-Caveat Lector- FINANCIAL TIMES A gulf in the war of words By Jurek Martin Published: March 28 2003 17:35 | Last Updated: March 28 2003 17:35
It may have been a figment of the imagination - I was listening to the radio last Saturday not watching TV - but I thought I heard General Tommy Franks, the US commander in the war on Iraq, take an unusually deep breath before responding to a question in Qatar. A British TV reporter had asked him about the "blitz" of Baghdad. This is not a word, describing indiscriminate bombing, which US journalists, steeped in Pentagon jargon about precisely targeted missiles, would ever use. It is pejorative, associated with Hitler, and, by extension, Saddam Hussein, not with a US military intent on "decapitating" the regime in the capital while sparing, to the maximum extent possible, its ordinary citizens. But its use seemed to me just one illustration of the measurable gulf that exists between US and foreign coverage of the war. This reflects not merely that it is US forces who are bearing the brunt of the battle, thereby warranting support, and providing reporters with remarkable facilities to portray it. It is also a commentary of cultural differences in the practise of journalism that long predate this conflict. It may seem odd to assert this in an age when fabulous reporting on Watergate brought down one president and polemicism in the media contributed to the impeachment of another, but I think mainstream US journalism has become too respectful of authority, too inclined to take what government says at face value. There is nothing in this country, for example, which remotely compares with BBC Radio's Today programme, a mandatory pit stop for all in power or seeking it, in spite of its famously, even infamously, aggressive but knowledgeable interviewing. Offended officials boycott it from time to time, but always come back for more because it can set the agenda for days to come. Jeremy Paxman, of BBC TV's Newsnight, also takes no prisoners. It is hard to imagine him signing off, as I have heard Wolf Blitzer do on CNN, with words such as "god bless you, Mr secretary". The concluding Paxman sneer often translates into a virtual "gedoutahere, ya bum." It is not as if the US media is craven in comparison. I am addicted to the comprehensive New York Times coverage and analysis of the war, at home and abroad. And I know something of the challenges, having been the FT's foreign editor during the first Gulf war. But I also know from experience that a collective judgment sometimes seems to descend on even the best and independent-minded news organisations, and it is susceptible to influence by those in authority. It may therefore be wondered why the Times, and many others, significantly underplayed the extent of domestic anti-war sentiment before the war started. Now US soldiers are in combat, it is perhaps understandable that protests get shorter news shrift but the lesson of Vietnam is surely that they will not go away. Suspicion may also attach to the fistful of polls that purport to show, predictably, a surge in support for the military and commander-in-chief. Many have been conducted on the smallest of statistical samples and with the narrowest range of questions; and I remain puzzled by the fact that I have never met anybody who has been polled on anything other than commercial products. It naturally suits the Bush administration to play the patriot card to demean and discredit any opposition, sometimes ruthlessly and vindictively. When Tom Daschle, dared to criticise the president for bungled diplomacy, a perfectly defensible position, all the usual attack dogs, from the Fox network to Rush Limbaugh, were summoned to accuse the Senate minority leader of un-Americanism. Similarly, when Natalie Maines, marvellous lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, stepped out of line, the group's music was suddenly dropped from country music stations owned by the nation's biggest radio mogul. He happens to be not only an old Texas intimate of the president but has much to gain from ongoing government deliberations about media ownership. Little has been heard from Daschle and Ms Maines of late. In general, the administration can hardly complain about the coverage the war is getting at home. "Embedding" reporters with military units in the field has increased admiration for the troops, even, some might say, turned the media itself into a weapon of war. The downside risk is that the initial rapid advance, now meeting stiffer opposition, may have encouraged the public to expect a short and relatively cost-free war. Still, as my colleague Lionel Barber wrote earlier this week, the flood of pictures of soldiers in action has diminished the importance of reporters in Baghdad and elsewhere not directly subject to military control. Also US media have been generally reluctant to show photos and footage of dead and captured GIs, sometimes at the administration's explicit request, in sharp contrast to foreign practice and to the Internet. Friends in Europe report saturation war coverage comparable with that in the US, but with a more palpable tinge of scepticism, even in Britain. Unfortunate US military terminologies, such as "shock and awe" bombing, have been greeted with some derision (and the use of the word "blitz") and the tragic results of friendly fire given greater play. The foreign media are not pulling for Saddam, but, reflecting their domestic opinion and more critical habits, they are not exactly in the patriotic trenches with George W. Bush and Tony Blair either. It is not, after all, their war. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
