Report of a workshop at the conference “The First Casualty?” War, Truth and the Media Today”, London School of Economics, Nov 17, with Peter Wilby (The Guardian) and Jane Shallice (Officer, Stop the War Coalition):
Jane Shallice opened the workshop, describing some of the particular challenges the Stop the War Coalition faces in opposing the “War on Terror” and how and why journalists might portray the perspective of the anti-war campaign more effectively.
Shallice emphasised that activists in the anti-war movement come from various backgrounds but with great experience. She strongly rejected the notion famously expressed by Andrew Marr that the opposition to the Iraq war reflected the “petulant mewlings of amateurs.” She pointed out that such “amateurs” are usually motivated by deep concern and have “studied and fought and argued and expressed ideas in a way that ‘mere’ journalists, as professionals, may not.”
Describing her own direct experience campaigning against the Vietnam war in the 1960s, Shallice highlighted that many campaigners also have a grasp of the way the media operate and how this has changed in recent years. For example, coverage of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan lacks the visual representation that brought the truth of Vietnam into the mainstream.
Shallice briefly summarised the Stop the War Coalition’s three main founding aims, namely:
1. To stop the war;
2. To prevent the erosion of civil liberties;
3. To prevent the growth of Islamophobia.
Despite huge support, she said, the anti-war movement ultimately failed to prevent war, while the erosion of civil liberties and growth of Islamophobia continue.
Clearly there were sections of the media that supported the Stop the War Coalition and there is no doubt that The Mirror’s backing contributed massively in recruiting protestors to the March 2003 demonstration. But too often editorial decisions were taken in other papers to dampen anti-war sentiment and elevate the pro-war argument, Shallice said.
And the role of New Labour’s communications advisors – specifically Alastair Campbell – and the capitulation of the BBC in the wake of the Hutton enquiry undermined the anti-war message. On this issue Shallice lamented that, while there were understandable reasons for the BBC’s concern, “there is huge support for the BBC that was never really tapped.”
As a result, the anti-war movement developed largely out of “old methods” of organising, i.e. public meetings – and the support it received says much about the government’s arguments. “Whatever the ‘best’ journalists were saying to promote their views, people didn’t believe them,” Shallice remarked.
Acknowledging that there are – and always have been – good journalists, Shallice stressed that strong, remarkable editorial decisions to give space to unpopular stories are few and far between.
Finally, Shallice discussed an emerging theme – the “asymmetry” of the mainstream narrative, which overwhelmingly represents those in power.
Somewhat ironically, she pointed out, the US military’s use of the term “asymmetrical warfare” for suicide bombing and IEDs has been widely adopted by the media, yet the use of air force against people without any air power is never described as such.
“In a sense you feel that about the way the world is expressed. The asymmetry is very clear – those in power have their message given, those without and who are critical of it are still attempting to find ways of having at least a little bit of their argument presented,” Shallice said.
To redress these imbalances, she urged journalists to recognise these fundamental arguments are among citizens and views should not be valued according to whether they are those of amateurs and professionals. She called on all to observe the mantra “doubt everything” when interpreting any line of information.
Peter Wilby continued by making some further observations about how the media influenced the anti-war movement’s impact, aside from its failure to develop an “alternative narrative” which he described in his plenary session talk.
Wilby noted that the movement changed the political course, even if it did not ultimately succeed in preventing war in Iraq. The fact that Tony Blair only won the vote in the House of Commons very narrowly was in that sense a victory, he said.
One “unfortunate” reason the protests did not have a higher profile in the media was that there was not enough drama – there was no violence, no direct action. Wilby recalled that newspapers described the successful anti-Vietnam war demonstration in the spring of 1968 a flop, because alarmist ideas that there were plots to attack Whitehall and the BBC failed to materialise.
He added that the media had marginalised the alternative, anti-war message by focusing on different groups within the Stop the War Coalition and speculating that it was being used as a “front” by the Socialist Workers Party, by Muslim organisations, or by “various undesirables.” Wilby noted that this is a familiar tactic that was used in coverage of anti-Vietnam war protests.
Discussion
Reporting demonstrations
A number of points were raised about the low profile or misrepresentation of anti-war demonstrations in the media. Becky (journalist) said that a poorly attended demonstration about BBC cuts received worldwide media attention, and that although turn-out alone is not the only marker of a movement’s importance, a more proportionate response to anti-war protests is needed.
Sheila (anti-war activist) asked why a Countryside Alliance demonstration one weekend received far greater media coverage, both during the build-up and afterwards, than a Stop the War demonstration of similar size the following week.
Daniel (freelance journalist) noted that the Guardian’s coverage of the 2000 May Day demonstration was no different to that in the Daily Mail – he asked why would this be the case if journalists on the ground are truly “free” to report the facts, as Sami Ramadani proposed? Daniel queried whether journalists should be covering anti-war demonstrations if, from a news editing perspective, the events in themselves are not necessarily newsworthy without something dramatic taking place. Should there be coverage of a movement, its ideas, or the facts on which the various arguments are structured?
He suggested that a bridge between journalists and activists could operate outside of the realm of “who’s in the SWP, or have you done something exciting on the streets today” and instead focus on building up a subcontext that cannot be ignored in the same way the government does.
Maintaining the movement’s profile – countering ‘Iraq fatigue’
People picked up on Peter Wilby’s recent commentary about “Iraq fatigue” in The Guardian. It was suggested this fatigue is due to the constant nature of the events, so despite extremely high level of atrocities there is no element of surprise or a change warranting greater coverage. This may also elevate or somehow legitimise any story about improvements in the situation, for example recent reports suggesting that the US “surge” has worked.
Trish said a similar problem arose in reporting atrocities in Northern Ireland but did not necessarily reflect public disinterest – would somehow changing the way news is delivered generate more interest in stories?
There was some discussion about the continuing interest in other stories about, e.g. Madeleine McCann and Amy Winehouse, and whether in fact this is therefore rather a “selective” fatigue.
Wilby commented that fatigue arises because newspapers feel that their readers cannot identity with Iraqis and their situation, partly because of the massive scale and horror of their problem, but also because they are of another ethnic background, religion, and culture.
Control of the media and how to resist it
The relationship between power and the means to control the narrative was seen as central to the problem. Sue (journalist) highlighted that effective “propaganda machines” from, for example, the US state department and Israel, monitor sensitive issues extremely closely, leading to a kind of censorship. The opposition does not have the necessary resources to counter this kind of media scrutiny.
NGOs, governmental and other institutions have enormous resources of information and it was suggested that there could be an equivalent resource to help journalists substantiate and explore alternative narratives on the war. Briefings to inform journalists about specific issues, e.g. political use of the UN Charter to legitimise wars of aggression, were suggested.
However, it was pointed out that journalists have the power to avoid inaccurate euphemisms such as “friendly fire” and “met the target” in their language. And a number of alternative sources of information were touched on, such as Arab media outlets, citizen journalism and the internet in general.
Daniel described a need to recreate the framing conditions in the newsroom and to think about how this can be influenced.
Jane Shallice stressed the need to follow trusted activists who read systematically and write investigative pieces for alternative publications. She praised an article in the Financial Times about US bases in Iraq, which followed up a more extensive article in the London Review of Books. She suggested that perhaps more analysis is needed rather than straightforward news briefings.
Peter Wilby noted that a serious limitation to setting up a major resource is the left’s lack of funds and inability to raise revenue the way that right-wing institutes and centres can. The rise of the “PR state” has compounded this problem.
By Caroline Price
