The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
With thenks to Paul O'Hanlon.
>MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
>
>
>August 22, 2002
>
>MEDIA ALERT: THE BBC'S NEWSNIGHT FAILS ON IRAQ
>
>
>Media Lens recently wrote to Jeremy Vine, the BBC's Newsnight presenter, to
>express our shock and dismay at his failure to challenge the stream of
>outrageous and false claims made by Ken Adelman of the US Defence Policy
>Board concerning Iraq on the BBC2 Newsnight programme (August 21, 2002). To
>select at random, Adelman repeatedly asserted that September 11 hijacker
>Mohammed Atta had "travelled 7,000 miles" to meet Iraqi representatives in
>Prague. We asked Vine if he was aware that this claim has been totally
>discredited, and dropped even by the US administration? In April, the
>Guardian, for example, reported:
>
>"Britain's security and intelligence agencies... dismiss US claims that
>Mohammed Atta, the leading hijacker in the September 11 attacks, previously
>met an Iraqi Intelligence officer in Prague." ('Blair steps back from Iraq
>fight', Patrick Wintour and Richard Norton-Taylor, April 1, 2002)
>
>John Pilger sums up the situation well:
>
>"The attempts by journalists in the US and Britain, acting as channels for
>American intelligence, to connect Iraq to 11 September have... failed. The
>'Iraq connection' with anthrax has been shown to be rubbish; the culprit is
>almost certainly American. The rumour that an Iraqi intelligence official
>met Mohammed Atta, the 11 September hijacker, in Prague was exposed by
>Czech
>police as false." ('A compliant press is preparing the ground for an
>all-out
>attack on Iraq', John Pilger, New Statesman, March 21, 2002)
>
>If Vine was aware of this, we asked, why did he not once challenge
>Adelman's
>repeated claims?
>
>
>RESPONSE FROM JEREMY VINE
>
>"Dear Sir or Madam
>
>We had two guests: one pro-war, one anti-war. They challenged each other.
>The other guest challenged Mr Adelman with more authority than I, or I
>suspect you, could have. It is my job to ensure we conduct a balanced
>discussion in which both sides are heard. When the interview is one-on-one,
>in other words me versus a single interviewee, I assure you I will
>challenge
>every thing that is said. But last night we brought in a very well-informed
>guest, Sir Michael Quinlan, to do just that.
>
>Next time you write, please give your name.
>
>Jeremy Vine" (Email to editors, August 22, 2002)
>
>
>RESPONSE FROM MEDIA LENS
>
>Dear Jeremy Vine
>
>Thanks for your reply. We of course agree that the role of the interviewer
>is to support a balanced debate. As we know from watching your own
>performance, and that of Jeremy Paxman and other Newsnight presenters, this
>does not for one moment prevent interviewers from challenging interviewees.
>As long as you are willing to challenge both sides with equal vigour -
>questioning arguments and exposing incorrect facts - your contribution is
>welcome and cannot possibly be interpreted as bias or interference. You
>yourself tentatively challenged Adelman's version of events on Newsnight
>last night when you asked:
>
>"No one has yet publicly made any links between that attack [9-11] and
>Iraq,
>have they?"
>
>Sir Michael Quinlan then, in fact, did +not+ challenge Adelman's repeated
>claims on Atta's visit to Prague but instead appeared to accept them,
>saying:
>
>"That's a long way from saying they [the Iraqis] were behind 11
>September...
>You're not suggesting, Ken, are you, that that proves they were behind 11
>September? That seems to me far too big a stretch."
>
>Quinlan questioned the sufficiency of the evidence, not the evidence
>itself.
>Having challenged Adelman's version once, there was nothing to stop you
>asking him why he was continuing to make a claim that has been totally
>discredited. Instead, Adelman was allowed to repeatedly communicate an
>entirely false and highly damaging claim that might well have persuaded
>viewers that there +is+ justification for an assault on Iraq. If it is not
>your moral responsibility to challenge patently fraudulent arguments that
>could ultimately facilitate the deaths of many thousands of people, what is
>your responsibility?
>
>Finally, in estimating the "Risks vs Rewards" of an assault on Iraq, your
>colleague, Mark Urban, said on the programme:
>
>"Destroying Saddam's forces seems, therefore, eminently achievable. The
>risks lie in Iraqi attack on Israel - reopening Baghdad's alliance with the
>Palestinians, who have been demonstrating in support of Saddam - and
>boosting anti-Western feeling across the region."
>
>Are these the only risks being run? Surely in any calculation of "Risks vs
>Rewards", the risks faced by the innocent civilian population of Iraq
>should
>be taken into account. And yet Mark Urban said not one word about these
>risks on last night's programme.
>
>You will recall that the March 1991 UN mission to Iraq led by
>Under-Secretary-General Martti Ahtisaari, famously referred to the
>"near-apocalyptic results [wrought by the Gulf War] upon the economic
>infrastructure of what had been, until January 1991, a rather highly
>urbanized and mechanized society. Now, most means of modern life support
>have been destroyed or rendered tenuous. Iraq has, for some time to come,
>been relegated to a pre-industrial age, but with all the disabilities of
>post-industrial dependency on an intensive use of energy and technology."
>(Quoted www.viwuk.freeserve.co.uk)
>
>Writer Norman Finkelstein accurately observes that since the destruction of
>electrical power plants was deliberate, the US-led forces "effectively
>bombed hospitals and sewage treatment and water purification plants, which
>are the kinds of war crimes that would have led to hanging at Nuremberg."
>(http://www.viwuk.freeserve.co.uk/library/strangle_hold.doc)
>
>You will also recall the summary of the consequences of the 1991 attack by
>Eric Hoskins, a Canadian doctor and coordinator of a Harvard study team on
>Iraq. The allied bombardment, he said, "effectively terminated everything
>vital to human survival in Iraq - electricity, water, sewage systems,
>agriculture, industry and health care..." (Quoted Mark Curtis, The
>Ambiguities of Power, Zed Books, 1995)
>
>And, again, according to the data collected by the International Study Team
>in August 1991, there were an estimated 47,000 deaths among children under
>the age of five during the first eight months of 1991 as a result of the
>Gulf War and its aftermath.
>
>How can this kind of information not be included in any discussion of the
>merits and demerits, risks and rewards, of an attack on Iraq?
>
>Sincerely
>
>David Edwards and David Cromwell
>The Editors - Media Lens
>
>
>SUGGESTED ACTION
>
>The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect
>for
>others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to
>maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
>
>Write to Jeremy Vine, Newsnight presenter:
>
>Email: jeremy.vine@bbc.co.uk
>
>Ask him why he failed to challenge Ken Edelman's false claims regarding
>Iraq
>and the September 11 atrocities. Ask him if he believes that it is
>acceptable, when considering the "Risks vs Rewards" of an attack on Iraq,
>to
>ignore the disastrous consequences of earlier attacks on the civilian
>population of Iraq. Is it acceptable to also ignore the likely human
>consequences of future attacks on Iraq? Do the risks faced by the Iraqi
>people not matter? If not, why not? If they do matter, why were they not
>discussed?
>
>Write to Mark Urban, Newsnight presenter:
>
>Email: mark.urban@bbc.co.uk
>
>Ask him if he believes that it is acceptable, when considering the "Risks
>vs
>Rewards" of an attack on Iraq, to ignore the disastrous consequences of
>earlier attacks on the civilian population of Iraq. Is it acceptable to
>also
>ignore the likely human consequences of future attacks on Iraq? Do the
>risks
>faced by the Iraqi people not matter? If not, why not? If they do matter,
>why were they not discussed?
>
>Copy your letters to George Entwistle, Newsnight editor:
>
>george.entwistle@bbc.co.uk
>
>Ask him if he believes that it is acceptable, when considering the "Risks
>vs
>Rewards" of an attack on Iraq, to ignore the disastrous consequences of
>earlier attacks on the civilian population of Iraq. Is it acceptable to
>also
>ignore the likely human consequences of future attacks on Iraq? Do the
>risks
>faced by the Iraqi people not matter? If not, why not? If they do matter,
>why were they not discussed?
>
>Copy all your letters to editor@medialens.org
>
>Feel free to respond to Media Lens alerts: editor@medialens.org
>
>Visit the Media Lens website: www.medialens.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk