Don't fence us in
Well, what's it all about?
The largest media organisation in the world was actually the one run
covertly by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States.
Nick Davies says certain inconvenient facts are off limits to the
modern 'churnalist'. We must hope he is wrong
Inayat Bunglawala
February 22, 2008 10:30 AM
Nick Davies' new book, Flat Earth News, has an impressive range of
endorsements listed on its front and back covers.
If you read newspapers, you must read this book" (John Humphrys)
A must read for anyone worried about journalism - which, on this
analysis, should be everyone (Ian Hislop)
This brilliant book ... unrelenting in its research, ruthless in its
honesty, is a landmark expos=E9 by a courageous insider" (John Pilger)
This is an exceptionally im****tant book which should be read, reread
and inwardly digested by all re****ters, editors and proprietors ... if
even half the charges levelled by Nick Davies are true, this is a
morally bankrupt profession which is in desperate need of fundamental
reform" (Peter Oborne).
Well, what's it all about? In a nutshell, Nick Davies - an
investigative journalist who writes for the Guardian - argues that the
cor****ate takeover of many of our national newspapers, and the
resulting logic of commerce, mean journalists have less time than ever
to check their facts and go out and find real news stories, and are
increasingly prone to simply recycling wire copy and PR material.
Enlisting the help of researchers from Cardiff University, Davies
examined the output of our four quality nationals (the Guardian, Daily
Telegraph, Times and Independent) and the influential mid-market Daily
Mail. They found that 60% of domestic news stories consisted wholly or
mainly of wire copy and/or PR material, while a further 20% contained
clear elements of wire copy and/or PR material. In only 1% of these
stories was the source accurately identified; in the rest of the
cases, they went under various misleading bylines such as "by a staff
re****ter". Is this problematic? Yes, says Davies, because it means
that:
=2E..the global mass media are not merely prone to occasional error but
are constitutionally and constantly vulnerable to being infected with
falsehood, distortion and propaganda.
For several decades during the cold war, Davies informs us, the
largest media organisation in the world was actually the one run
covertly by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States.
Across the world, newspaper owners, editors and re****ters were
recruited on to the CIA payroll. The CIA established phoney front
companies to take a controlling stake in newspapers, magazines, radio
stations and news agencies. It funded various "thinktanks" to churn
out high-profile "research" designed to promote US interests. And now,
according to Davies, after the 9/11 attacks, the CIA is busy
rebuilding those propaganda networks and working alongside the
Pentagon machinery. It has made clear it wants to "dominate the
information battlespace" with "information operations" being
officially declared as a new "core competency" and designated the
fifth arm of the US military, with the same status as army, navy, the
air force and special operations.
In addition to becoming increasingly reliant on wire agencies and PR
outfits, and vulnerable to manipulation by intelligence services, many
journalists also learn to avoid what Davies terms "electric fences".
=2E.. the most potent electric fence in the world is the one erected on
behalf of the Israeli government. Journalists who write stories which
offend the politics of the Israeli lobby are subjected to a campaign
of formal complaints and pressure on their editors; most of all, they
are inundated with letters and emails which can be extravagant in
their hostility ... The result is that some facts become dangerous: to
re****t Palestinian casualties; to depict the Palestinians as victims
of Israeli occupation; to refer to the historical ousting of hundreds
of thousands of Palestinians from their homes; to refer to the killing
of Palestinian civilians by Zionist groups in the 1940s. The facts are
there, but the electric fence will inflict pain on any re****ter who
selects them.
And what is the outcome of all this pressure? Two extensive surveys
have found that the BBC - our most im****tant broadcaster by far -
routinely gives more airtime to Israeli voices than Palestinian ones;
and, perhaps unsurprisingly, more viewers and radio listeners in the
UK have come to believe that it is actually the Palestinians who are
occupying Israeli land rather than vice versa.
Is the situation redeemable? Well, Davies writes a rather gloomy
epilogue concluding with the assessment: "I fear the illness is
terminal." We really have to hope he is wrong.
L'Shalom
|
