An example of serious BBC intellectual dishonesty was provided by a
July 25 BBC Online article. We wrote to the BBC Online editor, Steve
Herrmann, that day:
“Are we to understand that BBC Online is committed to objective,
impartial reporting, except when you decide otherwise? In an age when
serious threats from climate change, such as mass flooding, are going
unaddressed, your report [‘MoD confirms £3.8bn carrier order,’ July 25,
2007] details the government's decision to spend £3.8 billion on giant
aircraft carriers to avert threats that do not exist. Your response is
to quote a number of interested parties:
"‘The carriers represent a step-change in our capabilities, enabling us
to deliver increased strategic effect and influence around the world at
a time and place of our choosing... This will be good news for the
three communities.’
Des Browne
Defence Secretary
"‘This is an absolutely wonderful and brilliant day for the city.’
Gerald Vernon-Jackson
Portsmouth City Council leader
"‘We welcome the announcement of this £3.8bn project after years of
planning. This is fantastic news for Scotland. I congratulate the teams
at BAE Systems and Babcock in winning this contract.’
Liz Cameron
Executive Director, Scottish Chambers of Commerce
“So where is the balance in this impartial BBC news report? Where are
the voices of the many people who believe this is symptomatic of an
outrageous corruption of politics, a decision designed to fill the
pockets of big business to no conceivable strategic purpose? There is,
quite simply, not a word of disagreement permitted in response to this
insane decision.”
The original version of the BBC's report is available on the Media Lens website
here.
The BBC subsequently made these additions to the report:
“Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox welcomed the announcement but said it came at ‘a high price’ for the navy.
"‘Since 1997, the Royal Navy has faced significant cuts in force levels
completely at odds with the government's own strategic defence review
which called for 32 surface combatants,’ he said.
"‘We welcome the retention of three of our existing naval bases, but
there will be a strong suspicion that we are not being told the full
story today.’
“Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Willie Rennie said: ‘I am sure the
communities of the three navy bases will welcome the decision but will
perhaps wait with trepidation about the potential losses in jobs.’"
The BBC, then, had added two more comments supporting the decision from the two other main political parties.
Readers may well be bemused: are the BBC not forever stressing their
commitment to balance in everything they do? What happened to the
balance in this report?
The answer is that, for the BBC, this report +was+ balanced. When it
comes to ‘defence’ issues, BBC journalists believe their responsibility
lies solely in reporting the views of mainstream political parties. And
where there is a party political consensus, ’balanced’ reporting
therefore means, quite remarkably, giving one side of the story. Edward
Herman explains:
“the mainstream media, as elite institutions, commonly frame news and
allow debate only within the parameters of elite interests... where the
elite is really concerned and unified, and/or where ordinary citizens
are not aware of their own stake in an issue or are immobilized by
effective propaganda, the media will serve elite interests
uncompromisingly”. (Herman, ‘The Propaganda Model Revisited,’ Monthly
Review, July, 1996;
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199607 — .htm)
The elite is very much unified on the need to siphon billions of pounds
of taxpayers’ money into the arms industry and into militarism more
generally. Ordinary citizens are largely unaware of their own stake in
this and are very much immobilised by effective propaganda, for example
from tabloids like the Sun - a billionaire’s propaganda organ parading
as a faithful friend of working people. The Sun trains readers to
associate militarism with patriotism and lethal arms programmes with
‘jobs’. Thus the tabloid's July 25 headline:
“Carrier job joy.”
The paper commented: “Two massive new aircraft carriers are to be built
in Britain, safeguarding thousands of jobs for years.” (‘Carrier job
joy,’ The Sun, July 25, 2007)
This was all Sun readers needed to know about the spending of nearly £4
billion of their money on Cold War weaponry in a world refusing to
address the terrifying, perhaps terminal, threat of climate change. The
carriers will take 40 aircraft each - the Ministry of Defence intends
to buy US-made Joint Strike fighters at a further cost of £12 billion.
A Mirror headline read:
“Joy as ship deal seals future for troubled yards - just the jobs.” (Maggie Barry, Mirror, July 26, 2007)
Just as democratic citizens, renamed “consumers”, are supposed to be
concerned only about the impact of world events on supermarket prices,
so working people are supposed to be grateful for “jobs”. The Mirror
article contained comments from six individuals supporting the decision
- not a word of dissent was printed.
The Guardian news report on the decision was matter of fact, commenting
merely: “Trade unions welcomed the announcement.” (Richard
Norton-Taylor, ’£3.9bn go-ahead for new aircraft carriers,’ The
Guardian, July 26, 2007)
In May, the media reported the launch of the first of seven new Astute
class British submarines. The first three vessels will cost a total of
£3.5 billion. It is thought they may later be adapted to carry the
Trident nuclear missile system - another folly of Cold War thinking
that has been ordered at a cost of £20 billion. The Sun commented on
the Astute:
“She can carry 38 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of 1,240
miles each. A vital weapon in the War On Terror, Astute can use them to
blast land targets with pinpoint accuracy in North Africa from off the
coast of Plymouth, in Devon.” (Tom Newton Dunn, ‘Supersub,’ The Sun,
May 9, 2007)
Comment Is Free - But Facts Are Not Sacred
As the above suggests, the media-political system is very much a closed
loop. Because the mass media primarily, and often solely, report
mainstream political views as ‘newsworthy‘, challenges to the status
quo are, by definition, not newsworthy.
Former Guardian editor C.P. Scott’s famous dictum: “Comment is free,
but facts are sacred” (Manchester Guardian, May 5, 1921) is as naïve as
it is misleading. Facts are not sacred, pristine, untouchable - they
are unavoidably rooted in personal opinion, in the reality that they
are selected, highlighted or ignored on the basis of individual belief.
To highlight one fact over another is already to comment, is already to
express personal opinion.
The myth of professional journalistic impartiality - the idea that
"When I joined the BBC, my Organs of Opinion were formally removed"
(Andrew Marr, The Independent, January 13, 2001), as though facts exist
separately in the outside world waiting to be discovered - is a red
herring. Moreover, as we have seen, it is a red herring used to
camouflage a deep structural media bias that uses “impartial” as a
synonym for “officially approved”. It is used to insist on an
“editorial line” that squeezes out honest voices challenging this
structural bias.
As an alternative, individual journalists and editors might decide to
highlight views that strike them as credible, rational, humanly
important, most likely to relieve human and animal suffering. If all
political parties support Cold War-style arms spending as ‘vital for
national security‘, journalists might take into account the powerful
corporate interests driving this idea through the political system -
they might seek responses from credible, articulate non-corporate
voices.
There is nothing 'professional' or 'impartial' about taking the claim
that we live in a democracy at face value and reporting mainstream
political opinions as though they represent the full spectrum of
informed and/or popular opinion. Journalists need to consider that the
claim of 'democracy' might be a charade serving power and privilege.
They cannot simply assume our 'democracy' is authentic and report
'facts' on that basis - they need to think and act independently, and
consider the moral consequences of their actions. This might also be
considered ’professional’, ’impartial’ journalism, with viewers and
readers invited to vote with their feet.
It is impossible to overstress the impact of media distortions and
imposed silence. Multi-billion pound UK weapons systems, for example,
do not simply drop into the sea, or pile up in aircraft hangers,
without consequences. They generate a powerful economic and political
momentum that tends to perpetuate a particular kind of corporate
profiteering and a particular kind of mass violence.
The jokey headlines in today’s tabloids, the bland reports of ‘jobs’
and delighted locals, will soon change into headlines recording the
latest US-UK assault on some dread ’threat’ overseas. Media silence,
democratic frauds, royal charades - all come at a price.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and
respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly
urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Write to Steve Herrmann, the BBC's Online editor:
Email: steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk
Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org
Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us at
Email: editor@medialens.org
This media alert will shortly be archived here:
www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070809_facts_are_not.php
The Media Lens book 'Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media'
by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published
in 2006. John Pilger described it as "The most important book about
journalism I can remember."
For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
