by Media Lens
Guardian Environment Editor Lambasts the Heathrow Climate Camp’s “Media Mismanagement”
Last week’s peaceful protests at the Heathrow Camp for Climate Action were a heartening sign of sanity in response to the huge climate threat facing us. Activists drew attention to the role of aviation in global warming, conducted seminars on climate science and undertook a series of nonviolent demonstrations. A mass siege even temporarily shut down the national headquarters of British Airports Authority (BAA), owners of Heathrow airport.
Actions were not limited to Heathrow. They included British Petroleum’s headquarters, Sizewell A and B nuclear power stations, and the offices of “red herring” carbon offsetting companies in Oxford and London. Despite a heavy police presence, including some provocation, at Heathrow, the protesters were almost wholly calm and peaceful. They were, as they said so well, “armed only with peer-reviewed science”. Here at Media Lens, we were pleased to receive regular press releases from the climate camp, posting them within minutes on our message board.
Guardian columnist George Monbiot, who visited the climate camp, hailed it as a success:
“All the facilities that 1,500 people would need - including running water, sanitation, hot food twice a day, banks of computers and walkie-talkies, stage lighting, sound systems, even a cinema - were set up in a few hours on unfamiliar ground, in the teeth of police blockades. A system of affinity groups and neighbourhoods, feeding their decisions upwards to general meetings, permitted a genuine participatory democracy of the kind that you will never encounter in British public life. The actions themselves were disciplined and remained non-violent, even when the police got heavy. I left the camp on Sunday evening convinced that a new political movement has been born.” (Monbiot, ‘Beneath Heathrow's pall of misery, a new political movement is born,’ The Guardian, August 21, 2007)
Activist Chris Shaw reported back:
“I attended the climate camp and found the event deeply inspiring and uplifting. The camp was characterised by values of selflessness, solidarity and cooperation. I have never known anything like it - intelligent and deeply committed people acting together for a greater cause. My predictive powers are no better than [astrologer] Russell Grant's, but I sincerely feel this is the beginning of a movement which will have a profound impact on how we live our lives.” (Email to ‘Crisis Forum’ mailing list, August 21, 2007)
Not all visitors were as enthused. Guardian environment editor John Vidal wrote bitterly:
“I went to the camp twice, and to the HQ of the metropolitan police once for a briefing last week. Frankly, it was easier and far more pleasant getting into Scotland Yard. A small but anonymous faction of the old protest movement at the climate camp had decided from the start that the 'corporate' press is actually the enemy, and therefore has to be excluded.” (Vidal, ‘Climate camp’s media mismanagement,’ The Guardian, August 21, 2007)
Vidal concluded of the activist movement seeking action on climate change:
“Via its media strategy it threatens to become one more totalitarian, exclusive group that is neither liked nor taken seriously. Rather than being armed with ‘nothing but peer-reviewed science‘, as it proclaims, it seems to be armed with ill-founded suspicion.”
On August 22, we sent the following email to Vidal:
Dear John,
We hope you’re well.
In our experience few people do self-pity better than your average
corporate journalist. And yes, John, that's what you are: an employee
of a large corporation, the Guardian Media Group (GMG), dependent on
advertisers for 75% of its income. However well-intentioned, your
presentation of yourself as a loyal friend of the green movement has
always been riddled with compromise, conflicts of interest and awkward
silences.
Consider the Trader Media Group (TMG), valued at $1.35 billion, in which the GMG has a majority stake (‘Guardian Media Group announces sale of stake in Trader Media Group,’ March 23, 2007).
TMG publishes over 70 publications on a weekly basis. These,
presumably, are publications raging against the despoliation of our
precious planet as we teeter on the brink of catastrophe; they are
surely devoted to building dissident awareness and resistance.
Your website announces:
"Some of the most recognised publications include Auto Trader, Bike
Trader, Truck Trader and Top Marques. TMG also owns the UK's busiest
automotive web site http://www.autotrader.co.uk which attracts some 2.3
million unique users per month. Due to the high volume of visits the
web site receives, autotrader.co.uk can be found in the top 20 visited
web sites in the UK. In addition TMG also offers interactive services
on digital television and mobile phones.
"With an annual turnover in excess of £280 million, TMG employs over
4,000 employees, located over 35 locations throughout the UK and
Ireland. TMG also has three international operations located in
Holland, Italy and South Africa."
As an embedded part of the corporate system, your newspaper is hardly
in favour of the far-reaching, radical action that is required to
respond to climate change. Your paper’s adverts, special offers, and
99.9% of its reporting and commentary, are all about business as usual,
about protecting the status quo.
You write:
"Just when the campers were saying that climate action had to become a
mass movement and were appealing to the public to join them, they were
deliberately keeping the media out - the very people needed to open up
the debate."
Just as they, the corporate media, have been keeping out radical activists for years!
You claim:
“The paranoia comes from years of being rolled over by certain
newspapers and being consistently harassed by the police. It has led to
a defensive culture and deep mistrust and mistakes. It is also a
hangover of American authoritarianism and Puritanism....”
Not so; it comes from decades of corporate media performance functioning as a propaganda arm of powerful interests.
Apart from the corporate nature and priorities of the GMG, just look at
the institutional, business and establishment links of those who sit on
the Trust: corporate media, the Labour party, KPMG Corporate Finance, Tesco, the Bank of England.
More importantly, examine the output of the Guardian, as Media Lens has
done in many media alerts since 2001 and in our book, 'Guardians of
Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media' (Pluto Press, 2006).
Choose a subject: climate change, sanctions on Iraq, Iraqi WMD,
illegality of the 2003 invasion, Iraqi civilian casualties, Iran,
Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, missile defence, arms
sales, UK militarism. The Guardian has, like the liberal media
generally, provided effective cover for the crimes and abuses of
western state-corporate power over the years, while maintaining the
illusion of providing a forum for radical challenge and serious debate.
If activists are finally waking up to this fact and making you part of
the story to be analysed and discussed - rather than accepted on blind
faith - then there’s finally a chance of genuine progress.
You write:
“No argument was ever won by people trying to hide or manipulate
freedom of movement or speech. It is an ugly culture that cannot
welcome its potential friends, and debate with its enemies, and which
feels it must control people's perceptions so crudely.”
What does the corporate media do on a daily basis? Crude perception
management is what your adverts are all about. Honest analysis reveals
the same of your paper’s editorials and slanted news reports. When have
you ever discussed the crucial role of the corporate media in
obstructing action on climate change? When have you discussed the role
of corporate advertising in papers such as your own in normalising the
biocidal status quo?
George Monbiot made a rare mention of these issues recently (‘The editorials urge us to cut emissions, but the ads tell a very different story’, August 14, 2007).
It was a courageous piece because, as he well knows, the discussion is
all but forbidden in a system you consider a “free press”. As for
welcoming potential friends and allies - the thinkers and ideas that
really matter are all but excluded from your pages. Small fig leaves of
dissent are allowed, but not enough to make a difference. The picture
is overwhelmingly conformist, heavily favouring the business status
quo.
You write of the climate camp:
“Via its media strategy it threatens to become one more totalitarian,
exclusive group that is neither liked nor taken seriously.”
The corporation is one of the most totalitarian organisations
imaginable: control is strictly top-down with zero public input and
minimal staff input flowing back up the chain of command. As the
Canadian lawyer Joel Bakan has noted, the corporate motivation is
essentially “psychopathic”: all concerns, values, motivations are
subordinated to the bottom line of maximised profits as a matter of
legal obligation. That’s what you are part of.
As for being taken seriously, your diatribe against the climate camp
tells its own story. When has a corporate journalist ever railed in
this manner against the restrictions imposed by the US/UK military in
Iraq, against the control freaks of New Labour, against the taboo on
discussing their advertisers‘ products and services?
Your piece is a good example of how respect is reserved for the
powerful, while the powerless are considered fair game to be patronised
and in effect told off with impunity. It’s all part of the great myth
of balanced professional journalism. It turns out that ‘balanced’ is
that which does not offend powerful interests. You are very much part
of the corporate media problem, John. The sooner we all wake up to
this, the better.
Best wishes,
David Edwards & David Cromwell
Postscript
We approached Comment is Free (CiF), the
online section of the Guardian whose declared aim is "to host an
open-ended space for debate, dispute, argument and agreement and to
invite users to comment on everything they read.” We mentioned that we
had a piece in response to Vidal’s blog which would also address the
Guardian and the Scott Trust. CiF editor Georgina Henry responded:
“But why would I be interested in commissioning piece about the
Guardian and the Scott Trust from you?” (Email, August 22, 2007)
A good question. Perhaps not all comment is welcome; particularly when it offers critical analysis of the newspaper in question.
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.
Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us at mailto:editor@medialens.org
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:
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
