 ZNet
Commentary
Turning the World into Hell? November 23, 2002
By David Cromwell
Take a look at the
media sections of the broadsheets, if you can handle the
inane navel-gazing, insider gossip and trivia. A
recurrent theme is whether television news is being
'dumbed-down' in order to hang on to fragmenting
audiences. Corporate news chiefs retort that no such
dumbing down is taking place. The news these days hinges,
media heads claim, on greater 'clarity' and 'imaginative'
use of 'story telling'. Debate over, thank you and good
night. In short, the media is unable to examine itself
critically.
To my knowledge, there has never been any serious
discussion in the mainstream media of the fundamental
structural constraints that prevent its supposed role as
the 'watchdog' of democracy: its concentrated ownership,
strongly-integrated ties with other sectors of the global
economy, reliance on corporate advertising, dependence on
state-corporate elites as reliable and authoritative
sources of 'news', and a zealot-like adherence to 'free
market ideology'. These five factors are, in essence, the
five news 'filters' of the propaganda model enunciated by
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their 1988 classic
text, 'Manufacturing Consent'.
Many mainstream journalists and editors, even if they
refrain from unthinkingly and erroneously dismissing
Herman and Chomksy's propaganda model as a 'conspiracy
theory', may insist that such 'macro' media constraints
barely impinge on their everyday working practices, other
than a constant watchfulness to see where the corporate
media axe will next fall. In the meantime, they can
convince themselves that they are pretty much free to
report, comment and editorialise as they please, perhaps
even pushing the boundaries of acceptable discourse here
and there.
But according to the late political correspondent Anthony
Bevins, who worked for the Sun, Daily Mail and
Independent: 'It is daft to suggest that individuals can
buck the system, ignore the pre-set 'taste' of their
newspapers, use their own news-sense in reporting the
truth of any event, and survive. Dissident reporters who
do not deliver the goods suffer professional death.
They are ridden by news desks and backbench executives,
they have their stories spiked on a systematic basis,
they face the worst form of newspaper punishment -
by-line deprivation ... It is much easier to pander to
what the editors want.' [Power Without Responsibility:
The press and broadcasting in Britain, James Curran and
Jean Seaton 5th edition, Routledge (London), 1997, pp.
88-89].
The most successful journalists are those who do not even
have 'to pander to what the editors want'. They have
already assimilated the prevailing values and assumptions
of the ruling elite institutions in liberal-democratic
society. These journalists already think the right
thoughts, read the right books, journals and newspapers,
and mix in the right circles.
'To be corrupted by totalitarianism', George Orwell once
warned, 'one does not have to live in a totalitarian
country.' Instead, 'the mere prevalence of certain ideas
can spread a kind of poison' that makes critical
commentary on the status quo all but impossible.
The amply-rewarded, influential journalists and
commentators who rise to the top of the media empire
enjoy great swathes of newspaper column inches and
abundant television and radio broadcast time.
They often write and speak with great confidence, skill
and erudition, but always within well-policed boundaries
that do not seriously challenge established power.
'Probably the truth is discoverable', Orwell wrote, 'but
the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any
newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either
for swallowing lies or for failing to form an opinion.'
In essence, a filtering process ensures that the output
of the most influential journalists and editors fits the
constraints of a corporate media, a media that
facilitates the crushing abuses of global capitalism in
which it plays a major supporting role.
Whether this is achieved by journalists consciously- or
subconsciously - shaping what they write and say, or
whether independent-thinking journalists get squeezed
out, leads to the same result: a mass media that promotes
the interests of powerful elites in society. This is not
a fit topic for discussion in the mainstream. Newspaper
media sections are remarkable for their deafening silence
on the issue.
The BBC is similarly silent on this taboo subject. Its
high standards of media  professionalism,
perhaps unsurpassed in the world, conceal the role it
performs as a conduit of 'news' for western power, thus
enabling illegal and immoral acts of 'humanitarian
intervention' and 'peace-keeping' that the UK government
has undertaken in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and
Iraq. Journalist John Pilger notes correctly in his 1998
book, 'Hidden Agendas' that:
'When "information" is conveyed on the BBC with
such professional gravitas, it is more likely to be
believed. Possessing highly professional talent, the
illusion of impartiality and an essentially liberal
ethos, Britain's "public service broadcasting"
has become a finely crafted and infinitely adaptable
instrument of state propaganda and censorship.' (p. 489).
Earlier this year, the Independent's media correspondent
Louise Jury continued the standard unwritten rule of
'liberal' press reporting in a report on the BBC: namely,
focus with sustained and detailed attention on trivial
issues in such a way that the broader economic and
political context is presented as a given ('John Simpson
joins attack on BBC's dumbed-down "Six O'Clock
News" ', The Independent, March 29, 2002). Jury
reported that the BBC's Six O'Clock News 'is coming under
increasing fire from some of its most senior staff over
its "tabloid" selection and presentation of
stories.'
Mark Damazer, the BBC's assistant director of news,
defended the 'Six': 'We don't want to make it unbearably
facile, but we need clarity in story-telling. It is not
that we've abdicated from foreign news on the
"Six" or anywhere else - there's a lot of it
around and a great deal of it is imaginative.'
No mention was made in Jury's article of the 'war on
terror' where there has been a clear breach of the BBC's
self-proclaimed public duty of providing: 'independent
and impartial news [as] a fundamental part of a free
society and the democratic process' (email from Richard
Sambrook, the BBC's director of news, to Media Lens,
February 4, 2002). Given the BBC's clear vulnerability to
informed criticism of its biased performance (see Media
Lens media alerts on BBC coverage of climate change,
Afghanistan and Iraq at www.medialens.org/alerts.html), one might
imagine that a truly 'independent' journalist would probe
a little further in any report that purports to deal with
the quality of BBC news.
One notable exception to such mealy-mouthed analysis of
the BBC is the reporting and commentary of the veteran
Independent journalist Robert Fisk. Last August, Fisk
noted that: 'In a major surrender to Israeli diplomatic
pressure, BBC officials in London have banned their staff
in Britain and the Middle East from referring to Israel's
policy of murdering its guerrilla opponents as
"assassination". BBC reporters have been told
that in future they are to use Israel's own euphemism for
the murders, calling them "targeted killings".'
Fisk added that: 'Israeli diplomats have been lunching
with BBC officials and complaining that the corporations
coverage was anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.' ['BBC
staff are told not to call Israeli killings
"assassination"', Robert Fisk, Middle East
correspondent, The Independent, 4 August, 2001.]
Fisk has consistently and cogently exposed the myth that
mainstream media coverage of the Middle East is balanced.
'The Israeli line - that Palestinians are essentially
responsible for "violence", responsible for the
killing of their own children by Israeli soldiers,
responsible for refusing to make concessions for peace -
has been accepted almost totally by the media', Fisk
notes.
He takes particular issue with the BBC because of the
widely held misperception that this world-renowned public
broadcaster is an objective provider of news. Fisk
provides the example 'of a BBC World Service anchorman
[who] allowed an Israeli diplomat in Washington, Tara
Herzl, to excuse the shooting of stone-throwers - almost
200 of them - by Israeli soldiers on the grounds that
"they are there with people who are shooting".
If that was the case - which it usually is not - then why
were the Israelis shooting the stone-throwers rather than
the gunmen?' ['The biased reporting that makes killing
acceptable', Robert Fisk, The Independent, 14 November,
2000.]
The BBC's response to literally hundreds of challenges by
Media Lens readers on a number of issues this year has
been both pitiful and eye opening. This august, massive
publicly funded body is simply incapable of defending
itself rationally. There are repeated, robotic email
replies along the lines of:
'The BBC refutes any suggestion that it has become an
extension of No 10. We will always listen to and,
if necessary, act on any complaints we receive, we will
resist pressure from any area which threatens our
impartiality. As always the BBC's role is to be
fair and accurate, but we will also strive to be
independent. Senior editorial staff, the Board of
Management and the Board of Governors keep a close watch
on programmes to ensure that these standards are
maintained. Among other evidence, independent
audience research indicates there is widespread public
confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting,
but I recognise that this may not be a view that you
share.
Thank you again for taking the trouble to contact us on
this matter."
[Sent by Lee Rogers of the BBC's 'Editorial &
Investigation Team']
When challenged to produce the 'independent audience
research [that] indicates there is widespread public
confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting',
Lee Rogers could do no more than point to the BBC's
annual reports, which give precious few details of such
audience research.
Occasionally,
the response from BBC personnel has been simply banal.
One notable case this year involved a BBC2 Correspondent
documentary on Iraq by John Sweeney, .in which he
attempted to absolve the west for contributing to the
deaths of half a million young Iraqi children since the
Gulf War (see http://www.medialens.org/alerts/020624_John_Sweeney.html). When Mark
Damazer, the BBC's deputy director of news, defended
Sweeney's documentary in a letter to The Guardian (a
letter that had actually been written for him by the
documentary's editor) several Media Lens readers wrote to
Damazer, and included referenced statistics, facts and
quotes on the reality of Iraqi life under US-UK imposed
economic sanctions.
Damazer, presumably with no or little understanding of
Iraq's plight, could only respond to these well-argued
challenges with a lame, 'We disagree.'
But then, how likely is it that Damazer got to his
present position by being a thorn in the side of
authority, challenging US-UK government propaganda every
step of the way? How likely is it that a parliamentary
lobby journalist, for instance, who asks awkward
questions at press briefing after press briefing is going
to retain high-level access to government ministers,
advisers and spokespeople?
As journalist Daniel Schorr once observed: 'Attack a
government agency like the CIA, or a Fortune 500 member
like Chiquita, or the conduct of the military in
Southeast Asia and you find yourself in deep trouble,
naked, and often alone.' (quoted in Robert McChesney,
Rich Media, Poor Democracy, New Press, 2000, p. 61).
There is an almost overwhelming imperative for mainstream
journalists to appear tough, incisive and manly, while
all the time playing safe by not hurting anyone in
authority with real power. This means retaining channels
of access to those same figures of power, and granting
them ample airtime and space to propagate their views:
'According to a senior Washington diplomat....'; 'Bush
feels...'; 'Sources close to Blair say....'; 'London
fears...'
As Media academic and activist Robert McChesney notes:
'To avoid the controversy associated with determining
what is a legitimate news story, professional journalism
relies upon official sources as the basis for stories.
This gives those in power (and the public relations
industry, which developed at the exact same time as
professional journalism) considerable ability to
influence what is covered in the news' (Rich Media, Poor
Democracy, p. 49).
Echoing the comments of Anthony Bevins (see above), Greg
Palast of The Observer, and author of The Best Democracy
Money Can Buy, explains how such the mighty force of
obedience to power operates on individual journalists:
'After working for years against a brutal onslaught of
deadlines, you learn cheap and quick tricks; you learn
what's not going to be accepted, what's going to get shot
down and you see people who resist that system losing
their jobs.' [Interview by Ian Reeves of Press Gazette,
posted 3 May, 2002 at http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/Features.View.aspx?ContentID=247]
Media
amplification of state policy, pronouncements, even
government 'thoughts', 'fears' and 'feelings', not only
makes a mockery of the media as the fourth estate as
defender of freedom and free speech, but enables and
maintains a conspiracy-free adherence to corrupted
notions of 'progress', 'security' and 'stability' that
strongly favour the elite few while crushing the rest of
us.
No wonder there is considerable public scepticism of
'news values' and a turning away from mainstream
discussion of politics. According to Richard Sambrook,
the BBC's director of news:
'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 is concerned: 'Some 40 per cent of the audience
feel they are outside looking in, offered few real
choices.'
So, what is Sambrook's response to this massive wave of
public scepticism? A continuation of BBC values --
'expertise, accuracy, fairness, judgement' - that 'have
been amazingly resilient through the 20th century'.
Sambrook promises to 'take them forward, but in different
ways. A wider range of voices, programmes and services,
connecting the world with people's lives.' ['As attitudes
change, so must news programmes', Richard Sambrook,
speech to the Royal Television Society in London, The
Independent, 5 December, 2001.].
Such complacency and self-deception is, sadly, par for
the course. 'When I joined the BBC', joked Andrew
Marr, the BBC's political editor, 'my Organs of Opinion
were formally removed.' (The Independent, 13 January,
2001). The reality is that Marr's 'organs of opinion' did
not have to be removed at all. He slotted neatly into
place in the BBC establishment, his worldview intact.
The integrated consequences of this continuous process of
personnel management and ideological thought control -
namely, the suppression of public knowledge and
understanding of the true nature of societal and
environmental breakdown - are almost too awful to
contemplate. As the philosopher Herbert Marcuse observed:
'Today we have the capacity to turn the world into hell
and we are well on the way to doing so.'
David Cromwell is the Co-Editor of www.MediaLens.org. He is the author
of 'Private Planet: Corporate Plunder and the Fight
Back', available in North America (IPG Books) and in the
UK (Jon Carpenter Publishing). See www.private-planet.com for details.
Illustration Germano Celant;Gunther Forg;Anish Kapor;
Laura Trippi
|
