---------- Forwarded Message -----------
From: peter webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:57:59 +0100
Subject: [THS] Oil For The Killing Machine - The BBC On Iraq

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

February 21, 2006

MEDIA ALERT: OIL FOR THE KILLING MACHINE - THE BBC ON IRAQ

"There is no subjugation so perfect as that which keeps the appearance of 
freedom, for in that way one captures volition itself." (Jean-Jacques 
Rousseau - Emile)

The political analyst Bertram Gross argued that there is no great malice 
driving the coalition of “the ultra-rich, the corporate overseers, and the 
brass in the military and civilian order” as it “squelches the rights and 
liberties of other people both at home and abroad“. It is just that their 
pursuit of profit inevitably means that other people pay the price in 
pollution, poverty, unemployment and war. But “that is not part of their 
central purpose. It is the product of invisible hands that are not theirs”. 
(Gross, Friendly Fascism, South End Press, 1980, p.162)

It is this almost accidental brutality that Gross described as “friendly 
fascism”.

There is also no great evil intent in the minds of journalists - very much 
part of this same wealthy “coalition” - as they reflexively defend the 
establishment of which they are a part.

On its main evening news last week, the BBC’s royal and diplomatic 
correspondent, Nicholas Witchell, reported from Baghdad on a video which 
showed (not “appeared to show” as many journalists insist) British troops 
beating a group of young Iraqis. This was unfortunate, Witchell observed, 
because the foreign troops in Iraq are there "in an essentially 
peacekeeping role". (Witchell, BBC1 19:35 News, February 12, 2006)

Witchell would doubtless reject out of hand the suggestion that Soviet 
troops occupying Afghanistan in the 1980s were there "in an essentially 
peacekeeping role". Likewise, the Iraqi troops occupying Kuwait in August 
1990.

The same unthinking prejudice was exhibited in a Guardian leader on the 
British abuses. The editors observed that of the 80,000 British personnel 
who have now served in Iraq “only a tiny handful have committed any crimes. 
Still, even isolated 'rogue' breaches of military law and international 
conventions echo loudly". (Leader, ‘Abuse allegations: Behind Basra's 
walls,’ The Guardian, February 13, 2006)

It is beyond the Guardian to accept that the entire invading force is 
responsible for breaches of international conventions simply by being in 
Iraq. And yet a September 17, 2004, Guardian editorial noted that the UN 
secretary-general, Kofi Annan, had said of the invasion:

"From our point of view and from the [UN] charter point of view, it was 
illegal." (Leader, 'Kofi Annan on Iraq: The war
was illegal,' The Guardian, September 17, 2004)

The Guardian highlighted the fact that Annan included, "No caveats. No 
equivocation. None of the ambiguity loved by diplomats, especially at UN 
headquarters."

Annan’s view is shared by many experts on international law. In March 2003, 
the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva expressed its “deep 
dismay” that a small number of states were “poised to launch an outright 
illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression”. According 
to the ICJ, such “a war waged without a clear mandate from the United 
Nations Security Council” constituted “a flagrant violation of the 
prohibition of the use of force”. (‘Iraq - ICJ Deplores Moves Toward a War 
of Aggression on Iraq,’ International Commission of Jurists, March 18, 2003;
http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2770&lang=en)

In a standard display of moral sleep-walking, the Observer’s Mary Riddell 
wrote recently of Afghanistan and Iraq: "Britain is embroiled in two... 
ill-judged interventions". (Riddell, ‘The soldier's song has become a 
lament,’ The Observer, February 5, 2006)

Is that what they are - just “ill-judged interventions“? Does that really 
do justice to what we have done to these countries?

Riddell mentioned US-UK military fatalities and cited the lowest available 
estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths (30,000). As ever, no mention was made of 
Iraqi military casualties.

After presenting his conservative estimate of 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths 
to Pentagon officials last autumn, Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins School 
of Public Health was told by one official: "We have dropped about 50,000 
bombs, mostly on insurgents hiding behind civilians. What the [expletive] 
did you think was going to happen?"

In an article for the website AlterNet last week, Roberts argued that the 
estimate of 20,000 to 30,000 civilian deaths commonly cited in the American 
press are too low, “most likely by a factor of five or ten”. In other 
words, Roberts is now suggesting that as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilians 
may have been killed since March 2003. (Roberts, ‘Do Iraqi Civilian 
Casualties Matter?’ AlterNet, February 14, 2006; 
http://www.alternet.org/story/31508/)

Claims And Facts - The Difference

The BBC’s director of news, Helen Boaden, replied to us recently:

“Dear Mr Edwards

Thank you for your emails of January 5th.

To deal first with your suggestion that it is factually incorrect to say 
that an aim of the British and American coalition was to bring democracy 
and human rights, this was indeed one of the stated aims before and at the 
start of the Iraq war ­ and I attach a number of quotes at the bottom of 
this reply.” (Email to Media Lens, January 20, 2006)

This was Boaden’s defence of reporter Paul Wood’s assertion that British 
and American forces “came to Iraq in the first place to bring democracy and 
human rights". (BBC, News at Ten, January 5, 2006) Boaden supplied no less 
than 2,700 words filling six pages of A4 paper of quotes from George Bush 
and Tony Blair to prove her point.

We replied:

“Dear Helen

Many thanks. It's an interesting argument. I look forward to the following 
opening statement on BBC's News At Ten:

‘A recorded message believed to have been made by al Qaeda leader, Osama 
bin Laden, has surfaced tonight. Bin Laden, whose forces originally 
attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 to bring freedom and human 
rights to the Middle East, said...’

Given that, like Bush and Blair, bin Laden has indeed claimed these goals 
in speeches, do you see any inherent problem with broadcasting this 
comment? If so, what?

Best wishes

David Edwards” (January 20, 2006)

Boaden replied:

“Dear Mr Edwards

We have on numerous occasions sought to elucidate the motivation of Al 
Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. We have also on innumerable occasions examined 
the role, reasoning and the outcomes of US and UK actions in Iraq. The 
range of our reporting and programmes enables audiences to make up their 
own minds about the issue, just as you have done.

Yours sincerely
Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News“ (Email, January 31, 2006)

Again Boaden misses the point. It is fine to report claims of benevolent 
intent - it is something else to report those claims as obvious fact. 
Whereas the BBC would never dream of delivering bin Laden’s claims this 
way, it is second nature with regard to Bush and Blair. Thus, the BBC’s 
Washington correspondent, Matt Frei, said in 2003:

"There's no doubt that the desire to bring good, to bring American values 
to the rest of the world, and especially now to the Middle East... is now 
increasingly tied up with military power." (Frei, BBC1, Panorama, April 13, 
2003)

Imagine Frei saying: ‘There's no doubt that the desire to bring good, to 
bring al Qaeda’s values to the rest of the world, and especially to the 
Middle East, is now increasingly tied up with military power.’

In April 2003, Nicholas Witchell declared of the rapid fall of Baghdad to 
US forces:

"It is absolutely, without a doubt, a vindication of the strategy." 
(Witchell, BBC1, 18:00 News, April 9, 2003)

Imagine Witchell saying of Saddam Hussein’s rapid drive into Kuwait:

‘It is absolutely, without a doubt, a vindication of the strategy.’

In October 2004, Ben Brown said:

"The people of southern Iraq know they have their freedom." (Brown, BBC1, 
22:00 News, October 20, 2004)

The list goes on...

Why is all of this important? Very simply because the BBC, like other 
media, is producing an endless flow of insidious messages downplaying the 
criminality of what Britain and America have done to Iraq. If the public 
can be persuaded to re-label cynical ’sincere’, illegal ‘ill-judged’, 
vicious ‘victorious’ and killing ‘keeping the peace’, then we are likely to 
feel that what we have done is ’not that bad’.

This is important because only public resistance, only public concern, 
stands between our violent, greed-driven political system and future 
victims. Only intense and widespread public opposition can put the brakes 
on this killing machine - the media’s job is to stop us trying.

SUGGESTED ACTION

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 Helen Boaden
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Write to Nicholas Witchell
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Write to Mary Riddell
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Write to Write to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Please also send copies of all emails to Media Lens:
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The first Media Lens book has just been published: 'Guardians of Power: The 
Myth Of The Liberal Media' by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto 
Books, London, 2006). For further details, please click here:

http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Please 
consider donating to Media Lens: www.medialens.org/donate

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84Pze.cjXOfg.bm9haEBl
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
------- End of Forwarded Message -------


---
TCB'n,
Noah

"The foundation of all mental illness is the unwillingness to experience
legitimate suffering."
        - Carl Jung

_______________________________________________
FRIENDS mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sffreaks.org/mailman/listinfo/friends

Reply via email to