The Role Of The Media In The ¿War Against Terrorism¿

Third World Network Features

This article first appeared in Action (No. 239, November 2001), published by the World Association for Christian Communication (WACC).

The Role Of The Media In The ¿War Against Terrorism¿

By John Pilger

Some Western media corporations seem to have abandoned the ¿impartial style¿ in their news presentation, and instead cater to public sentiments or reflect government policy. For example, according to a report in the International Herald Tribune (5 December 2001), the US Fox News Channel, which makes no secret during its broadcasts of how it feels about Osama bin Laden, ¿has pushed American televison news...to unabashed and vehement support of a war effort...¿. There is growing concern for the role of the media in the current ¿war against terrorism¿ and the impact its reporting has on both those under attack, as well as those whose nations are leading the attack.

Here we are again: the same old footage of planes against the sunrise, the same military jargon used by reporters:

During the Falklands war in 1982, the BBC¿s Weekly Review Board met to discuss how the war should be presented to the public. The minutes show that senior executives decided that the news ought to be shaped to suit ¿the emotional sensibilities of the public¿ and that the weight of BBC coverage would be concerned with government statements of policy. An ¿impartial style¿ was felt to be ¿an unnecessary irritation¿.

Argentina¿s acceptance, bar three minor amendments, of a Peruvian peace plan was ignored by the BBC. The Thatcher government was not interested; BBC news reflected this, along with the deception that Argentina was to blame for the plan¿s ¿failure¿. ITN, whose reporting was little different, claimed that ¿70% [of the British public] want to launch an invasion¿.

However, the same poll showed that 76% of those questioned wanted the United Nations to occupy the Falklands while Britain and Argentina negotiated. This was never reported. Instead, the poll results were interpreted on the news as showing that British public opinion was ¿hardening¿.

Here we go again. Last Sunday, the Observer reported that ¿65% [of the public] support the use of targeted "surgical" air strikes against countries harbouring terrorists¿. The paper¿s poll did not say what ¿surgical¿ air strikes were. It did not say whether its pollsters had explained to people that, during the Gulf war, 70% of the 88,500 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq and Kuwait missed their targets completely, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths, or that in NATO¿s attack on Yugoslavia two years ago, the majority of targets were also missed. ¿Surgical strike¿ is a misleading term. So why did they use it?

The same poll, however, disclosed that 60% of people opposed ¿massive air strikes¿. MOST BRITONS OPPOSE AIR STRIKES was the banner headline that the Observer failed to publish, yet, by any true journalistic standard, that was the headline story. Instead, the front page was given over to ¿the net tightening on Osama bin Laden¿ and Britain¿s role as America¿s ¿most potent war partner¿. There was a breathless tone of ¿pressing ahead¿. The sources were British and American intelligence and the Ministry of Defence.