|
May 16, 2002
Steve Perry
Unsafe at Any Speed:
Youth, Sex and the Heresies
of Judith Levine
May 15, 2002
Ahmad Faruqui
Revisiting
Camp David
Rick Giombetti
Spiderman v. Pentagon:
Working Class Hero Battles Corrupt Defense Contractors
Stanton / Madsen
When the
War Hits Home:
Planning for Martial Law, Telegovernance and Suspension of Elections
May 14, 2002
Jacob Levich
Leaving the Truth Out?
Alternative Online Publication
Tells the Big Lie about Palestine
Michael Colby
Bush's
Cuba Blunder
Dave Marsh
Scapegoats: the Music Industry's War
on Cassettes
Jensen / Mahajan
US Power
Mideast Power Plays
May 13, 2002
Robert Fisk
Why Does John Malkovich
Want to Kill Me?
Mokhiber / Weissman
IMF
and World Bank:
Out of Control
Dean Baker
Will Darth Vader do Time?
The Enron Saga Continues
Nelson Valdés
American
Democracy:
A Lesson for Cubans
May 12, 2002
Bernard Weiner
Why Is America Acting Like This? A
Letter to European Friends
John Patrick Leary
Aiding Colombia
Kathleen Christison
Israel
and Ethics
May 11, 2002
Joady Guthrie
The Holy Lands:
A Peace Vision
Patrick Cockburn
Bombing
Iraq:
the Pentagon Prepares a Prolonged Campaign
George Sunderland
CounterPunch Special
Our
Vichy Congress: Israel's Stranglehold on Capitol Hill
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published March 15, 2002
Read Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The New Crusade:
America's War on Terrorism
By Rahul Mahajan
The Memphis Blues Again:
Six Decades of Memphis Music Photographs
Photos by Ernest Withers
Text by Daniel Wolff
The New Intifada:
Resisting Israel's Apartheid
Edited by Roane Carey
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas Valentine
Al Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
|
May
16, 2002
Worse than CNN?
BBC
News & the Mideast
by Paul de Rooij
The news coverage of major international events
varies considerably from country to country. Arguably, the news
available in the UK is more diverse than in the US. One does
find a greater breadth of perspective, as well as more accurate
reporting. However the main broadcaster, the BBC, has a spotty
record when it comes to the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
Occasionally the BBC produces programs
that are commendable for their depth and willingness to challenge
the viewers. For example, it produced a laudable documentary
about the Sabra and Shatila massacres that implicated Ariel Sharon
in the war crimes. It is unlikely an American TV network would
ever have produced such a documentary; it would be too worried
about facing a barrage of criticism, possible litigation, and
a loss of advertising revenue. A different dynamic is at play
at the BBC since it doesn't depend on advertising revenue, and
the pro-Israeli groups in the UK aren't as well organized as
in the US. The pressures the BBC faces, instead, are intense
lobbying and government direction -- the UK Foreign Office has
some say in the news coverage, the appointment of key staff,
and even in its budget. But though different, these pressures
are also having an effect, and it is increasingly evident that
BBC coverage now favors an Israeli agenda.
The main problem with the BBC's reporting
is not with the reporters on the ground. These are on the whole
very good journalists who take considerable risks. Orla Guerin,
John Simpson, and others report from the refugee camps, and witness
and describe the violent aspects of occupation. The problem
with the coverage resides primarily in the way this news is packaged
in London or by the commentator in the Jerusalem studio, and
how it is framed in the extended news program, Newsnight.
The text versions of the news, BBC Online and TeleText
news, offer an even clearer picture of the bias at work -- therein
the liberal use of quotation marks indicates that preferred version
of events.
The coverage is always stripped of its
historical context. Although Palestine was a former British
colony and the UK bears a considerable responsibility for the
calamity that affected the native population, one never hears
any historical references to that. From the coverage, one would
hardly know that Britain signed away Palestinian land to create
a Jewish homeland virtually no one has heard of the Balfour
Declaration. The subsequent disasters that overcame the Palestinians
in 1948 are never offered as an explanation of current events;
even the conquest in 1967 is seldom referred to. In contrast,
current events from other former colonies do appear with some
historical framework, e.g., Zimbabwe. During the crisis in Bosnia
or Kosovo the BBC offered extended coverage and historical background
it even lent airtime for humanitarian donation appeals.
The message conveyed was clear: the Serbs were the bad guys.
The neglect of context has a lot to do
with the pressures put on journalists to produce many reports
within a limited time frame. They have limited time to prepare,
and cannot become experts in the field. A 24-hour news service
demands a constant stream of brief items that cannot afford to
give any background. Standing up against such pressures is something
that one would hope a non-commercial broadcaster like the BBC
would do, but it appears to be more concerned with emulating
CNN.
The BBC is also overly concerned with
its ratings. These invariably compare its news coverage to the
"factoid press". The constant drive to expand its
market share makes it adjust its programs to appeal to the lowest
common denominator not unlike the commercial media -- and
this requires context-less brief news items. Only shocking
events make it into the factoid news.
Only when someone is killed is news obtained
from the area. Unquestionably, Israeli deaths are deemed more
important than Palestinian deaths; much more extended coverage
is devoted to the suicide bombing casualties than to incidents
where greater numbers of Palestinians are killed. Also, BBC
TeleText and Online news refer to Israelis as having
been "killed," thus denoting intent, whereas Palestinians
invariably "die"; these media always enclose massacres
and assassinations with quotation marks. Israeli killings and
violent acts are always labeled "retaliation", thus
justified. Increasingly, Palestinian violence has been labeled
"terrorism" it has never been labeled "resistance".
Although the term "terrorism" is often applied to
Palestinian violence, the term "state terrorism" is
never applied to Israeli acts of aggression.
Israeli war planners know the proclivity
of the news media for reporting deaths, and they have tried to
keep the death toll in check thereby reducing the flow
of news -- while increasing the number of injuries, literally
into the tens of thousands. BBC programs featured the masses
of injuries due to landmines in Angola and Cambodia, but it has
never reported on the masses of maimed Palestinian youngsters.
The more mundane aspects of the violence
engendered by occupation are never reported. The BBC has never
reported that Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are subject
to arbitrary ID paper confiscation, thereby losing the right
to residence in Jerusalem and losing their homes. Similarly,
house demolitions, torture, or arbitrary imprisonment without
charge, trial, appeal or representation are not the BBC's going
fare.
The BBC obviously watches its language.
Last year Robert Fisk (Independent, August 4, 2001) reported
that the news editor had ordered journalists to refer to the
assassination of militant leaders as "targeted killings".
Although the editor Malcolm Downing denied issuing such a directive
it is clear from the news output since then that the terms for
Israeli assassinations parallel the Israeli rhetoric. During
the recent Israeli incursions into the occupied territories,
we witnessed an increase in the dosage of weasel words like,
"alleged" and "unconfirmed". Initially,
reports would indicate that women, children or bystanders were
killed too -- the so-called collateral damage. However, this
has given way to the generic terminology of "targets or
militants" with no indication of the identity of those killed.
Israeli embassy staff is known to exert
pressure on the BBC's choice of words. It usually comes in the
form of a question like "isn't the word settlement wrong
here?" Most senior journalists withstand this type of pressure,
but inexperienced journalists may be susceptible to such tactics.
Constant prodding of this type does have an effect.
It is rare for the BBC to refer to the
West Bank or Gaza as "occupied territories". A clear
litmus test of the bias of a news source on this subject is whether
it uses the word "occupation"; in the case of the BBC
it is virtually non-existent. Similarly the nature of the settlements
remains ambiguous. When David Sells interviewed some settlers
they were portrayed as a loving group of people having fun with
the kids. The documentary ignored the settlers' usual daytime
activities involving the violent confiscation of Palestinian
land. The status of the settlements is seldom described as illegal
under international law. The fact that since Oslo there are
43 new settlements, with a 45% expansion of land (excluding the
"Jews-only bypass" roads), and a doubling of the number
of settlers has never been mentioned on BBC news.
The comfortable terms balance and objectivity
are often the justification to neuter news emanating from the
area. For the BBC balance means that there must be some reporting
of the Israeli side, some from the Palestinian, and some from
either Americans or British officials. Furthermore, no reporting
should offend the sensitivities of the Israelis. The end result
is that the reportage is fraught with contradictions. It is
not possible to connect the violence perpetrated against the
Israelis with the violence and injustice of the occupation; since
the latter is not acknowledged Palestinian violence is simply
seen as criminal, whereas Israeli violence always has redeeming
characteristics.
In BBC Online several articles
dealing with Palestine contain a "Click here for a different
viewpoint" all these point to articles written by
Israeli embassy officials. In no other conflict does one find
such an alternative view. This warped notion of balance
irks the BBC journalists whose work has been so affected.
The constant reference to "cycle
of violence" equates the Israeli violence to a response
to Palestinian violence, diminishing the fact that Israeli violence
is disproportionate and used to oppress the native population.
This context-free reporting thus renders the violence unintelligible
BBC coverage doesn't answer why there is any violence at
all. Again, contrast this coverage with the coverage
in Kosovo. Here the Serbs were condemned for oppression and
violence, and the Kosovar response had a rationale. The Serb
claims of Kosovar terrorism were ridiculed, and Serb violence
was viewed as unprovoked and unjustifiable. The few times Serbian
officials appeared on the BBC they were grilled about the latest
outrage, and their claims of retaliation for terrorist acts were
clearly rejected. It is therefore obvious that the BBC is using
a different reporting handbook in the Middle East.
However influential, the Israeli PR machine
faces a difficult task to defend its untenable position, and
has been forced to adapt its strategy. Repeating a lie too often
reduces its effectiveness over time, and therefore propaganda
has to change its tune. There are distinct techniques used to
deflect criticism and reinterpret events during the past few
years. These are: "blame the victim", "reflective
accusation", "parallel universe", "shades
of gray", and "reaping the fruits". The defense
of last resort is the "smear". These have been similarly
reflected in the BBC coverage.
A few years ago the BBC repeatedly grilled
Palestinian spokespersons about the cynical use of children to
confront soldiers (blame the victim), accusing them of the deaths
of many children. Kirsty Wark, a Newsnight interviewer,
repeatedly questioned Hanan Ashrawi in an indignant tone. The
consequence was that no topic other than this could be discussed.
The enhanced version of this tactic is to accuse the victim
for things that the Israelis themselves are doing (reflective
accusation), e.g., during the Jenin incursion Israeli spokesmen
were quoted as saying that Palestinians were "threatening
Israel's very existence." The fact that it is the Palestinians
who are being killed doesn't make the interviewers stop the Israeli
spokesmen. No matter how ridiculous an Israeli statement it
is never questioned.
We now witness a few more variants of
these defenses. "Parallel universe" refers to reporting
where the Israeli viewpoint is presented without any reference
to the Palestinian reality. A good example is Kathryn Westscott's
"Viewpoint: Were Israel's incursions a success?" (BBC
Online, Mar. 15, 02). Israelis are interviewed, but no
reference is made to the causes of Palestinian violence, e.g.,
the occupation. Thus Israelis are outraged at the suicide bombings,
but no reason whatsoever is given for their cause.
The "shades of gray" defense
pertains to the ploy indicating that reality is beyond simple
solutions like ending occupation anyone taking such a position
is ridiculed because they can't answer the demands by the reasonable
Israelis seeking peace. Similarly, unpalatable aspects of Israeli
occupation cannot be labeled as crimes because reality is so
much more complicated. A good example of this is Barnaby Mason's
"Analysis: 'War crimes' on West Bank" (the quotation
marks are in the original) indicating that it isn't a black
and white issue to determine if war crimes were committed. The
usage of war crimes, without the quotation marks, is reserved
for official enemies like Iraq.
Similarly, the "reaping the fruits"
defense pertains to exploiting the fact that there hasn't been
any reference to occupation for many months, and therefore the
viewer may not know that the Palestinians live under occupation.
(A survey indicates that about 90% of the UK's population is
unaware of this.) Working on this premise Israeli PR can claim
that any violence threatens their very existence the violence
on the West Bank becomes violence against Israel. Violence is
entirely stripped out of its context for the aims of the propagandist,
which is reflected in the BBC coverage.
Common to all techniques is that lies
and half-truths have to be planted repeatedly. It is usually
more costly to disprove a statement than to put forth one's own
message. So, a steady flow of lies bogs down the ineffective
Palestinian message. In time these lies become accepted and
can be exploited by the "reaping the fruit" tactic.
The defense of last resort has been to
question the motives of the questioners or reporters, ultimately
smearing them. Fortunately, BBC news, unlike CNN, hasn't debased
itself to follow this line -- until now primarily because
the questions are already posed within the Israeli framework:
they do the questioning. The smears that do occur are not evident
to the viewer. Israeli embassy staff labels any journalist who
has produced a piece with a balanced assessment of Palestinian
issues as a "Palestinian spokesman." This sometimes
attains the desired result that the journalist is advised to
do a dedicated piece on Israeli issues.
Another source of bias is the sequence
of interviewees on the extended news program, Newsnight.
First, an Israeli spokesperson rattles off a series of accusations,
like "Arafat is irrelevant." The interviewer then
turns to a Palestinian spokesperson asking the question just
posed by the previous spokesperson -- the interview agenda is
set by the pro-Israeli camp. A variation on this formula is
to have the BBC offer an introduction, invariably with an Israeli
point of reference, and then continue as in the previous version.
If a pro-Palestinian source attempts to change the nature of
the question, by stating that "this is not the issue",
then the common rebuff is "answer my question."
In Newsnight or the main News,
it is also important to note that the last word in an interview
has been an Israeli or sometimes an official American or British
one. The question is posed in the Israeli framework, the Palestinians
are forced to answer this question, and the final word is that
of an Israel spokesperson. It is a thankless task to attempt
to explain the Palestinian situation to a British audience, let
alone an American one.
The choice and handling of the spokespersons
is another important issue. There are several polished Israeli
spokespersons quickly rattling off their main points, and the
BBC interviewers find it impossible to interrupt them. The most
aggressive of them is Ranaan Gissin, who immediately takes control
of the interview however objectionable what he has to say is.
The choice of Palestinian spokespersons is rather limited, and
not all of them are effective. Invariably they are interrupted
and on occasion even shut off. In contrast, during the Kosovo
crisis, academics and professionals in the area were brought
on the program because their insights were useful. Given that
it is difficult to secure access to some of the more eloquent
Palestinian spokespersons due to the travel restrictions between
Ramallah and Jerusalem, the BBC has yet to interview some of
the eloquent academics, e.g., Edward Said, Riad Malki, or Arab-Israeli
politicians, e.g., Azmi Bishara. Few attempts are made by the
BBC to clarify the Palestinian message. The BBC also never refers
to leading Israeli peace activists or critics, Uri Avnery or
Michael Warshawski have never appeared on any of its programs.
Another curious BBC practice is to interview
Richard Perle or James Rubin, ostensibly as American commentators.
Perle is always described as a "former" Under Secretary
of Defense. It is never revealed that he is a pro-Israeli right
wing hawk lobbying for Israeli interests and advocating the demolition
of Iraq. His commentary is hardly the American viewpoint, official
or otherwise. Rubin, another "former," is also put
forward in the guise of obtaining an unofficial American opinion,
but the topic on hand is always Israel. His opinions are usually
indistinguishable from Perle's.
The absurd has its place on BBC news
too. During recent bombing in Gaza the reports stated that "a
Palestinian naval installation" was destroyed -- although
they don't have a single boat. Similarly, the buildings of the
"military" were bombed. It is rather odd to describe
the police in military terms, intimating that Palestinians have
an army perhaps capable of attacking Israeli tanks or helicopters.
The description of the targets in this fashion has more to do
with justifying Israeli action than objective journalism. It
is easier to accept Israeli bombing if the opponent is seen as
a military target.
The BBC would like to be known for its
objectivity and high quality journalism. However, it is obvious
that it is not impervious to the same pressures found in commercial
broadcasting networks, and in the case of the Israel/Palestine
issue its coverage has shown a definite bias. It is a dark blot
on whatever reputation it claims to have.
But the BBC can take steps now to return
to a proper journalistic role and apply a true sense of balance.
First, given that the Israeli side employs a large body of capable
and well-funded propagandists, the BBC should rectify this imbalance
by seeking and even amplifying the voice of the more effective
Palestinian spokesmen. Second, it should improve its contextual
information and avoid jargon obviously tilted to the Israeli
side. A litmus test of balanced interviews is to find its interviewers
being as tough with the Israeli spokesmen as with the Palestinians.
The BBC may once again deserve to be considered an objective
news organization the day an interviewer questions an Israeli
spokesman about the massacre at Jenin with the same indignant
tone used to question Hanan Ashrawi.
Paul de Rooij
lives in London. He can be reached at: JPROOIJ@CS.COM
|