[THS] !!!!! John Pilger: Why Are Wars Not Being Reported Honestly?

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.truth-out.org/why-are-wars-not-being-reported-honestly65844

Why Are Wars Not Being Reported Honestly?

Tuesday 14 December 2010

by: John Pilger  |  The Guardian | Op-Ed

Why Are Wars Not Being Reported Honestly?
Gen. David Petraeus is recorded by a news cameraman as he arrives in Kabul,
Afghanistan. (Photo: DEU Army Michal Miszta, IJC Public Affairs)

In the US Army manual on counterinsurgency, the American commander Gen. David
Petraeus describes Afghanistan as a "war of perception 
 conducted continuously
using the news media." What really matters is not so much the day-to-day battles
against the Taliban as the way the adventure is sold in America, where "the media
directly influence the attitude of key audiences." Reading this, I was reminded of the
Venezuelan general who led a coup against the democratic government in 2002. "We
had a secret weapon," he boasted. "We had the media, especially TV. You got to
have the media."

Never has so much official energy been expended in ensuring journalists collude with
the makers of rapacious wars which, say the media-friendly generals, are now
"perpetual." In echoing the west's more verbose warlords, such as the waterboarding
former US vice-president Dick Cheney, who predicated "50 years of war," they plan a
state of permanent conflict wholly dependent on keeping at bay an enemy whose
name they dare not speak: the public.

At Chicksands in Bedfordshire, the Ministry of Defence's psychological warfare
(Psyops) establishment, media trainers devote themselves to the task, immersed in a
jargon world of "information dominance," "asymmetric threats" and "cyberthreats."
They share premises with those who teach the interrogation methods that have led to
a public inquiry into British military torture in Iraq. Disinformation and the barbarity of
colonial war have much in common.

Of course, only the jargon is new. In the opening sequence of my film, The War You
Don't See, there is reference to a pre-WikiLeaks private conversation in December
1917 between David Lloyd George, Britain's prime minister during much of the first
world war, and CP Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian. "If people really knew
the truth," the prime minister said, "the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of
course they don't know, and can't know."

In the wake of this "war to end all wars", Edward Bernays, a confidante of President
Woodrow Wilson, coined the term "public relations" as a euphemism for propaganda,
"which was given a bad name in the war." In his book, Propaganda (1928), Bernays
described PR as "an invisible government which is the true ruling power in our
country" thanks to "the intelligent manipulation of the masses." This was achieved by
"false realities" and their adoption by the media. (One of Bernays's early successes
was persuading women to smoke in public. By associating smoking with women's
liberation, he achieved headlines that lauded cigarettes as "torches of freedom.")

I began to understand this as a young reporter during the American war in Vietnam.
During my first assignment, I saw the results of the bombing of two villages and the
use of Napalm B, which continues to burn beneath the skin; many of the victims
were children; trees were festooned with body parts. The lament that "these
unavoidable tragedies happen in wars" did not explain why virtually the entire
population of South Vietnam was at grave risk from the forces of their declared "ally,"
the United States. PR terms like "pacification" and "collateral damage" became our
currency. Almost no reporter used the word "invasion." "Involvement" and later
"quagmire" became staples of a news vocabulary that recognized the killing of
civilians merely as tragic mistakes and seldom questioned the good intentions of the
invaders.

On the walls of the Saigon bureaus of major American news organizations were often
displayed horrific photographs that were never published and rarely sent because it
was said they would "sensationalize" the war by upsetting readers and viewers and
therefore were not "objective." The My Lai massacre in 1968 was not reported from
Vietnam, even though a number of reporters knew about it (and other atrocities like
it), but by a freelancer in the US, Seymour Hersh. The cover of Newsweek magazine
called it an "American tragedy," implying that the invaders were the victims: a
purging theme enthusiastically taken up by Hollywood in movies such as The Deer
Hunter and Platoon. The war was flawed and tragic, but the cause was essentially
noble. Moreover, it was "lost" thanks to the irresponsibility of a hostile, uncensored
media.

The need for fearless, honest reporting has never been clearer. Help Truthout take
on 2011 by making a tax-deductible contribution today!

Although the opposite of the truth, such false realties became the "lessons" learned
by the makers of present-day wars and by much of the media. Following Vietnam,
"embedding" journalists became central to war policy on both sides of the Atlantic.
With honorable exceptions, this succeeded, especially in the US. In March 2003,
some 700 embedded reporters and camera crews accompanied the invading
American forces in Iraq. Watch their excited reports, and it is the liberation of Europe
all over again. The Iraqi people are distant, fleeting bit players; John Wayne had
risen again.

The apogee was the victorious entry into Baghdad, and the TV pictures of crowds
cheering the felling of a statue of Saddam Hussein. Behind this facade, an American
Psyops team successfully manipulated what an ignored US army report describes as a
"media circus [with] almost as many reporters as Iraqis." Rageh Omaar, who was
there for the BBC, reported on the main evening news: "People have come out
welcoming [the Americans], holding up V-signs. This is an image taking place across
the whole of the Iraqi capital." In fact, across most of Iraq, largely unreported, the
bloody conquest and destruction of a whole society was well under way.

In The War You Don't See, Omaar speaks with admirable frankness. "I didn't really
do my job properly," he says. "I'd hold my hand up and say that one didn't press the
most uncomfortable buttons hard enough." He describes how British military
propaganda successfully manipulated coverage of the fall of Basra, which BBC News
24 reported as having fallen "17 times." This coverage, he says, was "a giant echo
chamber."

The sheer magnitude of Iraqi suffering in the onslaught had little place in the news.
Standing outside 10 Downing St on the night of the invasion, Andrew Marr, then the
BBC's political editor, declared, "[Tony Blair] said that they would be able to take
Baghdad without a bloodbath and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating,
and on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right 
 ." I asked Marr
for an interview, but received no reply. In studies of the television coverage by the
University of Wales, Cardiff and Media Tenor, the BBC's coverage was found to reflect
overwhelmingly the government line and that reports of civilian suffering were
relegated. Media Tenor places the BBC and America's CBS at the bottom of a league
of western broadcasters in the time they allotted to opposition to the invasion. "I am
perfectly open to the accusation that we were hoodwinked," said Jeremy Paxman,
talking about Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction to a group of students
last year. "Clearly we were." As a highly paid professional broadcaster, he omitted to
say why he was hoodwinked.

Dan Rather, who was the CBS news anchor for 24 years, was less reticent. "There
was a fear in every newsroom in America," he told me, "a fear of losing your job 

the fear of being stuck with some label, unpatriotic or otherwise." Rather says war
has made "stenographers out of us" and that had journalists questioned the
deceptions that led to the Iraq war, instead of amplifying them, the invasion would
not have happened. This is a view now shared by a number of senior journalists I
interviewed in the US.

In Britain, David Rose, whose Observer articles played a major part in falsely linking
Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and 9/11, gave me a courageous interview in which he
said, "I can make no excuses 
 What happened [in Iraq] was a crime, a crime on a
very large scale 
 ."

"Does that make journalists accomplices?" I asked him.

"Yes 
 unwitting perhaps, but yes."

What is the value of journalists speaking like this? The answer is provided by the
great reporter James Cameron, whose brave and revealing filmed report, made with
Malcolm Aird, of the bombing of civilians in North Vietnam was banned by the BBC.
"If we who are meant to find out what the bastards are up to, if we don't report
what we find, if we don't speak up," he told me, "who's going to stop the whole
bloody business happening again?"

Cameron could not have imagined a modern phenomenon such as WikiLeaks but he
would have surely approved. In the current avalanche of official documents,
especially those that describe the secret machinations that lead to war – such as the
American mania over Iran – the failure of journalism is rarely noted. And perhaps the
reason Julian Assange seems to excite such hostility among journalists serving a
variety of "lobbies," those whom George Bush's press spokesman once called
"complicit enablers," is that WikiLeaks and its truth-telling shames them. Why has the
public had to wait for WikiLeaks to find out how great power really operates? As a
leaked 2,000-page Ministry of Defence document reveals, the most effective
journalists are those who are regarded in places of power not as embedded or
clubbable, but as a "threat." This is the threat of real democracy, whose "currency,"
said Thomas Jefferson, is "free flowing information".

In my film, I asked Assange how WikiLeaks dealt with the draconian secrecy laws for
which Britain is famous. "Well," he said, "when we look at the Official Secrets Act
labeled documents, we see a statement that it is an offense to retain the information
and it is an offense to destroy the information, so the only possible outcome is that
we have to publish the information." These are extraordinary times.


John Pilger, Australian-born, London-based journalist, film-maker and author. For his
foreign and war reporting, ranging from Vietnam and Cambodia to the Middle East,
he has twice won Britain's highest award for journalism. For his documentary films,
he won a British Academy Award and an American Emmy. In 2009, he was awarded
Australia's human rights prize, the Sydney Peace Prize. His latest film is "The War on
Democracy."