again, the widespread fallacy that it is not " strategic " or

" pragmatic " to criticise the media. As a result, virtually the entire

Green movement has nothing to say about the oxymoronic truth of a

corporate `free press`. It is silent about the disaster that such a media

system represents for progressive social, economic and environmental

change.

It is silent about one of the most serious obstacles to overcoming

human rights abuses and environmental threats.

 

The sad fact is that Greens are so accustomed to minimal or zero

coverage that they are pitifully grateful to receive +any+ media

coverage at

all. They fail to recognise that, despite decades of `playing the

game`, they are systematically ridiculed, marginalised and ignored by the

media - 'pragmatic' compromise has proven anything but pragmatic.

 

Greens appear to reject out of hand the possibility that by simply

telling the truth about the media, they might mobilise massive public

support to challenge and change the mainstream, and to promote vital

issues

that are currently being stifled in crude deference to short-term

profits.

 

 

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 one or more of the campaigners below. Ask them why they do not

address the inherent bias in corporate media reporting in their

campaigns. Issues such as climate change, human rights, foreign policy,

energy, trade and poverty are of course vitally important, but why do

they

not challenge the neutrality and objectivity of the corporate media as

part of its campaigns? How can this be reasonable given that the mass

media system essentially involves big business reporting on the

activities

of big business?

 

Write to Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth:

Email: tonyj

 

Write to Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace UK:

Email: stephen.tindale

 

Write to Don Redding, director of 3WE:

Email: dredding

 

Write to Steven Barnett of the University of Westminster, co-author of

the report, The World on the Box:

Email: S.Barnett

 

 

Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:

Email: editor

 

This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Currently

only one of us is able to work full-time on this project. Please

consider giving less to the corporate media and donating more to Media

Lens:

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

 

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org