Media Workers Against the War

In Tony Blair’s widely-reported speech on June 12 attacking the media, the opening words appeared to be missing. These should have read: “I am not haunted by Iraq, but…” Although the speech didn’t mention it once, every word was about the war.

As if any proof were needed, Downing Street actually banned broadcasters from screening the questions Blair answered at the end of the speech after ITV News asked him whether he regretted the way intelligence was used in the run-up to Iraq.

Amid the blizzard of comment on the speech, however, only one newspaper understood that this was all about Iraq – the paper singled out by Blair in his assault. The Independent’s front-page headline was spot on: “Would you be saying this, Mr Blair, if we supported your war in Iraq?”

In contrast, in the words of Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times, “a stage army of sycophantic columnists leapt forward to hug Blair and say how right he was”. Most sickening among these was the Guardian, whose leader drooled over the speech and talked of the prime minister’s “courage” to say what he said. Courage?! Blair might have displayed some courage if he had stood up to Murdoch and Rothermere, but not by whingeing about the Independent.

On Iraq, Blair speaks in code aimed at senior editors of the “liberal” media. This is much more effective than stating outright his real opinions, namely that those who question the war are anti-American, appeasers of terrorism and soft on Saddam.

He is not always so coded. In January he said the public are “constantly bombarded by the propaganda of the enemy, often quite sympathetically treated” by the media. A year earlier Blair denounced the BBC’s coverage of Hurricane Katrina as “full of hatred of America” and “gloating” at the country’s plight.

As the American journalist Jeff Cohen notes in his recent book on his time as a presenter at Fox news, Fox’s pretence of impartiality appeals to its reactionary viewers because, “like voters who want to support a candidate who appeals to their biases (say, against blacks or gays), many are happier supporting a candidate who communicates in code, rather than one who is overtly prejudiced.” Blair’s code has the same effect on editors.

The fact that he could devote an entire speech to the media without mentioning Iraq is already a massive clue as to how this code works. So Blair talked about the “radically altered” media environment being to blame for “sensationalism” – read, don’t you dare call me a liar, warmonger or criminal.

He said “the real reason for cynicism” is “how politics are reported” – read, stop talking about why millions hate me because of Iraq.

He said “attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment” – read, stop questioning why we went to war and what we are really doing in Iraq and Afghanistan (for a classic example from the BBC, click here).

He said “opinion and fact should be clearly divisible” and singled out the Independent as a “metaphor” for opinionated journalism – read, cut out anti-war opinion from the media. This has long been a bee in Blair’s bonnet. According to Greg Dyke’s memoirs, on March 19, 2003 – on the eve of the invasion – Blair wrote a letter to the BBC complaining about its coverage of Iraq and alleging “a real breakdown of the separation of news and comment”.

Nothing Blair said in his speech was remotely new – another point missed in the coverage. He merely repeated the line long pushed by a bevy of Blairite commentators led by John Lloyd of the Financial Times. They maintain that “contempt” shown for politicians by the media is undermining democracy. Indeed, the tone, targets and tactics of Blair’s speech seemed to have been lifted from some of John Lloyd’s writings on the subject.

But this is little more than pseudo-sophisticated, faux-academic cover for the Blairite assault on the media’s coverage of the “war on terror”, which started in earnest with the Hutton Report and is taking the mainstream media further and further to the right. Where this is leading is demonstrated by Lloyd’s piece in the Guardian (June 20). If you can fight your way past the mumbo-jumbo, Lloyd’s argument boils down to an allegation that the BBC is too liberal and a call to give Daily Mail readers a louder voice.

Perhaps the most astonishing part of Blair’s speech has been overlooked – his reference to the Watergate scandal, which was exposed by the dogged investigative reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Blair said: “Watergate was a great piece of journalism but there is a PhD thesis all on its own to examine the consequences for journalism of standing one conspiracy up.”

This is a revealing comment. The right have long insisted that it was the media that lost the Vietnam war (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary). Watergate severely weakened the White House at a crucial period in Vietnam, revealing to millions of Americans that Nixon’s war was not worth the price in terms of domestic abuse of power.

Blair clearly sees himself wronged by the media. But now we know just how deep is the grudge he bears against it: he sides with Nixon and Kissinger against Woodward, Bernstein and the anti-Vietnam war movement.

Nixon resigned in disgrace. Blair has survived, but his disgrace is none the less for it.

By Dave Crouch

This entry was posted on Friday, June 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm and is filed under U.K., Editorials. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.