Highlights

 
Quotable
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Edward Abbey
Original Letters Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

 
May 18, 2005

UK Press Under Blair's Thumb


by John Pilger

In 1987, the Australian sociologist Alex Carey, a second Orwell in his prophesies, wrote "Managing Public Opinion: The Corporate Offensive." He described how in the United States "great progress [had been] made toward the ideal of a propaganda-managed democracy," whose principal aim was to identify a rapacious business state "with every cherished human value." The power and meaning of true democracy, of the franchise itself, would be "transferred" to the propaganda of advertising, public relations, and corporate-run news. This "model of ideological control," he predicted, would be adopted by other countries, such as Britain.

To many who work conscientiously in the media in developed societies, this will sound alarmist; it is not like that in Britain, they will say. Ask them about censorship by omission or the promotion of business ideology and war propaganda as news, a promotion both subtle and crude, and their defensive response will be that no one ever instructed them to follow any line: no one ever said not to question the prime minister about the horror he had helped to inflict on Iraq: his epic criminality. "Blair always enjoys his interviews with Paxo," says Roger Mosey, the head of BBC Television News, without a hint of irony.

Blair should enjoy them; he is always spared the imperious bombast of Jeremy Paxman, the BBC's political "interrogator," whose work is now a pastiche and kept mostly for official demons. "Watch George Galloway clash with Jeremy Paxman," says the BBC News homepage like a circus barker. Once under the big top of the BBC's Newsnight you get the usual setup: a nonsensical question about whether or not Galloway, who, representing the antiwar party Respect, defeated the Labour member of a safe seat in east London, was "proud of having got rid of one of the few black women in parliament," followed by mockery of the very idea that his opponent, an unabashed Blairite warmonger, should account for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

Seven years ago, when Denis Halliday, one of the United Nations' most respected humanitarian aid directors, resigned from his post in Iraq in protest at the Anglo-American-led embargo, calling it "an act of genocide," he was given the Paxo treatment. "Aren't you just an apologist for Saddam Hussein?" he was mock-asked. The following year, UNICEF revealed that the embargo had killed half a million Iraqi children. As for East Timor, a triumph of the British arms trade and Robin Cook's "ethical" foreign policy, the presence of British Hawk jets was "not proved," declared Paxo, parroting a Foreign Office lie. (A few months later, Cook came clean.) Today, napalm is used in Iraq, but the armed forces minister is allowed to pretend that it isn't. Israel's weapons of mass destruction are "dangerous in the extreme," says the former head of the US Strategic Command, but that is a permanent taboo.

In the London Guardian of May 9, famous journalists and their executives were asked to reflect on the election campaign. Almost all agreed that it had been "boring" and "lacked passion" and "never really caught fire." Mosey complained that "it was difficult to reach out to people who are disengaged." Again, irony was absent, as if the BBC's obsequiousness to the "consensus of propaganda," as Alex Carey called it, had nothing to do with people's disengagement or with the duty of journalists to engage the public, let alone tell them things they had a right to know.

It is this right-to-know that is being lost behind a willful illusion. Since the cry "freedom of the press" was first heard roughly 500 years ago, when Wynkyn de Worde set up Caxton's printing press in the yard of St. Bride's Church, off Fleet Street in London, there has never been more information or media in the "mainstream," yet most of it is now repetitive and profoundly ideological: captive of the insidious system Carey described.

Omission is how it principally works. Between April 1-15, the Media Tenor Institute analyzed the content of television evening news. Foreign politics, including Iraq, accounted for less than two percent. Search the postelection comments of the most important people in journalism for anything about the greatest political scandal in memory the unprovoked bloodbath in Iraq and you will find nothing. The Goldsmith affair, in which the attorney general advice to Blair that the invasion was illegal, was an aberration forced on to the election agenda not by a journalist but by an insider; and no connection was then made with the suffering and grief in Iraq.

In the middle of the election campaign, Dr. Les Roberts gave a special lecture at the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in London. It was all but ignored. Yet this is the extraordinary man who led an American-Iraqi research team in the first comprehensive investigation of civilian deaths in Iraq. Published in the Lancet, the most highly regarded medical journal in the world with the tightest peer-review procedures, the study found that "at least" 100,000 civilians had died violently, the great majority of them at the hands of the "coalition": women, children, the elderly. He also described how American military doctors had found that 14 percent of soldiers and 28 percent of Marines had killed a civilian: a huge, unreported massacre.

This great crime, together with the destruction of the city of Fallujah and the 40 known victims of torture and unlawful killings at the hands of the British army, and the biggest demonstration by Iraqis demanding the invaders get out, was not allowed to intrude on a campaign that "never really caught fire." The airbrushing requires no conspiracy. "The thought," wrote Arthur Miller, "that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable, and so the evidence has to be internally denied."

In its ideological crusade, the Blair regime has bombed and killed and abused human rights directly or by proxy, from Iraq to Colombia, from tsunami-stricken Aceh to the 14 most impoverished countries in Africa where the sale of British weapons have fanned internal conflict. When I asked a television executive why none of this was glimpsed in the election "coverage," he seemed nonplussed. "It was not relevant to the news," he said. What is relevant in the wake of the election is a propaganda consensus promoting the potential greatness of the Chancellor Gordon Brown, as the greatness of the now embarrassing Blair was once promoted. ("My God, he will be a hard act to follow. My God, Labour will miss him when he has gone," wrote Blair's most devoted promoter, Martin Kettle, in the Guardian, skipping over his crimes.)

That Brown is the same ideologue as Blair is of no concern, neither is his commitment, not to ending poverty in the world, but to the rehabilitation of imperialism. "We should be proud … of the empire," he said last September. "The days of Britain having to apologize for its colonial history are over," he told the Daily Mail. These views touch the nostalgic heart of the British establishment, which, under Thatcher and Blair, has recovered from its long disorientation after Hitler gave all imperial plunderers a bad name. This and the appeasement of British imperialists is rarely mentioned in the endless anniversaries of the Second World War, whose triumphalism in politics and popular culture has bred imperial wars, like Iraq.

Thus, Blair's foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper caused little controversy when he wrote a pamphlet calling for "a new kind kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan views." This is conquest redefined as liberation, evoking the same moral claims that were not questioned until Hitler. "Imperialism and the global expansion of the western powers, wrote Frank Furedi in The New Ideology of Imperialism, were represented in unambiguously positive terms as a major contributor to human civilization." That imperialism was and is racist, violent, and a cause of suffering across the world – witness the ruthless expulsion of the people of Diego Garcia as recent as the 1970s – is "not relevant to the news." Observe instead the BBC swoon at Gordon Brown's 19th-century speeches about ending African poverty on condition that business can exploit and arm Africa's poorest.

All this chimes in Washington, where Bush's drivel of "democracy and liberty on the march" is swallowed by leading journalists on both sides of the Atlantic. A vintage imperialist campaign is under way against strategic and resource-rich Arab nations: indeed, against all Muslim peoples. It is the "clash of civilizations" of Samuel Huntington's delusions. The Arabs being Semites, it is one of the West's greatest anti-Semitic crusades.

That, you might say, is well discussed. Perhaps. What is not discussed is a worldwide threat similar to that of Germany in the 1930s: certainly the greatest threat in the lifetime of most people. This is not news. Consider the unreported demise of the "war on terror." In his inaugural speech in January, Bush pointedly said not a word about that which he had made his signature. No terrorism. No Osama. No Iraq. No axis of evil. Instead, he warned that America's new targets were those living in whole regions of the world which "simmer in resentment and tyranny" and where "violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended powers, and raise a mortal threat."

The monumental paranoia is almost beside the point. Bush was lowering the threshold. The American military can go anywhere, attack anything, use any kind of weapon in pursuit of is latest, most dangerous illusion: the "simmering resentment" and the "gathering violence." Unreported is the military coup that has taken place in America; the Pentagon and its civilian militarists now control "policy." Diplomacy is "finished … dead," as one of them put it. Andrew Bacevich, soldier, conservative, and professor of American military strategy at Boston University, says that Bush has "committed the United States to waging an open-ended war on a global scale."

Britain, with its profound understanding of imperialism, is a pioneer of this new danger. In 1998, the Blair government's Strategic Defense Review stated that the country's military priority would be "force projection" and that "in the post-Cold War world we must be prepared to go the crisis rather than have the crisis come to us." In 2002, Geoff Hoon became the first defense secretary to declare that British nuclear weapons could be used against non-nuclear nations. In December 2003, a defense white paper, "Delivering Security in a Changing World," called for "expeditionary operations" in "a range of environments across the world." Military force was no longer "a separate element in crisis resolution." Almost a third of public spending on research now goes to the military: far more than is spent on the National Health Service.

On Aug. 6, it will be the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima which, with the destruction of Nagasaki, stands as one of the greatest crimes. There is now a nuclear renaissance, led by the nuclear "haves," with America and Britain upgrading their "battlefield" nuclear weapons. The very real danger is, or should be clear to all of us. The Guardian says Blair, having won his "historic" third term, ought to be "humble." It is truly humbling that only 20 percent of eligible voters voted for him, the lowest figure in modern times, and that he has no true mandate. No, it is journalists who ought to be humble and do their job.


comments on this article?
 
 
Archives

  • War Comes Home to Britain
    3/5/2009

  • Cambodia's Missing Accused
    2/23/2009

  • Hollywood's New Censors
    2/19/2009

  • Obama and the Politics of Bollocks
    2/6/2009

  • Come On Down for Your Freedom Medals
    1/22/2009

  • Holocaust Denied
    1/8/2009

  • The Good News for the New Year Is asFollows
    12/21/2008

  • Beware of Obama's Groundhog Day
    12/12/2008

  • Kafka Has a Rival the British Foreign Office Lectures Us On Human Rights
    12/3/2008

  • The Making of an Unpeople
    11/28/2008

  • Beware of the Obama Hype
    11/24/2008

  • The Diplomacy of Lying
    10/27/2008

  • Truth and War Mean Nothing at the Party Conferences
    9/26/2008

  • A Murderous Theater of the Absurd
    9/11/2008

  • Don't Forget Yugoslavia
    8/16/2008

  • Obama, the Prince of Bait-and-Switch
    7/25/2008

  • How Britain Wages War
    7/12/2008

  • From Triumph to Torture
    7/3/2008

  • Britain's War in the Cause of Fear and Ignorance
    6/26/2008

  • Obama Is a Truly Democratic Expansionist
    6/13/2008

  • Philip Jones Griffiths, Who Understood War and Peace, and People
    3/26/2008

  • The Quiet Rendition of Moudud Ahmed
    3/13/2008

  • Australia's Hidden Empire
    3/6/2008

  • Bringing Down the New Berlin Walls
    2/14/2008

  • Suharto, the Model Killer, and His Friends in High Places
    1/28/2008

  • The Danse Macabre of US-Style Democracy
    1/24/2008

  • The 'Good War' Is a Bad War
    1/10/2008

  • 'The Values We Share'
    12/17/2007

  • Exposing the Guardians of Power
    11/30/2007

  • No Remembrance, No Remorse for the Fallen of Iraq
    11/15/2007

  • The Hypocrites Who Say They Back Democracy in Burma
    10/27/2007

  • A Conversation With Aung San Suu Kyi
    10/4/2007

  • Good Ol' Bill, the Liberal Hero
    8/9/2007

  • How Truth Slips Down the Memory Hole
    7/26/2007

  • London Bombs Also
    Belong to Brown
    7/6/2007

  • Rebellion in the British Army
    6/7/2007

  • Imprisoning a Whole Nation
    5/24/2007

  • The Kennedy Myth Rises Again
    5/11/2007

  • Iran May be the Greatest Crisis of Modern Times
    4/13/2007

  • Iran: A War Is Coming
    2/3/2007

  • Silent About Gaza
    1/18/2007

  • Setting the Limits of
    Invasion Journalism
    12/8/2006

  • Let's Now Charge the Accomplices
    11/10/2006

  • Busy Fondling Their Self-Esteem
    10/12/2006

  • No News Is Slow News
    9/15/2006

  • The Real Threat We Face in Britain Is Blair
    8/18/2006

  • The US Empire Makes Its Move to Take Over the Middle East
    7/27/2006

  • East Timor: The Coup the World Missed
    6/22/2006

  • In Palestine, a War on Children
    6/15/2006

  • Contentment in Caracas
    5/15/2006

  • The Return of the Death Squads
    5/5/2006

  • The Real First Casualty of War
    4/20/2006

  • The Death of British Freedom
    4/14/2006

  • The War Lovers
    3/23/2006

  • The Secret War Against the Defenseless People of West Papua
    3/11/2006

  • Iran: The Next War
    2/13/2006

  • Blair Criminalizes His Critics
    1/6/2006

  • A News Revolution Has Begun
    11/25/2005

  • UK Refusenik Deserves Our Support
    10/28/2005

  • Sinister Events in a Cynical War
    9/28/2005

  • The Rise of the Democratic Police State
    8/19/2005

  • Blair's Bombs
    7/25/2005

  • UK Press Under Blair's Thumb
    5/18/2005

  • Britain's Absurd Election
    4/22/2005

  • The Fall of Saigon 1975: An Eyewitness Report
    4/16/2005


  • John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, film-maker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of "Journalist of the Year," for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2003 Antiwar.com