HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
"Saddam
Loyalists" Or "Anti-Occupation Forces"? Ask
The BBC
by
David Edwards and Media Lens
When
it came to power in 1997, Britain's Labour government claimed that it would be
a “force for good in the world” (quoted, Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, Vintage,
2003, p.1). What proportion of the British public would find that credible now?
In a recent YouGov poll, 63% of UK respondents said they believed Tony Blair
had misled them over whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, with 27%
saying he deliberately lied. Only 29% of people believe Blair did not mislead
the country over the weapons. ('Two-thirds say Blair misled public over Iraqi
weapons', David Brown, Sunday Times, June 01, 2003; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-699297,00.html)
Former
cabinet minister, Clare Short, insists that Tony Blair is guilty of “honourable
deception”, that he actively deceived the cabinet and country. Short describes
how a small cabal around Blair lied their way to war on Iraq, ignoring normal
procedures of cabinet government and discussion, and ignoring the advice of the
intelligence and diplomatic community, which privately opposed the war. The
lies were conscious and carefully crafted to ensure that Britain would
participate in a war secretly agreed with Bush last September by the spring
of this year. Former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, describes how “there was a
selection of evidence to support a conclusion... intelligence was not being
used to inform and shape policy, but to shape policy that was already settled.”
(Patrick Wintour, ‘Blair’s secret war pact’, The Guardian, June 18, 2003)
The
implication of all this is very clear Blair was quite simply lying when he
said, for example, on Newsnight in February:
“Well,
George Bush has gone along with Resolution 1441 as well and it was absolutely
clear, last thing we both said last November -
the Iraqis obey this Resolution and as I say, it's not a mystery what
they have to do, all they have to do is agree to do what the inspectors say. If
they did that we wouldn't even be sitting here having this discussion... And
therefore, when people say you're hell bent on this war, I've tried to avoid
being in this position and I honestly thought there was some prospect last
November when we passed the UN Resolution that he would realise we were serious
about this and that if he didn't cooperate he was going to be in trouble.”
(‘Tony Blair on Newsnight - part two’, The Guardian, February 7, 2003)
To
lie in order to fight an illegal war makes Watergate and the Monica Lewinsky
affair seem completely trivial by comparison. In a democratic society Blair
would stand no chance of surviving such a severe abuse of power and people.
Every single British and American soldier, and every single Iraqi, who lost his
or her life in the war died because Bush and Blair lied. It is a cruel irony
that they simultaneously betrayed us, our troops and our democracy, while
demanding that we rally to the “patriotic” cause.
But
this criminal farce represents only a tiny glimpse of a reality that is
generally hidden from public view. As Mark Curtis demonstrates so convincingly
in his book Web of Deceit, the gross immorality of British foreign policy in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, and its support for repressive governments in
Indonesia, Israel, Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, means that: "Britain
under New Labour is a systematic violator of international law and ethical
standards in its foreign policy - in effect, an outlaw state. It is a key ally
of some of the world's most repressive regimes that is consistently condoning,
and sometimes actively aiding, human rights abuses."
Curtis
highlights the unmentionable fact that Britain is "one of the world's
leading apologists for, and supporters of, state terrorism by allies
responsible for far more serious crimes than Al Qaida or other official
threats". (ibid., p.1)
In
perhaps the book's most important section, "The Mass Production of
Ignorance", Curtis notes that "the media definition of 'objective'
... in reality means working within the consensus among the elite". He
adds, expressing a view shared by the Media Lens editors:
"The liberal intelligentsia in
Britain is in my view guilty of helping to weave a collective web of deceit..
To read many mainstream commentators' writings on Britain's role in the world
is to enter a surreal, Kafkaesque world where the reality is often the direct
opposite of what is contended and where the startling assumptions are
frighteningly supportive of state power." (ibid., p.4)
Straight
news reporting, as opposed to comment pieces, might appear to differ,
constrained, as they are said to be, by the requirement that they be
‘objective’. But the underlying assumptions of news reporting remain firmly in
line with the requirements of power. This may be as simple as echoing the US-UK
government view that escalating attacks on "coalition" troops in Iraq
are the work of "Saddam loyalists". The latter is not a neutral term,
as is clear when we substitute an alternative such as "anti-occupation
forces”. The central facts: that our country has participated in an illegal
war, now in an illegal occupation, and is in breach of Geneva conventions
designed to safeguard the security and health of civilian populations, are
passed over in virtual silence.
Instead,
the perspective of the occupying force is always dominant in the framing of
news reports. And so, just as the BBC and ITN casually echoed fraudulent
government claims of Iraqi "Scud missile attacks" during the war,
both are now busy describing how US forces are determined "to crush
remnants of the old regime" in Falluja (ITN Evening News, June 15, 2003).
Is
it possible - in all the bloodshed, chaos, poverty and national humiliation
that is Iraq - that resistance might be rooted in some factor other than blind
devotion to the former dictator? As veteran Middle East correspondent Robert
Fisk argues, this perspective is literally unthinkable:
"If
you were to suggest that it was a resistance movement, 'harakat muqawama',
'resistance party' in Arabic, that would suggest the people didn't believe they
had been liberated, and of course, all
good-natured peace loving people have to believe they were liberated by
the Americans, not occupied by them." (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3765)
A
recent online news headline stated the 'neutral' BBC view:
"US
hunts down Saddam loyalists"
(13
June, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2986810.stm)
To
the BBC's credit, after a challenge from Media Lens the headline was changed
(see below).
Fisk
supplies some of the detail missing from the BBC's reports:
"But
in fact, it is obviously an increase in the organized resistance and not just
people who were in Saddam's forces, who were in the Ba'ath Party or the Saddam
Fedayeen... There was also increasing anger among the Shiite community, those
who were of course most opposed to Saddam, and I think what we're actually
seeing, you can get clues in Iraq, is a cross fertilization. Shiites who are
disillusioned, who don't believe they have been liberated, who spent so long in
Iran, they don't like the Americans anyway. Sunni Muslims who feel like they're
threatened by the Shiites, former Saddam acolytes who've lost their jobs and
found that their money has stopped. Kurds who are disaffected and are beginning
to have contacts, and that of course is the beginning of a real resistance
movement and that's the great danger for the Americans now.” (Fisk, ibid)
On the morning of 13
June we emailed Richard Sambrook, the BBC's director of news:
Dear Richard,
The BBC news homepage currently (10.15am) has a breaking news item
which states: "US officials say their troops have killed 70 Iraqis in
fierce fighting against Saddam loyalists north of Baghdad."
Why has the BBC described the Iraqis here as "Saddam
loyalists"?
I look forward to hearing from you within a few days, if possible,
please.
Thank you.
best wishes,
David Cromwell
Within minutes,
Sambrook replied:
Dear David
The BBC has not described them as Saddam
Loyalists -- US officials have as we make clear.
"The senior US official running
Iraq, Paul Bremer, has blamed continuing attacks against US troops on organised
resistance by Baath Party loyalists."
We are not there and are unable to offer
independent verification so we clearly attribute comments from those providing
information.
Out of interest, if you disagree with
that manner of reporting something that we have not witnessed first hand, how
would you do it?
Richard
We responded that same
morning:
Dear Richard,
Many thanks for your swift response.
I realise that the description comes from
US commanders: that's the point. Why, then, does the home page headline not
have the words "Saddam loyalists" in quote marks? Why isn't there a
note in the news story to the effect that the BBC has not been able to verify
what US commanders have stated. As you said in your email to me: "We are
not there and are unable to offer independent verification".
The authoritative Independent
correspondent Robert Fisk noted the following in a radio interview with Amy
Goodman on June 11:
"The Americans still officially call
them the remnants of Saddam or terrorists. But in fact, it is obviously an
increase in the organized resistance and not just people who were in Saddam's
forces, who were in the Ba'ath Party or the Saddam Fedayeen. "
(http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3765)
I hope that the BBC will reflect this in
its reporting, otherwise members of the public may conclude that BBC news
reports are promoting the line taken by US commanders and politicians.
best wishes,
David
Again, Sambrook
responded within minutes:
David
Three points
1.A good thought about inverted commas in
the headline -- though frankly anyone reading the item will be clear it is a US
claim
2. There is I suppose a media literacy
point. I think people understand that when something is attributed we are
simply reporting what someone else says -- rather than endorsing it. You seem
to disagree.
3. re the Robert Fisk quote, it's his
judgement, which may well be right, but not an established "fact".
And aren't you assuming today's reported fight reflects the Fisk view of
resistance -- whereas in fact neither
of us yet know?
R
Sambrook
thereby conceded the use of inverted commas around "Saddam
loyalists", reflecting that this description was indeed merely a US claim.
The BBC's home news page and webpage were swiftly updated. However, news
broadcasts throughout the day, including the main 10pm news bulletin on BBC1,
continued to present the phrase "forces loyal to Saddam Hussein" as
fact rather than as US-UK government opinion.
It
is noteworthy that Sambrook claims: "I think people understand that when
something is attributed we are simply reporting what someone else says --
rather than endorsing it." This is disingenuous. Constant repetition of US
or UK government claims in news bulletins may not equate to explicit endorsement,
but it clearly constitutes a relentless barrage of one-sided opinion that is
bound to shape public perceptions. When a senior media manager can say with
complete sincerity, "we are simply reporting what someone else says",
it suggests that the media’s versions of 'neutrality', 'objectivity' and
'balance' have been warped by an unconscious subordination to power.
Thus,
in the prelude to the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, a
largely uncritical mass media has endlessly relayed US and UK government
rhetoric, distortions and lies, while consigning great chunks of history and
relevant context to Orwell's infamous 'memory hole'.
In
his final reply above, Sambrook questions, quite reasonably, whether the Fisk
view - that continued Iraqi resistance extends beyond "Saddam
loyalists" - is an established "fact". However, Sambrook is
responding to a point that was not put to him. We challenged him to reflect a
broad range of views and interpretations of events in Iraq, rather than simply
echoing the official “coalition” view.
On
2 June, Sambrook responded to a Media Lens reader who had expressed his deep
concern about the lack of BBC news reports covering the continued chaos in
Iraq:
"The
BBC is aware of the importance of continuing to report on conditions facing the
Iraqi people following the war. For
this reason, we have recently carried on our main news programmes special film
reports on the breakdown in hospitals in Baghdad, fears of cholera in Basra,
petrol shortages and their consequences, the difficulties in re-forming the
police force, and the health hazards from open sewage in the streets of
Baghdad. The views of UNICEF on the plight of children in post-war Iraq were
discussed in the Ten O'Clock News on 22
May.
We
will continue to report on this situation across our programmes and on our
Interactive Services."
As
we have noted in previous Media Alerts, Sambrook's willingness to engage with
points put to him by members of the public continues to put his counterparts in
other mainstream media outlets to shame the latter having responded with
comments such as "cease sending me unsolicited emails" (ITN news
chief David Mannion, forwarded May 25, 2003), “That is pathetic” (Guardian
columnist David Aaronovitch, forwarded May 27, 2003) and "piss off"
and “get a life” (Observer foreign editor Peter Beaumont, Observer online
debate, June 12, 2003
http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?128@110.uTFNcgZTe3I.1@.4a914425)
Sambrook
generally responds to challenges by citing a handful of news items or current
affairs programmes. However, the point is that these few examples are drowned
out by a deluge of news reports - the vast majority - that reflect an elite
US-UK representation of 'the news'. Repeated assertions take the following
form:
"We
aim to be balanced, fair and honest with our viewers on all matters we report
on, both across our output and within individual reports." (Forwarded,
June 2, 2003)
Such
a statement is contradicted by the heavy dominance of establishment viewpoints,
with the occasional dissenting position from within a narrow spectrum, on BBC
news bulletins and news programmes such as Panorama and Newsnight, as we have
documented time after time.
No
wonder there is considerable public scepticism of 'news values' and a turning
away from mainstream political analysis. Ironically, Sambrook himself noted in
2001:
"There
is a new political divide: no longer 'left' and 'right'; it's now 'us and
them', with 'them' being politicians, the establishment and the broadcasters
and media."
Sambrook
noted his concern at the prospect of losing large chunks of his audience:
"Some
40 per cent of the audience feel they are outside looking in, offered few real
choices." ('As attitudes change, so must news programmes', Richard
Sambrook, speech to the Royal Television Society in London, The Independent,
December 5, 2001)
As
we have written before, many people are so disappointed with, and bewildered
and disgusted by, mainstream media performance - in particular, by its elite
framework of news reporting, no matter how deceptive it is shown to be - that
they are now seeking out 'alternative' honest sources of news and comment.
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. Visit the Media
Lens website: http://www.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 the BBC's director of news, Richard Sambrook.
Email:
richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk
Ask
Richard Sambrook why the BBC gives so much prominence to the views of US-UK
officials, politicians and armed forces in its reporting of the occupation of
Iraq. Why is there so little independent analysis in major BBC news bulletins
and programmes of the claims, statements and fundamental assumptions made by
US-UK power? Where are the persistent, serious challenges to US-UK
establishment viewpoints? To what extent can Sambrook defend his stated aim
that the BBC is "balanced, fair and honest with our viewers on all matters
we report on, both across our output and within individual reports"?
Feel
free to respond to Media Lens alerts: editor@medialens.org
Visit
the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org
This
media alert will shortly be archived at:
http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html