HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
BBC, Self-Glorification And Disaster
by
David Edwards and Media Lens
September
18, 2003
What
is news? And who makes the news? Perhaps BBC director of news Richard Sambrook
can help shed some light. Sambrook recently replied to a Media Lens reader who
had pointed out that BBC coverage accepts without question that the US and UK
“coalition” is attempting to bring peace and democracy to Iraq.
"We
report what is said by Tony Blair and George Bush", Sambrook replied,
"because they have power and responsibility and their own sources of
intelligence." (Email from Richard Sambrook to Media Lens reader, 9 July,
2003)
Sambrook
wrote these words in early July. Since then, within the limited terms afforded
by the Hutton inquiry into the death of weapons inspector David Kelly, the public
has gained some insight into how western sources of intelligence were ignored,
manipulated, pressured and abused to justify an illegal and immoral invasion of
Iraq. Blair and Bush are directly responsible. They have committed war crimes
and abused the power entrusted to them (or stolen, in the case of Bush).
Given
that Bush and Blair have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and
irresponsible, even ignoring or overruling the advice of their own intelligence
services, should not the BBC now show extreme caution in representing their
views? Alas, we know that nothing will change - the echoing of government
propaganda is hard-wired into media institutions designed to serve the same
elite interests represented by Bush and Blair.
The
problem is that reporting official propaganda is not in fact reporting, as
veteran US journalist David E. Hendrix observes:
"Reporting
a spokesman's comments is not reporting; it's becoming the spokesman's
spokesman." ('Coal Mine Canaries', Hendrix, in 'Into The Buzzsaw', edited
by Kristina Borjesson, Prometheus Books, 2002, p.172)
In
his response to the Media Lens reader, Sambrook was keen to portray a healthy
balance in BBC news coverage. The BBC's role is not just about echoing the
pronouncements of power:
"We
also report many other views, including those of Hans Blix and Scott
Ritter."
True
enough. But as we have pointed out many times, facts, analyses and views that
seriously challenge power are afforded minute amounts of coverage. Stating that
"we also report other views" is a technically correct but
conveniently meaningless response. Norman Solomon, Executive Director of the
US-based Institute for Public Accuracy, describes how "scattered islands
of independent-minded reporting are lost in oceans of the stenographic reliance
on official sources". (Solomon, Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't
Tell You, New York: Context Books, 2003, p.26)
Sambrook's
assurances notwithstanding, the consistent marginalisation of non-establishment
views hardly constitutes 'balance'. The BBC’s Producers' Guidelines state
boldly: "all BBC programmes and services should be open minded, fair and
show a respect for the truth. No significant strand of thought should go
un-reflected or under represented on the BBC" and that "all relevant
information should be weighed to get at the truth of what is reported or
described".
BBC
director-general Greg Dyke notes that: "We publish the Producers'
Guidelines, firstly so that audiences can read and understand the editorial
standards that we aspire to, and secondly so that they can judge our
performance accordingly." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/producer_guides/text/section1.shtml)
The
Guidelines contain fine words, and they are breached by every BBC news
bulletin, every day of the year. This is not recognised by BBC editors and
managers, of course, who can always refer back to that key word,
“significant". Thus, a rational approach that takes Bush and Blair's
rhetoric on peace and human rights at face value, and which then compares and
contrasts it with actual western policy, can simply be labelled an "insignificant
strand of thought" and ignored.
How
can such obviously important issues be deemed “insignificant”? Because, and
here’s the rub, they are not advocated by people with “power and responsibility
and their own sources of intelligence”. This is the kind of closed logical loop
that keeps the media isolated from the real world and from the real innocents
really being killed by people with “power and responsibility”.
Media
professionals who have developed a disciplined mind in which such labelling arises
naturally are those most likely to enjoy a successful career and to reap the
rewards offered by state-corporate power. ‘Honest, objective, neutral
reporting’, oddly enough, means working within parameters that do not seriously
challenge the status quo.
Transforming
oneself into a 'responsible' professional is a particular example of the
societal process of assimilation into mainstream culture that starts early in
life and continues through school, college, university and the workplace.
Mainstream society and its institutions are largely shaped by power,
profit-seeking and deference to authority, and so these are the values that are
selected for among successful professionals and ideological managers (leading
politicians, corporate chiefs, influential media voices and academic
commentators).
The
net effect is that societal forces without "power and responsibility and
their own sources of intelligence" are far less likely to be granted
mainstream media time and space. People like human rights activist Joanne Baker
reporting the reality of life in Baghdad:
"There
is total incomprehension that America, the world's greatest superpower, cannot
provide in three months even basic services that the government under Saddam
was able to restore within one month (after the 1991 Gulf War)."
Baker
continues:
"I
am asked how I find Baghdad now. How has it changed? It is perhaps best
described as a city in trauma. Still reeling from the appalling bombardment, it
is now experiencing the shock of occupation and anarchy. People are crying out
for help with their personal tragedies but there is nowhere to turn."
(Joanne Baker, Pandora DU Research Project, Baghdad, June 30, 2003, quoted in
Voices UK Newsletter 32, August 2003, p.7)
The
same honesty and compassion are hallmarks of the work of Denis Halliday, former
UN administrator of the ‘oil for food’ programme in Baghdad, who gave up a long
and successful career to protest UN sanctions on Iraq. "These
sanctions," he told journalist John Pilger, "represented ongoing
warfare against the people of Iraq. They became, in my view, genocidal in their
impact over the years, and the Security Council maintained them, despite its
full knowledge of their impact, particularly on the children of Iraq."
(John Pilger, 'Who Are
The Extremists?', Daily Mirror, 22 August, 2003)
Halliday
continued: "We disregarded our own charter, international law, and we
probably killed over a million people. It's a tragedy that will not be
forgotten... I'm confident that the Iraqis will throw out the occupying forces.
I don't know how long it will take, but they'll throw them out based on a
nationalistic drive. They will not tolerate any foreign troops' presence in
their country, dictating their lifestyle, their culture, their future, their
politics."
Halliday
concluded: "Every country that is now threatened by Mr Bush, which is his
habit, presents an outrage to all of us. Should we stand by and merely watch
while a man so dangerous he is willing to sacrifice Americans lives and, worse,
the lives of others."
A
crucial and defining quality of such honest testimony is its humanity rooted in
a willingness to pay the price required, no matter how heavy, to help others.
As the Indian sage Sakyamuni commented:
"Nothing
prevents you from loving the young people of other kingdoms as your sons and
daughters, even though they do not dwell under your rule. Just because one
loves one's own people is no reason not to love the peoples of other
kingdoms." (Thich Nhat Than, Old Path White Clouds, Rider, 1991, p.273)
And
indeed there is no reason whatever not to love the young people of Iraq as our
sons and daughters. Their need and right to happiness and freedom from
suffering are identical to our own.
Developing
a strong sense of concern for others, based on an awareness of the suffering in
the world around us, is a powerful force. It is what motivates, drives and
sustains those who witness and resist the terrible suffering around the world
for which political and corporate leaders in the west very often bear very real
responsibility.
Contrast
the selfless perspective of people like Baker and Halliday with a defining
characteristic of men like Bush and Blair: namely, an unprincipled willingness
to do whatever it takes to maintain personal power camouflaged by endless
rhetoric extolling their passionate love of democracy, freedom and goodness.
Blair,
for example, proclaimed to the country in a televised broadcast in March this
year that "this new world faces a new threat: of disorder and chaos born
either of brutal states like Iraq, armed with weapons of mass destruction; or
of extreme terrorist groups. Both hate our freedom, our democracy."
('Blair urges opponents of conflict to rally behind forces in TV broadcast',
Andrew Grice, The Independent, 21 March 2003)
That
such lethally demonising, deceptive words could be granted credibility by being
broadcast and printed without challenge of the most vigorous kind speaks
volumes about the parlous state of the British media today.
The
author Robert Pirsig once noted: "Any effort that has self-glorification
as its final end-point is bound to end in disaster."
The
self-glorification of Bush and Blair, endlessly assisted by subservient
journalists and academics, has already led to death and destruction for
countless invisible thousands in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether it will indeed
lead to wider disaster depends very much on how the rest of us respond now.
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
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 BBC director-general Greg Dyke and BBC director of news Richard Sambrook.
Email:
greg.dyke@bbc.co.uk and richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk
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
Other Recent Articles by David Edwards
and Media Lens
* Adventures
in Media Surreality – Part 2: Global Climate Catastrophe – Mustn’t Grumble
* Adventures
in Media Surreality – Part 1: Blair’s Serious and Current Lies
* Biting the
Hand That Feeds – Part 2
* Stenographers
to Power: "Saddam Loyalists" Or "Anti-Occupation Forces"?
Ask The BBC