Mike, ok, I've got my helmet on. ;-) I DO like Robert Fisk. He's been living in the Middle East for 25 years and knows it like the back of his hand, and I trust his reporting enormously. Stress on reporting, because I'm not sure I trust his analysis much. His blind spots (as I see them) come from the fact that he loves the Arabs and Arab culture, and he hates to see them and others attack it. He's just as critical of the Arabs for the way they often screw things up for themselves.
These blind spots can lead him to play with the facts when he's writing analysis pieces. But you have to know your stuff to be able to spot it, and who can be bothered to look up every reference he makes to check he's quoting accurately? As we're talking about the manipulation of facts, you might be interested in these three examples from just one of Fisk's articles of the way he has a tendency to slip and slide around (the whole article can be read at http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=362545 Fisk writes: ". . . "Izzy" Asper [owner of the Canadian National Post] has written a gutless and repulsive editorial in the Post. . . falsely accusing reporters of "lazy, sloppy or stupid" journalism and being "biased or anti-Semitic". These vile slanders are familiar to any reporter trying to do his work on the ground in the Middle East. They are made even more revolting by inaccuracies." "Mr Asper, for example, claims that my colleague Phil Reeves compared the Israeli killings in Jenin earlier this year - which included a goodly few war crimes (the crushing to death of a man in a wheelchair, for example) - to the "killing fields of Pol Pot". Now Mr Reeves has never mentioned Pol Pot. But Mr Asper wrongly claims that he did." My objection: 1. Phil Reeves DID compare Jenin to "the killing fields" in his article, which you can read at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/jenin/jenin1604.htm. It's true that he didn't actually use the words "Pol Pot". Asper inserted those words into the article (which was actually the reporting of a speech he made, not an editorial as Fisk claims) probably to make sure everyone in his audience understood what the "killing fields" reference was about. And Phil Reeves almost certainly DID mean it that way. Furthermore, Reeves had to write another article backtracking on his reporting on Jenin, when it turned out not to have been the slaughter the Palestinians claimed it was. Fisk does not mention that. But I think any journalist who really wanted to tell the whole story would have included that information (or would have left the Phil Reeves reference out entirely). But the reference fits Fisk's thesis, and so he leaves it in, but only in part, and therefore inaccurate. Fisk writes: "It gets worse. Mr Asper, whose "lazy, sloppy or stupid" allegations against journalists in reality apply to himself, states. . . that "in 1917, Britain and the League of Nations declared, with world approval, that a Jewish state would be established in Palestine". Now hold on a moment. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 did not say that a Jewish state would be established. It said that the British government would "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The British refused to use the words "Jewish state". My objection: 2. It's true that the Balfour Declaration does not use the words "Jewish state". But it's very clear, if you read the history of the declaration, that this is what the British meant. There was no Palestinian state in that area and Jewish people had bought a lot of the land there and already had a significant presence. It was assumed by everyone that, once the Jews became the majority population, there would be a Jewish state. Representatives of Jews living in Palestine, at their first post-Balfour meeting, voted in favour of calling the aim of the Zionist movement the establishment of a "medina ivrit" (Jewish state), not a "national home". The British government knew what the Zionists wanted, and the so-called Balfour Declaration -- actually just a letter from the foreign secretary to the head of the British Zionist Federation -- was typical British fudge, sending a signal to the Zionists that they could have a "state" while at the same time trying to appease the Arabs by using the word "homeland", although the Arabs, like everyone else, knew where that was headed. (It was a typical British example of "deniability" in fact.) Anyway, my point here is that Robert Fisk knows this background very well, but pretends not to, to make his point. Fisk writes: "This may not matter much to lazy writers like Mr Aspen [sic]. But when it comes to the League of Nations being involved, we really are into mythology. The League of Nations was created after the First World War - had it existed in 1917, it might have stopped the whole war - and Mr Asper is simply wrong (or, as he might have put it, "lazy, sloppy or stupid") to suggest it existed in 1917. My objection: 3. This is a cheap point. The so-called Mandate for Palestine (the purpose of which was to put into effect the Balfour Declaration) was formalized by 52 governments at the League of Nations in July 1922. So Asper, summarizing all this in a speech, was out by 5 years. So what? Fisk knows what he meant. But he wants to make him look stupid, so he pretends not to. These three points are typical of Fisk's writing when he's analysing a situation, in my opinion. He gets some impressive looking punches in, but when you look closely, you see they're often based on the careful omission of anything that would contradict his argument. However, as a straightforward reporter (meaning observer-in-the-field), Fisk is brilliant. He knows how to swing his gaze away from the angle everyone else is taking; he knows how to look for what is NOT being said, rather than what is; and he doesn't trust ANY government (not Arab, not Israeli, not American or British). I think he's honest, notwithstanding what I said about his playing with facts when he's analysing. I think he just gets so pissed off, he stops being as careful as when he's actually out reporting. Mike, I'd love to see your paper if you don't mind sending it. Sarah At 11:11 AM +0100 01/19/2003, mike pritchard wrote: >A clarification and a (friendly) warning. My paper is not (only) >about deniability. It is called 'Economical with the Truth? How >language is the first casualty in the British governments' >propaganda war in Northern Ireland', and the title is >self-explanatory. I have it as a Word document if you want a copy. > >As to the warning, I see that above you mention Robert Fisk, who is, >along with John Pilger, the journalist I most respect and believe. >Unfortunately, mention of Fisk's name on this list is likely to >cause extreme reactions among some people here. In the aftermath of >September 11 there was a long, sometimes bitter debate about >'anti-American' feelings, comments and journalism. Fisk was one of >the most savaged in this regard and although I find his writing >wonderfully clear and definitely 'against the grain', I am in the >minority here. Your post (above) perhaps explains why. If you intend >to refer to Fisk as a 'good guy', put your helmet on NOW.
