As Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister rolls into town, Mr Blair’s official spokesman has criticised media coverage of Iraq. That sounds fair. The media criticise the Prime Minister, why not give a little back?
Well, we all know the conventional wisdom on Iraq is that the invasion replaced tyranny with anarchy. Conventional wisdom misses the point.
Despite public assurances to Mr Salih, he is doubtless aware that the Iraqi people matter very little to the British public. We were relatively nonplussed when Saddam Hussein was exterminating his fellow Iraqis, and now they are locked in a sectarian conflict we only really register our concern when they attack a common enemy that we do recognize, British troops.
Even British casualties, where they occur in ones and twos at regular intervals, evoke little public interest. They mirror public apathy about Northern Ireland, where soldiers dying in ones and twos were generally ignored. According to academics, 498 British soldiers were killed in Northern Ireland between 1971 and 1997. That’s around 19 every year. Iraq is already resulting in more deaths, in a more demanding environment where accidents can be as lethal as roadside bombs. The deaths leave young families and distraught relatives. But those deaths have not yet reached a point where they represent a political problem.
Public apathy, however, is a problem. Because there are wider strategic issues at stake than the future welfare of the Iraqi people, or the threat posed by their former oppressor. But because the public rhetoric of the war is limited to ‘supporting the Iraqi people,’ lambasting Saddam Hussein and ‘supporting our boys,’ public debate remains in a kind of deliberate adolescence.
We are not in Iraq to support the Iraqi people. If we were in the business of invading countries on that basis, the queue would stretch round the block. We are not in Iraq to prosecute Saddam Hussein for crimes past, although that may eventually be a happy consequence of our presence.
No, we are in Iraq to support the United States, our oldest and most important ally and the only global superpower. Our decision to stay or go is measured by the degree to which that alliance is important to us. The cost of that policy is measured by the Treasury and by the ability of our small volunteer army to prosecute it effectively. These matters are important and demand careful consideration. Our executive might elicit more sympathy if it engaged publicly with people who wish to take the debate seriously. Until then, blaming media coverage will not remedy the situation.
2 responses to “Downing Street vs. The Media”
Hm. Not sure about this one.
You say “we all know the conventional wisdom on Iraq is that the invasion replaced tyranny with anarchy. Conventional wisdom misses the point.”
“We” meaning the public at large, which now views Iraq as a mess, but one we have to somehow muddle through.
But you also say:
“We are not in Iraq to support the Iraqi people. . . No, we are in Iraq to support the United States…”
And while I don’t disagree with that assessment, I think you’re talking about “we, the people” vs. “we, the government”.
So, while there are indeed wider strategic issues at stake, there are also significant moral issues involved that greatly effect public opinion on the war, and, ultimately, its longterm political viability.
It is entirely correct for people to care about the fact that their government has intentionally misled them and has unleashed anarchy on the Iraqi people, resulting in potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths.
There are, in fact, millions who do care about the situation, but who feel helpless to stop the juggernaut. And that juggernaut, sadly, is strongly supported by the mainstream media.
When I say “it is supported”, I say so in a way that perhaps isn’t as obvious to people in journalistic circles, who do, in fact, report upon stories that depict the government’s actions and policies in a negative light.
I don’t mean that you support them ideologically, necessarily, but rather, you give the government’s voice and official opinion too much attention, too much focus, and too much of the media, even when they are clearly not accurately depicting the reality of the situation correctly.
Just a short hop over to today’s BBC News will show how headline news is usually reported:
– Bush Team defends US Iraq Plans
– Iraqi Forces Raid Militia Bastion
– US Official Retracts Iraq Remarks
So, in one article, the primary source of reference is a politician and his administration who has repeatedly “misled” their country. The other source is the Pentagon / Iraqi government sources, who are equally credible… and the third headline is someone denying and retracting what he told the public just the other day.
And yet, what these people have to say merits the crux of our news, oftentimes presented with no adequate counterpoint. Most of the facts on the ground are not even reported from any credible firsthand — or even secondhand — witness. By the time details on events reach even the top levels of the Pentagon, they’ve often been sanitized.
The overall effect is a distortion of reality, where what is happenning on the ground matters far less than what is politically perceived.
And frankly, that’s a situation that the media can do far more to remedy, even if your own government is obviously trying to play selective gatekeeper to the truth, in ways which would’ve impressed Saddam’s “minders”.
Reporters are so wrapped up in playing the government’s access games and jumping through their hoops, that they’re not even noticing when their placid — and sometimes enthusiastic — acceptance of this status quo is physically endangering the lives of countless soldiers and Iraqis.
Hell, at least in Vietnam, body counts relied primarily on piles of dead bodies. Nowadays, they’re even more meaningless. Here’s what an actual soldier thinks of those large, inflated body counts coming out of Afghanistan lately. And he should know, ’cause he’s been there.
Last time I heard, most Iraqis could be reached via telephone at least part of the time, and most soldiers could be reached via email — and, indeed, many soldiers have gone out of their way to take steps to secure and even encrypt their personal communication… so why isn’t the media directly approaching them? That’s how I get most of my information on what’s going on — via soldiers who I’ve built up a personal rapport with.
I literally wouldn’t have been able to make a solid case proving the offensive use of white phosporus in Fallujah without the help of a U.S. soldier, who mentioned having read an obscure article in a magazine read primarily by other artillerymen.
And the thing is, it was never my goal to break major stories, but simply to seek out unfiltered, firsthand sources of information for my own benefit, and maybe share the personal stories and accounts of those who have been there.
So, when I see journalists parrot establishment sources, without any attempt to obtain actual firsthand accounts, I simply write them off as “not credible”, just as I might write off something told to me by one person, without any kind of verification or supporting evidence.
Politicians and government sources routinely abuse the truth, and justify morally and ethically indefensible acts by framing them in the form of strategic and geopolitical arguments.
But why should I grant them that privilege? Why should I be considered to be not taking the debate seriously if I choose not to argue the matter on their terms?
To me, it seems naive to expect even a powerful strategic or geopolitical argument to make one whit of difference to the powers that be, if they are so locked into their ideological mindset, especially when their intractability and inflexibility is all too often mistaken for toughness and conviction.
Sadly, I believe that some of that same intractable, inflexible dogma that we see all too often in politics is also present in the media, albeit to a lesser degree. This explains why the media seems incapable of coming to grips with their unplanned, unintentioanal role in our current predicament.
Surely, self-flagelation is not in order, but I think there is plenty of room for reflection, and that doing so could make the media better, more balanced, and more capable in the future, allowing them to put greater weight and emphasis on obtaining firsthand accounts, and in seeking out dissenting, informed, non-governmental points of view.
Clearly, in times of war, finding informed dissent isn’t always easy. Unfortunately, as the past few years have shown, oftentimes the best place to find it isn’t amongst politicians who care too much about public opinion, and not enough about the truth.
I was using ‘we’ for HM Government. But you’re right. My problem is with a political system that discourages people from interacting with information.