When starving people find food, they don't worry
too much about the ingredients. Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 is crude and sometimes patronizing. He puts words into people's mouths. He finishes their sentences for them. At times he is funny and moving, at others clumsy and incoherent. But I was shaken by it, and I applauded at the end. For Fahrenheit 9/11 asks the questions that should have been asked every day for the past four years. The success of his film testifies to the rest of the media's failure.
In the UK on Wednesday the Butler report reopened the debate about who was to blame for the lies with which the British went to war -- the government or the intelligence agencies. One thing the news networks will not be discussing is the culpability of the news networks. After this inquiry, we will need another one, whose purpose is to discover why journalists help governments lie to the people.
YUSHA
I don't need to discuss the failings of the US news networks. Fox and NBC have often boasted about their loyalty to Bush's government.
Owned by rightwing businessmen, they could reasonably be described as components of the military-industrial complex. But the failures of the British media, in particular the BBC, require more explanation.
Studies by the Cardiff School of Journalism in Wales and the Glasgow University Media Group in Scotland suggest there is a serious and systematic bias among British broadcasters in favor of the government and its allies.
The Cardiff study, for example, shows that 86 percent of the broadcast news reports that mentioned weapons of mass destruction during the invasion of Iraq "suggested Iraq had such weapons," while "only 14 percent raised doubts about their existence or possible use." The claim by British and US forces that Iraq had fired illegal Scud missiles into Kuwait was reported 27 times on British news programs. It was questioned on just four occasions: once by Sky and three times by Channel 4 News. The BBC even managed to embellish the story: its correspondent Ben Brown suggested that the non-existent Scuds might have been loaded with chemical or biological warheads. Both the BBC (Ben Brown again) and Independent Television News (ITN) reported that British commanders had "confirmed" the phantom uprising in Basra on March 25. Though there was no evidence to support either position, there were twice as many reports claiming that the Iraqi people favored the invasion as reports claiming that they opposed it.
"Overall, considerably more time was given to the original [untrue] stories than to any subsequent retractions," the researchers found.
The Glasgow study shows that BBC and ITN news reports are biased in favor of Israel. Almost three times as much coverage is given to each Israeli death as to each Palestinian death. Killings by Palestinians are routinely described as "atrocities" and "murders," while Palestinians deliberately shot by Israeli soldiers have been reported as "caught in the crossfire."
In the period the researchers studied, Israeli spokespeople were given twice as much time to speak as Palestinians. Both BBC and ITN reports have described the West Bank as part of Israel. By failing to explain that the Palestinians are living under military occupation, following the illegal seizure of their land, correspondents routinely reduce the conflict to an inexplicable "cycle of violence."
The BBC emerges very badly from these studies. The Cardiff report shows that it used US and British government sources more often than the other broadcasting networks, and used independent sources, such as the Red Cross, less often than the others. It gave the least coverage to Iraqi casualties, and was the least likely to report Iraqi unhappiness about the invasion. A separate study by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of news networks in five different countries showed that the BBC offered the least airtime of any broadcaster to opponents of the war: just 2 percent of its coverage (even ABC news in the US gave them 7 percent). Channel 4 News, by contrast, does well: it seems to be the only British network that has sought to provide a balanced account of these conflicts.
Of course, this problem is not confined to the broadcasters, or, for that matter, the right-wing press.
Last Sunday, the London-based Observer newspaper asked: "Why was the prime minister's foreword [to the dodgy dossier] so unequivocal about the threat [former Iraqi president] Saddam Hussein posed? Why was inconclusive evidence presented as fact?"
The same questions should be asked of the Observer, which took the government's part in the invasion, and published a number of incorrect reports -- which it has yet to retract -- about weapons of mass destruction and the links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
So why does this happen? Why do broadcasters and newspapers that have a reputation for balance, impartiality and even liberal bias side with the powerful? There appear to be several reasons. One of them is that they assume -- rightly or wrongly -- that the audience doesn't want complexity. One BBC journalist told the Glasgow team that he had been instructed not to provide "explainers" -- what the editors wanted was "all bang-bang stuff." Analytical and investigative reporting has given way to breathless descriptions of troop movements and military technology.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this leaves the audience without the faintest idea of what's happening.
In one of the groups of viewers the researchers interviewed, the people who said that the occupied territories had been occupied by the Israelis were outnumbered by those who believed they had been occupied by the Palestinians. Another is that, as in all professions, you are rewarded for greasing up to power. The people who are favored with special information are those who have ingratiated themselves with the government. This leads to the paradoxical result that some of our most famous and successful journalists are also the profession's most credulous sycophants.
While you are rewarded for flattery, you are punished for courage. The US, British and Israeli governments can make life very difficult for media organizations that upset them, as the BBC found during the Gilligan affair which led to the resignations of both the corporation's chairman Gavyn Davies and its director general Greg Dyke. The Palestinians and the people of Iraq have much less lobbying power. The media are terrified of upsetting the Israeli government, for fear of being branded anti-Semitic. Powerful governments can call on the right-wing press for support. Rupert Murdoch, who has a commercial interest in the destruction of the BBC, is always happy to oblige.
When most of our journalists fail us, it's hardly surprising that the few who are brave enough to expose the lies of the powerful become heroes, even if their work is pretty coarse. When a scruffy comedian from Michigan can bring us closer to the truth than the BBC, it's time for a serious examination of why news has become the propaganda of the victor.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing