Take a look at the media sections of the broadsheets, if you can handle the inane navel-gazing, insider gossip and trivia. A recurrent theme is whether television news is being ‘dumbed-down’ in order to hang on to fragmenting audiences. Corporate news chiefs retort that no such dumbing down is taking place. The news these days hinges, media heads claim, on greater â€˜clarityâ€™ and â€˜imaginativeâ€™ use of â€˜story tellingâ€™. Debate over, thank you and good night. In short, the media is unable to examine itself critically.
To my knowledge, there has never been any serious discussion in the mainstream media of the fundamental structural constraints that prevent its supposed role as the â€˜watchdogâ€™ of democracy: its concentrated ownership, strongly-integrated ties with other sectors of the global economy, reliance on corporate advertising, dependence on state-corporate elites as reliable and authoritative sources of ‘news’, and a zealot-like adherence to â€˜free market ideologyâ€™. These five factors are, in essence, the five news â€˜filtersâ€™ of the propaganda model enunciated by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in their 1988 classic text, â€˜Manufacturing Consentâ€™.
Many mainstream journalists and editors, even if they refrain from unthinkingly and erroneously dismissing Herman and Chomksyâ€™s propaganda model as a â€˜conspiracy theoryâ€™, may insist that such â€˜macroâ€™ media constraints barely impinge on their everyday working practices, other than a constant watchfulness to see where the corporate media axe will next fall. In the meantime, they can convince themselves that they are pretty much free to report, comment and editorialise as they please, perhaps even pushing the boundaries of acceptable discourse here and there.
But according to the late political correspondent Anthony Bevins, who worked for the Sun, Daily Mail and Independent: ‘It is daft to suggest that individuals can buck the system, ignore the pre-set ‘taste’ of their newspapers, use their own news-sense in reporting the truth of any event, and survive. Dissident reporters who do not deliver the goods suffer professional death.
They are ridden by news desks and backbench executives, they have their stories spiked on a systematic basis, they face the worst form of newspaper punishment – by-line deprivation â€¦ It is much easier to pander to what the editors want.’ [Power Without Responsibility: The press and broadcasting in Britain, James Curran and Jean Seaton 5th edition, Routledge (London), 1997, pp. 88-89].
The most successful journalists are those who do not even have ‘to pander to what the editors want’. They have already assimilated the prevailing values and assumptions of the ruling elite institutions in liberal-democratic society. These journalists already think the right thoughts, read the right books, journals and newspapers, and mix in the right circles.
â€˜To be corrupted by totalitarianismâ€™, George Orwell once warned, â€˜one does not have to live in a totalitarian country.â€™ Instead, â€˜the mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poisonâ€™ that makes critical commentary on the status quo all but impossible. The amply-rewarded, influential journalists and commentators who rise to the top of the media empire enjoy great swathes of newspaper column inches and abundant television and radio broadcast time.
They often write and speak with great confidence, skill and erudition, but always within well-policed boundaries that do not seriously challenge established power. â€˜Probably the truth is discoverableâ€™, Orwell wrote, â€˜but the facts will be so dishonestly set forth in almost any newspaper that the ordinary reader can be forgiven either for swallowing lies or for failing to form an opinion.â€™ In essence, a filtering process ensures that the output of the most influential journalists and editors fits the constraints of a corporate media, a media that facilitates the crushing abuses of global capitalism in which it plays a major supporting role.
Whether this is achieved by journalists consciously- or subconsciously – shaping what they write and say, or whether independent-thinking journalists get squeezed out, leads to the same result: a mass media that promotes the interests of powerful elites in society. This is not a fit topic for discussion in the mainstream. Newspaper media sections are remarkable for their deafening silence on the issue.
The BBC is similarly silent on this taboo subject. Its high standards of media professionalism, perhaps unsurpassed in the world, conceal the role it performs as a conduit of ‘news’ for western power, thus enabling illegal and immoral acts of ‘humanitarian intervention’ and ‘peace-keeping’ that the UK government has undertaken in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Journalist John Pilger notes correctly in his 1998 book, ‘Hidden Agendas’ that:
â€˜When â€œinformationâ€ is conveyed on the BBC with such professional gravitas, it is more likely to be believed. Possessing highly professional talent, the illusion of impartiality and an essentially liberal ethos, Britain’s â€œpublic service broadcastingâ€ has become a finely crafted and infinitely adaptable instrument of state propaganda and censorship.â€™ (p. 489).
Earlier this year, the Independent’s media correspondent Louise Jury continued the standard unwritten rule of ‘liberal’ press reporting in a report on the BBC: namely, focus with sustained and detailed attention on trivial issues in such a way that the broader economic and political context is presented as a given (â€˜John Simpson joins attack on BBC’s dumbed-down â€œSix O’Clock Newsâ€ â€™, The Independent, March 29, 2002). Jury reported that the BBC’s Six O’Clock News â€˜is coming under increasing fire from some of its most senior staff over its “tabloid” selection and presentation of stories.â€™
Mark Damazer, the BBC’s assistant director of news, defended the ‘Six’: â€˜We don’t want to make it unbearably facile, but we need clarity in story-telling. It is not that we’ve abdicated from foreign news on the “Six” or anywhere else – there’s a lot of it around and a great deal of it is imaginative.â€™
No mention was made in Juryâ€™s article of the â€˜war on terrorâ€™ where there has been a clear breach of the BBCâ€™s self-proclaimed public duty of providing: ‘independent and impartial news [as] a fundamental part of a free society and the democratic process’ (email from Richard Sambrook, the BBC’s director of news, to Media Lens, February 4, 2002). Given the BBC’s clear vulnerability to informed criticism of its biased performance (see Media Lens media alerts on BBC coverage of climate change, Afghanistan and Iraq at www.medialens.org/alerts.html), one might imagine that a truly ‘independent’ journalist would probe a little further in any report that purports to deal with the quality of BBC news.
One notable exception to such mealy-mouthed analysis of the BBC is the reporting and commentary of the veteran Independent journalist Robert Fisk. Last August, Fisk noted that: â€˜In a major surrender to Israeli diplomatic pressure, BBC officials in London have banned their staff in Britain and the Middle East from referring to Israel’s policy of murdering its guerrilla opponents as “assassination”. BBC reporters have been told that in future they are to use Israel’s own euphemism for the murders, calling them “targeted killings”.â€™
Fisk added that: â€˜Israeli diplomats have been lunching with BBC officials and complaining that the corporations coverage was anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.â€™ [â€˜BBC staff are told not to call Israeli killings "assassination"â€™, Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent, The Independent, 4 August, 2001.]
Fisk has consistently and cogently exposed the myth that mainstream media coverage of the Middle East is balanced. â€˜The Israeli line – that Palestinians are essentially responsible for “violence”, responsible for the killing of their own children by Israeli soldiers, responsible for refusing to make concessions for peace – has been accepted almost totally by the mediaâ€™, Fisk notes.
He takes particular issue with the BBC because of the widely held misperception that this world-renowned public broadcaster is an objective provider of news. Fisk provides the example â€˜of a BBC World Service anchorman [who] allowed an Israeli diplomat in Washington, Tara Herzl, to excuse the shooting of stone-throwers – almost 200 of them – by Israeli soldiers on the grounds that “they are there with people who are shooting”.
If that was the case – which it usually is not – then why were the Israelis shooting the stone-throwers rather than the gunmen?â€™ [â€˜The biased reporting that makes killing acceptableâ€™, Robert Fisk, The Independent, 14 November, 2000.]
The BBC’s response to literally hundreds of challenges by Media Lens readers on a number of issues this year has been both pitiful and eye opening. This august, massive publicly funded body is simply incapable of defending itself rationally. There are repeated, robotic email replies along the lines of:
‘The BBC refutes any suggestion that it has become an extension of No 10. We will always listen to and, if necessary, act on any complaints we receive, we will resist pressure from any area which threatens our impartiality. As always the BBC’s role is to be fair and accurate, but we will also strive to be independent. Senior editorial staff, the Board of Management and the Board of Governors keep a close watch on programmes to ensure that these standards are maintained. Among other evidence, independent audience research indicates there is widespread public confidence in the impartiality of the BBC’s reporting, but I recognise that this may not be a view that you share.
Thank you again for taking the trouble to contact us on this matter.”
[Sent by Lee Rogers of the BBC's 'Editorial & Investigation Team']
When challenged to produce the â€˜independent audience research [that] indicates there is widespread public confidence in the impartiality of the BBC’s reportingâ€™, Lee Rogers could do no more than point to the BBC’s annual reports, which give precious few details of such audience research.
Occasionally, the response from BBC personnel has been simply banal. One notable case this year involved a BBC2 Correspondent documentary on Iraq by John Sweeney, in which he attempted to absolve the west for contributing to the deaths of half a million young Iraqi children since the Gulf War (see http://www.medialens.org/alerts/020624_John_Sweeney.html). When Mark Damazer, the BBC’s deputy director of news, defended Sweeney’s documentary in a letter to The Guardian (a letter that had actually been written for him by the documentary’s editor) several Media Lens readers wrote to Damazer, and included referenced statistics, facts and quotes on the reality of Iraqi life under US-UK imposed economic sanctions.
Damazer, presumably with no or little understanding of Iraq’s plight, could only respond to these well-argued challenges with a lame, â€˜We disagree.â€™
But then, how likely is it that Damazer got to his present position by being a thorn in the side of authority, challenging US-UK government propaganda every step of the way? How likely is it that a parliamentary lobby journalist, for instance, who asks awkward questions at press briefing after press briefing is going to retain high-level access to government ministers, advisers and spokespeople?
As journalist Daniel Schorr once observed: â€˜Attack a government agency like the CIA, or a Fortune 500 member like Chiquita, or the conduct of the military in Southeast Asia and you find yourself in deep trouble, naked, and often alone.â€™ (quoted in Robert McChesney, Rich Media, Poor Democracy, New Press, 2000, p. 61).
There is an almost overwhelming imperative for mainstream journalists to appear tough, incisive and manly, while all the time playing safe by not hurting anyone in authority with real power. This means retaining channels of access to those same figures of power, and granting them ample airtime and space to propagate their views: â€˜According to a senior Washington diplomatâ€¦.â€™; â€˜Bush feelsâ€¦â€™; â€˜Sources close to Blair sayâ€¦.â€™; â€˜London fearsâ€¦â€™
As Media academic and activist Robert McChesney notes: â€˜To avoid the controversy associated with determining what is a legitimate news story, professional journalism relies upon official sources as the basis for stories. This gives those in power (and the public relations industry, which developed at the exact same time as professional journalism) considerable ability to influence what is covered in the newsâ€™ (Rich Media, Poor Democracy, p. 49).
Echoing the comments of Anthony Bevins (see above), Greg Palast of The Observer, and author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, explains how such the mighty force of obedience to power operates on individual journalists: â€˜After working for years against a brutal onslaught of deadlines, you learn cheap and quick tricks; you learn what’s not going to be accepted, what’s going to get shot down and you see people who resist that system losing their jobs.â€™ [Interview by Ian Reeves of Press Gazette, posted 3 May, 2002 at http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/Features.View.aspx?ContentID=247]
Media amplification of state policy, pronouncements, even government â€˜thoughtsâ€™, â€˜fearsâ€™ and â€˜feelingsâ€™, not only makes a mockery of the media as the fourth estate as defender of freedom and free speech, but enables and maintains a conspiracy-free adherence to corrupted notions of â€˜progressâ€™, â€˜securityâ€™ and â€˜stabilityâ€™ that strongly favour the elite few while crushing the rest of us. No wonder there is considerable public scepticism of â€˜news valuesâ€™ and a turning away from mainstream discussion of politics. According to Richard Sambrook, the BBC’s director of news:
â€˜There is a new political divide: no longer “left” and “right”; it’s now “us and them”, with “them” being politicians, the establishment and the broadcasters and mediaâ€™. Sambrook is concerned: â€˜Some 40 per cent of the audience feel they are outside looking in, offered few real choices.â€™
So, what is Sambrook’s response to this massive wave of public scepticism? A continuation of BBC values â€“ â€˜expertise, accuracy, fairness, judgementâ€™ – that â€˜have been amazingly resilient through the 20th centuryâ€™. Sambrook promises to â€˜take them forward, but in different ways. A wider range of voices, programmes and services, connecting the world with people’s lives.â€™ [â€˜As attitudes change, so must news programmesâ€™, Richard Sambrook, speech to the Royal Television Society in London, The Independent, 5 December, 2001.].
Such complacency and self-deception is, sadly, par for the course. â€˜When I joined the BBCâ€™, joked Andrew Marr, the BBC’s political editor, â€˜my Organs of Opinion were formally removed.â€™ (The Independent, 13 January, 2001). The reality is that Marr’s â€˜organs of opinionâ€™ did not have to be removed at all. He slotted neatly into place in the BBC establishment, his worldview intact.
The integrated consequences of this continuous process of personnel management and ideological thought control – namely, the suppression of public knowledge and understanding of the true nature of societal and environmental breakdown – are almost too awful to contemplate. As the philosopher Herbert Marcuse observed: â€˜Today we have the capacity to turn the world into hell and we are well on the way to doing so.â€™
David Cromwell is the Co-Editor of www.MediaLens.org. He is the author of ‘Private Planet: Corporate Plunder and the Fight Back’, available in North America (IPG Books) and in the UK (Jon Carpenter Publishing). See www.private-planet.com for details.