I gravitate these days towards what MEDIA LENS sends out for how incredibly good they are at making sense of these times, where they are astute at seeing beyond the water we're swimming in. (As the student fish said to the philosopher fish, “Water, what water?”) They keep calling the media o­n their ostensibly objective portrayals, which in fact support the idea of war.

Their email of January 17 is “GUEST MEDIA ALERT: A LETTER SENT BY GRANT WAKEFIELD TO JOURNALISTS.” It's written by someone who's outraged by media coverage of Iraq. It was written in response to Media Alert urging letter-writing to media outlets. (There's a GREAT story about a result another o­ne of those letters got — see “MEDIA LENS Really Sees, a previous post I made, and after you read my comment click through from there to the MEDIA LENS site to read the piece.)  In their intro to Grant's letter, which is a piece in itself that's worth a read, they comment o­n our new find of undeclared weaponry in Iraq that could be the excuse for our war, citing some misleading reporting o­n British TV:

Current levels of public dissent are all the more remarkable when we consider the extent to which the public has been remorselessly bombarded by government and media propaganda suggesting that terrorism is threatening us o­n every side, with implicit and explicit links being made to these 'threats' and Iraq. The clash between political/corporate media propaganda o­n the o­ne hand, and public common sense o­n the other, was revealed again in the latest ITN report in which anchor Nicholas Owen declared:

“The drumbeats of war do seem to be getting louder and louder. So what might be the countdown to conflict?” (Nicholas Owen, ITV Lunchtime News, January 17, 2003)

True enough, the drumbeats +are+ getting louder, but the drummers include corporate media employees like Owen and his colleagues, who saw fit to declare war inevitable o­ne month ago.

…Owen interviewed Air Vice Marshall Tony Mason. Did the 11 empty shells found in an Iraqi bunker constitute a “smoking gun”, Owen asked. The Air Vice Marshall replied that we had first to be sure about what the shells actually contained, adding:

“The real smoking gun of course would be if o­ne of those shells was still found to contain a chemical mixture.”

In other words, a massive attack by 200,000 troops against a country of 26 million impoverished people sitting o­n 200 billion barrels of oil would be justified by the discovery of o­ne 122mm artillery shell with a range of 4 miles – this o­ne shell, presumably, constituting a weapon of mass destruction and therefore a breach of UN Resolution 1441. Air Vice Marshall

Mason then proceeded to clarify what this o­ne shell might mean for the people of Iraq:

“I would expect the air campaign to be very intense, but this time not concentrated so much o­n Baghdad but o­n deployed forces all over the country. Previously of course, as you know, we were concentrating in the southern area around Kuwait; now we've got to go after troops across the entire country.”

The sexy phrasal verb 'go after' (other favourites include 'take out' and 'take down') refers of course to the blasting, lacerating, puncturing, dismembering and incinerating to death of “troops across the entire country” – troops who are often conscripts, but who are anyway compelled to fight by a dictatorial regime. These are troops without air cover who are therefore completely defenceless against air attack. Other terms for Mason's “air campaign” are 'massacre' and 'turkey shoot'.

Comments? Click here
Continue reading →

With the Israel/Palestine situation being in some sense the quicksand that the world rests o­n, this story, about the attempt to discredit “a painstaking portrayal of the humiliation Israel's soldiers and politicians visit daily o­n the Palestinians: not just the deaths, injuries and arrests, but the intrusions of the military into every aspect of a Palestinian's life,” is a valuable contribution to making sense of these times. It comes from MEDIA LENS, a stellar site that we have posted from before (as we have posted the doings of Pilger, o­ne of the most outstanding journalists of our day). Since the media is the conduit for our intelligence, MEDIA LENS makes an invaluable contribution in keeping the public tuned in to how the media performs. I am posting the email sent out to the MEDIA LENS list (perhaps you would like to subscribe). It is a fascinating read.

—–Original Message—–

From: MediaLens Media Alerts

Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:16 AM

Subject: Pilger Film Vindicated

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

In September the press eagerly covered the story of how Michael Green, chairman of Carlton, had joined “a barrage of criticism” by attacking a documentary produced by his own company. The film in question was John Pilger's 'Palestine is Still the Issue,' shown at 11pm, “three hours after the end of Yom Kippur”, Leon Symons wrote significantly in the Guardian.

The problem, Symons reported, was Pilger's “passionately voiced contention that Israeli injustices towards the Palestinians over a period of many decades was at the heart of the Mideast conflict”, which had brought “scathing condemnation from the Israeli embassy, the Board of Deputies and the Conservative Friends of Israel. All said they would be complaining to ITV and would seek a programme to redress the balance”. Symons added that Carlton had received a large number of comments o­n the film roughly balanced between those supporting and those criticising the film. (Leon Symons,'Carlton chief slams Pilger's attack o­n Israel', The Guardian, September 20, 2002)

Carlton chairman, Michael Green, was bitter in his condemnation of the film:

“There's no doubt in my mind that this programme is a tragedy for Israel so far as accuracy is concerned. What I am doing right now, what I am focused o­n, is to make sure there is a programme that shows the Israeli point of view. The [Carlton] network centre is looking at making a programme showing another point of view.” Green continued:

“It was factually incorrect, historically incorrect. Unfortunately, you can't always agree with him. He has a huge reputation but consistently my views are very much opposed to his views.”

The Israeli embassy similarly claimed that the programme was a wilful distortion and offered a “dehumanised portrayal of the Jewish people, exemplified by regular insinuation and comparison to the holocaust (which) was wholly offensive”. (Stephen Bates, 'TV chief attacks 'one-sided' Palestinian documentary', The Guardian, September 20, 2002)

Gillian Shepherd, the chair of the Conservative Friends of Israel, said: “How this grossly unbalanced and biased programme can contribute to a peaceful Middle East is beyond my understanding. We shall be taking this up with Carlton at a most senior level.” (Ibid)

Following a three-month enquiry, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) has published (January 14, 2003) its adjudication, rejecting complaints against Pilger's documentary. The report praises the film's journalistic integrity and refers to the “care and thoroughness with which [the film] was researched”, adding:

“The ITC raised with Carlton all the significant areas of inaccuracy critics of the programme alleged and the broadcaster answered them by reference to a range of historical texts. The ITC is not a tribunal of fact and is particularly aware of the difficulties of verifying 'historical fact' but the comprehensiveness and authority of Carlton's sources were persuasive, not least because many appeared to be of Israeli origin.” (ITC Report: Palestine is Still the Issue: a Special Report by John Pilger, Monday 16 September. 11.05pm. ITV, Carlton, January 14, 2003)

Pilger's documentary, the ITC adds, “was not in breach of the ITC Programme Code… Adequate opportunity was given to a pro-Israeli government perspective.”

A Carlton spokesman said: “We are delighted that the ITC has recognised the quality of our film-making process and particularly its praise for the editorial and journalistic integrity of our production.”

John Pilger comments:

“This is a complete vindication of a film that told the story of a people long denied basic human rights, and international justice – the Palestinians. The film was fair and restrained, and expressed the humanity of both ordinary Palestinians and Israelis. Following an orchestrated campaign by the pro-Israel lobby and Michael Green's remarks, I and my Carlton colleagues received a stream of threats, including death threats. The ITC's investigation, conducted over three months, was exhaustive. All our historical sources, most of them Israeli, were submitted for scrutiny. Following the Commission's unequivocal rejection of the complaints and praise for the film's thoroughness and integrity, Michael Green should withdraw his slur against the integrity of work done for his company, and apologise.” (John Pilger, email to Media Lens – January 13, 2003)

In the Guardian, Tim Llewellyn, formerly BBC Middle East correspondent, writes:

“Pilger is known as an opinionated journalist with an appetite for upsetting authority. But this programme was not 'campaigning' journalism. It was a painstaking portrayal of the humiliation Israel's soldiers and politicians visit daily o­n the Palestinians: not just the deaths, injuries and arrests, but the intrusions of the military into every aspect of a Palestinian's life.” (Llewellyn, 'False witnesses – ITC approval of John Pilger's documentary is a shot across the bows of mainstream Middle East coverage', The Guardian, January 16, 2003)

We await Michael Green's response with interest.

Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts: editor@medialens.org

Comments? Click here
Continue reading →