MEDIA ALERT: BIASED, BLINKERED, CULPABLE

The following is a media action update. For those reading it in the US,
imagine how CNN or FOX would respond to this type of pressure; but then,
there is only one way to find out.

Dahr Jamail

July 20, 2005

MEDIA ALERT: BIASED, BLINKERED, CULPABLE


John Pilger, Hans von Sponeck, Dahr Jamail and Others Respond to BBC
Statement Regarding The World Tribunal on Iraq


"Why say more? Observe this distinction:
between the fool who longs for his own advantage
and the sage who acts for the advantage of others."
(Shantideva, 8th century)



Media Lens recently issued a media alert about the lack of British media
coverage given to the World Tribunal on Iraq, held in Istanbul last
month. Our alert, The Mysterious Case of the Vanishing World Tribunal on
Iraq <http://medialens.org/alerts/05/050706_the_mysterious_case.php>,
was sent out on July 6, 2005.

We suggested that readers ask senior BBC managers and editors why the
BBC, a publicly-funded broadcaster, is failing to cover the many reports
of alleged US war crimes in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq. Why, in
particular, did the main BBC news programmes ignore the Tribunal's
damning findings against the invasion and occupation of Iraq? And when
has the BBC ever reported Bush and Blair's culpability for war crimes?

These are troubling questions for well-rewarded media professionals to
answer rationally, while preserving any semblance of self-respect. The
cognitive dissonance demonstrated by senior BBC managers trying to
believe that BBC 'impartiality' is upheld, even while actual media
performance clearly promotes the agenda of destructive state power, is
astounding to behold. One recalls the White Queen's boast in Lewis
Carroll's 'Through the Looking Glass': "Why, sometimes I've believed as
many as six impossible things before breakfast."


Alice in Wonderland: The "Evidence-Based Journalism" That Ignores
Evidence!

Helen Boaden, the BBC news director, has now issued the following
statement to the many people who wrote to her. We asked a number of
knowledgeable commentators to respond (see below).

"Thank you for your email criticising the BBC for lack of coverage of
the World Tribunal on Iraq. We have received numerous complaints on this
subject in different parts of the BBC and - after careful consideration
of the matter - the following is the BBC response, which I am sending on
behalf of the BBC.

"The subjects under discussion at the Istanbul meeting are indeed
important and many of the topics are matters which the BBC has examined
persistently and regularly across our outlets. There are many
conferences which the BBC does not cover and - given finite resources -
we take the view that what is important is that a full range of issues
is aired.

"Currently our top financial priority in relation to Iraq is to report
on events from the country itself. The BBC is the only British
broadcaster to have maintained a continuous presence in the country,
including the maintenance of a permanent bureau in Baghdad. One example
of how this investment has paid off is the whole day of reports we
carried on BBC News 24, BBC World, Radio 5 Live and on the BBC News
website on June 7th. On that day, we chronicled different aspects of
life for the 27 million people who live in Iraq. There's a summary of
what we did on the website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4603875.stm

"Turning to the agenda of the World Tribunal on Iraq, the BBC has
examined events in Iraq from many angles, including the legal framework;
the role of the UN; international relations; the conduct of coalition
forces and the human rights violations at Abu Graib; the controversy
over Guantanamo Bay. But unlike the WTI which takes the war in Iraq as
unjust as its premise, the BBC must be open-minded and impartial in its
approach.

"We are committed to evidence-based journalism. We have not been able to
establish that the US used banned chemical weapons and committed other
atrocities against civilians in Falluja last November. Inquiries on the
ground at the time and subsequently indicate that their use is unlikely
to have occurred.

"The BBC takes its commitment to impartial reporting with the utmost
seriousness. Please rest assured that we strive for open-minded,
responsible journalism.

"Yours sincerely
Helen Boaden, Director, BBC News" (Email forwarded by numerous Media
Lens readers, July 13 onwards, 2005)

The award-winning journalist John Pilger, who has extensive experience
of visiting and reporting on Iraq, told us:

"Helen Boaden's response is simply ridiculous. She says the BBC 'has not
established' that the US has used banned weapons or committed
atrocities. The US has admitted using napalm, a banned weapon, and the
evidence of atrocities in Fallujah is overwhelming: too great to list
here. Read, for example, the statements of doctors at Fallujah General
Hospital and of other independent eye witnesses. The reason the BBC 'has
not established' all this is because its reporters are embedded with the
Americans and British and report the occupiers' news, about which there
is nothing 'impartial'." (Email to Media Lens, July 14, 2005)

We also contacted the World Tribunal on Iraq [WTI] for their response.
Communications coordinator Caroline Muscat told us WTI had invited the
BBC World Service correspondent in Istanbul, Jonny Dymond, to attend the
Tribunal's hearings. She helped to set up interviews and provide
footage: "we did our best to meet his needs".

Dymond confirmed to us that he attended the opening press conference,
and was present on the first day of the 5-day proceedings (email from
Jonny Dymond to Media Lens, July 14, 2005). This resulted in a news
story on the BBC World Service lasting 24 seconds, and a longer report
of about 90 seconds in length. These reports failed to mention the
Tribunal's finding that the BBC, and other named, mainstream media,
bears "special responsibility for promoting the lies about Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction".

Caroline Muscat told us: "The lack of coverage on BBC World Service is
not due to any neglect our end."

But not a smidgen of even this limited coverage was broadcast on the
major BBC news bulletins, such as the evening Six O'Clock and Ten
O'Clock television news on BBC1. Muscat continued:

"In effect, Ms. Helen Boaden is saying that the Tribunal was not a
priority story for the BBC because of judgments made at the BBC on this
global initiative." She added that the Tribunal "was followed by
millions of people around the world on alternative media sites, the live
audio and video streaming provided by the WTI web site... The fact that
Iraqi people risked their lives to travel to Istanbul and testify on the
horrors they face on a daily basis was not a priority story because the
BBC says that, 'Currently our top financial priority in relation to Iraq
is to report on events from the country itself'.

"While we respect the BBC's commitment to evidence-based journalism, it
is hard to ignore the fact that the evidence in this story is the
Tribunal itself. The fact that a significant number of respected
diplomats, academicians, reporters and human rights lawyers came
together with international experts from various fields to bring to the
world's attention the injustice occurring in Iraq, is in itself a story
that merits reporting.

"The BBC has disregarded the experience and professionalism of all those
who participated in this Tribunal. In fact, one of the reasons why this
initiative took place is precisely because we felt, like millions of
people around the world, that there was an imbalance and a lack of
clarity and objectivity in the reporting of the so-called 'war on
terror'. By failing to understand the significance of presenting this
other side of the story of this war the BBC has in fact proved us
right." (Email to Media Lens, July 14, 2005)

We contacted Dahr Jamail, a 'non-embedded' journalist who has bravely
reported from Iraq for a total of 8 months to date. Jamail testified in
Istanbul, detailing many atrocities inflicted upon Iraqis by US forces.
This was his response:

"It is interesting that Helen Boaden uses the reason for not covering
the WTI that the BBC uses 'evidence-based journalism,' then goes on to
state that the BBC has, 'not been able to establish that the US used
banned chemical weapons and committed other atrocities against civilians
in Fallujah last November.'

"This is one of the main purposes for the WTI to have even occurred - to
provide this information to the media and to inform the world of the
atrocities being committed in Iraq." (Email to Media Lens, July 13, 2005)

Jamail pointed out that the Tribunal provided all the evidence the BBC
needs, "from witnesses which included several Iraqis, of the US use of
illegal weapons in Fallujah during November such as cluster bombs,
uranium munitions, napalm and chemical weapons". Jamail also pointed to
the "testimonies and photographs of the US military raiding hospitals
and killing both doctors and civilians as what appears to now be their
standard operating procedure for their military adventures in Iraq." He
concluded:

"It is clear that if the BBC was truly 'committed to evidence-based
journalism' as Ms. Boaden states, they would report what Iraqi doctors
and civilians say as to what occurred in Fallujah in November."


Blind Faith: The BBC Ignores Its Own 'Impartiality' Mantra

Hans von Sponeck is a former UN Assistant Secretary-General who ran the
humanitarian oil-for-food programme in Baghdad for 18 months. He
resigned in 2000, appalled at the impact of UN sanctions on Iraq. He
also responded to Boaden's email:

"The World Tribunal was anything but just 'another conference'. A
sensitive and impartial BBC should have quickly discovered that the
Istanbul event provided a rare glimpse into a world-wide public mind
which stands for peace, justice, political honesty and accountability.
The BBC chose to ignore its own advice that 'impartiality is to cover
all sides'. To bypass a responsible international movement at a time
when political opportunism and dishonesty are rampant, when
international law is broken at will and human security is becoming a
distant dream, is anything but coverage of all sides and the antithesis
of open-minded journalism." (Hans von Sponeck, email to Media Lens, July
13, 2005)

Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle East correspondent, acknowledged "the
immense difficulties on the ground" for reporters in Iraq, but told us
that Boaden's points "about the deployment of depleted uranium and the
atrocities in Fallujah and elsewhere are specious". He continued:

"There is plenty of reliable evidence that the invasion forces used
depleted uranium and napalm-style materiel in Iraq (we the British
certainly used the former in 1991) and the BBC's defence experts could
do a lot more to put this into the public arena. The deployment of such
ghastly weapons against civilian areas is surely +feeding+ the anger
that results in attacks like those against Madrid and London. The
inability or reluctance of the BBC properly to expose or even discuss
intelligently the use of such weaponry as depleted uranium or napalm is
shameful and even provocative for its viewers and listeners, especially
given its propensity to allow its presenters and guests to go into
finger-wagging fury over Iran's alleged quest for nuclear weapons."
(Email to Media Lens, July 14, 2005)

Finally, Richard Keeble, professor of journalism at Lincoln University
and author of 'Ethics for Journalists', sent us his response to the BBC
statement:

"The mainstream media have been celebrating the 'revolution' that
occurred over the coverage of the London bombs - with the prominent use
of mobile phone images provided by members of the public and weblogs.
This, it has been argued, represents a major 'democratisation' of the
mainstream media. Yet significantly, the incorporation of data supplied
by non-professional journalists has in no way impacted on the overall
bias of the coverage. In other words, the most important revolution
needed in the mainstream media is over news values. Their failure to
report the Iraq War Tribunal shows how conventional news priorities
still predominate. Mainstream journalism remains too closely tied to
dominant economic, political and economic structures and interests. More
and more people are realising this and turning to more authentic
alternatives." (Email to Media Lens, July 13, 2005)

Mark Byford, the BBC's deputy director-general, claimed recently that
the "BBC now begins with the presumption that the licence-payer is
right. After all, the licence-payers are the public that fund and own
the BBC in the UK." (Byford, 'Your flexible friend', The Guardian, June
11, 2005) He observed: "How an organisation responds when someone
complains is an important determinant of how people feel about its
openness and responsiveness."

True enough. Alas, judging by the reactions we see every day, many
members of the public are deeply sceptical about the BBC's own claims of
"openness" and "responsiveness".

They are increasingly wise to the appalling reality that the
publicly-funded BBC is an accessory to war crimes and state terrorism
perpetrated by the British government, in tandem with its US ally.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com