We've been had. Once again, the British people have been used as cannon fodder in the Great PR War against Terrorism - a war of words rather than of wounds, unless you count collateral career damage (but more of Jack Straw later).

The victors? Those great war heroes, Bush and Blair, of course. The spoils? Popularity, rising poll ratings and the increased prospect of re-election.

It all started with a few pictures of helpless and humiliated al-Qaeda prisoners - sorry, detainees - kneeling in an open wire prison at Camp X-Ray, handcuffed and blindfolded, ministered to by rather fierce-looking American soldiers.

These images dropped an atomic bomb in the midst of the British media, and the shock waves are still being felt.

For those of us who look for consistency in a changing world, it's all proving very bizarre: I was only just starting to catch my breath after reading the Guardian leader praising President Bush's first year in office when the Observer floored me by giving over half a page to Christopher Hitchens hailing Bush's strong leadership.

Then came the bombshell from the normally pro-American, pro-war Mail on Sunday. The front page screamed: TORTURED. Over the picture of the now familiar red-suited detainees, it read: "They can hear nothing, see nothing, smell nothing, feel nothing. Manacled . . . they kneel in submission. Is this how Bush and Blair defend our civilisation?" As the Mail argued in its leader, by their treatment of these detainees, the allies were losing the moral high ground in the war against terrorism.

The story then took off - partly owing to the boldness of the treatment, but mainly because this was the Mail on Sunday - and was leading the news bulletins by lunchtime.

The usual suspects expressed their horror the following day - the Mirror most spectacularly. Over the picture of the detainees ran the headline: "What the hell are you doing in OUR name, Mister Blair?"

The News of the World, then the Sun and the Daily Telegraph, provided the only dissenting voices. They attacked the "bleeding-heart brigade" and more or less argued that members of al-Qaeda had forfeited their human rights on 11 September.

Thus far, we were witnessing a PR blunder of seismic dimensions. The world's media joined in a chorus of condemnation of the Bush administration and those "friends", like Blair, who stood beside it. No longer could the west claim to be seeking justice rather than vengeance. Overnight, Bush the Brave became Bush the Barbarian.

But something about the handling of the story just didn't add up. It was clear to any media novice that these pictures - coupled with the understanding that this is how the prisoners are being held in US captivity - were about as helpful to the cause as a dose of anthrax. And yet they were taken and released by Bush officials.

Only days later did the media discover that the prisoners were manacled, blindfolded, and so on, only in transit. These were not the conditions of their captivity. When the Red Cross eventually inspected Camp X-Ray, its only substantive complaint was the violation of the Geneva Convention over the use of any pictures at all. Then the British detainees told our ambassadors that they had no complaints about their conditions either.

Meanwhile, President Bush had emerged as a latter-day Dirty Harry, meting out rough justice to the villains. The American public loved it. Like Reagan and Clinton before him, Bush proved that he understood the American people's love of a real-life, Hollywood-style tough guy as president.

And what of his trusty sidekick Blair? The latest Guardian poll had him riding high with a 51 per cent approval rating. A poll on GMTV had 93 per cent of viewers saying that manacles were too good for the al-Qaeda prisoners.

Genius or what?

---

It's just a pity that no one thought to let blundering Jack Straw in on the handling strategy. He claimed to be representing "Britain's unease" when he demanded an explanation from the US for the pictures at the same time as his leader was making reassuring noises. Which just goes to prove that Tony doesn't talk to him any more.

---

Darling Gyles Brandreth gave us all an intimate glimpse into the working life of Elizabeth II via the Sunday Telegraph, and an interminable insight into how out of touch this old granny now is. He describes her more like a corgi than a queen - well mannered, nice sense of humour, good with kids (so long as they're other people's), accommodating and tolerant. And she never sweats.

Expressing surprise to hear that her subjects were suffering some overcrowding on the trains, she quipped: "I'd heard that everyone was staying home watching television . . . eating takeaway pizza." Perhaps someone should explain to her that - unlike her own lazy children - most of us have to go out to work for a living.

---

Ruby Wax's new BBC daytime show faces the axe because she's too direct, too crude and talks about sex all the time. In an attempt to broaden my own media experience, I watched the ITV rival, Trisha - the "He/she walked out when I was . . ." special - only to discover it was very direct, very crude and all the people talked about was sex.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website