The Guardian and Iraq: Bad news
Tuesday’s (May 22) splash by Simon Tisdall in the Guardian marks something of a watershed: in the words of analyst David Edwards of Media Lens, it is the “single worst piece of journalism I can recall reading” in the paper.
The article claimed to present evidence that Iran was uniting with al-Qaeda to attack US and UK forces in Iraq. But the 3-page article making this claim, all 1,200 words of it, cited just one single, unnamed source throughout (”a senior US official in Baghdad”), and there was not a single quote from any expert who would question the allegations – although there are many who would.
How could crude and dangerous PR like this take up the first three pages of the Guardian? When the New York Times ran a similarly credulous front page in February headlined ‘Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, US Says’, the newspaper was widely accused of having learned nothing from the Iraq WMD debacle. How could the Guardian fall into the same trap?
David Edwards’ email to the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, was forwarded to us. It reads:
“Dear Alan
“I’ve been reading the Guardian for many years now. I have to say that Simon Tisdall’s front cover piece today is the single worst piece of journalism I can recall reading in your paper. I base the judgment on the lack of even the tiniest scrap of evidence in support of the anonymous official claims, the unwillingness to subject these claims to any journalistic scrutiny, the potentially lethal nature of the claims for millions of people in the region, and the extremely high-profile coverage afforded what is actually crude propaganda masquerading as a news report.
“We’ve disagreed with you on many occasions, but I’m just aghast that you could put this on the front page. I’m assuming you’re not away and that you did actually see it.
“Yours in amazement and dismay…”
The Guardian’s senior editors appear to have realised early on that something might be amiss. The paper’s website carried a defensive report on the discussion at the morning news conference on Tuesday. An indication of its weakness, however, is that it cites the Telegraph in its support, apparently unaware that the Telegraph’s reporting of Iran is no model of good journalism.
Media Workers Against the War also wrote to the Guardian on Tuesday, pointing out that the paper was vulnerable to the accusation of having learned nothing from the Iraq WMD debacle. The Guardian’s associate editor Elisabeth Ribbans replied a few hours later. She wrote:
“Thank you for your email to the letters desk, which has been forwarded to me for a personal response. For the record, Simon Tisdall requested the interviews with US officials in Baghdad and not the other way around. The article should be viewed in the light of Simon’s extensive and well-sourced reporting from and about the region, as well as the record of the paper, which certainly cannot be accused of being a mouthpiece for the US administration. Today’s front-page story is just one more part of a jigsaw of the growing power struggle in the region and our editors thought it in the public interest to publish the story.”
Two points can be made in response. First, it is not immediately clear which is worse, publishing PR that is sent to you or actively soliciting it.
Second, MWAW did not accuse the paper of being a “mouthpiece for the US administration”. This suggestion is a straw man. We proposed that the paper had forgotten how the WMD nonsense was used to whip up pro-war sentiment against Iraq. This same accusation was leveled at the entire British media by the Guardian’s own columnist, Peter Wilby, in a recent piece on Iran.
How has it come to this? How could the Guardian stoop so low?
First, the British media have shifted noticeably to the right. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Johann Hari have recently made this point in relation to the BBC (see the article on this website), but it applies more widely. Since the sacking of Piers Morgan from the Mirror and Greg Dyke from the BBC, the media have been bullied and browbeaten by the government, resulting in a climate of timidity and submission at senior levels.
A consequence is that editors tend to forget Harold Evans’ legendary warning to reporters at the Sunday Times: “Always ask yourself when interviewing a politician, why is this bastard lying to me?”
A further consequence is that only the powerful are now considered credible sources. “Balance” is reduced to quoting officials of one government (in this case the US) against officials of another (in this case Iran).
Further, It means that senior editors move in a rarified environment where they have no contact with arguments generated by social forces outside the narrow circle of government. The mass anti-war movement and its leaders are dismissed with a disdainful sneer.
Finally, the Guardian’s senior editors have been inconsistent friends of peace. The paper calls for more troops for Afghanistan, and on Iraq it joins the chorus of hand-wringing in the British media but pointedly refrains from calling for any timetable for troop withdrawal.
Nevertheless, Tuesday’s front page marks a qualitative shift for the paper. People who have read the Guardian in recent years frequently complain that the paper has lost its way, but often find it hard to put their finger on just what is going on. Now we know.
Please read the article in question and write to the Guardian with your opinions. Please also post them as comments to this blog.
And lastly, here is Juan Cole’s essential blog on Tuesday subjecting the front page to whithering scorn:
“I suppose I have to link to this silly article by poor Simon Tisdall in of all places, The Guardian, whom someone is using to push a sinister agenda. Yes, its sources are looney in positing a coming offensive jointly sponsored by Iran, the Mahdi Army and al-Qaeda. Anyone who reads IC [i.e. Juan Cole’s blog] regularly will see immediately holes in this story.
“At a time when Sunni Arab guerrillas are said to be opposing “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia” for its indiscriminate violence against Iraqis, including Shiites, we are now expected to believe that Shiite Iran is allying with it. And, it claims that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are shelling the Green Zone. The parliament building that was hit today by such shelling is dominated by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and its paramilitary, the Badr Organization. Who trained Badr? The Iranian Revolutionary Guards. And they are trying to hit their own guys . . . why? By the way, the US has 16,000 suspected insurgents in custody. Tisdall should ask how many of them are Iranian. (Hint: close to none. What, do they just run faster than the others?)
“The article even traffics in the ridiculous assertion that Iran is backing hyper-Sunni, Shiite-killing Taliban in Afghanistan. Why not just cut to the quick and openly say that Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei is in reality . . . Satan! It really is discouraging that Tisdall didn’t report instead on what crazy things the US military spokesmen in Iraq told him.
“US military spokesmen have been trying to push implausible articles about Shiite Iran supporting Sunni insurgents for a couple of years now, and with virtually the sole exception of the New York Times, no one in the journalistic community has taken these wild charges seriously. But The Guardian?”
Dave Crouch
