The Bitter Ironies Of Propaganda
by David Edwards
Dissident Voice
January 15, 2003
"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolate land in rags and hunger and thirst." (Mark Twain, The War Prayer. Quoted, Howard Zinn, Terrorism and War, Seven Stories Press, 2002, p.101)
By mid-February
150,000 troops will be in place in the Gulf, supported by hundreds of bombers,
fighter-bombers, tanks, a fleet of nuclear-armed aircraft carriers, cruise
missiles, cluster bombs, depleted uranium shells, and all the rest of it. They
will be poised to attack a Third World Muslim country that has suffered more
than a decade of murderous sanctions, and of smashed economic infrastructure
destroyed by the equivalent of seven Hiroshima-size bombs dropped during the
last Gulf War. According to a leaked UN report, the effects of this war could
be even worse:
"Unlike the progression of the
military intervention in 1991, a future confrontation is expected to develop
beyond the preparatory, and relatively short, aerial bombardment of
infrastructure, towns, and cities into potentially a large scale and protracted
ground offensive, supported by aerial and conventional bombardment. The
resultant devastation would undoubtedly be great. Initially, access to those in
need would either be denied by one or other of the protagonists or severely
hampered by security or safety concerns. Additionally, logistics, particularly
the ability to move with any degree of freedom, will be a major
constraint." (Likely
Humanitarian Scenarios, December 10, 2002)
The report
points out that the Iraqi population is in a much worse condition now than in
1991, and is almost entirely dependent on the government's "food
basket". The report also dismisses comparisons with the situation in
Afghanistan, where the population is largely rural and self-reliant. In Iraq
the population is largely urbanised and dependent on the government. The report
predicts as many as 500,000 casualties.
According to
international law, military conflict should be the very last resort after all
other political and diplomatic options have been exhausted. But, in this case,
Western politicians and journalists are happy to agree that if a "smoking
gun" is found - that is any hidden weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - the
US/UK will be entitled to attack. No one explains why this is so, why there are
no other options, why it has to be this way - that's just how it is. According
to international law, conflict should be conducted with the agreement of the
United Nations, but Bush and Blair are clear that they will bypass the UN if
they have to. This despite the fact that the main argument for yet another attack
on Iraq is that a "material breach" (that mysterious,
technical-sounding phrase) of UN Resolution 1441 would contravene international
law. In the case of Iraq such a contravention requires a massive military
assault killing tens or hundreds of thousands of people; in the case of the
US/UK it requires a shrugging of the shoulders.
Anchored To What?
Television news
is a superb medium for disseminating propaganda. Messages are rapidly delivered
and impacts made with little opportunity to reflect on what has been said
before the viewer is distracted by the next item. Consider the following recent
exchange on ITV News between anchor Nicholas Owen and political editor Nick
Robinson. Having reported remarkable figures showing that 58% of the British
population do not believe a case has been made for war on Iraq - despite
intense propaganda disseminated by media such as ITN - Owen suggested to
Robinson that Tony Blair still had a lot of convincing to do. Robinson replied
as follows:
"However,
Nick, they look at these things in a slightly different way in Downing Street.
Yes, almost two-thirds of the public say they're not convinced of the case for
war, that it hasn't yet been made, but Tony Blair would probably say the same -
he would say we're not yet making the case for war, we're making the case that
you have to be ready for war otherwise Saddam Hussein won't back down. The
difficulty, as one Downing Street insider put it to me, is we're more in a parallel
with 1930 than with 1939. In other words, this isn't a dictator who's already
attacked another country; it's a dictator who might do something, who's got
potential... His [Blair's] message, very simply, Nick, is we have to confront
this man - we can't back down." (Nick Robinson, ITV News, 12:30, January
13, 2003)
So Blair is not
embarrassed by figures that show that just 13% of the population support war
without UN approval (a possibility Blair refuses to rule out), that 38% of the
women of this country are against war in all circumstances, that 30% think that
a war will be about oil, with just 3% believing it will be motivated by a
desire to combat terrorism. Compare the 3% figure with Blair's mendacious
declaration on the same day it was reported:
"I would
never, as British prime minister, send British troops to war unless I thought
it was necessary. But there is a direct threat to British national security in
the trade in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons." (BBC News at Six,
January 23, 2003)
It couldn't be
clearer that the public simply do not believe Blair. And yet, according to
Robinson, Blair actually agrees with the public - he and we are united! This is
classic 'spin' showing the government in the best possible light. An alternative
interpretation might be that the public has not fallen for Tony Blair's brazen
campaign of lying and deception intended to prepare the country for war. It has
seen through his willingness to line Britain up with a small clique of ruthless
and cynical big business fixers in the US. Veteran reporter, Charles Glass,
describes the reality with great accuracy:
"The United
States has one strategic interest in the Middle East: oil. Everything else is
gravy, sentiment, rhetoric... American transnational corporations do not care
about Israeli settlers and their biblical claims, Palestinians who are losing
their land and water, Kurds who are caught stateless between gangsters in
Baghdad and Tehran, victims of war or torture in Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria,
South Lebanon..." (Charles Glass, New Statesman, November 15, 1996)
Presenting
Blair's view with real care and emotion - preferential treatment generally
reserved for establishment figures - Robinson says that Blair argues that we
need to prepare for war to prevent war. So how does that tally with the arrival
of 150,000 troops in the Gulf making it politically all but impossible for the
West to pull back from the brink? How can making war inevitable equate to
cautious brinkmanship? And how does Blair's alleged wily intentions fit with
the clear US determination to go to war regardless of what Saddam Hussein does,
as it has clearly stated, "to secure regime change"? It just doesn't
make sense.
Notice the
blurring of Robinson's opinions with the government's:
"The
difficulty, as one Downing Street insider put it to me, is we're more in a
parallel with 1930 than with 1939. In other words this isn't a dictator who's
already attacked another country; it's a dictator who might do something, who's
got potential..."
Having initially
confined himself to reporting Blair's view, here Robinson is himself clearly
stating "the difficulty" - as also recognised by a Downing Street
insider" - that the proper parallel is with 1930. In other words,
suddenly, with an intellectual sleight of hand, Robinson has begun giving his
own opinions, thereby lending his support to everything he says before and
after when he appears to be merely reporting government arguments. By appearing
to act as an independent and objective commentator, but then subtly affirming
his support for the government's position, Robinson gives the impression that
an independent and objective observer has to agree with the government.
Note, also, that
Robinson is directly comparing Saddam Hussein with Hitler, exactly reflecting
government propaganda. Robinson, in fact, is here comparing a crushed tinpot
Third World dictator facing the gargantuan nuclear-armed US war machine with a
Nazi military superpower that conquered most of Europe in a war that left 50
million people dead. The comparison is insane but made merely ridiculous by the
notion that Saddam has "potential" as a dictator, having not yet
attacked another country, as the citizens of Iran and Kuwait are doubtless
aware.
Finally Robinson
says of Blair:
"His
message, very simply, Nick, is we have to confront this man - we can't back
down."
Having already
lent his support to the view of Saddam as a threat on the awesome scale of
Hitler, the viewer can only see this concluding statement as both the government's
and any reasonable person's view of the situation - the government is right,
Saddam has to be confronted; "we" dare not back down now. Note the
implied approval in the emphatic tone of the declaration. Imagine, for example,
if we reported the views of someone advocating race war in the UK: 'Mr X's
message, very simply, Nick, is we have to confront these immigrants - we can't
back down.' Would this suggest approval of the argument? We believe so. We
believe that journalists would never report so emphatically a view with which
they disagreed.
This is far more
powerful and persuasive as propaganda than anything that could be achieved by
crude state power directly drumming its message into the heads of the population.
Propaganda is vitally dependent on the illusion of credibility, and this is the
beauty of the 'free press', and why serious debate on the honesty of the press
is simply not allowed.
In the United
States, reporters are more openly pro-establishment. US anchorman Dan Rather
said in 2001:
"George
Bush is the president, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one
American, he wants me to line up, just tell me where." (Quoted, Howard
Zinn, Terrorism and War, Seven Stories Press, 2002, p.58)
Historian Howard
Zinn comments:
"I think of
Dan Rather the CBS news anchor. What is he anchored to? He's anchored to the
establishment. That's what an anchorman is." (Ibid)
Bitter Ironies - The Price Of 'Access'
On the same day
as Robertson's report, on BBC1, Guto Hari was asked by anchor Anna Ford if
Blair would rule out going to war without the endorsement of the UN. Hari's
answer - in many ways a mirror-image of Robinson's performance seen thirty
minutes earlier on ITV - was that he would be astonished if Blair did rule it
out:
"Not
because he doesn't want to do that - of course that's his preferred option. He
keeps saying it's his preferred option. But he won't rule it out in the event
that the UN, perhaps, will not endorse it, and he feels that war becomes
necessary; he will not rule it out as that last resort. Why? Well privately
Labour MPs - who are craving him to do this - are being told that he couldn't
do so for tactical reasons, because to do so would be to give a signal to
Saddam Hussein that the international community is going soft. As things stand,
Saddam Hussein is left thinking that he might be able to play the UN but he
won't be able to stave off an attack from the US and Britain. And if that's the
way he's thinking he's more likely to cave in and that's what Tony Blair wants
to happen. It'll be frustrating for Labour MPs but he's not going to cave in on
this one." (Guto Hari, BBC1 News at One, January 23, 2003)
Of course not
going to war is Blair's preferred option. How do we know? Because Blair is a
reasonable man, and because he repeatedly says so. But Blair lies, endlessly,
as we also know. Is it not conceivable that Blair could be lying again now,
that in fact he's chosen to go to war because the US is absolutely set on doing
so, and lending support earns preferential superpower treatment for Blair and
Britain in the future? Is it not possible that Blair is an opportunist who is
claiming to be acting tactically so that when war comes Saddam Hussein can be
blamed for not backing down 'as Blair had hoped'?
And what does
'caving in' mean in the present context? Arms inspectors are already free to go
wherever they please in Iraq? They have so far found nothing. Iraq had already
'caved in' by December 1998, to the extent that 90-95% of its WMD - a
commonplace all around the world, including Israel - had been destroyed. Again,
how can an all but unstoppable build-up of military force be casually presumed
to be "tactical" simply because Blair says so?
Note, again, the
drift in Hari's report. He begins by stating what Blair believes (although he
declares his position to be "obviously" true), but then moves closer
to presenting Blair's position as objective reality, rather than as merely
Blair's view:
"As things
stand, Saddam Hussein is left thinking that he might be able to play the UN but
he won't be able to stave off an attack from the US and Britain. And if that's
the way he's thinking he's more likely to cave in and that's what Tony Blair
wants to happen.
"As things
stand" - factually, it would seem, not 'according to Blair' - Saddam will
be more likely to cave in. And that's what Blair "wants to happen",
rather than what Blair is arguing will happen, or is claiming to argue is his
hope and concern. Hari notes, with strong emphasis, that Blair is "not
going to cave in on this one". This gives the impression that Blair is
absolutely decided and determined - characteristics of someone who is certain
and sincere about something, rather than opportunistic and cynical - this
really is what Blair determinedly believes, not what he needs us to believe he
believes to serve a hidden agenda.
Note, finally,
Hari's reference to the fact that "privately... Labour MPs are being
told..." This closely parallels Robinson's reference to "a Downing
Street insider". In other words, this is the truth - not declared in
public because too sensitive - but the truth 'behind the scenes'. Again, even
though the official utterances of politicians make no sense at all but appear
to be a desperate collection of lies and half-truths designed to fool the
public, we are asked to trust that, 'privately', politicians are sincere and
well-meaning.
Which brings us
to a third example from BBC2's Newsnight. Speaking from the US, Tom Carver discussed
Iraq's missing WMD:
"You have
to remember that this is a White House that doesn't believe that Saddam doesn't
have this stuff - or is waiting to decide if he has it or not - they firmly
believe he has it. The only question, in their minds, is whether the inspectors
would actually find it in a country the size of France. And so that's why the
hawks, people like Dick Cheney, have always resisted the idea of the UN path -
but they've gone down it and they've got to suffer the consequences." (Tom
Carver, BBC2 Newsnight, January 9, 2003)
Carver says that
White House politicians "firmly believe" Saddam has WMD. In other
words, again, they are sincere. This is the constant refrain of mainstream news
reporting - politicians are sincere. If they appear to be making it up as they
go along, be sure that it is because there are things that just can't be said
in public - in private they are sincere. The only reason people like Dick
Cheney have always resisted the UN path is that they fear inspectors will never
find the weapons they know are in Iraq. So there's no question that Cheney and
the rest are motivated to secure Iraqi oil by military means. Their concern
really is with Iraq's WMD - they really do fear them, but hope for a peaceful
settlement.
Ultimately, the
basis of this kind of reporting can be summed up in one word - trust. We are
supposed to trust reporters who are 'in the know', who are paid hundreds of
thousands of pounds to get close to "Downing Street insiders" and MPs
who declare the truth "privately" - politicians with absolute power
to embrace or exclude these high-flying journalists, to give them the
all-important 'access' or not, to make or break their careers. US media analyst
Walter Karp has described well the credibility of their request for our trust:
"It is a
bitter irony of source journalism... that the most esteemed journalists are
precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the
powerful that they gain access to the 'best' sources." (Quoted Sharon
Beder, Global Spin, Green Books, 1997, p.199)
David Edwards is the editor of Media
Lens, and the author of Burning All
Illusions: A Guide to Personal and Political Freedom (South End Press,
1996). Email: editor@medialens.org
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 Nick Robinson
Guto Hari
Email: guto.hari@bbc.co.uk
Tom Carver
Email: tom.carver@bbc.co.uk
Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts: editor@medialens.org
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org