Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 > Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:19:44 +1000 > Medialens Media Alerts <noreply > Exposing The Ministry Of Mendacity > > MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of > the corporate media > > > July 14, 2004 > > GUEST MEDIA ALERT: EXPOSING THE MINISTRY OF > MENDACITY > > An excerpt from ‘The Media and the Making of > History’ by John Theobald > > > Introduction - The First Casualty Of Truth > > “If Christ returned to the world today,” the Danish > theologian Soren Kierkegaard wrote in 1849, “there > can be no doubt that it would not be the high > priests that he pilloried, it would be the > journalists.” > > In 1863, Ferdinand Lassalle, founder of Germany’s > first independent labour party, identified the point > when the press was transformed into a speculative > enterprise whose primary aim was profit: > > “From that moment on, the newspaper became a highly > lucrative investment for those with a talent for > making money or for publishers wanting to gain a > fortune... From that moment on, then, newspapers, > while still retaining the appearance of being > campaigners for ideas, changed from being educators > and teachers of the people into lickspittles of the > wealthy and subscribing bourgeoisie and of its > tastes; some newspapers thus have their hands tied > by their current rs, others by those whom > they wish to gain, but both are always shackled by > the real financial foundation of the business – > advertisements. From that moment on, therefore, > newspapers became not only the commonest of vulgar > commercial operations, no different from any other, > but also they became something much worse, namely > +totally hypocritical+ businesses, run with the > pretence of fighting for great ideas and the good of > the people.” > > These are only two of the excellent quotes and > insights to be found in John Theobald’s important > new book, The Media and the Making of History > (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2004). As the above references > indicate, the Media Lens focus is not new, nor is > its exclusion from mainstream media discourse. > > In naming Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, the 22nd > “most influential player” in the media business, the > MediaGuardian 100 panel declared this week: “The > left takes its message from the Guardian... It is > read by both the right and the left because the > right wants to know what the left is thinking.” > (Quoted, John Plunkett, ‘All Change’, The Guardian, > July 12, 2004) > > The nine members of the panel of corporate > executives who came to this sage conclusion include > Carolyn McCall, chief executive of Guardian > Newspapers Ltd, Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of > MediaGuardian, and Emily Bell editor-in-chief of > Guardian Unlimited. The front page of this week’s > MediaGuardian notes that the 100 panel is “supported > by Audi”. Sure enough, the facing page after 14 > pages on the top media 100 consists of a full-page > advert for Audi cars: “Make your performance > unbeatable”. The outside back cover also consists of > a full-page advert for the new Audi A6. Clearly, > then, the left is thinking: “Vorsprung durch > technik.” > > In the real world, if the right wants to know what > the left is thinking about the media – and it is > thinking much the same as Kierkegaard and Lassalle > thought – they would do well to leave those lost in > corporate compromise and privileged self-deception > to their games. They might turn, for example, to > John Theobald’s book. > > Theobald explores how a “cocktail of illusions” > manipulated the public to accept the murderous Great > War, how Cold War propaganda persuaded us to believe > that the construction of vast nuclear arsenals > provided ‘security’. He brilliantly illuminates the > role of what George Steiner has called “the tidal > mendacity of journalism and the mass media, the > trivialising cant of public and socially approved > modes of discourse” in generating the most murderous > century on record. > > Theobald shows that there is a rich tradition of > radical media criticism from which his “active > audience” can still draw. Crucially, he shows how > alternative versions of events, formulated in the > interests of truth rather than power, really do have > the capacity to change society for the better. This > is no mere academic exercise – the goal, as Theobald > notes, is a world in which “war could become the > first casualty of truth”. > > The Media and the Making of History deserves a wide > readership. Here is an excerpt from the book > examining media support for the agenda of power > elites between September 11, 2001 and the invasion > of Iraq in 2003. > > Best wishes > > David Cromwell and David Edwards > > > Exposing the Ministry of Mendacity > > Even if the mainstream media are inherently > incapable of radical questioning of themselves and > their elite colleagues – the kind of questioning > which goes beyond ephemeral personalities and issues > – other media are able to do so. The 18 months > between September 2001 and March 2003 saw an upsurge > of public opposition and protest which announced the > coming of age of a new resistance. To be sure, this > did not halt or delay the juggernaut of discursive > and military onslaught on Afghanistan and Iraq, or > on the diffuse nightmares of ‘terrorism’ and the > ‘avis of evil’. It did, however, muster simultaneous > massive demonstrations across the world on 15 > February 2003, when at least 15 million citizens > marched to express their deep opposition to the > looming US-led attack on Iraq. This was > unprecedented, and only one event in a longer and > larger campaign. > > Four factors contributed to this: > > The crudity of US government positions on the ‘war > on terrorism’ and ‘anticipatory pre-emption’, which > led to deep divisions among international elites. > The reflection of these divisions in mainstream > media output. > The volume and force of critical expression and > analysis within the public sphere. > The internet. > > When deep cracks in elite solidarity become evident > (as opposed to the frequent superficial power > squabbles, diversionary disputes and jockeying for > position among its members), the powerful undergo > moments of relative weakness and vulnerability. On > these quite rare occasions, normally hidden > information seeps out through the fissures. Moreover > dramatic measures, such as the sacrifice of a member > of the higher echelons (such as Greg Dyke, former > director-general of the BBC), are sometimes required > to restore confidence and order. > > The search for credible pretexts for invading Iraq > was an example of elite failure to cover up real > differences caused by arrogant US government > posturing, and its failed bid to force other key > countries into line behind its oil-stained bid for > Middle East domination. > > The US propaganda pyramid, with Bush and Murdoch at > its pinnacle, maintained the requisite control of US > public opinion. That such control was far from > comprehensive, however, was down to the resilient > efforts of many thousands of activists and prominent > figures ranging from ex-President Carter to Noam > Chomsky and Michael Moore, and websites such as > Z-Net. > > European publics were much more resistant. This was > the case not only in countries like France and > Germany, whose governments opposed the invasion of > Iraq, but also in Spain and Italy, whose leaders > offered support to the US government. In the UK, > whose leadership provided dogged backing to the US > position, the virtual media unanimity that had > mustered substantial majorities behind the 1991 Gulf > massacre, the 1999 Kosovo campaign and the 2002 > Afghanistan bombardment, showed significant cracks. > A leading tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mirror, > temporarily broke ranks, and the otherwise > habitually fence-sitting broadsheet, The > Independent, especially its Sunday editions, dared > to live up to its name, at least some of the time. > > Both of these newspapers on occasion went a step > beyond the permitted mild dissent within the normal > spectrum of consensus opinion, and the limited right > of opposition afforded to licensed fools and court > jesters that normally characterises mass media > ‘freedom’ in pluralist democracies. > This, combined with the largest parliamentary revolt > within a ruling party for over a century, and > ministerial resignations in the pre-invasion period, > was cause for serious alarm in the highest places. > Loyal ministers crowded the airwaves; the prime > minister banked on his telegenic qualities and > appeared before studio audiences to debate > ‘sincerely’ and answer questions ‘honestly’; MPs > were subject to heavy behind the scenes persuasion. > The British government’s immediate pre-war > experience was a highly uncomfortable one, as > Blair’s hotly desired outcome, a second UN > resolution, the fig leaf which would provide > international sanction for military action against > Iraq and undermine internal opposition, collapsed in > failure. > > Once the invasion started, public support swung, > with its usual reflex, behind the fighting forces. > The Daily Mirror lost its nerve as its sales started > to drop, and the feeling of a government in crisis > was put on hold as blanket TV coverage of > smoke-filled skylines, and all kinds of military > activity except for the real business of killing, > hit our screens. > > Many reporters were (physically and mentally) > ‘embedded’ with US/UK fighting units, while others > reported nervously from Baghdad hotel rooms. Still > others, the most fortunate, just showed or repeated > propaganda mouthed by military spokesmen behind the > lines or at the no-expenses-spared Central Command > Media Centre at As Sayliyah in Qatar, while, as one > of them revealed, living at the six star > Ritz-Carlton Hotel, which supplied a free buffet > every afternoon and evening, complete with an open > bar. No reporters were embedded with Iraqi families > losing lives, limbs, homes and health to cluster > bombs and depleted uranium shells. > > However, imagination, compassion and the truth of > war were, unusually, not entirely obliterated from > the mainstream UK media. For example, articles by > Robert Fisk appeared on the front page of The > Independent. John Pilger was recalled to the Daily > Mirror, and his work also appeared in The > Independent. > > These were the two UK journalists in the forefront > of opposition to this invasion, each with a lengthy > record of war reporting and expertise in the region, > and of investigative tenacity in uncovering the > consequences of Western interventions there. Each > was able, in the pre-invasion period, during the > invasion, and into the post-invasion situation, to > practise fourth estate journalism at its best, and > to formulate radical critiques of US/UK government > actions and their consequences. The number of > critical column inches that they, and some others, > had published in the mainstream press was tiny > relative to the miles of sanitised reportage and > belligerent comment which fitted within the > pro-invasion government-media spectrum, but their > visible presence did take a step beyond the habitual > borders of repressive tolerance. > > An example of this opposition discourse, published > during the invasion within mainstream journalism is > recorded here as witness to the counter-currents > which challenged the dominant ‘newstoriography’. > > Consider Robert Fisk’s report from Baghdad of 5 > April 2003, published on the Independent’s website > under the headline ‘The Ministry of Mendacity > Strikes Again’. A few days previously, a missile had > exploded, causing dozens of casualties, in Shi’ala, > one of the poorest quarters of Baghdad, populated by > Shi’ite Moslems, oppressed by the Saddam Hussein > regime, and its strongest internal opponents. These > were precisely those whom the US/UK forces were > purportedly liberating. > > The US/UK military were regularly bombarding Baghdad > with intentionally ‘awesome’ intensity, whereas the > Iraqi air force never got off the ground, and its > missiles of this explosive power were, by all > accounts, few and far between. Yet London’s Ministry > of Defence, indeed the minister himself, Geoff Hoon, > was insisting on the likelihood that it was an Iraqi > missile which had caused the damage and the innocent > civilian death and injury. It was an implausible > claim, rendered incredible following Fisk’s meeting > with an old man who had found a piece of the > fuselage of the missile stamped with a code which > revealed that it had been made by Raytheon, the US > cruise missile manufacturers. Fisk reports: ‘I > collected five pieces myself, made of the same > alloy, two of them dug out of the muck with my own > hands’. > > Faced with this evidence, Hoon did not retract his > story that it was an Iraqi missile. He implied > instead that the pieces of cruise missile fuselage > had been planted at the site of the explosion by the > Iraqi intelligence services to cover up the fact > that it was their missile which caused it, and thus > transfer the blame to the US. Fisk comments > ironically: ‘Poor old Geoff Hoon. It must be tough > having to defend the indefensible when the Americans > insist on plastering their missiles with computer > codes that reveal their provenance even after they > have blown the innocent to pieces […] Does the > British Defence Secretary really think the Iraqi > torturers really have the ability to go about these > hostile slums, burying obscure pieces of shrapnel > for the likes of The Independent to dig up there?’ > > He ends the article with this anecdote: > > “I cannot help remembering an Iranian hospital train > on which I travelled back from the Iran-Iraq war > front in the early 1980s. The carriages were packed > with young Iranian soldiers, coughing mucus and > blood into handkerchiefs while reading Qr’ans. They > had been gassed and looked as if they would die. > Most did. […] > > “At the time, I was working for The Times. My story > ran in full. Then an official of the Foreign Office > lunched my editor and told him my report was ‘not > helpful’. Because, of course, we supported President > Saddam at the time, and wanted revolutionary Iran to > suffer and destroy itself. President Saddam was the > good guy then. I wasn’t supposed to report his human > rights abuses. And now I’m not supposed to report > the slaughter of the innocent by American or RAF > pilots because the British government has changed > sides. > > “It’s a tactic worthy of only one man I can think > of, a master of playing victim when he is in the act > of killing, a man who thinks nothing of smearing the > innocent to propagate his own version of history. > I’m talking about Saddam Hussein. Geoff Hoon has > learnt a lot from him” > (Robert Fisk, ‘The Ministry of Mendacity Strikes > Again’, The Independent, 5 April, 2003). > > Such journalism, with its uncompromising > contradiction of its own government’s propaganda, > its accusations of lying at ministerial level, and > its final likening of the Minister to the leader of > the enemy, is provocative in the extreme. Here is an > investigative journalist literally unearthing > evidence which points unequivocally to the fact that > his government is deliberately covering up the truth > and distracting the public with fabrications. Not > only this, he is saying that this fits a pattern of > deceit to which journalists are pressured to > conform, whatever the contradictions and > hypocrisies, and that this, if not resisted, leads > to the propagation of an elite-controlled version of > events and history, and an effective sabotaging of > freedom of expression. > > It is self-evident that the publication of this > article can be used as ‘proof’ that such practices > are not taking place, and that is one good reason > why Fisk and a few others can carry on publishing > their material in a mainstream context. However, > this kind of article normally only appears in a > place where it passes relatively unnoticed, in the > margins of the overwhelming conformist majority of > mass media output. […] > > John Pilger’s writing at the time of the Iraq > invasion reflects a revival of belief in mass > citizen action which had largely disappeared for > most of the 1990s. He quotes approvingly Patrick > Tyler of the New York Times who had described a new > superpower confrontation – that between ‘the > Bush/Blair gang on the one side, and world opinion > on the other’. This is ‘a tenacious new adversary’ > and a ‘truly popular force stirring at last and > whose consciousness soars by the day’ (The > Independent on Sunday 6 April, 2003, page 25). This > is language designed to inspire, but it contains > recognition of seeds whose real existence can be > observed. > > One such seed, which grew into a massive global > grapevine, was the internet. By 2003, some sectors > of the internet had burgeoned into a means of rapid > worldwide organisation, and a major source of > alternative information and analysis for the > increasing numbers with access to it. This need not > be exaggerated, since communications systems of > previous generations had already permitted the > co-ordination of mass international actions and the > circulation of dissident debate. Yet the growth of > instantaneous electronic messaging, and the > popularity of a number of dynamic, radical and > media-critical websites (again a tiny frond within a > tangled ecology of words and images) did provide an > ease and speed of communication and real > interactivity which was unprecedented. > > Whether or not it could have been done otherwise, > e-mail became the principal means of co-ordinating > anti-war networks across the world. During the > invasion of Iraq, the Baghdad blogger gained > instantaneous global fame. US websites such as > Truthout, and UK ones - such as, yes, Media Lens - > gained substantial readerships for the kind of > reportage and analysis which, apart from the > significant few already referred to, could not be > found in the mainstream media. > > In the pre-invasion build-up, and during the > military walk-over, it is true that more citizens > than usual questioned and saw through mainstream > government/media discourse, but they were still not > powerful enough to upturn the massive propaganda > exercise, the home front version of the > euphemistically named ‘battle for hearts and minds’. > Whatever small and unusable residue of WMD the Iraqi > forces might have possessed, it really did happen > that they never came near trying to use them. > Rather, the world’s greatest possessor and user of > such weapons really was able to focus on the puny, > putative Iraqi threat from them, and transform them > into a justification for an invasion in which it did > not itself hesitate to use a recognised and horrific > WMD – ‘depleted’ uranium. > > The word ‘coalition’ was really adopted to dignify > the gang of invaders who were opposed in their > action by the vast majority of the rest of the > world. The claims of the ‘success’ of earlier > maulings of almost defenceless countries, > Serbia/Kosovo and Afghanistan, which served as > oblique justifications for this adventure were made, > and did remain unchallenged in the mainstream media. > Images of rifles inscribed by their users with the > phrase ‘Killer Angels’ passed rapidly without the > shock of understanding the phrase or the mentality > which could make use of it in that way. How many > noticed the depth of inhumanity involved in the > naming of Tomohawk Missiles? What kind of twisted > mockery did it take for the perpetrators of an > earlier genocide to name their new military mass > murder toy by stealing the word for an iconic > cultural symbol of their victims? It has to be > admitted that, despite a remarkable level of > articulate opposition, the propaganda achieved its > immediate ends. > > What emerges is a picture of overall continuing > hegemonic control, confronted nevertheless by a mass > opposition which failed in its main objectives in > 2002 and 2003, but which probably had a greater > impact on elite supremacy than the elite would > readily admit in public. The 3,000 deaths in new > York’s Twin Towers have so far been avenged by at > least ten times as many innocent victims in > Afghanistan and Iraq, as the US government > implements the 11 September tragedy to construct its > twin murderous discourse towers, those of the ‘war > on terrorism’ and ‘anticipatory pre-emption’, to > distract an international media-consuming public > from its global ambitions. The ‘victors’ have named > the 2003 invasion the ‘Battle of Iraq’, just one > skirmish in the longer war against the ‘axis of > evil’. > > One may foresee more fighting, more propaganda, and > more threatening, anti-democratic measures to quell > internal opposition. Entwined media, government and > economic elites will continue to wish to make > history in their own interests and image, and will > correspondingly manipulate and attempt to control > publics with a judicious mix of friendly and > unfriendly coercion. > > The nightmare that they wish to avoid at all costs > is a massive, alert, media-wise alliance of > articulate citizens who have seen through the > genealogy of untruth that has held sway since the > beginning of the media age. > > > From The Media and the Making of History, by John > Theobald. Published by Ashgate, Aldershot, 2004. > Price: £45. > > [Note added by John Theobald: I am really sorry > about the price, which is nearly as much as an > Easyjet ticket to the sun or two full tanks of > petrol, and thus far too much for a mere book. If > you are interested in reading more, but cannot > afford to, go and pester your local library to get a > copy, and contact Ashgate asking them to produce a > paperback version!] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.