HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Biting
the Hand That Feeds – Part 2
by
David Edwards and Media Lens
June
27, 2003
By
coincidence, Greg Palast’s praise for the non-toxic Newsnight came just as we
were preparing a review of a recent interview conducted by Kirsty Wark and her
“sexy brain”. On June 19, Wark interviewed John Bolton, US under-secretary for
arms control. (Newsnight, BBC2, June 19, 2003)
Bolton,
of course, has a history. In 1997, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and other
right-wingers most involved in the oil business created the Project for the
New American Century (PNAC), a lobby group demanding "regime change"
in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, PNAC called for the removal of
Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House,
they wrote, "we should establish and maintain a strong US military
presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital
interests in the Gulf and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from
power". Bolton was a signatory to the letter. (Robert Fisk, ‘This looming
war isn’t about chemical warheads or human rights: it’s about oil’, The
Independent, January 18, 2003)
Wark
introduced her interview with Bolton on the alleged threat posed by Iran:
“I
asked him what he made of the Iranian response so far.”
Even
this introduction gave an indication of what was to come, and of what has very
often gone before. Whereas Newsnight interviewers challenge spokespeople for
officially designated “rogue states”, they often merely inquire of powerful
US-UK politicians. The former are expected to defend their actions, the latter
merely to explain and clarify them. The former are confronted as ‘them’, the
latter are recognisably ‘us’.
Bolton
replied:
“I
think the Iranians have demonstrated a pattern over the years of withholding
information, concealing their activities in the nuclear field, all of which is
consistent with trying to hide a clandestine nuclear weapons programme... The
fact is the Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapons, and that makes them a danger
to the region and the world as a whole.”
It
is difficult to know how to react to these words; it feels like being caught in
some kind of Twilight Zone time-loop. Did Bolton not say almost +exactly+ the
same thing one year ago in the build up to an assault on Iraq? Did he not then
also claim that Iraq presented “a danger to the region and the world as a
whole”?
In
September 2002, Bolton insisted that no new international mandate was needed to
launch a war against President Saddam:
"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)
This,
at a time when no sane commentators and not even the likes of Jack Straw and
Tony Blair - were proposing that Iraq had a nuclear weapons capability.
In
January of this year, 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 know, the “appropriate time” never came the claim was a fraud. But
Bolton’s scare tactics have reached even more remarkable extremes. In November
2002, Bolton said "son of star wars" programmes 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
awesome powers such as Iraq, Libya and Iran. (‘Missiles R Us takes on the
world’, Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, November 21, 2002)
In
similar vein, 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”, Mark Curtis comments.
(Web Of Deceit, Vintage, 2003, p.78)
Bolton,
then, to repeat, has a history. Indeed the key development in domestic and
international politics in recent times has been the revelation that the claims
made by Bolton and others have been shown to be spectacularly false, deceptive,
undependable, misleading in fact a lie.
But
then surely the exposure of Bolton’s earlier deceptions simply +had+ to be
raised now in the light of this new, quite possibly false, claim. Surely no one
could allow this almost verbatim repetition of the earlier, fraudulent claims
to go unchallenged. This was Wark’s response:
“What
evidence do you have that they are pursuing weapons of mass destruction?”
Bolton
responded:
“The
information we have, about which we have a high degree of confidence, is that
the Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapons. And I might say they are also
pursuing a vigorous programme in ballistic missiles, increasing the range that
they have, and making themselves a broader and broader problem.”
Wark
replied:
“So,
is there a possibility that you would take military action in Iran, if
necessary?”
With
this question Wark simply ignored as non-existent the multiple exposures of
earlier frauds, and the obvious similarities between those frauds and these
latest claims. Bolton was not asked the question that simply screamed to be
asked: Why should anyone believe a word he, or anyone else in the US
administration, says on alleged global ‘threats’? Similarly, the idea that Iran
might indeed present “a danger to the region and the world as a whole” if it
had nuclear weapons was allowed to pass completely unchallenged as a given.
By
failing to make these challenges, and by instead focusing on the next stage of
the discussion US plans for military action Wark gave the impression that
what Bolton had said had been uncontroversial. And this at a time when the
media is (by its standards) packed full of exposes of US government lies. It
might seem incredible that Wark could allow Bolton to go unchallenged in this
way, but this is standard mainstream media practice it’s how the US and UK
governments were able to lie their way to war on Iraq.
Wark
chose to focus on the issue of whether the US might consider military action
against Iran, apparently in pursuit of some kind of scoop. As so often with
mainstream interviews, this was a red herring - Bolton was not about to reveal
plans of that kind at this stage, and so the repeated questioning was just a
theatrical time-filler. It looked challenging and dramatic while achieving
nothing at all a classic liberal herring, as we like to describe them. The
real issue, given the ongoing political furor over Iraqi WMD, is quite
obviously whether the US government is once again lying about the threat posed
by Iran. Bolton replied:
“No,
the obvious intent here is to get a peaceful solution to the problem. But the
problem is the Iranian nuclear weapons programme.”
Wark
asked again:
“But
do you rule out military intervention?”
“We’re
nowhere close to even considering that, but all options are obviously on the
table, as the president has said repeatedly. And they must be to provide a
strong deterrence to those who might otherwise seek nuclear weapons.”
Wark
again: “Is the American goal regime change in Iran?”
“The
American goal, and what I work on, is the elimination of Iran’s nuclear weapons
programme. I think the president has spoken very eloquently to the importance
of true democracy coming to Iran having the people have a real chance to live
in freedom. But what I’m concerned about, and what I’m focussed on and what
the IAEA today took a very important step towards is stopping the Iranian
nuclear weapons programme.”
It
might have been interesting to have contrasted these stirring words on regional
democracy with PNAC’s declared goals in the same region. On the other hand, why
should regional democracy conflict with PNAC’s determination to protect “our
[sic] vital interests in the Gulf”? Wark might also have compared Bolton’s
words from September 2002:
"There
is no such thing as the UN. There is an international community that can be led
by the only real power left in the world, and that is the US, when it suits our
interests and when we can get others to go along." (‘Blair may be First
Buddy, but it's time he faced the facts’, Martin Kettle, the Guardian,
September 12, 2002)
Compare
and contrast Wark’s remarkable failure to pose even the mildest challenge to
Bolton with an earlier interview with Bouthaina Shaaban, Syria’s Director of
Foreign Media. In March, Wark, all but shouting, demanded a response to Donald
Rumsfeld’s accusation that Syria had supplied weapons to Iraq. Failing to get
the desired answer, Wark raised her voice several decibels:
“Miss
Shaaban, can I ask you just a very simple yes and no question?” (Newsnight,
BBC, March 28, 2003)
And
then:
“So
you have never supplied night vision goggles to Iraq?”
Maintaining
the same high volume, Wark demanded:
“So,
will Syria give an assurance that Syria will not supply any military or
intelligence equipment to Iraq at any point in this war?”
Courtroom-style
barracking of this kind is reserved for official enemies such as “rogue states”
by the mainstream. On the same night, in dramatic contrast, Wark politely posed
questions to Rumsfeld ally, William Schneider, chair of the US defence board.
It’s interesting to imagine Wark repeatedly grilling John Bolton in a similar
manner:
“Mr
Bolton, can I ask you just a very simple yes and no question: did you
deliberately mislead the American people when you talked of ‘mushroom clouds’
in the context of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?”
And:
“Will
the United States give an assurance that the United States did not deliberately
mislead the public...?”
The
point we’re making is that Greg Palast rightly deemed one of the best
dissident writers did not merely fail to condemn this kind of performance, he
actually endorsed it. Anyone who watched Newsnight in the lead up to the war
knows that Wark’s interview was standard for a news programme that consistently
echoes, rather than challenges, establishment propaganda, ignoring the most
important dissident commentators and arguments as non-existent. When even our
best writers are willing to praise this kind of performance, we are all in
trouble.
The
tone and emphasis of much reporting and interviewing are important propaganda
holes through which many media claims to neutrality and balance fall. It would
take enormous resources to monitor and evaluate the true extent to which
journalists, for example, portray US-UK leaders as worthy of respect, and
official enemies as worthy of contempt. It is hard to precisely measure the
impact of elite journalists’ sense of belonging with elite politicians, and
their sense that peace, green and human rights activists are curious, slightly
odd, outsiders.
In
January 2002, Kirsty Wark was reported by Conal Walsh in the Observer to have
taken “self-enrichment to another level” by agreeing a £3.5m-plus package with
the BBC to present and produce programmes for the next three years. “It was the
sort of deal that set teeth grinding among the toiling staffers at BBC News”,
Walsh noted. (Walsh, ‘Us versus Them at the Beeb’, The Observer, January 6,
2002)
It’s
true that going to the same elite schools and universities, earning similarly
huge salaries, and living similarly privileged lifestyles in similarly upmarket
areas, as elite state-corporate interviewees, does not necessarily generate a
shared worldview among journalists as compared, say, with road protestors
willing to lock themselves in underground tunnels and up trees for several
months. However, Charles Lewis, a former producer of the US current affairs
programme ‘60 Minutes’, who resigned to fund the Centre For Public Integrity,
surely describes the reality:
“The
values of the news media are the same as those of the elite, and they badly
want to be viewed by the elites as acceptable. Socially, culturally, and
economically they belong to the group of people they are covering.” (Quoted,
Alexander Cockburn and Ken Silverstein, The Observer, May 26, 1996)
It’s
one thing to roast a spokesperson for some “rogue state”, but when the person
on the other side of the table is an influential British politician, it might
be better to ease up. The Guardian explained in 2001:
"Blair's
government is stuffed with journalists. In Downing Street there is Alastair
Campbell (Mirror), Phil Bassett (Times and Financial Times), David Bradshaw
(Mirror), Andrew Adonis (Observer) and Fiona Millar (Express). Lance Price
(BBC) has just left to open a bar, a more traditional route out of the trade.
At the foreign office, John Williams (Mirror) rules the media roost, aided by
David Shaw (Evening Standard). Sheree Dodd of the Mirror is senior spinner at
the Department for Work and Pensions, having previously been Mo Mowlam's spin
doctor at the Northern Ireland Office. Peter Hooley (Express) is senior press
officer at Defra, the food and environment department, and Sian Jarvis (GMTV)
is director of communications at the Department of Health. Peter McMahon
(Mirror, Scotsman) held ex-First Minister Henry McLeish's hand at the Scottish
Office." (Paul Routledge, 'Jumping ship', The Guardian, December 10, 2001)
The
message understood by all Don’t bite the hand that feeds!
It’s
nice work if you can get it the pay’s good, and you don’t feel like you’re
doing anything very wrong. You’re not consciously lying, suppressing or
distorting anything - there are maybe things you thought about saying but
decided weren’t important - and you know you can do more good ‘inside the
system’, and so you still feel like a good person. There is always, inevitably,
however, a price to be paid - somewhere by someone - as peace activist Kathy Kelly
reports:
“I
had gone to the al Kindi Hospital, which later had some notoriety as a place
that had been turned into a warzone by looters. But when I went, beds were
filling up and all the patients were civilians. I visited several teens, a
child and an elderly man who had all been hit (in bombings) - in one case,
trying to leave a home, thinking a bomb was going to come and destroy it
because another bomb hit nearby and a wall fell. Or in the case of the little
girl, she had run to the door to tell her father bombs were coming and she
caught a piece of shrapnel in her chest. To see bodies that are maimed and
mutilated, to speak with Jamila, the aunt of Ali Abbas, the ten-year old boy
whose photo has gone around the world. (Most of his family was killed in a
bombing). She said he woke up and asked her, ‘Will I always stay this
way?’" (‘Eyewitness To War - An interview with Kathy Kelly and Wade
Hudson’, ZNet, May 23, 2003)
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