New Links - Hot Stories You Need to Know

• On April 10th the world was inundated with images of Saddam’s statue being pulled down in the heart of Baghdad. We were told of Iraqis dancing in the streets, celebrating the downfall of the oppressive regime. And whilst this is certainly true, the perspective given to these images may well be distorted. Al-Jazeera has been very critical regarding the selective choice of shots and footage throughout the entire war, and these latest images are another example. But The Guardian also reports on the exaggerated significance given to these images and the media spin given to them. One image that is causing the most intense reactions is that of the US marine draping the US flag on the face of Saddam’s statue. This particular flag was flying above the Pentagon on 9/11 and is therefore seen as symbolic of US retaliation for that event. Further still, another wide angle photograph of the event shows that Fardus Squae (conveniently located next to the Palestine Hotel where the journalists are accommodated) was not nearly as packed with Iraqi jubilation as previously reported. Considering the number of US personnel and journalists amongst the crowd, the picture isn’t nearly as impressive as media reports would have us believe. Could the event have possibly been staged in one of the greatest propaganda coups of the war?
  
  
• So where is Saddam? Stories of his death seem to be greatly exaggerated. Even the British MI6 are convinced Saddam is still alive. Accusations of Saddam seeking shelter at the Russian Embassy surfaced yesterday. There are increasing suggestions that Saddam has managed to negotiate an escape route for himself with the coalition forces. So what is really going on?
  
  
• WMD story of the day. Again Fox News has jumped the (smoking) gun by reporting that coalition forces have found weapons grade plutonium in Iraq. Again, there was no similar reporting on CNN or other agencies. But the truth was revealed on nasdaq.com (of all places). It transpires that the International Atomic Energy Agency, tasked with UN inspections for nuclear weapons manufacture in Iraq, was aware of the site and had the site under UN seal. Could it be that the US forces broke a UN seal on a restricted site to inspect radioactive material already inspected by IAEA? If so, this raises serious questions about how the search for WMDs is being carried out. Of course, Fox is still to report the truth behind this allegation.
  
  
• Journalists are speaking out loudly regarding their treatment by coalition forces during this war. With this Iraqi conflict now confirmed as the most dangerous war for journalists, accusations of the direct targeting of independent journalists are being made to the Pentagon. Al-Jazeera has also made allegations that US forces deliberately targeted their Baghdad office, resulting in the death of one of their journalists. A complaint has also been made to General Tommy Franks by the Committee to Protect Journalists, detailing two serious incidents of mistreatment by US forces.
  
  
• For previous news stories, please check the News Archive.

New Editorial - 1st April, 2003
So Much Spin It’s Making Me Dizzy!

In these first days of the war, one topic that has come in for much discussion is the role of the media. As many of the news updates on this site will have indicated, there have been some very questionable practices carried out by some of the largest news agencies. One of the strangest developments was the controversy that surrounded Peter Arnett and his interview for Iraqi Television.

Peter Arnett won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on Vietnam and is a veteran journalist of the first Gulf War. This time around he found himself as one of the last remaining journalists in a shocked and awed Baghdad, reporting for both NBC and National Geographic. This weekend, he participated in an interview with Iraqi Television in which he commented, in response to a question, that the US forces had underestimated the level of Iraqi resistance.

This was perceived as a damning criticism of the coalition campaign to an enemy news agency and the US administration voiced their outrage. NBC initially supported Peter – after all, he was a highly respected journalist – but in an about-face, sacked the reporter just a few hours later.

This story illustrates a major problem with the objective reporting of this war, as discussed in as excellent article at tompaine.com. If a journalist cannot report his own observations and opinions, regardless of who may ask the question, then how objective can such reporting be?

Many other journalists are beginning to ask the same question, especially those populating the million dollar press centre in Qatar. Some news agencies have already begun to reduce their staff at the centre as claims that very little newsworthy information is being given out. And political spin is a major problem for those journalists attempting to present an accurate perception of the war.

The US administration has already displayed their unease with some of the more critical reporting of the war, citing such reports as ‘silly’. But who is to be the judge of what is unbiased, objective reporting? And who stands to gain from a politically motivated censored brand of journalism?

This war, probably more so than any previous military conflict, has had to deal with a public opinion that could destroy political careers. The months before the war were devoted to efforts of convincing the general public that this war was not only necessary but also right. If the public were to perceive otherwise, adverse public opinion could make political issues very difficult. One of the main supporters of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq has been Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns one of the largest media operations in the world, and it is no surprise that every single one of his media outlets has brandished a fervent pro-war stance. Murdoch benefits from the Bush regime remaining in power and repaying his favours. In a sense, Murdoch could be classed as a neo-conservative himself as his business philosophies are very similar to those tactics used by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.

Murdoch’s main outlet during the war has been his Fox News network. This network has been fed to many other news services and television stations around the world, enabling a very fast and persuasive platform for Murdoch’s pro-war message.

Murdoch is no stranger to using misinformation to assist the Bush regime. After all, it was Fox News’ now famous early announcement that Bush had won the Florida Ballot that caused Al Gore to concede defeat before the vote was conclusively counted, in one of the tactical measures that assisted in the smoke-screen of democracy.

This time, the misinformation also serves the Bush administration in selling the war, especially with the outstanding question of the missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. The key issue of WMDs could very well be the one that causes public opinion to change should conclusive proof not be found. To this end, the Fox News report of a chemical weapons factory being found came as the revelatory ‘smoking gun’. Here was the proof of Saddam Hussein’s evil, his lies and his means of attacking US interests. Fox News carried this story as a major headline, and as such, this news was fed to other news broadcasts around the world. Suspicions became aroused when the other major news services were avoiding the story. CNN carried no mention for most of the day before carrying a small paragraph commenting on a ‘suspect’ factory. Reuters too carried a short story that concentrated on the fact that this factory was only ‘suspected’ of being used to create WMDs. Fox, too, eventually updated their story to classify the factory as ‘suspect’.

By the following day, the story had been completely discredited by the Pentagon. A thorough search of the factory had provided no evidence. But this retraction failed to garner even a fraction of the mainstream media fanfare as the original report. As such, many people are still unaware of the retraction, believing that weapons of mass destruction have indeed been found.

The Daily Telegraph in Australia, another Murdoch newspaper, compounded this journalistic offence a few days later. The front page announced the ‘Evil Proof’ had been found. A vague story detailed how British troops had secured a factory containing chemical warheads as well as protective clothing. I was unable to find any other reporting of this find on any other news service. In fact, CNN that day carried a report that a factory secured by the British soldiers had been found to be completely empty of chemical weapons. So did The Daily Telegraph have journalistic sources that no one else had? Well, no. By Sunday, The Washington Post confirmed yet again that absolutely no WMDs or illegal weapons had been found in Iraq. Has the Daily Telegraph retracted its previous story? If it has, I haven’t seen it.

The agenda of the Murdoch media machine is clear – to create the impression that the coalition is engaged in a just war, even if there is no evidence to support it. As long as the general public believes that evidence exists, the task has been done.

And so we return to Peter Arnett, a journalist who said what he really felt, based on his first hand observations of the people of Baghdad. Peter was sacked for stating his opinion – albeit an opinion that runs contrary to the impression of the war that the coalition governments would like to appear. Within twenty-four hours of his sacking, Peter Arnett was reemployed by The Mirror newspaper in Britain with the wonderful line – "Fired by America for telling the truth ... Hired by Daily Mirror to carry on telling it”.