http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HER200512
29&articleId=1667

Z Magazine January 2006
Book Review

Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting-
Journalism and Tragedy  in Yugoslavia

By Peter Brock
Los Angeles: gmbooks.com, 2005

Review by Edward S. Herman

This important and valuable book complements perfectly
the superb volumes on Yugoslavia by Diana Johnstone
(Fools' Crusade) and Michael Mandel (How America Gets
Away With Murder). Johnstone provides essential history
and context to the Balkan wars, analyzing the
indigenous participants, their backgrounds, motivations
and strategies, and the very important role played
there by external interveners (the Croatian and Bosnian
Muslim diaspora and PR firms, Austria, Germany, the
United States, and the UN and Yugoslavia Tribunal
[ICTY]). Mandel provides an outstanding study of the
recent U.S. aggressions and the role and abuse of
international law and the ICTY in facilitating those
aggressions. Brock focuses on the role of the media,
which like the NATO powers and ICTY were
"co-belligerents," doing yeoman service in advancing
the program of the individuals, groups and governments
that wanted war. "Embedded" journalists did not start
with the Iraq invasion-occupation; voluntary embeds
were a dominant feature of the Western media in the
Balkans conflicts.

The huge irony that Brock reveals so clearly is that
the media co-belligerents, pushing relentlessly for
more aggressive action, supposedly in the interests of
stopping ethnic cleansing and killing, played into the
hands of parties with a political agenda that assured
and produced far more ethnic cleansing and killing than
might have taken place without their bellicosity and
war propaganda service. The same irony is clear in
Johnstone 's and Mandel's volumes that deal with the
ends and means of the indigenous and external
participants. The focus on "justice" as opposed to
peace, and the demonizing of the Serbs and making them
the unique group needing punishment, was the vehicle
used by Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic and his
close associates, and Clinton/Albright and
Kohl-Genscher and their associates, to prevent a
peaceful settlement--most importantly in backing out of
the 1992 Lisbon Agreement--and to work incessantly to
get NATO to intervene militarily on behalf, first, of
Izetbegovic and the Bosnian Muslims and then the Kosovo
Liberation Army and Kosovo Albanians. Brock shows that
the media served these pro-violence and anti-peace ends
relentlessly and effectively.

He argues convincingly that this was a model case of
"pack journalism," and also of what has been called
"advocacy journalism" or "the journalism of
attachment." The journalists were quickly convinced
that good was fighting evil, or that it was obligatory
and less risky to take this as a given, and so they
joined the pack and became advocates attached to the
supposed good side and their victims. This was aided in
the Balkans by the fact that most of the journalists
didn't know the language or history of the area, and
that, because of the threat of bodily harm in trying to
do real journalism, they tended to congregate in
protected areas-many of them, as one cynical observer
noted, only reported what they saw "150 meters on
either side of the Holiday Inn" (General Lewis
MacKenzie).

This made them dependent for "news" on one another and
on the official sources happy to service their needs.
As they stayed in the part of Sarajevo controlled by
the Bosnian Muslims, they, along with U.S. officials,
were the main sources of news, and as Brock notes they
were hardly aware of the existence of a large Serb
population in Sarajevo, some 50,000 of whose members
left or were driven out of the city. The pack were even
unaware of the exodus of the Jewish population of
Sarajevo (pp. 131-3), quietly threatened by the
dominant Muslims and recalling well (like the Serbs)
the murderous behavior of the Muslims and Croats in the
era of Nazi rule during World War II.

The pack journalists in Sarajevo (and elsewhere in the
Balkans) were thus highly manageable, knowing the
broader truth in advance, dispensing with notions of
substantive objectivity and balance, and on the hunt
for stories that would both confirm the
institutionalized bias--and therefore please their
editors at home--and advance the cause that they
advocated and for which they campaigned. Journalists
like David Rieff, Roy Gutman and Ed Vulliamy openly
acknowledged that they were campaigners for more
aggressive NATO intervention (i.e., war), and they were
by no means alone. But this meant that they had ceased
to be serious journalists who would check out the facts
and claims of all sides and provide a full and fair
picture of the complex events in the struggle. They
would instead gravitate to stories that advanced the
cause and would treat them with uncritical zeal. As
another cynical observer described it, this meant that
Izetbegovic "could play them like a Stradivarius," and
in effect use them as agents of Bosnian Muslim
propaganda and disinformation. (The more "balanced" Roy
Gutman was played like a Stradivarius by the Croatian
information service and U.S. Embassy as well as Muslim
authorities.)

This pack and bandwagon process fed on itself. As it
focused only on the victimization of the Bosnian
Muslims, featuring grim pictures and stories of their
suffering, ignoring Serb victims and context, and aided
by the parallel agenda and bias of the ICTY and Western
political establishment, the party line of almost
exclusively one-sided evil was steadily reinforced.
(Former State Department official George Kenney's
research disclosed, however, that "the percentage of
each population base killed was roughly identical," and
even an ICTY-sponsored study found Serb deaths not far
below their proportion of the Bosnia-Herzegovina
population--see Ewa Tabeau and Jacub Bijak,
"War-related Deaths in the 19921995 Armed Conflicts in
Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Critique of Previous
Estimates and Recent Results," European Journal of
Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, June,
2005). Gullibility and the demand for more spectacular
showings of evil encouraged increasingly irresponsible
reporting and claims of victimization in "rape camps"
and Auschwitz-like "death camps." The books of these
journalists would be what Brock calls "victim epics,"
with politically correct selective victimization based
largely on witness evidence supplied by partisan
sources that was regrettably "unconfirmed."

Brock has a detailed and convincing deconstruction of
the claims of rape camps and rape as a Serb military
tactic and exclusive (chapter 5). While certainly never
denying Serb rapes, he shows that there is not the
slightest evidence that Serb rapes were more numerous
or organized than those of Bosnian Muslim or Croatian
forces. He points out that the documentation of Serb
rape victims is more extensive and of better quality
than that of victims of Serbs, despite the sizable
resources put into collecting evidence of the latter.
The Serb data just never could attract the interest of
the pack (and the same was true of the pack's treatment
of Serb dossiers of war crimes and prison camps in
which Serbs were victims). The bias confused the
media-Paul Lewis writing in the New York Times on "Rape
Was Weapon of the Serbs" (Oct. 20, 1993) noted that a
UN report had identified "800 victims by name," but
Lewis failed to mention that they were Serb women. The
estimates of 50,000 or 20,000 rape victims of Serbs
were based on no evidence whatsoever, and the belief
that rape was a special Serb crime rested strictly on
the overwhelming political bias of the pack and
superior public relations and propaganda activity of
the Croats and Bosnian Muslims. (A January 1994 UN
report evaluating all the documentation on rapes,
excluding evidence from the Serbs, listed 126 confirmed
victims. This finding did not interest the media.) 

The media role in this hysterical propaganda barrage,
with the best of the reports noting that the claims are
"unconfirmed" (!), was a scandal, reflecting a media
completely out of control and justifying UN official
Aracelly Santana's comment that "I've never seen so
much lack of professionalism and ethics in the press."
The UN representatives and British officials dealing
with the media in Sarajevo looked upon the pack with
contempt as a destructive force, some of them even
calling its members "the reptiles."

Brock also has a very good discussion of the famous
photo of Fikret Alic, taken at the Trnopolje transit
camp in August 1992, another fine illustration of the
quest for denigration of the enemy and the lack of
scruple of Western reporters and media. He shows that
the three British reporters, two from Independent
Television News (ITN) and one from the Guardian, sought
out the uniquely emaciated man among the camp
residents, and carefully arranged for a photo that made
it look as if Alic was enclosed in a fenced prison, the
reporters having deliberately placed themselves behind
four strands of rusted and sagging barbed wire, strung
haphazardly between two posts, with a thin chicken wire
mesh hanging beneath, with Alic on the other side. "The
cameramen and layout editors cropped the photos of Alic
so that the three or four strands of barbed wire were
emphasized." There was no barbed wire fence around the
camp, which was a transit facility and not even a
prison encampment, and the refugees in the camp were
even free to leave.

(Click on the link for the rest of the article, or
ask me to send you the complete text.)




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Clean water saves lives.  Help make water safe for our children.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CHhStB/VREMAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to