mwaw.net Blog

Last weekend saw the launch in Glasgow of a Scottish branch of Media Workers Against the War, which has already been successfully campaigning in London for better media coverage of the war on terror.

We are journalists, media staff, academics and campaigners who are concerned that sections of the media seem not to have learned lessons from the Iraq conflict, and are making the same mistakes in coverage of war policy towards Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea.

We now have dozens of members in Scotland and want to continue the momentum with a series of briefings, campaigns and protests to draw attention to media bias, flawed reporting and the failure of journalists adequately to challenge and question government and military statements on the various conflicts into which we are being drawn.

At the meeting in Glasgow, Professor John Eldridge of Glasgow Media Unit talked about the modern history of media war coverage, its errors and omissions. One particularly revealing statistic he gave was that only 9 per cent of people in a recent survey were aware that the Israelis were the occupiers of the occupied territories; John called this a classic example of the “social construction of ignorance”.

Dave Crouch from MWAW in London talked about the need for political action in the media, arguing that this neither compromised journalists’ integrity nor undermined their professionalism. He reported that NUJ conference a week earlier saw 30 delegates attend a MWAW fringe meeting; there was strong support at the conference for action to call the media to account on war coverage.

After the meeting we met Craig Murray, the British former ambassador to Uzbekistan who is now rector of Dundee University. Murray was sacked for opposing extraordinary rendition, where suspects are brought to foreign countries to be tortured to extract intelligence for use in the war on terror. He agreed to address the next meeting of MWAW Scotland and to speak about his experiences with the media and the recent detention of British naval personnel by Iran.

We need your support! Any help you can give with venues, speakers, leaflets and flyers, and contacts with journalists and politicians who might support us, will be greatly appreciated. If anyone knows of MSPs (elections nothwithstanding) MEPs and MPs who are interested in media issues, please let me know. In addition, authors, writers and broadcasters who support a fairer media are essential for our campaign.

Bruce Whitehead, brucek3@aol.com

Launch meeting, Media Workers Against the War Scotland
Saturday April 21, 12.30-1400 @ SACC Conference, STUC, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow G3

It doesn’t matter what kind of journalist you are; we all want to report the facts truthfully and comprehensively. That means explaining context, including alternative views, questioning and challenging official statements and policies, and above all, opposing what’s morally wrong and illegal.

The issue of flawed and biased coverage is becoming ever-more problematic. The media was prone to supine and lazy journalism in the build up to both wars in the Gulf. Politicians and lobbyists must no longer be allowed to bully a weakened and pliable media to sell a misguided war on terror by perpetuating armed aggression in Iran and Afghanistan.

That is why we are organising Media Workers Against the War Scotland to oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and to warn against attacking Iran, through fair reporting and better scrutiny of government policy and military conduct. If we can organise in workplaces to give media staff confidence in standing up to their editors and managers to insist on ethical standards of fair and balanced reporting, then we have made a start in telling the unvarnished truth.

DEBATE THE ISSUES ON APRIL 21

With speakers:

ON NEWS, TRUTH AND POWER

Professor John Eldridge, a member of the Glasgow University Media Group, the foremost centre for media research and analysis in the UK. Professor Eldridge will talk about the issues which war reporting raises, particularly the way the media is used in war coverage to build support for, and to normalise, state aggression.

ON ANTI-WAR ACTIVISM INSIDE THE MEDIA

Dave Crouch is the chair of Media Workers Against War and has been instrumental in organising its successful campaign. MWAW has protested, leafleted and debated with the major media organisations including the BBC, ITN, BSkyB, CNN and other broadcasters and with newspaper editors and politicians. Recent speakers at MWAW meetings included Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Gary Younge, Craig Murray, Yvonne Ridley and NUJ president Jeremy Dear.

Media Workers Against the War Scotland’s launch meeting is being held at the annual conference of Scotland Against Criminalising Communities, in the STUC, 333 Woodlands Road, Glasgow G3, Saturday 21 April at 1230-1400.

Contact: Bruce Whitehead Email: brucek3@aol.com Mobile: 07944 928 702 www.mwaw.net

There has never been a better time to build a network of journalists in Scotland opposed to the cynical waste of billions of pounds on Trident – the new generation of weapons of mass destruction. Tens of thousands of people have joined protests against the prospect of Britain’s vile nuclear silos being filled with still more nuclear warheads – a “deterrent” whose only purpose can be to kill millions.
The New Labour-led administration in Edinburgh would prefer we didn’t talk about Trident, or Iraq, or the dawn raids by Home Office snatch squads to deport the families of asylum seekers. They would rather wash their hands of these growing tumours on Scotland’s conscience, saying to voters going to the polls for the Scottish Parliament on May 3 that there is nothing they can do, the war is a matter for Westminster. But the fact is it’s key to the elections.

Media Workers Against the War in believes not is the time for journalists to campaign against the waste of Scotland’s young people, press-ganged by poverty into fighting Blair’s wars.

For me, MWAW is a very simple issue for journalists. It’s an issue of health and safety. Over 170 media workers have died in Iraq, and the toll continues to rise. In many cases – like that of Terry Lloyd – the killings were the direct action of American troops.
MWAW began by campaigning to save Farzad Bazoft, the observer journalist hanged by Saddam Hussein.

Calling for the war to end is directly related to the freedom of journalists to do their job in safety. MWAW can help give journalists the confidence to stand up and speak out.

By Pete Murray, member of the NUJ national executive committee (personal capacity)

As a BBC journalist, my experience of Islamaphobia reached boiling point last year over the Prophet Mohammed cartoons debate. But my frustration wasn’t about the publication of the pictures – I had come to expect the insensitivity that accompanied reproducing them in the media.

Nor was about the views of colleagues, many of whom defended the cartoons publication as a right in a free society. A motion even appeared on an internal BBC message board with a considerable number of signatories subscribing to this message: ”Bush House journalists express their solidarity with the newspapers and editors involved in the publication or re-publication of the Danish cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed. Criticising or satirising religion in general and any religion in particular is a non-negotiable right in a free society and a vital prerogative of the media in Liberal democracies. We are appalled by the threats to European journalists and other citizens in parts of the Arab or Muslim world and unreservedly condemn political pandering to religious bigotry.”

What forced me to bow my head in disappointment was the NUJ’s statement in support of the BBC’s decision to broadcast the cartoons on Newsnight.

The NUJ applauded what they called “BBC journalists’ impartial and responsible reporting of the issues surrounding the publication of the cartoons” and “supported the decision to show the cartoons”, saying “they gave a legitimate news story proper context” – basically rolling out the perennial sacred cow of the right to free speech.

Over the years I thought I had developed a thick skin to the anti-Muslim bias in the media, but something stirred in my heart when I read the NUJ statement. To me it was like my best friend was not understanding me. And if your best friend doesn’t know you, then who does?

The cartoons debate provides a perfect example of how the treatment of Islam has become so neglectful and sloppy that it’s confusing and dividing even friends. Justifying this as ‘freedom of speech’ and the right to publish are lazy and convenient arguments. What happened to creative writing? What happened to respect? Why couldn’t journalists have described the pictures using words?

What is going on in the press these days is good old-fashioned racism. Muslim-baiting is not an expression of press freedom, its racism.

Those who want to fight for media freedom should ask what role the press played when the government put forward its arguments for invading Iraq, or during the Iran hostage crisis that never was? Or they should look at how a handful of businessmen own the British press.

You don’t need a background in religious affairs to understand Muslims, you don’t have to be religious – the criteria are better understanding and respect for others of different cultures and faiths.

Many journalists know this already but basically they just don’t care – they deliberately treat stories to do with Islam in a certain way.

For example, I produced an item for BBC2 about how some Muslim activists were trying to turn the turn the tide of bad press coverage and reclaim Islam from extremist elements. The activists said the press didn’t have time for their grass roots work and community projects. So we carried out a stunt: we invited the broadsheets to a “Muslim” charity event. The response? Journalists seemed only interested if there was going to be violence or flag burning afterwards. Shameless.

The use of the word Islamaphobia is doing us no favours. Having a ‘phobia’ is acceptable, but nobody wants to be a racist.

So how can we counter this bigotry? During my training at the Beeb I was told there are six principal questions to ask when writing a story; who, what, when, where, why and how. To encourage conscientious story telling, I’d like to add a seventh question to the list: ‘Am I being racist?’

Finally, I’d like to quote one of my colleagues who responded to those who supported publishing or broadcasting the Danish cartoons.

“People like Ghandi and Martin Luther King will give up their lives to uphold the basic values of respect and understanding, not because they’re cowards and not because they want to appease the extremists but because they know that nothing can replace understanding and respect.

“It is this which will prevail in history and not the Bin Ladens and Abu Hamzas, or the editors and weak journalists who want to provoke unnecessary reaction by inflicting insults on more than a billion-and-a-half people with a particular faith.”

You can’t argue with that. If you do then it’s like arguing with a drunk. Make mine a lime soda – I’m a Muslim.

By Uzma Hussain, a BBC staff member who has worked in a variety of journalism and other roles at the organisation for nearly 10 years. She gave this speech at an MWAW fringe meeting at NUJ national conference

The use of the word “hostage” during the Iran crisis was one we at Islam Channel News decided against using. That is effectively taking sides, and journalists shouldn’t be taking sides with anybody. But it’s a debate we’ve had a number of times about various words in all sorts of world conflicts.

Perhaps the most memorable is the use of the word “kidnap” last summer when we were reporting on the Israeli soldier being held by the Palestinians.

In our newsroom we ruled that the word “kidnapped” implies an unlawful abduction. And if a man is armed, in military uniform, and taking part in a military operation, his capture by the enemy doesn’t amount to an “unlawful” act.

Corporal Gilad Shalit was taken by fighters from Palestinian resistance groups, including Hamas, during “Operation Summer Rain”, an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. Given that Hamas is – let’s not forget – democratically elected and hence representative of the Palestinian people, the capture is as lawful as any other capture of a prisoner of war.

Let’s remind ourselves of what a prisoner of war is: a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict. To be a POW the service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. In short, there is no doubt that Corporal Shalit fits the criteria; and so to call him a hostage, or a kidnapped soldier, is simply wrong and misleading.

But what was surprising to see is that it wasn’t just the right-wing, pro-Israeli, Zionist news organizations using the word “kidnap”, but also those who are supposedly giving an Arab perspective; a sign perhaps that we journalists don’t care to question and challenge anymore. We’re beginning to sound more and more like politicians.

And when a Palestinian is taken from his home and imprisoned by Israel, before being tried in a military court, there’s no question over whether it’s a justified detention or not, no debate over whether it’s unlawful or lawful. There are thousands of children in Israeli jails, some as young as nine.

We’ll never see the word “kidnap” used when referring to Taliban fighters (who, incidentally don’t wear uniforms) or members of Al Qaida (no rules of engagement in their fights) being held in Guantanamo Bay. But perhaps that’s just another case of “George Bush says, journalists do”.

Sadiya Chowdhury, reporter, Islam Channel News

“Hostages”, “detainees”, “captives” or “prisoners”? What should we have called the 15 British navy personnel held in Iran for 13 days? I’m sure the issue was raised in your newsroom – It certainly was in mine, the Financial Times.

The general conclusion we reached was that using the term “hostages” was wrong, and we opted for “detainees” instead – apart from a few slips. We even carried an article about how UK diplomats were desperate to avoid using the word.
According to the Collins Dictionary – not the Oxford one, I know, but it’s just as thick – a hostage is “a person given to or held by a person, organisation, etc. as a security or pledge or for ransom, release, exchange for prisoners”; while to detain means “to delay; hold back; stop; to confine or hold in custody – detainee is a person kept in custody”.

The difference might seem subtle, but it is very important.

For example, the Daily Mail’s headline on March 13, the day after the crisis began, was “Marines taken hostage by Iran”, while the Daily Telegraph went with “Marines seized by Iranian guards”. What do these headlines tell the reader?

The Mail’s suggests that 15 UK citizens have been withheld for a ransom, i.e. The Iranians want something in return for the release of the sailors.
The Telegraph’s tells us that 15 UK citizens have been withheld, but the reason remains unclear and therefore is more balanced — i.e. the Iranians have captured 15 UK citizens, but we cannot tell you (the reader) exactly why because we don’t know.

Later on, the Iranians claimed that 15 British navy personnel entered their waters; the British government flatly denied it. What emerged in this case was an international dispute.

We as reporters and subs – unless we have compelling evidence – can’t take sides in our work. So if there is a dispute we must attempt to use the most neutral and least inflammatory term possible.

The MoD’s “GPS evidence” was as reliable as the coordinates given by the Iranians. This meant that no journalist was in a position to determine if the 15 marines had committed a crime or not, just as we couldn’t confirm whether the British marines had trespassed into Iranian waters or not.

Therefore the correct term to define the 15 UK citizens held in Iran had to be detainees, captives or prisoners, as the Iranians did not capture them to blackmail Britain, but opted to hold them for having allegedly committed an incursion.

If someone is accused of killing another person, the police will arrest a suspect as a precautionary measure. That does not mean that the police have abducted them or taken them hostage — they have arrested them for a suspected crime. The person arrested might dispute that, but will have to prove their innocence.

In the UK the red tops and the mid-market papers didn’t bother with any of this: for them the main issue was to sensationalise. However, this is hardly news. What was more worrying in the whole affair was to see how the broadsheets switched from “detainees/captives” to “hostages”.

The shift clearly occurred after George W. Bush demanded on March 31 that “The Iranians must give back the hostages.” This, in some way, permitted the “responsible press” to change the tone of their reporting. The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph and The Times all switched to “hostages”.

However, the appearance of “Iran” and “hostages” in the same headline is highly inflammatory. It takes us back to the 1979-80 crisis when Iran stormed the US embassy in Tehran to take over 50 US citizens hostage, after making a revolution that ended US power in the country and kicked out a regime backed by the CIA.

The Americans have never forgiven Iran for that. Equating the recent crisis with that of 1979-1980 is a gift to the hawks and fuels the drive for war on Iran.

In 1979 Iran wanted the US to hand over the former Shah of Iran, who had fled to America, to face justice in Iran. The exchange was clear in the 1979-81 crisis, not in 2007.

Of course, during the crisis the US allowed Iran access to five of its citizens held in Iraq, while the Iranian diplomat Jalal Sharafi, who went missing in Iraq in February, was released by his captors. There were suggestions that these moves were made as part of a bargain for the British sailors’ release.

Does that make them “hostages”? If so, you have to be consistent and draw the necessary conclusion that the five Iranians held in Iraq are also hostages held by the Americans, that Jalal Shafari was taken hostage by the Americans, and indeed that all prisoners of the United States held in Iraq, in Guantanamo or under “rendition” schemes in Middle East dictatorships are hostages kidnapped by the US in order to pursue its political goals.

Now that “our” marines are back home, newspapers have taken an even more lax approach to the issue and the word hostage seems “prettier” than “captives” or “detainees”.

If you are an editor or sub-editor and you are reading this, make sure that you try your best to change things in your newsroom.

Financial Times journalist