Dominant Ideology in British News Broadcasting - Essay Example

Dominant Ideology in British news broadcasting "The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escapewith dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqus are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows ... We are today not far from a disaster." -- T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia), The Sunday Times, August 1920 On the 2nd of August 2005, American journalist and writer Steven Vincent was abducted and murdered by terrorists in Iraq. He was the first journalist to fall prey to the parties of the war. His friends and colleagues had fallen earlier; but in accidents, none so brutally executed as he was. The incident sent shockwaves down the spine of most western journalists working in Iraq. But is it the war that killed dear Steven or was it something else Was he killed because he was an American or a man of the pen What killed him The answer lies between the lines that bring out the news of the war in both Britain and the US. Steven was a victim of terror - no doubts about it. But his being American was just half the story. His murder is only an attempt by a pagan enemy to a nation of soldiers and newsmongers called the US, an attempt by the people to tell the world that these men did not report the brewing of the soup as much as they cry about the murderous soup called the war on terror being served on the platters of international diplomatic circles. It was not what the press said that lead to the murder of Steven, but what the press did not say that led to his killing. Or rather does the silence of the press intend to say more than they said in words. Do the gloomy looking news readers on channels in the UK say more than they could express in words Should that really have been the scenario Did that silence warrant the murder of a promising journalist Where do we go from here The press plays an important role in every democracy. In terms of its potential to influence public policy, it is known as the fourth estate of the state and is one of the most powerful bodies in any country that has promoted a free press. The freedom of the press in itself has done more damage than good in the west. They are perceived as independent commentators by the people and in many cases - such as the Iraq war, their independence has turned out to be a spook rather than truth. Independent reporting is a thing of the past or is atleast as fictitious as Jack and his Bean Stalk. What is most obvious from these reports is that it has sidelined human rights largely in countries where western armies are operating. In most cases, the despots are simply terrorists that need to be done with and in certain countries, the despots are the best available choices and friends of these nations. Press in the west has made this mistake time and again. The recent examples are President Suharto of Indonesia and his mass murder venture in East Timor which was largely underplayed by the western media. This process went on for a substantial period of fifteen years. Concocted stories displayed by the western media spooked the world populace about the events of terror inflicted by Suharto on the inhabitants of East Timor. In fifteen years, the Indonesian army had murdered a quarter of East Timor's population - roughly two million men, women and children lay dead. The media did not kill for sure; but they silently sided with western governments on issues that could have been a key to resolving the struggle in the first place. The media did not do enough to prevent the war, did not speak the truth and did not care for human rights or lives. What a shame British media has always been famous for its independence and its clinical detachment in narrating stories. The BBC stands apart in standards from the glossy American chicken noodles news. Looking at the international scenario, war reporting has been pioneered by the American news agencies. But soon after bands of daring journalists began to join flock together with the soldiers on the field and file interesting stories, the truth from the war front started to hit the public. This was a dangerous scenario for the government. But instead of curtailing media presence on war fronts by law, the American government silently put its so called think tanks to invent the 'liberal realism' - sponsored by the very economic powers who led the American Economy namely, Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller and the others. The OSS - the fore runner of the CIA also played a major part in this proxy control of the media. Editorials were being replaced by advertorials sponsored by the state. The model is quite unique. The Great American Universities and its scholars filtered these ideas to the public. The idea was quite simple. As british intelligence files that were declassified now clarify, there was no significant Soviet threat during the cold-war. The threat was to Russian satellite sates that reveled in its new found socialist fervours. Liberal realism in America, Britain and Australia meant taking humanity out of the study of nations and weighing the nations in terms of its usefulness to the western powers. New labels were invented to define people that stood for and against the ideology. The rhetoric was that you are either with the west or its enemies. Very few nations were left alone in their search for freedom from this diplomatic dogma. Nations were stamped as useful or enemies; nothing in between them existed. Bands of ultras were created all over the world, funded by the western powers to fight for 'freedom'. Wine women and money flowed to back up the attempts. The seeds were also sown for the Al-qaida in the process. The Turbulent sixties were simply a result of growing western greed. So what wrong has the press committed Well, they kept quite. They fed the nation with bogus filth on impending wars predicted by the fictitious reports cooked up by the intelligence agencies of the country at the behest of the corporate barons. The British press barring a few daring attempts by editors who were still sidelined went hand in glove with the imperialist military show-down all over the world. A few distinguished practitioners of journalism have stepped on to express their dissatisfaction and anguish of the state of their profession. From his office in Manhattan in late 2004, Sir Harold Evans stated his disquiet in a communications he sent out to one of his former papers - The Times in which he stated ' there is distrust all around, distrust of the government by the press, distrust of the press by the government, and of both the press and the government by the public at large. This should not fester.' Following this, John Lloyd, editor of the Financial Times Magazine penned his famous book reviewing the issue of BJR, and the Observer's quote of a leading British politician where in he stated that 'Britain is the first Media -cracy'. The Guardian's Martin Kettle supported Lloyd's arguments stating that a joint parliamentary committee should be set up to review the working of editors from time to time. Sir Louis Blom-Copper feels that the days of self-regulation are gone. Today, the media enjoys vast powers without and responsibility comparable to the prerogative of the harlots in history. This issue has been closely debated in the UK since 1931. Although the BJR is a well-bred journal taught to shun the louche and shady aspects of human existence, it has, some acquaintances who have been obliged to oberve the seamy side of life. They report that the harlots are frequently interfering and are expected to take on the duties seriously and that they have adequate powers in their hands to mislead the public. But the kinship between politicians and their dear ones - the journalists have never been closer. In fact the parties in government and the opposition have equally good rapport with the press. The purpose of this kinship is not to explain the truths to the people as it should have been, but to help promote their power and slogans which they need their people to hold close to their hearts while they are comfortably seated in positions of power. While two major parties have so much in common, there can hardly be a fight on ethical or ideological issues; rather the parliamentary debates of today are only about managerial issues and capacities of the people in high offices. The media therefore is not required to think of anything else. Far from detached reporting of the facts, they are mere spades that are used to dump filthy ideologies in to the human mind from the backyard of the politicians. Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the media takes nothing but a cynical view of human rights and public good. They treat everybody with scorn - the common man, politicians and their colleagues leading to utter chaos. A determined reliance on facts and ethics is required at least for the moment to bring back the trust of the people. The BJR has been pleading for a clean up of the house for this very reason. These have been misspelled in Ron Neil's recommendations on the BBC reporting styles in which reporters stood trial after the death of Hutton. More interference by the politicians in the press is no solution to the impending problem of media ethics. Attempts by the press to destabilize the government are not new. In fact it is not the press that destabilizes the government but the people and their opinion. The press is only an opinion maker. Beaverbrook made statements before the 1948 royal commission that he ran the Daily Express 'purely for propaganda and with no other purpose'. In fact he caused so many sleepless nights to Baldwin. So what does it all have to do with the war on Iraq How does the media in general fare The head of the BBC had visited America during the April of 2003 and was shocked to see the way media functioned in that country. He did not hide his apprehensions and his stand on the gun was questioned by the American media and government alike. American broadcasters were accused of 'unquestioned' coverage of the Iraq war and blatant patriotism. Greg Dyke himself noticed the lack of impartiality with which the American media was handling the whole issue. "If Iraq had proved anything, it was that the BBC could not afford to mix patriotism with journalism' as was happening in the United States - he added. Very soon, he predicted the US electronic media will lose the trust of its people. The American broadcasters were attacked for cheerleading its soldiers during the war. One US channel went to the extent of calling their soldiers as heroes and liberators. Dyke singled out Murdoch's Fox News, the most popular US cable news network for its lack of clean reporting. The radio in America was also criticised. The largest radio operator in the US 'Clear Channel' used its resources to organize pro-war rallies. All these American radio companies have bid for licenses in the UK and some have already set up shop in this country. In the next decade or so, there will be nothing more English about the English. The American attack on Afghanistan in the year 2001 was wholly reported as a liberation by the western media. Australian journalist John Pilger who reported the war from Afghanistan says that the press didi not get to the truth of the story in many respects. The evidence on the ground is that there have been no liberation for over ninety five percent of Afghani population. The Taliban has merely been exchanged for a group of new bandits who still pick up women on the streets to be raped and murdered; no mater what they call themselves, they are the very same men whom President Jimmy Carter had secretly trained for over 20 years. One of the most powerful warlords in liberated Afghanistan is Rashid Dostum. Donald Rumsfeld visited him in 2004 to express his gratitude for his partnership in the war on terror! It is the same Dostum in whose custody, 4000 prisoners died terrible deaths just over four years ago. The general called him a thoughtful man and congratulated him! The media speaks about Karzai's reign and prosperity and freedom in the country. His reign does not extend beyond his 42 American body guards. Yet under the new regime, women still roam around wearing burkas, because they know that the very enemy whose defeat the world - or rather the media celebrates is still live and ticking. There was a fierce fighting in the al-Ahmediya province of Baghdad and the the al-Dora neighbourhood in the month of April this year. People who live in the predominantly Sunni areas have reported such clashes for many days. The fights are taking place between the shia militants and the Sunni residents. The armed wing of the Supreme council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Organisatiion and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army have been launching regular attacks against the residents. There is a small word to describe the situation - Civil War. Yet we do not hear this word being mentioned in any corporate media; nor from the US or UK administration. The propaganda insists that Iraq is still not in civil war. While Reuters parroted the US military official report that insurgents mounted an attack in Baghdad and said that there were about fifty of them and the army has brought the situation under control in seven hours. Among this violence, the displays of valour by British media men is also noteworthy. In their attempt to capture the glimpse of truth, they risk their lives and through themselves and their equipments in to the middle of the wall of bullets. In may of 2006, two British journalists were killed in a car-bomb explosion in Baghdad. Cameraman Paul Doulas and soundman James Brolan were traveling with Kimberly Dozier, an American reorter for CBS News, while preparing a report on America troops deployed in the country. She is now fighting for her life in the hospital. The rising toll of journalists in Iraq makes it one of the most toughest place to work in the world for journalists. Until the end of May official toll of journalists touched 69 and touched 127 including all the translators, fixers and others. Though the US runs a committee for the welfare of journalists in Iraq, nothing is certain in this land of chaos. The safety of journalists working Iraq keeps the editors awake all night. It is dangerous, but there certainly exists no alternative to it. Iraq is of course the greatest crisis of our times and physical presence to collect information is of vital importance especially for the electronic media. If media houses fail to send their own reporters, the story of the war will be told by professional propagandists in the White House, Pentagon or No 10. Most editors hence place high priority to keep journalists on the ground in Iraq. They often get Iraqi eyewitness accounts and live video of the events rather then the concoction served at military briefings. They tend to highlight the humanitarian cause and is disliked by the army and the diplomatic missions operating in the country. IN war, propaganda is no crime. But lying to the exchequer is a crime and these journalists get the stories as they unfold straight from the horse's mouth. The unsung heroes of the war is certainly the umpteen number of Iraqi journalists and translators that have lost their lives or were injured in their attempts to gather news. War journalism is often accused for blowing stories out of proportion in relation to the facts - but Iraq is a case to the contrary. Here the ground situation has been far worse than the reports. But still rumbling loud is the question of conscience and the tragedy of the low level of standards followed in reporting the story of the Iraqi war. It was triggered off by the one time correspondent of BBC Rageh Omar in an interview raised the allegation that western news organizations were perpetrating a fraud on viewers, with their misleading coverage of the Iraq war. Omar said that by failing to inform audiences as to how their reports have been compiled, news organisations were falling down on the job. "Some of us, I feel, are engaged in some kind of a small fraud on the British public, the readers and viewers," he said. "I feel very uncomfortable that we are not putting a health warning on reports from Iraq, because to not do so lends an enormous legitimacy." Said Rageh. He felt that it was right time for news organizations to fess up and make clear that many of the pictures that comprise what are in effect "pooled reports" have been shot by anonymous Iraqi freelancers, while the Western journalists have remained inside the protected Green Zone in Baghdad. His words have spread anguish among the western media personnel currently working in Baghdad. John Simpson best summed up the anger when he told the BBC's Today programme: "Please don't take any notice of that ignorant stuff about Western journalists huddling in the Green Zone, there are not many news organisations still working in Baghdad, but all of them, including the BBC, are based in the city itself, not in the Green Zone ... it still isn't too dangerous to operate here if you are sensible and careful - and lucky." The US Army is more open to thruths than any other army in the world. But it is the presence of the large number of independent reporters in the country that keeps them that way. The murder of 24 civilians in Haditha would have gone unnoticed if not for the efforts of the Amrican journalist Tim McGirk who works for the Time magazine. The US military though it denied the massacre of civilians in the first place had to ultimately recognize its mistake, apologise and conduct an enquiry in to the incident. The Haditha episode is compared to the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war. Even while presented with the evidence, they accused the media of buying in to local enemy propaganda. They insisted that the villagers were killed by insurgent bombers in Iraq. Without on the ground reporting, the lies of the soldiers and their superiors would never have been exposed. The days of the poppy journalists traveling in tanks wearing military caps relaying stories form atop tanks are over. Mbedded journalism though it has its own advantages has been said to be irrelevant and untrustworthy. The selling factor is that it is made clear to the reader, or viewer, that the reporter is travelling with the military, so that he could make up his own mind about the state of the conflict. So is all this risk worth it - Iraq is the greatest news story of our times and it is important to narrate an objective account of the conflict to the unsuspecting public. - The British and US military are operating in the names of the country and the countrymen need to keep a track of their performance. - The lack of UN sanction for the war makes it necessary for the journalists to work overtime to narrate the true story to the public and the international policy maker. - Iraq is now more dangerous than Beirut at the height of the Lebanese civil war and its unwise to have journalists in the war zone who have no previous military experience. Work Cited Doyle, Leonard; The Big Question: Should Western Journalists Be in Iraq, and Can their Reports Be Trusted The Independent May 31, 2006 Merissa Marr, BBC Chief Attacks U.S. Media War Coverage published on Thu April 24, 2003 03:22 PM ET visited on the 12th of June 2006. http://www.veteransforpeace.org/about.htm John, Pilger Power, propaganda and conscience of war on terror posted on the 26th of January, 2004 visited on 12th of June, 2006. Read More