Beyond Advocacy v. Objective Journalism

July 5, 2007Commentmediabite

Who is really objective?
By Robert Jensen

MediaBite’s latest guest contributor is Robert Jensen, Associate Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas, who challenges the notion that journalism which disputes the conventional wisdom should always be labelled as “advocacy” or “activist”, and seen as less trustworthy than traditional mainstream ‘objective’ journalism. He contrasts the journalism and perspective of John Pilger with that of John Burns from the New York Times – the former often disregarded as ‘left wing’ and the latter widely regarded as a trusted and objective mainstream voice.

In a recent discussion with other journalism professors, I suggested that mainstream journalists have failed to grasp the depth of the crises — cultural and political, economic and ecological — that the United States and modern industrial society face, and hence are failing in their fundamental task in a democratic society, the work of monitoring the centers of power.

A colleague acknowledged the importance of such issues, but said that university schools of journalism don’t teach “advocacy journalism” or promote the idea of “the journalist as activist.”

This advocacy/activist tag is often applied to journalists who don’t accept the conventional wisdom of the powerful and dare to challenge the more basic frameworks within which news is reported. The idea seems to be that anyone who doesn’t fall in line with the worldview of the powerful people and institutions in society is not “objective,” and therefore must be motivated not by a principled search for truth but some pre-determined political agenda.

But the crucial distinction is not between “objective” and “advocacy/activist” journalists but (1) between propagandists and journalists, and then (2) between journalists who do the job well and those who do it poorly. If there is a label we might valorize, it should be “independent” — we need journalists who are independent not only from the powerful but also from any political movements.

While this may seem to be a hyper-sensitivity about terminology, an examination of these labels can help us understand both the problems with, and possibilities of, contemporary journalism.

The term advocacy journalism typically is used to describe the use of techniques to promote a specific political or social cause. The term is potentially meaningful only in opposition to a category of journalism that does not engage in advocacy, so-called objective journalism.

This distinction is a focus of attention most intensely in the United States, especially in the last half of the 20th century; use of these terms does not necessarily translate for other political landscapes, though U.S. (and more generally Western) models are becoming dominant. In Western Europe, some newspapers have long identified openly with a political position, even though journalists from those papers are considered professionals not typically engaged in advocacy. For example, in Italy Il Manifesto identifies itself as a communist newspaper philosophically but does not associate with any party and operates as a workers’ cooperative. In the nations of the Third World that became independent since World War II, journalism typically was part of freedom movements inherently in support of liberation from colonialism. Many independent publications retain that opposition to entrenched power, such as The Hindu in India.

The press in the United States, which was distinctly partisan well into the 19th century, developed objectivity norms that now define the practices of corporate-commercial news media. Many journalists found (and find) those norms constraining, and in the political fervor of the 1960s and 1970s, advocacy journalism emerged with counterculture and revolutionary political activity. Other terms used for practice outside the mainstream include alternative, gonzo, or new journalism. Within those forms, journalists may openly identify with a group or movement or remain independent while adopting similar values and political positions.

This advocacy-objectivity dichotomy springs from political theory that asserts a special role for journalists in complex democratic societies. Journalists’ claims to credibility are based in an assertion of neutrality. They argue for public trust by basing their report of facts, analysis, and opinion on rigorous information gathering. Professional self-monitoring produces what journalists consider an unbiased account of reality, rather than a selective account reflecting a guiding political agenda.

At one level, the term advocacy might be useful in distinguishing, for example, journalistic efforts clearly serving a partisan agenda (such as a political party publication) from those officially serving non-partisan ends (such as a commercial newspaper). But the distinction is not really between forms of journalism as much as between persuasion and journalism. Although so-called objective journalism assumes that, as a rule, disinterested observers tend to produce more reliable reports, a publication advocating a cause might have more accurate information and compelling analysis than a non-partisan one. The intentions of those writing and editing the publication are the key distinguishing factor.

More complex is categorizing different approaches to journalism by those not in the direct service of an organization or movement. Can those who advocate a particular philosophical or political perspective — but remain independent of a partisan group — produce journalism that the general public can trust?

An extended example is helpful here. In general usage, freelance reporter John Pilger (Australian born, now living in the United Kingdom) could be considered an advocacy journalist, and New York Times reporter, John Burns, an objective journalist. Both are experienced and hard-working, with a sophisticated grasp of world affairs, and both have reported extensively about Iraq. Pilger primarily writes for newspapers and magazines in England but has a large following in the United States, and he also is a documentary filmmaker. Burns writes almost exclusively for the Times but also gives frequent interviews on television and radio programs about his reporting. Anti-war and anti-empire groups circulate Pilger’s reports and screen his documentaries, but he, like Burns, describes himself as an independent journalist and rejects affiliations with any political groups.

Pilger is, however, openly critical of U.S. and U.K. policies toward Iraq, including unambiguous denunciations of the self-interested motivations and criminal consequences of state policies. His reporting leads him not only to describe these policies but to offer an analysis that directly challenges the framework of the powerful. Burns, in contrast, avoids such assessments, not only in news reports but also in articles labeled analysis . His reporting tends to accept the framework of the powers promoting these policies, and his criticism tends to question their strategy and tactics, not their basic motivations. In some sense, both journalists advocate for a particular view of state power and how it operates in the areas they cover. Both have reputations for accurately reporting; the difference resides in their interpretations. The language of mainstream journalism would see Burns as objective but not Pilger.

The example illustrates the limits of conceptions of journalism as practiced in the media industries, especially those under corporate commercial control. All reporters use a framework of analysis to understand the world and report on it. But reporting containing open references to underlying political assumptions and conclusions seems to engage in advocacy, while the more conventional approach appears neutral. Both are independent, in the sense of not being directed by a party or movement, but neither approach is in fact neutral. One explicitly endorses a political perspective critical of the powerful, while implicitly reinforcing the political perspective of the elite.

Accounts of the world, including journalistic ones, must begin from some assumptions about the way the world works. None is neutral. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing we can know or trust about the world, or that journalists can’t offer us reliable information. It simply means that those who report from the conventional wisdom are not exempt from the questions about perspective.

Readers should keep that in mind. So should journalists.

4th July 2007

Robert Jensen is Associate Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. Formerly a journalist himself, Jensen is a regular contributor to the Znet Commentaries and has published a number of books including “Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity” (City Lights, 2004) and “Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream” (Peter Lang, 2001). His latest book is concerned with pornography “Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity” (South End Press, 2007).

More about Robert Jensen here:
http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/index.html

On the Message Board

July 1, 2007Commentmediabite

The Irish Examiner recently relayed the thoughts of US senator Joseph Lieberman who favours military action against Iran in order to force them to ‘play by the rules’. We wrote in response:

Dear Tim, [Tim Vaughan, Editor, Irish Examiner]

We write to enquire about a recent unattributed report in the Irish Examiner concerning Joseph Liebermann’s recommendation that the US should use military ‘force’ against Iran in response to the unsubstantiated allegations of support for Iraqi insurgents. (Irish Examiner, Monday June 11th)

We notice that your reporter quotes exclusively from Mr Liebermann’s statement as if to attach a value of truth to the comments. Why was there no attempt to put Mr. Liebermann’s statement in context?

Mr. Lieberman’s ironic reference to ‘the international rule of law’ should have offered the perfect opportunity to question the legality of a military resolution to a fabricated threat – not least because Mr. Liberman is the Democrat’s most prominent defender of the Republican’s ‘interventionist’ policies; policies referred to as illegal by the UN’s Kofi Annan.

The effect of this one-sided report is to imply that what Mr Liebermann says is factual – even though these allegations have not been demonstrated to be true. This could be referred to as propaganda.

With best wishes

David Manning &
Miriam Cotton [Email, 28th June 2007] [1]
An article in the 26th June edition of the Irish Examiner detailed Israel’s announced ‘gesture of good will towards the Palestinians’, the release of 250 Fatah prisoners:

“The Arabs and Palestinians are pressing Israel to take immediate advantage of the Hamas militants’ expulsion from the coalition government and make quick peace progress despite the Palestinians’ split between a Gaza ruled by the Iranian-backed Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank run by Mr Abbas’ Western-backed Fatah in the West Bank.”

We wrote to the author the same day:

Dear Nadia

In your article you refer to “the Hamas militants expulsion from the coalition government.” This statement is misleading. As with Fatah, Hamas have both militant and political sides. It was Hamas, the democratically elected political group, that have been forced from government. In elections last year, Hamas won an outright majority of the votes and 76 of the 136 seats in their parliament.

Since the election Israel and the US have been doing everything possible to bring about the current crisis. In our latest media shot we have quoted The New York Times which reported that:

“Since the election victory of Hamas in January 2006, the United States and Israel have worked to isolate and damage Hamas and build up Fatah with recognition and weaponry.”

This economic violence was a precursor to Hamas’ military violence, which was in itself a response to the real threat of a US-backed Fatah coup. Hamas cannot be excused for it’s recent violence, but would any other democratically elected government allow foreign forces to undermine its democratic mandate in favour of a group widely regarded as corrupt and incompetent?

Why does your article accept the legitimacy of the new Palestinian Authority – imposed on Palestinians, without question?

Yours sincerely
Miriam Cotton &
David Manning

The Enemy Without – Palestine and Democracy

June 21, 2007Analysismediabite

“The chances of democratic progress in the broader Middle East have seemed frozen in place for decades. Yet, at last, clearly and suddenly, the thaw has begun.” [President George W Bush, The Washington Post, March 9, 2005] [1]

Following democratic elections of varying degrees of freeness and fairness across the Middle East in 2005 President Bush uttered these less than immortal words. He explained that “the advance of democracy leads to peace because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbours.” [Ibid]

And so it was, the Middle East had embraced democracy, following wars and insurrections, “some largely outside Bush’s control.” The thaw we had all been waiting for, the magical birth of democracies, repeatedly and irritatingly prophesised by the Western interventionists had now arrived. Democracy, not only a buzz word used by leaders, but a concept held dearly where it is practised, was now a tangible entity in the Middle East. [Ibid]

The problem with democracy

In late 2005 following local elections hailed as ‘a great day for democracy’ President Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat’s successor, called parliamentary elections in occupied Palestine. The two main parties of Fatah and Hamas competed in what was described as free and fair elections: [2]

“A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a statement congratulating President Abbas and the Palestinian people on the peaceful and orderly conduct of their legislative elections, which he called “an important step toward the achievement of a Palestinian State.” [3]

“The Quartet [the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations] consulted today on the Palestinian Legislative Council elections. It congratulates President Abbas and the Palestinian people on an electoral process that was free, fair and secure. The Quartet calls on all parties to respect the results of the election and the outcome of the Palestinian constitutional process so that it may unfold in an atmosphere of calm and security.” [4]

On January 27th 2006 the Irish Times reported of a “spectacular landslide victory”; Hamas had taken a majority of seats and thus assumed control of the parliament. The Palestinian people had overturned decades of Fatah rule, in what was generally regarded as punishment for endemic corruption, political deadlock and detrimental collusion with Western powers; and thus re-structured an “Authority [which had become] a byword for brutality, autocracy and unimaginable corruption.” The people had spoken, democracy in all its imperfect glory had appeared, and it would leave a bitter taste in both Washington and Tel Aviv. [5] [6]

The following day the Irish Times’ Roula Khalaf and William Wallis wrote, as if to pre-empt Washington’s ironic but inevitable dissatisfaction, to suggest a re-think on the behalf of the great democrats; “Faced with these results, some Arab governments, and even liberal intellectuals, have been arguing that the US should now reconsider its approach to democracy in the Arab world.” [7]

To no one’s surprise Washington took up this ‘new’ challenge and set about emboldening the defeated Fatah, both politically and militarily. The New York Times explained as follows: “Since the election victory of Hamas in January 2006, the United States and Israel have worked to isolate and damage Hamas and build up Fatah with recognition and weaponry.” The isolation facet of the US’ ‘reconsidered approach’ to democracy, aimed at undermining political Hamas by targeting their support base, the Palestinian people, proved expectedly destructive: [8]

“Oxfam said in a report that the year-long boycott of the Hamas-led government has seen poverty levels rise by 30% while basic services faced a meltdown.” [9]

The dissatisfaction of Fatah, and the international communities refusal to engage with Hamas set the two parties for an inevitable clash, and following months of conflict, events culminated in the past weeks with the opposing political parties and their associated militant wings, now formed into a ham fisted coalition, violently colliding. Hamas the democratically elected government won control of Gaza, and Fatah, the opposition party, claimed control of the West Bank; two parts of the one, divided by 45 km of Israel.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, declared a ‘state of emergency’ and dissolved the Hamas-led government, installing a Fatah-led government in its stead. Western powers soon arrived to pledge their support for this newly established government, and vowed to reinstate aid programs, previously withheld under Hamas. The dominant media followed suit, almost immediately adopting the Fatah declaration and began referring to the Hamas government in the past tense, despite valid questions as to the President’s authority to remove an elected government or install an unelected one.*

“[A]id, which was suspended from the Hamas led government.” [RTE Six One News, June 17, 2007] [10]

“Ismail Hamis, who was prime minister of the Hamas led government, has reiterated that Hamas does not want to run a separate state in Gaza.” [RTE Six One News, June 17, 2007] [10]

As if it fell right from their heads

We recently spoke to Fintan O’Toole, Assistant Editor at the Irish Times, about the ways in which discourse in the media evolves. He noted:

“It’s a strange thing about political and media discourse; There is a kind of a symbiotic relationship here, whereby the politicians don’t raise it as an issue, the media then don’t put it up as an issue to be addressed, and it forms a closed circle. The politicians say no one is talking about this, so it’s not important, the media don’t mention it because it is not on the political agenda and so on. So you get a very closed world, it’s not a conspiracy; it’s the way this kind of discourse works.” [11]

So it seems this is the case here too. Western leaders have concluded that the democracy Palestinians want does not serve Western and therefore, given their reliance on foreign aid, Palestinian interests. The word ‘democracy’ is then hastily removed from political discourse. And the dominant media, as though also dissatisfied with the route democracy has taken, or simply unconsciously internalising the rhetoric of the West’s powerful, shun the word so cringingly often on the lips of those in the media spotlight. ‘Democracy’, one of the two words (the other being ‘terrorism’) that even the most casual media consumer could not have escaped from over the last years, has simply fallen right from their heads.

We wrote to the Irish Times, for one, to highlight this obvious omission:

Dear Geraldine Kennedy [Irish Times Editor],

In all of the Irish Times’ coverage of the latest developments from occupied Palestine over the last week, there has been no reference to Hamas’ democratic credentials.

In each article they are described as either ‘Islamist’, ‘extremist’, ‘violent’ or ‘militant’; in some cases all of the above. They are then sparingly referred to as ‘elected’; yet no where is the value laden term ‘democracy’ mentioned.

A search of the Irish Times archive returns 386 articles over the last 180 days mentioning ‘democracy’. But while the interventionists partly responsible for the Hamas victory have been proclaiming a democratic agenda in the Middle East over the last years, no reference is made to this unwanted democracy. Is this a notable oversight?

Yours sincerely,

David Manning and Miriam Cotton [Email, June 21, 2007]

That the media has adapted to this complete reversal of rhetoric so quickly is testament to two things, firstly its ability to regurgitate ‘official’ statements and secondly its inability to question the illogical frames defined by these powers.

The Enemy Within

The recent violence was described as ‘infighting’ – and it clearly was, two factions fighting for control of two beleaguered patches of land, and one people. But it is too simple, and disingenuously so, to leave it at that. The violence that consumes Palestine does not exist in isolation; the reasons why the Palestinian people voted for a party such as Hamas did not originate within its ever shrinking borders; they have more to do with Israel’s brutal occupation and the West’s ‘unilateral blockade’, than the failures of Fatah and the sheer independent obstinacy of choosing to elect a party so diametrically opposed to the Western preference. [12]

Earlier this year Irish Times journalist Paul Gillespie drew an obvious conclusion from the US political scientists, Edward Mansfield and Jack Snyder’s study, ‘Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War’:

“The political lessons to be drawn from all this are plain. Democracy cannot be imposed without a huge commitment to build the civil society on which it needs to be based.” [13]

And yet in Palestine we have unavoidable proof that those interventionist leaders shouting democracy from every band stand and aircraft carrier have little intention of committing themselves to even basic humanitarian aid let alone to the construction of civil society, where unwanted democracy exists. That their opinions are still entertained as truth is to continually re-establish the actual meaning of ‘democracy’. That President Bush can on one day say, “For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy,” and the ‘next’, “he hoped Mr Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad ‘will be strengthened to the point where they can lead the Palestinians in a different direction,’” without so much as finger raised in valid objection flies in the face of every corporate pledge to uphold ‘fairness and accuracy’. [14] [15]

The result being that the complex, but strikingly obvious evidence of the situation is so easily lost in the dominant media’s daily editorials and reports. For instance the primary editorial on the issue from Ireland’s most influential broadsheet, The Irish Times, summarised as follows:

“In the longer term it seems tragically inevitable now that if any kind of a peace process is to re-emerge it will be on twin tracks at completely different speeds. And with two Palestinian entities singing off different hymn sheets the Palestinian case for a two-state solution is fatally undermined. For the majority of Palestinians that reality represents a desperate self-inflicted wound that sets their cause back many years.” [16]

The ‘bought priesthood’

Noam Chomsky observed of the notion ‘bringing democracy’ as it might apply to Eastern Europe:

“One intriguing illustration of the state of the intellectual culture and its prevailing values is the commentary on the difficult problems we face in uplifting the people of Eastern Europe, now at last liberated, so that we can extend to them the loving care we have lavished on our wards elsewhere for several hundred years. The consequences seem rather clear in an impressive array of horror chambers around the world, but miraculously – and most fortunately – they teach no lessons about the values of our civilisation and the principles that guide its noble leaders; only ‘anti-Americans’ and their ilk could be so demented as to suggest that the consistent record of history might merit a side glance, perhaps. Now there are new opportunities for our beneficence. We can help the people released from Communist tyranny to reach, or at least approach, the blessed state of Bengalis, Haitians, Brazilians, Guatemalans, Filipinos, indigenous peoples everywhere, Africa slaves, and on, and on.” [17]

Palestine should heed Chomsky’s words. It must learn exactly what type of democracy to inflict on itself to suit the western perspective. It is very simple – only when it ends up looking like a member of the chamber of horrors club – complete with a suitably pliant puppet government, preferably corrupt, will we smile warmly and offer paternal approval. Then ‘the lies…can be quietly shelved: terror and economic warfare have always been an attempt to bring democracy, in the revised, standard version.’ [Ibid]. And the bought priesthood that is western political commentary will have played its now customary role in heralding in the bright new Palestinian spring thaw.

Suggested Action

Please write to the Irish Times and RTE to ask they address these important issues:

Complaints, RTE complaints@rte.ie

Michael Good, RTE News Editor Michael.Good@rte.ie

Letters to the Editor, The Irish Times lettersed@irish-times.ie

Geraldine Kennedy, Irish Times Editor gkennedy@irish-times.ie edsoffice@irish-times.ie

Fintan O’Toole, Irish Times Assistant Editor fotoole@irish-times.ie

MediaBite supports an open and constructive debate with the media and individual journalists, please ensure all correspondence is polite. Please copy all emails to editors@mediabite.org.

* In December 2006 the Guardian reported that “Palestinian electoral law gives the President responsibility for key powers relating to elections, including the declaration of the date for general elections.” However “A Hamas legislator, Mushir al-Masri, said Hamas considers early elections illegal, and independent experts say disbanding the government would put Abbas on shaky legal ground.” Whether the President has the authority to disband the elected government and install an emergency government is not clear, and remains unquestioned. [18] [19]

** The Irish Independent online referred to the elections won by Hamas as democratic once on the 18/06/07: “the militant Hamas-led government, which came to power 18 months ago in democratic elections.” [20]

1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16510-2005Mar8.html
2. http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1215/mideast.html
3. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10324.doc.htm
4. http://www.un.org/news/dh/infocus/middle_east/quartet-26jan2006.htm
5. http://www.counterpunch.org/said0617.html
6. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/0127/1137626807906.html
7. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/0127/1137626807914.html
8. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?
partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
9. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0414/mideast.html
10. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0617/6news.html
11. http://www.mediabite.org/article_The-Corporate-Media—
Part-1_474268952.html
12. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20040330.htm
13. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2006/0114/
1840233079OP14WVIEW.html
14. http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0619/mideast.html
15. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
16. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2007/0616/1181771179883.html
17. From Chomsky’s essay ‘Goals and visions’, 1996, Chomsky on Anarchism AK Press 2005 and in a section of the essay headed ‘The New Spirit of the Age’.
18. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1973772,00.html
19. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1872312006
20. http://www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/west-rallies-round-
abbas-as-rivals-vie-for-legitimacy-704474.html

On the Message Board

June 16, 2007Commentmediabite

On Wednesday The Irish Times revealed it’s editorial position on ‘the Corrib Project’:

“There are among the protesters a core who will settle for nothing less than the abandonment of the Corrib gas project. This is not in the national interest and would have potentially far-reaching implications for the rule of law. For these protesters whose views were not endorsed at the general election, all efforts at mediation and compromise are rejected in favour of continuing agitation, pushed to the limit of what is legitimate in a democracy” [1]

We responded the next day:

Dear Geraldine Kennedy,

Wednesday’s (13/06/07) anonymous editorial ‘The Corrib Project’ proved revealing in it’s frank summation of The Irish Times’, until now, somewhat veiled position on Shell’s proposed profiteering of Ireland ‘s natural gas.

In sharp contrast to the commendable professionalism of Lorna Siggins, the anonymous author plumbed the depths of caustic humour in an effort to turn the table of uncompromising, previously held by Shell, over to the protestors. The weapon used for this attack of ridicule, a toilet, elsewhere more plausibly referred to as a security cabin, proved an effective implement. In exposing the protestor’s intransigent position on this one particular issue, the placing of a ‘toilet’, albeit via un-permitted access through private land, the author felt confident enough to declare: “a sense of proportion has long vanished from this entire saga.”

Who could disagree? Shell and it’s partners stand to reap enumerable billions through their exploitation of the Corrib gas field, and contrary to the anonymous authors claim, they have no reason to serve our ‘national interest’. That Shell are only now, after years of inflexibility, considering alternative routes that would be “”safe” and “further away” from housing” is a testament to the fact this editorial hits far from the mark. That this is the reality of the saga and the ‘newspaper of record’ chooses to forgo it’s influential position as an opinion shaper, instead opting for toilet humour, is evidence enough – the sense of proportion has long since vanished.

Yours sincerely,

David Manning
Also on the Message Board:

Discussion with the authors of the critique of the John’s Hopkins study into conflict mortality in Iraq.

http://www.mediabite.org/messageboard.html

1. http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2007/0613/1181302058974.html

The Corporate Media – Part 2

May 30, 2007Interviewsmediabite

An Interview with Fintan O’ Toole, Assistant Editor at the Irish Times

In the first part of our interview with Fintan O’Toole, he traced his career in journalism and the major influences on it, while locating those factors within the wider context of developments that have propelled our news media into its current form and function. Below, in the second part of the interview, O’Toole gives an in-depth assessment of the editorial ethos of mainstream news reporting – with reference to The Irish Times in particular.

MB – Going back to what you were saying about the corporate nature of the media and the need to provide for advertisers, and in the context of a statement from the Editor which says that the Irish Times should lead and shape public opinion, is it just through gaps in the circle of political and media discourse that journalists are to lead and shape this opinion. How does this concept work in reality?

FT – Well as I remember it, that quote from Geraldine Kennedy is part of a broader thing about what the Irish Times does. The context of it is in terms of talking about fairness and objectivity and indolence. I think it would be wrong to read it as we have an agenda etc. I also think in terms of the context it is quite an important thing to say, as it spells out quite upfront that the media do lead and shape public opinion. Why is anyone interested in this type of discourse if you don’t think you’re helping in some way to shape public opinion? One would hope public opinion isn’t shaped in any sort of crude or direct way. There is a broad debate going on around Irish society. I think it absolutely valid for a newspaper to state this is what we do in the context of the Irish Times. It is saying we have the capacity to be a campaigning newspaper as well as just simply engaging in some kind of narrow reportage. I think that is very important, and it is a progressive statement about what a media outlet can do. The idea of a newspaper having values seems to me very important to hold on to.

What I believe Geraldine was trying to communicate in that was that there is a distinction between reporting and opinion. In the way you report you try to be as accurate and balanced and as fair as you possibly can. You try to give both sides of the story; you try to give the reader a useful and accurate summary of what has actually happened. We are all aware that the news agenda needs to be questioned, the selection of stories, the selection of values etc. But you can’t throw out the baby with the bath water – since it’s all so obviously compromised, it’s a method of maintaining the decent values of journalism. I do think the Irish Times tries to do that.

Continue reading The Corporate Media – Part 2 →

The Corporate Media – Part 1

May 29, 2007Interviewsmediabite

An interview with Fintan O’Toole, Assistant Editor at the Irish Times

Earlier this year we spoke at length to leading writer, columnist and Assistant Editor at The Irish Times, Fintan O’Toole. O’Toole recently returned from China from where he reported on many facets of life within the emerging capitalist heavyweight, describing both its beauty spots and open sores. He depicted a situation sometimes far removed from the dream market frequently referred to on the financial pages as ‘open for business’. [1] He writes that while “China shows unequivocally that global capitalism increases wealth… China also shows unequivocally that, left to itself, global capitalism increases inequality.” [2] O’ Toole is also the author of a number of books including ‘Post Washington: Why America Can’t Rule the World’ and he sits as Chair on the Advisory board of TASC, ‘a think tank for action on social change’. With over 20 years experience working within the dominant media he is well placed to define the medium and its abilities and limitations – though some might discern a slight rose tint to the picture he paints, in places. Fintan O’Toole is one of the most prominent representatives of ‘the left’ in mainstream Irish journalism and is frequently heavily criticised for his troubles. As discussed in our interview with Noam Chomsky, again, the label ‘anti-American’ is seen fit to pin on him. [3]

Much of what is covered in the following interview will do little to reassure those who have lost faith in the ability of a medium beholden to corporate structures and external dependencies. The impression is of a closed circle of elites pampering other elites, while capitalism’s advertising-dependent media has it’s freedom “inevitably and inescapably circumscribed.” [4] There are some mitigating factors and Fintan O’Toole stresses that it is not a ‘crude’ formula. The Irish Times Trust, for one, makes the news outlet unique where Irish media ownership is concerned in that it has no shareholders – but this has it’s advantages and disadvantages. Fintan O’Toole gives a fascinating account of his experience of the Irish media and makes many illuminating observations about the way mainstream media works. We are grateful to him for the time and consideration he has given to the issues that we aim to promote for debate.

Continue reading The Corporate Media – Part 1 →

On the Media, Anti-Americanism and Disparity

May 3, 2007Interviewsmediabite

An Interview with Noam Chomsky

Professor Noam Chomsky has been voted the world’s leading public intellectual and is probably the most famous critic of US foreign policy alive. His books have been recommended by everyone from revolutionary Latin American leaders to school teachers. And he argues his point of view with an eloquence and rationality that makes it difficult to reconcile the inhospitable reception he often receives in the mainstream corporate media.

Professor Chomsky visited Ireland last year to speak at the Amnesty International Annual Lecture, he also gave a number of lectures in University College Dublin on, among other things, ‘democracy promotion’. The mainstream media’s coverage of his visit was both critical and supportive. RTE’s coverage was ‘balanced’ in that while they introduced him as a leading intellectual, they also spent a substantial amount of the introduction to an interview with Professor Chomsky attempting to debunk one of his more contentious statements – that the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 “was not undertaken in response to the crimes, but rather precipitated the crimes, exactly as was anticipated.” And in response to the positive comments of Michael D Higgins and David Begg, RTE offered Mark Dooley of the Sunday Independent who summarised his work as a “forty year campaign in favour of Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosevic and Osama Bin Laden… an apologist for terror and tyranny without rival.”

Mark Little’s openly hostile interview that followed began poorly, with Little spending the first few of his 15 minute interview badgering Chomsky in the hope he would label Taoiseach Bertie Ahern a war criminal. It was unacceptable in Little’s eyes for Professor Chomsky to simply state his position as that concluded by the Nuremberg Trials – that the invasion of a foreign country is the supreme international crime, which encompasses within it all the evils that follow. It was up to the individual person to decide whether the Irish government’s support for the invasion of Iraq deemed the Taosieach a war criminal. The remainder of the interview was similarly inimical.

Continue reading On the Media, Anti-Americanism and Disparity →

From Rhetoric to Reality

April 15, 2007Analysismediabite

“Ideally, the media guard the public against abuses of power. It’s not so clear how to guard against the power that the media themselves acquire.” [1] [Paul Starr, ‘Check and Balance’, the American Prospect 29/06/04]

The mainstream corporate media is without doubt the dominant source of information on current ‘newsworthy’ events. These corporate entities reach into almost every corner of every living room; they leave their impression on every coffee table and commuter carriage floor. But while they effectively shape our vision of the world, our influence on them remains marginal. We ‘control’ them through exercising ‘consumer choice’.

This ‘freedom of consumer choice’ must be carefully distinguished from ‘consumer sovereignty’, as Edward Herman noted:

“This distinction between sovereignty and free choice has important applications in both national politics and the mass media. In each case, the general population has some kind of free choice, but lacks sovereignty. The public goes to the polls every few years to pull a lever for slates of candidates chosen for them by political parties heavily dependent on funding by powerful elite interests. The public has “freedom of choice” only among a very restricted set of what we might call “effective” candidates, effectiveness being defined by their ability to attract the funding necessary to make a credible showing.” [2]

Increased ‘choice’ brings other pitfalls; as the consumer effects ‘specialisation’ in the media it allows those that feed on the media’s commodity to hone their target markets. Media adaptation to consumer wants produces a more effective platform for advertising, allowing the corporation more efficient access to those living room corners it seeks:

“Currently, advertisers are obliged to adopt something of a scattergun approach on television, which is not forced upon them in press advertising, where they have access to the detailed readership profiles of, for example, the NRS. Increased consumer choice in the television market is likely to lead to the development (which has in fact already begun) of narrowcasting, rather than broadcasting, which would allow advertisers to target their audiences more accurately.” [3]

Unfortunately for the news reader, the ‘credible mechanism for informing the public’ as it exists is increasingly appearing merely an amplifier for selective government rhetoric. This repetition of ‘authoritative’ rhetoric precipitates a mantra through the narrow frame of debate; a conscious echo of either dominant myths or what Basil Clarke would have referred to as verisimilitude*, which is then repeated ad nauseam. Until, in effect, the rhetoric of power becomes reality.

“For months a fierce debate has raged in the international community about engaging with Tehran over Iraq and about how to prevail on it to curtail its nuclear weapons programme.” [Anonymous editorial, ‘Iran needs to rethink tactics’, The Irish Times] [4]

“A military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons programme would have the effect of accelerating the Islamic republic’s production of prototype warheads, according to a report by a leading British think-tank.” [5] [Tim Butcher, ‘Air strikes ‘would speed nuclear plans”, The Irish Independent]

With this sort of entrenched bias penetrating the long considered bastions of the free press, the liberal broadsheets, consumer choice is unlikely to be an effective weapon against the power of the dominant corporate media.

A prescribed mantra

In our MediaShot ‘The authorities on criminality – The West vs Iran’ we discussed the repeated misrepresentations of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, specifically his much hyped, and arguably invented, threat to ‘wipe out’ Israel. Unfortunately, this distortion does not exist in isolation. The dominant media have consumed and regurgitated many more ‘official’ accounts, which are now, as the above example shows being passed off as fact. [6]

We wrote to the Irish Times Editor, Geraldine Kennedy, and Tim Butcher of the Irish Independent in response to the above articles:

Madam,

In an otherwise astute editorial [‘Iran needs to rethink tactics’, 31/03/07] seeking to expose the weakness behind Iran’s current position at the table of international diplomacy, the writer makes a seemingly intentional deceit. The writer infers that Iran’s civilian nuclear programme is in fact a ‘nuclear weapons programme’. How does this disinformation serve the interests of diplomacy?

In actuality Iran’s nuclear programme remains well within the rights afforded to it under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). The allegations of a covert weapons programme come from a number of governments, two of which, according to former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, illegally invaded Iran’s neighbour in 2003. And ironically, as reported by Lara Marlowe in February, one of those governments is in the process of updating their nuclear ‘defence’ system at a cost of £100 billion, in contradiction to their responsibilities under the NPT: “[Parties to the Treaty] Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”

The Irish Times has a duty to remain conscious of the dangers of disseminating ‘official’ propaganda at a time when international ‘diplomacy’ is appearing more and more likely a precursor to war.

Yours sincerely,

David Manning [An edited version of this letter appeared on the Irish Times letters page, 3/04/07] [7]

Dear Mr. Butcher,

In your report of March 5th ‘Air strikes ‘would speed nuclear plans” you referred to Iran’s nuclear programme as a nuclear weapons programme.

What evidence did you use to support this assertion?

At present I am aware of no credible evidence to support this contention, and the allegation, generally made by the US and UK governments, appears based on suspicions. If it is the case you were simply reporting a hypothetical scenario then I think it would be only fair to make this clear to your readers.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

David Manning

These editorial ‘slips’ on their own evidence little about the wider context of the dominant media’s characterisation of the Iran ‘crisis’. It could be assumed they exist simply as thoughtless typos, an elementary inverted comma deficiency. Alternatively, seen through the prism created by the corporate media, it may be yet another nail in Iran’s coffin.

Repetition, repetition, repetition

While much of the coverage of the Middle East is focused by the perspective of ‘Western’ leaders, there are certain columnists who deserve special mention for ‘courageously’ throwing all claims to impartiality out the window and jumping straight into bed with the ‘official’ spokesperson. One particular mention should go to the penman/woman of ‘Oh, for the good old days of gunboat diplomacy’, an anonymous feature in the April 2^nd edition of the Irish Independent. [8]

It is almost incalculable the extent to which this one article managed to push back the progress of journalistic standards and ethics. The writer began with the suggestion that the sight of captured British sailor, and Iraq occupier, “Faye Turney being paraded in front of Iranian national television cameras” was the most “hear[t]-rending picture on our screens in recent years.” He/she went on to explain that the ‘forced’ wearing of the veil was “from the perpetrators’ point of view, as intimate a violation of her individual rights as rape.” And that many Muslims now believed her converted to their “perverted faith.” Of course there were also a number of references to Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons, but this has become the norm, a required framing device for the ‘ignorant’ consumer.

Incredulously the writer then asked: “Now, ask yourself – can you imagine the outcry if a Western, Christian leader led his congregation in prayers calling for the murder of two Muslim leaders?”

Showing both an absolute disregard for reason, balance and current and historical context the writer managed to insult over one billion people and brush over years of ‘diplomatic pressure’. Though the writer’s anger towards the veil was not shared by everyone at the Independent; upon the release of the British soldiers Angus McDowall wrote: “Faye Turney was dressed like an uptown Tehran girl in blue jeans and a striped pink top.”

Needless to say the article contained nothing of worth, what was omitted is of far more consequence. And to answer the ‘hypothetical’ question; the outcry is being played out in Iraq between resistance fighters, militants, occupation forces and civilians caught in the middle. If we are to recognise the historical precedent, it may well play out in Iran in the near future if a certain Western Christian leader is to be believed: “US President George W Bush says all options, including the use of force, are “on the table” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.” [9] [10]

Fortunately for the writer of this feature article, he/she can take solace in the fact he/she is not alone, the dominant media can be an accommodating place for those that are more than happy to toe the ‘party line’.

The end of ‘diplomacy’

Following the release of those soldiers captured in the disputed territorial waters, the British government set about reclaiming the PR ground lost during the negotiations. The offense was now clear to slip back into the realm of the unsubstantiated, given Iran had no longer the bargaining chips.

The Irish Times reported on the 5th April of four British soldiers killed in southern Iraq:

“British Prime Minister Tony Blair has accused elements in the Iranian regime of “financing, arming and supporting” terrorist attacks on UK forces in Iraq as four more British troops were killed in a roadside bomb attack. While Mr Blair acknowledged that it was premature to link Iran to the latest attack, he said it was clear that sources in the country had been involved in previous such incidents.” [11]

The Irish Independent followed suit on the 6th:

“Mr Blair raised the possibility that elements linked to Iran might have been behind the ambush, which he called “a terrorist act”, but he added that it was too early to make a specific allegation against Tehran.” [12]

And again on the 6th the Irish Times reiterated the Prime Minister’s claims:

“Britain’s relief at the sailor’s safe return was tempered by bad news from Iraq where four British soldiers were killed by the sort of roadside explosive device which London has in the past said were being smuggled over the border from Iran.” [13]

At no point did these articles raise the specter of possibility that what Mr. Blair was saying was without foundation, that they were obediently repeating propaganda. Which is surprising, given the Irish Times expressed some reservations as to the veracity of these same claims only two months ago:

“Reporters who attended the Baghdad briefing expressed scepticism about the US claims, noting that no diplomats or Central Intelligence Agency officials were present. Others questioned why the authorities were making the claims now, more than two years after the first EFPs with Iranian markings were discovered.” [14] [Denis Staunton, ‘Iran rejects US allegations that it is arming Iraqi Shias’]

“Despite the briefing, the senior defence analyst said there was no “smoking gun” linking Tehran and Iraqi militants, and Iraqi smugglers were bringing in the components.” [15] [Ibon Villelabeitia, ‘Iranian weapons killed 170 troops, officials claim’]

These reservations were pertinent given that the US military were unable to draw any confident links to the Iranian government from the evidence they were willing to provide at their press conference in early February, which promised much and delivered little. In fact the conference posed more questions than it could answer; Milan Rai compiled a list of these questions in ‘IED Lies’, including one that garnered little attention when it was revealed and still goes neglected by UK officials: “Is it true that light trigger technologies being used by Iraqi insurgents can be traced back to technology that British intelligence allowed the IRA to acquire in the late 1990s?” [16]

UK based media monitoring organisation Media Lens have questioned this contradiction of rhetoric and reality in the UK media. They wrote to a number of British journalists, one of them, the BBC’s Newsnight Political Editor Mark Urban gave this response to Media Lens’ question, “Do you know of any examples of the British army catching anyone ‘red-handed’ crossing the border with Iranian bombs?”:

“I was not suggesting the British had caught such a person, but that even if they did, this would not necessarily prove official Iranian complicity.” [17]

The BBC’s Jonathan Charles had this to say: “I agree that this is a smoke and mirrors area. I try to bear that in mind when giving more details in two-ways. The technology may be Iranian but that could cover a multitude of sins.” [Ibid]

Mr. Charles is correct, there is a form of illusion being created, and the magicians Bush and Blair have found in the corporate media a suitable Debbie to their Paul. As the smoke clears, the evidence becomes thinner and thinner. “Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Iraq’s insurgents are more likely just tapping a pool of common bomb-making technology, none of which requires special expertise. “There’s no evidence that these are supplied by Iran,” he said. “A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network. What works in one country gets known elsewhere.” [18] [‘Bombs in Iraq Getting More Sophisticated’, Fox News]

A US military spokesperson, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott Bleichwehl, said that US troops had “discovered a factory that produced “explosively formed penetrators” (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches.” [19] Which confirms Patrick Cockburn’s comments in the UK Independent:

“The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position four years ago. Then, President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.” [20] [Patrick Cockburn, ‘Washington accuses Tehran, and sets stage for a new confrontation,’ The Independent]

But Patrick Cockburn and a handful of other ‘campaigning journos’ describe a reality quite removed from the general repetition, repetition, repetition.

The failure of the ‘fourth estate’

“Where information is power, the power to decide who rules is best exercised by a well informed electorate. For the system to work with credibility, the mechanisms for informing the public cannot, by definition, be independent. Thus in successful democracies the function discharged by the media, while not enshrined in the structure of the State like parliament or the criminal justice system, comes close to them in importance.” [21] [The Fourth Estate, Irish Time editorial 3/05/07]

The above reflexive percept appeared in the pages of the Irish Times last year on World Press Freedom Day, an “occasion to inform the public of violations of the right to freedom of expression and as a reminder that many journalists brave death or jail to bring people their daily news.” [22]

The essential supposition of the article was that information must be regulated by a credible institution, and given the conduit for this opinion, the corporate sphere ‘obviously’ offers the most suitable medium. Therefore the check and balance of the state is regulated by the market, not the people. The article continued:

“A well equipped reporter with a satellite phone is virtually impossible for any regime to control.”

Yet, what we are regularly reading in the corporate press appears to contradict this defiance. A very palpable, perhaps unconscious, subordination to ‘official’ rhetoric is permeating through the regular diffusion of facts. The semantics of news reporting reveals a noticeable distortion that turns reasonable assumptions on their head. For instance, during the recent Iranian capture ‘crisis’ the United Nations opted for a measured official response, due to the complicated nature of the capture. Some diplomats questioned whether the Britons had been in Iranian waters, an uncertainty shared by former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray who pointed out that Iran and Iraq have never agreed a bilateral boundary in the Gulf. But this cautious approach was not appreciated by the Irish Independent, who saw it as an insult to Mr. Blair: “It was an unexpected affront to Mr Blair, who had told ITV News that he was stepping up the pressure on Iran.” [23] [24]

Other terms are less obviously biased and the difference is only apparent when compared to that used to describe the actions of ‘official enemies’. An anonymous Irish Times editorial discussed the Iranian capture of the British sailors:

“Conspicuously absent from this episode has been the escalatory policy towards Iran pursued by the Bush administration involving widening sanctions and a large-scale build-up of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. Neoconservative ideologues anxious to build up such pressure have been denied it by the release of the British personnel.”…“This can be explored without sacrificing the need to curtail any aggressive intent on Iran’s part.” [Anonymous editorial, ‘Engaging with Iran’, The Irish Times] [25]

On the one hand the coalition have been effecting an ‘escalatory policy’ and have shown a willingness to mount ‘pressure’ via methods as diverse as the arrest and detention of Iranian diplomats to the support of terrorist organisations within Iran. According to veteran reporter Seymour Hersh, in ‘the Redirection’, the US has implemented clandestine black-ops within Iran, perhaps funded through Saudi contacts. While ABC recently reported on US links to a Pakistani militant group operating within Iran, the Jundullah: [26] [27]

“A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.” [28]

On the other hand Iran has been pursuing their goals with ‘aggressive intent’ via methods such as capturing foreign soldiers gathering intelligence on the Iranian military, allegedly within Iranian territory.

The Captain of the crew captured by Iran, Chris Air, explained their role to Sky Correspondent Jonathan Samuels prior to the incident: “Basically we speak to the crew, find out if they have any problems, let them know we’re here to protect them, protect their fishing and stop any terrorism and piracy in the area,” he said. Secondly, it’s to gather int (intelligence). If they do have any information, because they’re here for days at a time, they can share it with us.” [29]

If anything, the ‘aggressive intent’ lies with the coalition that launched a war of aggression on Iran’s neighbour. Surely that is a concept not beyond the humble corporate journalist.

One of the apparent freedoms we enjoy as a democratic people is the privilege of a free press; we are told these institutions give us access to an unbiased account of the ebbs and flows of political developments. In this way the media perform as the check and balance of power, which helps prevent us from falling into authoritarian subordination. The consistent failure of the corporate press to resist ‘regime control’ can not but have a marked effect on how we perceive the world. As democratic citizens we have a duty to hold all centres of power to account, including the media.

Suggested Action

Please write to the Irish Independent and the Irish Times to ask they inject some reality into the rhetoric.

Gerald O’Regan, Editor g.oregan@unison.independent.ie

Letters to the Editor (The Irish Independent) independent.letters@unison.independent.ie

Geraldine Kennedy, Editor gkennedy@irish-times.ie edsoffice@irish-times.ie

Letters to the Editor (The Irish Times) lettersed@irish-times.ie

MediaBite supports an open and constructive debate with the media and individual journalists, please ensure all correspondence is polite. Please copy all emails to editors@mediabite.org.

* “Verisimilitude, a statement having the air of being true, while not, in fact, being so, was used by Clarke in order to deceive the assembled press correspondents.” [Extract from ‘The Origins and Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland 1920’, Brian P Murphy, Published by Aubane Historical Society and Spinwatch]

The Silencing of Public Radio

April 4, 2007Commentmediabite

Michael Cronin

First published in JMI – The Journal of Music in Ireland, November–December 2006 (visit http://www.thejmi.com)

‘The first language of this country is supposed to be Irish, but it’s not. It’s silence.’ Neil Belton, A Game with Sharpened Knives

In Neil Belton’s recent novel, the Austrian physicist Edwin Schrödinger, wintering out in wartime Ireland, finds that his Irish friend Sinéad is exercised not so much by the Irish ability to remember as to forget. If Sinéad were to find herself in contemporary Ireland she might find herself living through an Emergency of a different kind, literally driven to distraction by the cost of careless talk. The changes to the schedule of RTÉ Radio 1 with the expressed desire to expand ‘speech radio’ is in a sense the continued pursuit of silence by other means. The significance of these changes lies less in the loss of particular programmes (however regrettable) as in what it is telling us about the broadcasting culture of present-day Ireland.

In the mid-1960s less than a third of the 22 per cent of children who did the Leaving Certificate examination went on to university. By the beginning of the new century almost 60 per cent of Irish school-leavers went on to enter third-level education. For four decades there has been a continued and welcome rise in the educational attainments of the population. The country has never had such a large number of educated people and the figures continue to rise. Despite continued concerns over access, the government has welcomed this development as part of a larger commitment to transform Ireland into a ‘Knowledge Society’. Hundreds of millions of euro are to be spent on investment in research at third level in Ireland. So as the educational levels of the country are rising and we are being asked to become an active and integral part of an increasingly complex knowledge environment, what has been the response of the broadcaster funded by a population and governments that have placed such a premium on education and knowledge?

The most recent answer has been to make sure that programmes such Rattlebag and The Mystery Train, which require a sustained and informed attention to whole areas of cultural, aesthetic and intellectual practice, are removed from the airwaves. So in one of the many paradoxes of Irish life, as more and more public funds are being invested in formal education to make sure that we know more than our predecessors, other public funds are being directed to make sure that we have nothing like the same access as our forebears to knowledge about art, culture and different areas of human enquiry. As the people become more educated, it becomes less popular to take their education seriously.

For this is one of the core truths of the managerial elitism that masquerades as populism in public-service broadcasting in Ireland: the more you talk about the people, the less you want to know about what they might want to know. When Ana Leddy, the new Head of RTÉ Radio 1, says that ‘what I do is try to create public-service broadcasting with a populist edge’ and goes on to say that, ‘We’re really privileged here that RTÉ Radio 1 is so central in people’s lives’ (Irish Times magazine, 23 September 2006), one wonders what kinds of lives are being imagined here. Looking at the new schedule, the imaginary lives would seem to be incapable of any form of concentrated attention on a subject area, as the listener is whisked from Morning Ireland to The Tubridy Show to Today with Pat Kenny to News at One to Liveline, Mooney, Drivetime, Drivetime Sport and Drivetime with Dave Fanning. If critics of the removal of Rattlebag were dismissed as the idle offspring of the chattering classes, in one of the singular ironies of broadcasting history, it looks like the chattering classes have won. For what is proposed for a greater part of the day is the ‘music and magazine mix’, chatter punctuated by classic hits. The central figure here is not the citizen or even the consumer but the commuter. Drivetime is all the time. It is traffic in the mindset of corporate populism, not intelligence or interest, that dictates the attention span of the listener, as the lights change and gears shift and the cars stutter towards home from edge city. The flow of one hour of talk radio into the next, uninterrupted by difference or novelty or complexity and with the endless rehearsal of the news and feature stories already widely available in the print media, becomes in itself a kind of passing traffic in its mindless and predictable regularity.

Ana Leddy claims that ‘making good popular radio is a very, very serious task’. Unfortunately, for John Kelly, this is what he believed. He took music and radio very seriously. In a profile article on Kelly, Shane Hegarty noted that, ‘He has occasionally been caricatured as a guy who gets paid for playing Tuvan throat music on the radio, and who, through TV programme The View, prattles pretentiously about the arts’ (The Irish Times Weekend Review, 23 September 2006). Kelly offered a robust defence against these charges, but what is interesting here is the intolerant cut to the ‘populist edge’. Ninety years after independence, there is still something intolerable about independent taste (‘Tuvan throat music’), independent judgement (‘prattles’) and independent thought (‘pretentiously’) in Ireland. In a country which puts Beckett on billboards and Joyce on jumpers and sends in the Chieftains before the chartered accountants, culture is tolerated as a calling card for tourism outreach, but any attempt to make it ‘central in people’s lives’ is stoutly resisted as the elitist ruse of pretentious prattlers.

An elite decide what is elitist and what the elite has decided is that the vast majority of listeners should not be allowed comprehensive arts programming during waking hours. The publicly-funded broadcaster offers a programme called, not without irony, The Eleventh Hour. The programme goes out at that time when a workforce with one of the longest working days in Europe is preparing for a brief respite before facing into another day’s commute. It goes out at a time when a whole section of the population in formal education will be bedding down before the next school day. It goes out at a time which assumes that only those already interested will be interested. The level of state funding for the Arts Council has never been higher, but the clear signal from the public broadcaster, from the timetabling of The View to the slot for The Eleventh Hour, is that RTÉ will only ‘Support the Arts’ when at least half the nation is in bed. In a peculiar Gothic twist of public policymaking, it is only after nightfall that the unspeakable are permitted to have their say.

The young man lowers himself into a bathtub filled with ice cubes. The expression is one of unrelieved pain. Lest we might wonder at the point or rather pointlessness of the act, we are quickly reassured by the voiceover that the immersion is metaphorical. ‘It’s Extraordinary What They Go Through to Get There.’ The young man is a Gaelic football player who is prepared to subject himself to the most gruelling form of punishment in order to bring his county to the All-Ireland final. Difficulty is the defining quality of his sporting heroism. If he was to announce to the nation that winning the Sam Maguire was effortless, fun, entertaining, a stroll in Croke Park, he would invite incredulity. And yet what is hailed as a virtue on the playing fields is condemned as a vice in the studios.

Tackling aspects of art, music and ideas involves particular kinds of skills, patience and difficulty, and it is questionable whether any kind of insight worth having does not involve a considerable investment of time and effort on the part of the learner. The most persistent and damaging form of condescension practised by corporate managerial elitism is the insistence that entertainment and being entertained are values in and of themselves which must take precedence over everything else when it comes to the arts and ideas. Jim Bennett, the Director of the Museum of the History of Science at the University of Oxford, expresses the problem in a different context. Writing in a recent collection of essays, Science and Irish Culture, he points to the dangers of reducing public understanding of science to the provision of ‘playful exhibits in fun-filled science centres’ and adds:

By offering a science that seems irredeemably juvenile, presented through playful interactives peddling a commensurate clarity and simplicity of vision, it has associated itself with the lost certainties of childhood, and nothing suggests that the public are inclined to relate these experiences to the real, complex, social and ethical problems faced by science as it is encountered in the grown-up world.

When artists are treated simply as entertainers, the consequences are all too obvious. Their role is to appease or decorate or keep the funny stories coming. So the entertainment imperative brings about a strange infantilisation of the speakers and the listenership where the complex and difficult adult lives that people live in late modern Ireland go largely unanalysed and conversation is reduced to the consensual banality of pub patter.

It may be okay for players and athletes to make us publicly aware of how hard it is to do what they do, and commentators will remind us of this constantly, but that artistic and intellectual and scientific expression could be equally difficult is a shameful secret. Anyone who has been an inmate of a secondary school in Ireland can offer eloquent testimony, of course, to forms of difficulty that are the masks of incompetence. Poor explanation can be as readily a cause of incomprehension as innate difficulty. However, no amount of playful exhibitionism can disguise the fact that unconventional art and unconventional thinking – the kinds that drive cultural, societal and economic change – are hard work. What ought to distinguish a public broadcaster from the ad-driven jukeboxes of the private sector is precisely a commitment to working hard at a service that respects rather than anaesthetises the intelligence of its listeners.

Another aspect of the Irish Gothic that informs public media policy in Ireland is that strange form of haunting involving the eternal return of the ‘celebrity’ or the ‘well-known person’. So when Eamon Dunphy is given a new show on a Saturday morning what should it involve but talking yet again to people who are famous for being famous. The celebs that populate the couches of the television studios migrate to the swivel chairs of the radio centre in that endless round of self-regard which is as unenlightening as it is predictable. Every year the largest category by far for entries in the Young Scientists’ Exhibition is the category relating to the Social Sciences. Third-level institutions in Ireland have countless teachers and researchers working in sociology, anthropology, media studies, cultural studies, psychology, languages, philosophy and womens’ studies to name but a handful of disciplines. Each year the Irish Research Council in the Humanities and Social Sciences funds a myriad of projects relating to all aspects of Irish social, political and cultural life. Irish publishers in the humanities and social sciences produce hundreds of titles each year.

But when did you last hear an Irish philosopher on prime-time Irish public radio? When did you last hear an informed discussion on the complex changes in contemporary Irish popular culture from public eating habits to Irish emotional investment in the private car? So rather than providing public access to publicly-funded forms of knowledge that would greatly help in self-understanding in a period of intense change, Irish listeners are condemned either to the self-aggrandising introspection of the great and the good or find themselves on the provincial tail of the Anglo-American publicity beast as it wends its carefully coached way through the chatter boxes of these islands. If we are serious in Ireland about creating a genuine knowledge society, and if we are to develop a notion of active citizenship that goes beyond the well-meaning pieties of good works, it is vital that public broadcasting be restored to its central function of providing an educated citizenry with tools for thought and tools for living. Otherwise, speech radio will leave us permanently and irredeemably speechless.

Michael Cronin holds a Personal Chair and is Director of the Centre for Translation and Textual Studies at Dublin City University. His most recent books are Irish in the New Century (Cois Life, 2005), Translation and Identity (Routledge, 2006) and The Barrytown Trilogy (Cork University Press, 2007). He is co-editor of The Irish Review.

http://www.mediabite.org/article_The-Silencing-of-Public-Radio_559918340.html

The authorities on criminality – The West vs Iran

March 15, 2007Analysismediabite

“Journalism is the only profession explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, because journalists are supposed to be the check and balance on government. We’re supposed to be holding those in power accountable. We’re not supposed to be their megaphone. That’s what the corporate media have become.” [Amy Goodman, Host and Executive producer of Democracy Now!] [1]

As readers of the Irish Times we enter into a ‘contract’ each day. For their part they provide “the best journalism in Ireland: reports that are honest, accurate and comprehensive; and analysis that is informed, fair and based on the facts.” [The Irish Times – Message from the Editor, Geraldine Kennedy] [2] And for our part we offer ourselves as potential customers to it’s advertising partners.

It is our contention that at least one of us is failing to uphold their part of the contract. And given Ireland’s descent into rampant, unsustainable consumerism, that part is most probably the Irish Times’.

Two months in Iran

Between November 1st 2006 and January 1st 2007 the Irish Times printed 70 articles mentioning either Iran’s ‘destabilising’ role in the Middle East or what is referred to as their ‘nuclear ambitions’ – more than one article everyday.

The context was almost without exception based on three poorly founded, yet unquestioned, assumptions:

1) The present Iranian regime poses a serious threat to the Middle East and potentially the rest of the world.

Charles Krauthammer’s writing encapsulates this assumption, without the IT’s usual conservative subtlety: “With anti-Semitism re-emerging in Europe and rampant in the Islamic world; with Iran acquiring the ultimate weapon of genocide and proclaiming its intention to wipe out the world’s largest Jewish community (Israel).” [3]

2) This threat must be dealt with, though the method for dealing with this threat is as yet undefined. It may well involve some sort of military ‘intervention’.

Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, declared that a “refusal to preserve the possibility – however remote – of military action has weakened it’s [the UN] hand as it confronts one of the most significant challenges of the 21st century: the possible emergence of a radical Middle East government with nuclear weapons.” [4]

3) The United Nations is the body best positioned to deal with this threat, though the lead will most definitely come from the US/UK and, perhaps secondarily, Israel.

“Iran has been referred to the United Nations Security Council for failing to allay fears that it is trying to produce nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic programme.”…”It says that it only wants to generate electricity, but the United States and the European Union’s top powers are pushing for sanctions against Tehran.” [5]

The gap for dissent

It may be wise to discuss first that reporting which diverges from the above theme, as it would be unfair to consider the entirety of the Irish Times’ output under this blanket of assumption. Either way, it will not take long.

Dissent from the ‘official’ line, as defined by the above assumptions, has come from only a handful of sources: Lara Marlowe, Russia, Iran and the CIA.

Lara Marlowe was the only Irish Times journalist to report on the obvious double standards being shown by Iran’s critics:

“It was hypocritical for nuclear powers to preach at non-nuclear states, Dr ElBaradei said. “How does that logic fit, when you read in the newspapers that the United Kingdom is spending $200 billion to modernise its Trident submarines?”” [Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)] [6]

Russia’s defense of Iran extended only to requests to temper the extent to which sanctions are imposed. [7] While a secret CIA assessment on Iranian nuclear activities reported by Seymour Hersh stated they have yet to find any conclusive evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Though “the assessment was said to have warned that it would be a mistake to conclude that not finding evidence of a weapons programme merely meant that the Iranians had hidden it well.” And of course “the White House rubbished the story as “error-filled”.” [8]

The ‘essence of the whole thing’

Historian Brain P. Murphy in his book ‘The Origins and Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland 1920’ [9] described how the British in their efforts to counter Republican propaganda settled upon the ingenious idea of integrating “official” reports into news.

Basil Clarke, the then Head of the Dublin station of the British ‘Publicity Department’, described this method as follows:

“the labelling of news in some way as “official” (“Dublin Castle”, “GHQ”, etc) is the essence of the whole thing; the whole system of propaganda by news hangs on it. For by virtue of that label our news gets monopoly value, a sort of hall-mark or copyright. It is that hall-mark which gives to the news (in the eyes of the newspapers if not in the eyes of the readers) a news value so high that they cannot afford to be without it. Take away that hall-mark and you ruin the whole business.”

To this end the media were sufficiently compliant, Brian Murphy writes:

“Clarke claimed that “the issue of news gives us a hold on the Press. They cannot afford to neglect us or put our reports into the waste paper basket”. As evidence of this, Clarke maintained that Dublin journalists, even those representing the Freeman’s Journal, who had once rejected Dublin Castle reports, were now asking for them.” [10]

This method of ‘news management’ is now pervasive throughout media, it is very rarely revealed as propaganda, and when it is, the dominant media is loath to use the term; instead it is repackaged as searching insight into the world of the powerful. Those who are best at this rebranding are of course amply rewarded for their ‘journalism’.

The leaders of the ‘free world’ no longer have to worry as to whether their actions will be received in the intended context. They draw the boundaries of context; they construct the status quo; and the media, more accurately the dominant corporate media, act as a conduit to the public.

Thus, the criminals responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq are now offered as the authority on Iran’s criminality.

Iraq – a historical precedent

Analysis of these articles shows a worrying trend. In all but a handful of cases, the reports gave the views of US, UK and Israeli officials without any counter argument or critical examination of the claims. In essence, the Irish Times followed the government line on the issue. This echoes the media’s failure to report accurately the case for war in Iraq. A study conducted by the universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds of the UK media’s performance found that “more than 80% of all stories [took] the government line on the moral case for war”:

“Our findings fail to offer strong evidence of media coverage that was autonomous in its approach to the official narratives and justifications for the war in Iraq.” [11]

What is most surprising it that there is no obvious reason the Irish Times should come under the same pressure as the UK media.

Analysis revealed that instances of ‘anti-Iranian’ sentiment were in the vast majority of cases not rebuked by way of offering any form of counter argument. Where there was a counter argument it amounted to little more than reference to ‘official’ reservations such as those conceded in the non-partisan Iraq Study Group report. [12]

In each of these articles reference was made to either Iran’s ‘destabilising role’ in the Middle East or it’s ‘nuclear ambitions’ (in many cases used, where it was not simply stated, to insinuate it’s desire to obtain nuclear weapons). Little evidence was offered to support either of these contentions, and no counter argument offered to refute them. Thus the reader is left with the impression that those accusations are correct.

Statements such as “The West fears Iran is trying to develop atomic weapons” and “The West believes Iran’s uranium enrichment work is a cover for bomb-making” were given as fact, and only an Iranian response permitted. Here the reporting availed of a suspect generalisation, ‘The West’s’ ‘fears’ and ‘beliefs’ are apparently congruent with those sentiments expressed primarily by the US and UK governments, or more accurately, whatever interests Messers Bush and Blair act as mouthpiece for.

Reference to Iran came in the following forms:

“Do you really want to get yourself into a situation in which you’re talking about allowing the Iranians to continue to acquire the nuclear technology that will allow them to build a nuclear weapon.” [US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice] [13]

“Iran threatens openly and explicitly to erase Israel from the map. Can you tell me that their wish for atomic weapons is the same thing as with America, France, Israel and Russia?” [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] [14]

“You have before you the only French political leader who has expressed herself against Iran having access to a civil nuclear programme. That is the greatest danger for the security of Israel and the rest of the world.” [French presidential candidate Ségolène Royal] [15]

“The Bush administration has maintained consistently that military action against Iran remains “on the table” as an option for preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.” [Denis Staunton, The Irish Times] [16]

In only one of these cases did the report provide a counter argument; this one case was reference to Iran’s “inalienable right …to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” An unavoidable fact. [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT] [17]

More balanced accounts came in the form:

“Iran argues that its nuclear activities are solely for civilian purposes, while the EU believes it is trying to develop weapons.” [Jamie Smyth, The Irish Times] [18] [19]

But here again, the reader is left with the unenviable task of discerning without sufficient evidence which of these officials to believe, ‘The West’ or Iran. Thankfully, there are clues…

Eurasia is the enemy. Eurasia has always been the enemy

In the lead up to the Iraq war it became clear, to those that had considered ‘the evidence’, there are certain pre-requisites needed to sway public opinion in favour of military intervention: There must be a threat, better still an imminent threat and crucially, a character homicidal enough to carry it out.

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is without doubt a hardliner, blithely suppressing the freedoms of ordinary Iranians; yet there exists many similar characters in the world, few of whom sustain the ire of Western elite as much as this man. Indeed President Ahmadinejad’s brutality does not even compare to that currently being inflicted by the world’s ‘great’ democrats. Therefore some ‘linguistic creativity’ is necessary to properly expose the man’s ‘true’ homicidal nature. In the two month period we are analysing here, the Irish Times managed to misrepresent the same speech by President Ahmadinejad six times. A further two reports in January and February, made the same distortion, though it should come as no surprise, the Irish Times has made this ‘mistake’ numerous times over the last year and a half. It is now offered as fact; President Ahmadinejad intends to ‘wipe Israel from the map’. [20]

We wrote to the Irish Times in May of last year:

“Madam [Geraldine Kennedy, Editor of the Irish Times],

Charles Krauthammer’s continued misrepresentation of the Iranian president’s remarks on Israel and its leaders now borders on the ridiculous. “The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declaration that Israel must be destroyed,” he writes (Opinion, May 8th).

The Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute, gives the following as the correct translation of the president’s remark: “Imam [Khomeini] said: ‘This regime that is occupying Qods [ Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.’ This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.” [21]

Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan stated in an off the record email exchange: “I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having “threatened to wipe Israel off the map.” I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel’s Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people. But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of [Ayatollah] Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all.

The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.” [22]

While Mr Krauthammer may disagree fundamentally with everything the Iranian President has to say, he must at least be obliged to find issue with what he actually said, not what it would be useful for him to have said. There is no excuse for this sort of blatant propaganda.

Yours etc,

David Manning” [Email 8/05/07] [23]

The letter must have contained some degree of newsworthiness as the Irish Times chose to print it, though editing out that shown in italics, no doubt due to ‘lack of space’. While it could be considered a fairly innocuous observation given the context of Krauthammer’s usually virulent analyses, the Irish Times felt it necessary to print a counterbalance, notably double in length:

“According to David Manning (May 12th), your columnist Charles Krauthammer is guilty of “blatant propaganda” in misrepresenting the Iranian president’s remarks on Israel. Mr Manning quotes from a translation of President Ahmadinejad’s October 2005 speech which appears to show its intention as one of mere regime change rather than destruction of the state of Israel. But the translation, by the Middle East Media Research Institute, of the speech as a whole shows clearly that the Krauthammer interpretation is the correct one.

The speech, delivered at a “World without Zionism” conference, is full of bellicose rhetoric from start to finish, and portrays Israel as the spearhead of the West in the Islamic world which must be eliminated: “This occupying country [ Israel] is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world. . .Very soon, this stain of disgrace [ ie Israel] will vanish from the centre of the Islamic world – and this is attainable.” [Dermot Meleady, Extract of a letter to the Irish Times, May 17th 2006] [24]

The writer’s reference to ‘the whole text’ is ironic given he quotes selectively. In fact both before and after the particular sentences the writer chose to distinguish Mr. Ahmadinejad actually states ‘regime’ as oppose to ‘Israel’, which in the writer’s choice is an inference made by the translator.

This is of course somewhat irrelevant. The speech itself is obviously anti-Zionist, but it is not a call to war or a thinly veiled threat, no matter what the translation. It is not equivalent to the ‘anti-Iranian’ rhetoric of the US, the UK and Israel. There are no Iranian plans for strategic attacks on nuclear facilities or the confrontational deployment of warships in the Mediterranean Sea. A significant departure from the sanitised language of the media’s oft echoed Western political rhetoric: “all options are on the table.” [25]

At any rate, are we to understand that journalists and political leaders choose to adapt a single sentence from the speech to summarise their interpretation of it’s entirety? And further, to use it to identify a President’s foreign policy goals? Is this a professional approach to reporting?

The non-existent critics

According to the Irish Times the case against Iran is clear; through it’s nuclear ambitions and regionally destabilising influence it poses a threat to ‘the West’. Much as with the case for Iraq, the majority of evidence, where it exists, emanates from ‘official’ sources. There exists no discernable contrary evidence, other than ‘official’ reservations as to the measures required to subdue the threat.

In the two-month period analysed reference to relatively independent sources was extremely limited, for instance the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) was mentioned in just 5 articles. But these few mentions provided nothing in the way of revealing Iran’s relationship with the agency.

Journalist John Pilger gave this candid account earlier this year:

“Iran possesses not a single nuclear weapon, nor has it ever threatened to build one; the CIA estimates that, even given the political will, Iran is incapable of building a nuclear weapon before 2017, at the earliest. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has abided by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory, and has allowed routine inspections under its legal obligations – until gratuitous, punitive measures were added in 2003, at the behest of Washington. No report by the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever cited Iran for diverting its civilian nuclear programme to military use.” [Iran: The War Begins, The New Statesman, February 2007] [26]

Other high profile experts in the field have also been ignored in this reporting. Dr. Hans Blix, a former UN weapons inspector who oversaw the successful disarming of Iraq, has not been mentioned once by the Irish Times in the last six months. Though he has not been silent on the issue:

“Hans Blix, the former head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said Monday the world’s approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions humiliated Tehran by insisting it stop research without giving any security guarantees. Blix, who was chief U.N. inspector for Iraq after 16 years as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Tehran feared for its government’s safety, with U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq and in Afghanistan.” [27]

“[Iran] are within a legal right to do so [Develop civilian nuclear power]. And they assert it is for peaceful purposes.” [28]

Scott Ritter, a chief weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, was referenced 3 times by the Irish Times in the 6 months before the invasion of Iraq. [29] In comparison, the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction were mentioned in 420 articles during the same period. His comments, as we now know, would have made the case for war that much less clear cut. He has not been mentioned once in the last six months.

In a recent interview with Antiwar.com Scott Ritter stated:

“Well you know what, there’s nothing but doubt that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. There is no evidence whatsoever! I need to reinforce that point: There is no evidence whatsoever to back up the rhetoric that the Bush administration has put out there that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.” [30]

It is almost impossible to reconcile these authoritative views with the ‘honest, accurate and comprehensive’ analysis the Irish Times chooses to print. Which begs the rhetorical question, if we are to be truly free to exercise our democratic responsibilities, should the media, increasingly the source of our understanding of the world, be held accountable for it’s failings?

Suggested Action

Please write to the Irish Times to ask they provide a more accurate vision of the West’s stand off with Iran.

Geraldine Kennedy, Editor gkennedy@irish-times.ie edsoffice@irish-times.ie

Letters to the Editor lettersed@irish-times.ie

Lara Marlowe lmarlowe@irish-times.ie

MediaBite supports an open and constructive debate with the media and individual journalists, please ensure all correspondence is polite. Please copy all emails to editors@mediabite.org.

* Hans Blix was mentioned in a review of The Wizard of Oz in December 2006
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/features/2006/1222/1166138326428.html

** “The moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be according to the UN mandate on weapons of mass destruction.” [Tony Blair’s speech to the Labour Party’s spring conference, February 2003]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2765763.stm

*** In a search of the Irish Times archive Scott Ritter returns two results in the last six months, though these are not references to current affairs.

MEDIABITE

media analysis, since 2007

Beyond Advocacy v. Objective Journalism

On the Message Board

The Enemy Without – Palestine and Democracy

On the Message Board

The Corporate Media – Part 2

The Corporate Media – Part 1

On the Media, Anti-Americanism and Disparity

From Rhetoric to Reality

The Silencing of Public Radio

The authorities on criminality – The West vs Iran

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: