Media Lens Debunks the BBC\u2019s Humanitarian Interventionists<\/i><\/p>\n
It all started in July 2001 when two men, concerned about bias in the corporate news media in the UK, began to send out \u201cmedia alerts\u201d to a small number of family and friends. Twelve years on and Media Lens\u2014the brainchild of writer David Edwards, a former manager in sales and marketing, and David Cromwell, a physicist by background\u2014has established itself as the UK\u2019s media watchdog. There\u2019s no doubting the impact they have made. \u201cWithout their meticulous and humane analysis, the full gravity of the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan might have been consigned to bad journalism\u2019s first draft of bad history,\u201d is the verdict of veteran reporter and filmmaker John Pilger.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s been an eventful twelve years. In addition to the \u201cdebacles\u201d of Iraq and Afghanistan, we\u2019ve had the (ongoing) menacing of Iran on account of an unproven nuclear-weapons program and Israeli military assaults on Lebanon in 2006 and on Gaza in 2008 and again in 2012. Add in the global financial crash of 2008, and there\u2019s been plenty to keep the two Davids occupied.<\/p>\n
David Cromwell\u2019s new book, Why Are We The Good Guys?<\/i>, discusses these events and the work that he and Edwards have done to counter the \u201celite-friendly value assumptions and judgements\u201d that characterize their coverage in Britain.\u00a0Although he is clearly a man of the left\u2014his working-class childhood was an \u201cinteresting mix of Catholic and Communist\u201d influences\u2014Cromwell\u2019s not one to be deceived by labels, an important skill to possess in an age when wars are sold as \u201chumanitarian interventions\u201d to gain support from liberals.<\/p>\n
Media Lens has been outspoken, when the need arises, in its critique of so-called liberal-left media. Many on the British center-left give the BBC a free pass because they have swallowed the line that the organization is somehow \u201cleft-wing.\u201d Yet Cromwell and Edwards have shown that when it comes to propagandizing for illegal wars and peddling establishment views, the BBC has at least as bad a record as commercial news networks.<\/p>\n
When I caught up with David to talk to him about his new book, the BBC was in the middle of what has been described by some as the biggest crisis in its 90-year history: the resignation of its Director-General and other bigwigs after the fallout from a \u201cNewsnight\u201d program on child abuse. But while heads rolled over the state-owned broadcaster getting allegations wrong on just one program, Cromwell points out that the BBC was never held accountable for the role it played in the lead up to the Iraq War.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere was no such pressure for senior BBC staff to go over the broadcaster\u2019s systemic failure to challenge US-UK propaganda over Iraq\u2019s non-existent WMD. This media failure paved the way towards war in Iraq and the subsequent brutal and bloody occupation. Instead of responsible public-service journalism, BBC News provides a reliable conduit for government propaganda, most notably the state\u2019s supposedly benign intentions in foreign wars and international relations. That is the daily news diet we are all spoon-fed.\u201d<\/p>\n
No such presumption of good faith applies when journalists discuss the actions of countries that don\u2019t toe the Washington line. \u201cIt is, of course, fine for journalists in the West to point to the crimes of official enemies and to mock them for their transparent propaganda efforts. Thus, the BBC\u2019s Emily Maitlis was able to introduce the flagship television program \u2018Newsnight\u2019 with a touch of sardonic wit: \u2018Hello, good evening. The Russians are calling it a \u201cpeace enforcement operation.\u201d It\u2019s the kind of Newspeak that would make George Orwell proud.\u2019<\/p>\n
\u201cMaitlis was referring to the invasion of Russian forces into the Georgian province of South Ossetia in August 2008. By contrast, imagine a BBC presenter referring skeptically to the government\u2019s claim of a \u2018peace enforcement operation\u2019 for the West\u2019s invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya and describing such language as \u2018the kind of newspeak that would make George Orwell proud.\u2019 It just would not happen.\u201d<\/p>\n
I ask Cromwell how he would respond to those who say that Media Lens should devote all its energies on attacking neocon \u00fcber<\/i>-hawks rather than criticizing the liberal media, which might agree with the group\u2019s standpoints, say, 70 percent of the time.\u00a0\u201cMedia Lens has indeed spent more time analyzing the liberal media than right-wing outlets. Why? Because the liberal media is often regarded as the outlets where the most progressive and the most challenging views can be seen and heard. If you like, it\u2019s one end of the acceptable spectrum of news and views. But if even here there are severe limits on permissible challenges to state-corporate power, what does that say about society generally? It\u2019s like a litmus test for dissent.\u201d<\/p>\n
Cromwell believes that the role of the media in promoting the doctrine of \u201cliberal interventionism\u201d has been absolutely crucial. \u201cIf the public was better informed, and not so often misled by those in power, there would likely be a stronger rein on the governing elite. But it\u2019s not happening. A major reason for this is that the corporate media acts as an echo chamber and amplifier of government propaganda. Even when challenged, senior journalists say that their role is to report what those in power say and do\u2014even what they \u2018think.\u2019<\/p>\n
\u201cFor example, when the BBC\u2019s Nick Robinson was the ITN political editor, he wrote of the war in Iraq:<\/p>\n
In the run-up to the conflict, I and many of my colleagues, were bombarded with complaints that we were acting as mouthpieces for Mr Blair. Why, the complainants demanded to know, did we report without question his warning that Saddam was a threat? Hadn\u2019t we read what Scott Ritter had said or Hans Blix? I always replied in the same way. It was my job to report what those in power were doing or thinking\u2026 . That is all someone in my sort of job can do.<\/p>\n
\u201cRobinson performs the same compliant role today as political editor for the BBC,\u201d Cromwell says.<\/p>\n
In the \u201990s we saw an informal alliance formed between neoconservatives and progressives united behind their support for \u201cliberal intervention.\u201d I ask Cromwell if he thinks that a similar alliance can be formed between the antiwar left and the antiwar right. \u201cI\u2019d be wary of an overt alliance with anyone, right-wing or otherwise, who espouses other views that I might find distasteful. But certainly traditional conservatives should be\u2014and often are\u2014vehemently opposed to what goes by the benign-sounding term \u2018neo-liberalism,\u2019 which I unpack in the book.\u201d<\/p>\n
One of the most riveting chapters in Cromwell\u2019s book is called \u201cBeyond Indifference,\u201d in which he talks about his philosophical influences. He concludes\u2014rather like Aldous Huxley\u2014that if we do want to \u201cfree ourselves\u201d and live better lives, it all starts with undertaking \u201csmall acts of kindness for others.\u201d And in contrast, he writes,<\/p>\n
Violence feeds on violence, as wise people have known for thousands of years. For example, if brutal state repression is met by violence from some elements of society, it provides an excuse for state forces to ramp up fire-power and crush dissent with even more brutal and widespread violence. The current state of Permanent War can only be ended by people coming together peacefully to overcome state power.<\/p>\n
Cromwell certainly thinks that in challenging elite state propaganda we\u2019re in a better position now than we were when Media Lens began in 2001. \u201cOne positive thing I\u2019ve noticed is that more people are challenging the media, at least judging by the messages posted on our board and Facebook page, the emails we get and the tweets we receive. Often, even before we\u2019ve worked up a media alert, we\u2019ve been beaten to it by our readers\u2014although, to be fair to ourselves, we do typically wait a few days or longer to see how an event is being played out in the media. Ideally, I would hope that in five years\u2019 time there would be less need for Media Lens to be on the internet \u2018haranguing\u2019 and \u2018vilifying\u2019 journalists, as skeptics and opponents sometimes say! And surely by ten years from now I can be happily retired and pottering about in a garden shed. Preferably my own and not some random neighbor\u2019s.\u201d<\/p>\n
________________________<\/p>\n
Neil Clark is a UK-based journalist, blogger, and writer.<\/i><\/p>\n