HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Beating
up the Cheerleader
Government Attacks On The BBC Reflect Government
Totalitarianism Not BBC Radicalism
by
David Edwards and Media Lens
It
is clear that the British government's attacks on the BBC are a deliberate
attempt to distract attention from a) the dramatic failure to find any trace of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, b) the fact that the government clearly
lied to parliament and country about the threat these fictional WMD posed, and
c) the fact that a whole range of media is openly speculating that the
government lied in order to persuade the country to go to war.
The
BBC has had little choice but to defend its reputation, particularly its
appearance of independence, with great vigour. This priority has overridden the
close links between senior management and government. The BBC's chairman, Gavyn
Davies, was appointed by New Labour in 2001. Both Davies and the director-general,
Greg Dyke, are not just Labour supporters but have both given money to the
party. In Davies's case, the links are even more intimate - Davies's wife runs
Gordon Brown's office. His children served as pageboy and bridesmaid at the
Brown wedding and Tony Blair has stayed at his holiday home. "In other
words", Richard Ingrams wrote in the Observer in 2001, "it would be
hard to find a better example of a Tony crony." (Ingrams, the Observer,
September 23, 2001)
The
post-war media questioning of government policy is certainly not par for the
course. In 1999, the US and UK bombed Serbia for 78 days, beginning March 24,
in response to an alleged “genocide” taking place in Kosovo. After the war, the
media raised few questions about the absence of evidence of the much-discussed
“genocide”. In the summer of 2000, the International War Crimes Tribunal
reported that some 2,788 bodies had been found, including Serbs, Roma and
combatants. There was no furore in the press reminding readers that in an
interview in June 2000, George Robertson, British defence secretary during the
bombing, had said:
“We
were faced with a situation where there was this killing going on, this
cleansing going on - the kind of ethnic cleansing we thought had disappeared
after the Second World War. You were seeing people there coming in trains, the
cattle trains, with refugees once again.” (Jonathan Dimbleby, ITV, June 11,
2000)
The
US Defence Secretary, William Cohen, had said during the war:
“We’ve
now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing... They may have been
murdered.” (Quoted, Degraded Capability, The Media and the Kosovo Crisis,
edited by Philip Hammond and Edward S. Herman, Pluto Press, 2000, p.139)
That
these were examples of what Clare Short might describe as “honourable deception”
and “extraordinary recklessness” was not discussed there were no high-level
resignations to oblige the press to illuminate the chasm between moralising
rhetoric and reality.
No
questions were raised about the fact that Robertson had said:
“Imagine
if almost two million refugees had been expelled from Kosovo and were in the
surrounding countries and scattered throughout Europe. Just imagine if
Milosevic had succeeded with that ethnic cleansing.”
In
reality, as Robertson surely knew, the flood of refugees began immediately after
NATO launched its attack. Prior to the bombing, and for the following two days,
the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported no data on
refugees. On March 27, three days into the bombing, UNHCR reported that 4,000
had fled Kosovo to the neighbouring countries of Albania and Macedonia. By
April 5, the New York Times reported “more than 350,000 have left Kosovo since
March 24” (See Noam Chomsky, The New Military Humanism, Pluto Press,
1999). Robertson was implying that NATO had responded to a cause that occurred
after the effect an absurdity.
Following
the attack on Serbia, Robertson was appointed Secretary General of NATO in
August 1999. A Guardian editorial commented on Robertson and his appointment:
“It's
hard to resist pride that a Brit has been deemed worthy of presiding at a top
table... Even if George Robertson were a shining star of the administration
rather than a competent performer whom events have tested and found to have the
right stuff, his loss would be a small price to pay for remaking NATO.” (‘A
Brit for NATO? Robertson has a lot of the right stuff’, Leader, the Guardian,
August 2, 1999)
Every
British newspaper except the Independent on Sunday had taken a pro-war line in
its editorial column. As for the BBC, veteran corporation broadcaster, John
Simpson, responded to claims that he had been a mouthpiece for the Belgrade
government, saying:
“Why
did... public opinion stay rock-solid for the bombing, in spite of NATO’s
mistakes? Because they knew the war was right. Who gave them the information?
The Media.” (Hammond and Herman, op., cit, p.126)
There
was no media outrage in response to the kind of obvious conclusions drawn by
Philip Hammond of London’s South Bank University:
“We
may never know the true number of people killed. But it seems reasonable to
conclude that while people died in clashes between the KLA and Yugoslav
forces... the picture painted by NATO of a systematic campaign of Nazi-style
genocide carried out by Serbs was pure invention.” (Hammond and Herman, op.
cit., p.129)
Pure
invention, like the 45-minute threat posed by Iraq’s mythical WMD. And yet, in
typical style, Blair had described NATO’s intervention as “a battle between
good and evil: between civilisation and barbarity; between democracy and
dictatorship” (ibid, p.123). This, as NATO bombs crashed through 33 hospitals,
344 schools, 144 major industrial plants, and hotels, libraries, housing
estates, theatres, museums, farms (setting fields alight), a mosque in
Djakovica, a Basilica in Nis, a church in Prokuplje, trains, tractors, power
stations, and so on. According to Yugoslav authorities, civilian targets
comprised 60 per cent of the total hit by NATO bombs.
Amnesty
International claimed that during the bombing: “NATO forces...committed serious
violations of the laws of war leading in a number of cases to the unlawful
killings of civilians.” (‘NATO violations of the laws of war during Operation
Allied Force must be investigated’, Amnesty International press Release, June
7, 2000)
Amnesty
focused in particular on the April 23 bombing of the headquarters of Serbian
state radio and television, which left 16 civilians dead, describing it as “a
deliberate attack on a civilian object”, which therefore “constitutes a war
crime". The report also noted that the requirement that NATO aircraft fly
above 15,000 feet to provide maximum protection for aircraft and pilots “made
full adherence to international humanitarian law virtually impossible”.
For
some reason, the fact that this mass slaughter had been based on a set of lies
- lies quite as outrageous as those now being exposed - just didn’t matter in
1999. No wonder Blair was so confident in lying his way to war on Iraq.
Similarly,
in 2001, the US and UK governments knowingly risked the lives of 7.5 million
starving people in Afghanistan as winter approached and the aid convoys stopped
in response to the threat of bombing. Dire aid agency warnings of possible mass
death were simply ignored by the media after Kabul fell and Osama bin Laden
slipped the net. Few questions were raised about the morality of the action
the media were unconcerned with establishing how many civilians had died in the
winter snows, although the Guardian conservatively estimated 20,000 deaths.
Kate Stearman, head of communications at the British branch of Care
International, said:
"After
September 11 there was widespread panic in Afghanistan with soaring food prices
and mass flight from cities... The bombing and the deteriorating security
situation meant huge and largely unrecorded population movements. While the
expected one million-plus refugees in Pakistan did not appear, this in itself
was worrying because it indicated that many more were trapped inside
Afghanistan, their situation unknown." (Jonathan Steele, ‘Forgotten
victims - The full human cost of US air strikes will never be known, but many
more died than those killed directly by bombs’, the Guardian, May 20, 2002)
New
Labour’s attack on the BBC is plainly irrational similar claims of government
mendacity have been made throughout the media. Moreover, the idea that the BBC
was pursuing an “anti-war” agenda as the government’s director of communications,
Alastair Campbell, has claimed - is a further example of “pure invention”.
In
fact the BBC faithfully echoed government propaganda in the lead up to the war,
and even more so during the war itself. The issue raging now is over whether
the BBC was impartial or anti-war. The impact of this false debate has reached
even dissident circles. In an article published on ZNet, Danny Schechter of
MediaChannel writes:
"The
BBC boasts, often with legitimacy, of the impartiality it brings to the
coverage of the news." (Schechter, ‘Behind Blair vs The Beeb The BBC’s
Next War - Why The Knives Are Out for Aunty', www.zmag.org, July 23, 2003)
This
is remarkable. As Schechter himself acknowledges, a Cardiff University report
found that the BBC “displayed the most ‘pro-war’ agenda of any broadcaster”
(Matt Wells, ‘Study deals a blow to claims of anti-war bias in BBC news’, the
Guardian, July 4, 2003). Over the three weeks of conflict, 11% of the sources
quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin, the highest
proportion of all the main television broadcasters. The BBC was less likely
than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent sources, who also tended to
be the most skeptical. The BBC also placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties,
which were mentioned in 22% of its stories about the Iraqi people, and it was
least likely to report on Iraqi opposition to the invasion.
It
is easy to select examples at random indicating how the BBC swallowed and then
regurgitated government propaganda. The BBC's Jane Corbin stated on Panorama
that UNSCOM weapons inspectors "were thrown out [in 1998]... and a divided
UN Security Council let Saddam get away with it." (Panorama, The Case
Against Saddam, BBC1, September 23, 2002) On the BBC's Lunchtime News, James
Robbins reported that inspectors were "asked to leave" after
relations with Iraq broke down. (BBC1, September 17, 2002) In fact inspectors
were withdrawn by the UN after the Iraqi regime had cooperated in delivering
90-95% disarmament of WMD.
In
November 2002, the BBC broadcast a Panorama programme: 'Saddam: A Warning From
History', (BBC1, November 3, 2002). The title was clearly intended to resonate
with that of an earlier BBC series: ‘The Nazis A Warning From History.’
Compare and contrast the implied parallel with this statement from Blair in an
ITN interview:
"What
does the whole of our history teach us, I mean British history in particular?
That if when you're faced with a threat you decide to avoid confronting it
short term, then all that happens is that in the longer term you have to
confront it and confront it an even more deadly form." (ITN News at 6:30,
January 31, 2003)
The
BBC’s Guto Hari was typical of BBC news reporters in appearing convinced that
Blair was pursuing a peaceful settlement, even as hundreds of thousands of
troops poured into the Gulf, with the “coalition” clearly hell-bent on war. Of
a peaceful solution, Hari said:
"Of
course that's his [Blair’s] preferred option. He keeps saying it's his
preferred option. But he won't rule it [war] 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." (Guto
Hari, BBC1 News at One, January 23, 2003)
This
is all very reasonable and rational. Alas, cabinet insiders have since revealed
that Blair had long since agreed with Bush to go to war to topple Saddam
Hussein the UN ‘diplomacy’ was a fancy PR exercise.
Andrew
Bergin, the press officer for the Stop The War Coalition, said of the BBC:
"Representatives
of the coalition have been invited to appear on every TV channel except the
BBC. The BBC have taken a conscious decision to actively exclude Stop the War
Coalition people from their programmes, even though everyone knows we are
central to organising the massive anti-war movement... The Corporation is an
Oxbridge graduate elite which does not understand that millions of men and
women in this country have a real intellectual understanding of the arguments
put forward for war - and reject them." (Email to Media Lens, March 14,
and The Mirror, February 10, 2003, 'Fury at BBC gag on war protesters', Gary
Jones and Justine Smith)
Infamously,
the BBC’s political editor, Andrew Marr said of Blair as Baghdad fell:
“[I]t
would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that
tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a
result." (Marr, BBC 1, News At Ten, April 9, 2003)
A
BBC news online search for 1 January, 2002 - 31 December 2002 recorded the
following mentions:
George
Bush Iraq, 1,022.
Tony
Blair Iraq, 651.
Dick
Cheney Iraq, 102.
Donald
Rumsfeld, 302. Donald Rumsfeld Iraq, 164.
Richard
Perle Iraq, 6.
George
Galloway Iraq, 42.
Tony
Benn Iraq, 14.
Noam
Chomsky Iraq, 1.
Denis
Halliday, 0.
This
is hardly scientific, but it does give an idea of the extent to which official
spokespeople are afforded huge levels of coverage while dissident voices are
largely excluded.
Despite
all of this, it is plausible to argue that the overwhelming national and global
(including establishment) opposition to unilateral military action without a
second UN resolution, combined with a flood of emailed, complaints from members
of the public, did have an impact on the BBC. Also, director of BBC News,
Richard Sambrook, does appear to be unusually sincere in aspiring to some
semblance of balanced and honest reporting.
It
is possible that these factors combined to raise the BBC’s level of
performance, however marginally, above its usual level of servility. Because it
is so unusual, this improved performance may have helped attract a
disproportionate level of hostility from government media minders who, given
their experience during the assaults on Serbia and Afghanistan, understandably
took media support for granted. But, as discussed, the main motive for
attacking the BBC is surely to recast widespread scepticism of the government
as a much more localised problem rooted in ‘unreasonable’ BBC 'anti-war bias'.
The
final effect of government bullying of the media is impossible to predict,
depending on unknown events, revelations and outcomes. If journalists and even
senior managers within the BBC were to resign, it would doubtless have a
chastening effect on the media more generally. The rewards for subservience and
punishment for dissent are already very real and keenly felt it would take
little to encourage journalists to be even more ‘even-handed’ in presenting the
government’s version of events. On the other hand, senior resignations within
government, and/or a lasting decline in the political fortunes of the Bush and
Blair regimes, might encourage the honest and reasonable journalists who are
striving to tell the truth in the mainstream.
Feel free to respond
to Media Lens alerts: editor@medialens.org
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