Registered user login:

Yesterday's news

Brian Cathcart

Published 01 November 2007

The British press has lost interest in Iraq. This is not a media conspiracy, but reflects the public's lack of appetite for the dismal truth

Slowly and quietly, Iraq is slipping off our news pages. The faraway conflict that poisoned politics in Britain for five years is becoming history.

This started as an impression. I noticed, as you may have done, that there seemed to be fewer of those mayhem stories that were a daily staple a year ago: fewer ghastly suicide bombings, fewer vanloads of corpses discovered at dawn, fewer kidnappings and beheadings. Horrors of the kind described so vividly by Dahr Jamail on the pages that follow now come our way only occasionally.

A trawl of our national press over last weekend appeared to confirm this. In the four days from Friday to Monday the downmarket papers barely mentioned Iraq, and where they did it was usually in the context of "our boys" going out there or coming home. At the upper end of the market, with one exception to which I will return, any attention given to Iraq was focused on the danger of a Turkish-Kurdish conflict in the north. All was quiet, it seemed, on the Baghdad front.

Could this be good news? Perhaps General Petraeus's surge is making headway, bringing some order and humanity to this blood-soaked place. That is certainly what the general himself would have you believe. He recently told reporters that the threat from al-Qaeda in Iraq was "significantly reduced". The group had fewer strongholds, fewer hiding places and less support among Sunnis, he said, though he warned it was still capable of landing a "big punch".

The daily updates on the impressive Iraq Body Count website, however, tell a far less reassuring story. They go like this: Friday (26 October), 29 dead; Saturday, 50 dead; Sunday, 26 dead; Monday, 81 dead. That's a 7/7 every other day, and then some (though the site points out that these are raw data and subject to revision). On Sunday alone, according to the best information available, a car bomb killed two, a roadside bomb killed two, and six bodies were found - all in Baghdad. In Kirkuk, meanwhile, another car bomb killed eight, while in Basra two people died in separate attacks and in Najaf gunmen shot dead a philosophy professor. In the 48 hours of one weekend no fewer than 76 people died in political violence, and yet not a single British national paper recorded that toll or anything like it on the Monday morning. Only the Kirkuk bomb got any coverage at all. Iraq may be slipping off our newspaper pages, but it is not for the want of things to report. The reasons are not hard to find and they do not include a media conspiracy to make the Petraeus surge appear more successful than it is. They relate mainly to that cruel commodity, news values.

Moving swiftly on

Visualise the morning news conference at a daily paper, where, once again, the foreign editor informs his colleagues that there has been a heavy death toll inside Iraq. Somebody will pipe up: "Any Brits?" The answer will be no. Someone else will ask: "Is this a new peak?" The answer will again be no, since deaths are actually down from last year. And the discussion will swiftly move on to Hillary Clinton or the EU treaty or whatever is next on the foreign list.

By some definitions these deaths are not news at all. If news is something new that is important or interesting to your readers, how does an unnamed dead Iraqi philosopher rate? How do six more butchered bodies in Baghdad rate? And when tolls like these are the norm, how many deaths is news? There is also a sense abroad that, with Britain's involvement slowly coming to an end, Iraq is already yesterday's story and the longer-term commitment in Afghanistan has a better claim to our attention. It is no use complaining about this, because these news values are tested at the news-stands every day. People just won't buy a paper that always has exploded Iraqi cars on the front page.

The conscientious foreign editor, of course, will seek fresh ways to bring terrible facts to the reader, and here we meet two more problems. First, the familiar option of reporting events through the prism of politics, of supplying meaning through what people are saying, is not available because there are no real politics in Iraq. Second, it is extremely dangerous to gather first-hand information of the kind that gives depth and human context to the bloodshed - the Committee to Protect Journalists counts 29 journalists killed in Iraq this year alone.

Keeping such risks to a minimum is not cowardly. I applaud Dahr Jamail's courage, but it goes far beyond what the newspaper reader has a right to demand of flesh-and-blood reporters. That is why embedded reporting has proved attractive, offering as it does the chance to see at least something of what is going on, but with reduced risk.

Yet embedding with British forces is becoming rarer, perhaps because their remit is now so limited. The one paper to devote space to Iraq over the weekend was the Sunday Telegraph, which had a despatch from an embedded reporter who painted a miserable picture of an isolated force with no information sources and no function, camped outside a city in the grip of militias. On that basis, you have to wonder how much more embedding there will be: the reporters only learn about discontent in the army, and the Ministry of Defence can't want that.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and this lull in the reporting of Iraq's miseries will be temporary. Then again, perhaps this dreadful conflict we helped to create is becoming just one more of those unending tales of woe (Somalia, Lebanon, Burma . . . ) that we read about only occasionally and shake our heads at in despair. I suspect that Petraeus, Bush and Brown would all settle for that.

Brian Cathcart is professor of journalism at Kingston University

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

GideonPolya
02 November 2007 at 19:57

One key aspect of Mainstream media under-reporting about Occupied Iraq is sustained, remorseless IGNORING of the number of violent and no-violent post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen). However such estimates ARE reported by humanitarian and ethical Alternative media such as South Asian Countercurrents, Canada-based MWC News and US-based Newsvine.

Recent authoritative estimates of violence-related post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq (as of September 2007) are of 1.2 million (from the expert UK ORB polling company) and 0.8 million (from the top US Bloomberg School of Public Health group at America's Johns Hopkins University who estimated 0.6 million violent deaths as of July 2006).

Authoritative estimates of non-violent post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq as of September 2007 are of 0.7 million (from the latest UN Population Division data) and of 0.8 million (calculated from United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF, data on post-invasion under-5 year old infant deaths; for impoverished Third World countries the under-5 infant deaths are about 0.7 of the total excess deaths, as described in the MWC News article “Layperson’s Guide to Counting Iraq Deaths”).

From this one can estimate total post-invasion violent and non-violent occupied Iraqi excess deaths and these clearly range from 0.7 million + 0.8 million = 1.5 million (minimum estimate) to 0.8 million + 1.2 million = 2.0 million (upper estimate).

UNHCR informs us that there are some 4 million Iraqi refugees.

The UN Genocide Convention Article II defines genocide thus: "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with INTENT [my emphasis] to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The latest medical, survey and UN data indicate that post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraq and Afghan Territories total 0.3 million, 2.0 milion and 3.2 million, respectivelely; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million, 0.6 million and 2.2 million, respectively; and refugees total 7 million, 4 million and 3.7 million, respectively. What is happening in these Occupied Territories clearly amount ot Genoicde as defined above - a Palestinian Genocide, an Iraqi Genocide and an Afghan Genocide.

Indeed it can be estimated that the excess deaths associated with post-1950 US Asian Wars total 22 milion of which the Bush I plus Bush II Asian Wars - the Bush Asian Holocaust - accounts for 8 million (see MWC News).

The world is seeing not only Genocide Commission but evil and repugnant Genocide Denial by the complicit US, Apartheid Israel, the US Coalition and the US Alliance in Afghanistan (including NATO).

The time for Media, politician and bureaucrat lying by commission and omission is well and truly over. Top American medical epidemiologists Professors Burnham (Johns Hopkins) and Roberts (Columbia) have recently stated: "Ignorance of Iraqi death toll no longer an option ... over a million deaths to date".

It is high time for war crimes trials and indeed formal complaints have been lodged. Such prosecution has been demanded by no less than UK Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter back in 2005 when Mainstream media who actually cared to report post-invasion Iraq civilian deaths estimated “100,000” (in his 2005 Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech) when he stated: "How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice."

2 million [post-invasion Occupied Iraq] ? 8 million [Bush Asian Holocaust]? 22 milllion [post-1950 US Asian Wars]? More than enough I would have thought.

Carl Jones
06 November 2007 at 21:40

Mr Cathcart, I was drawn to your article, but God only knows. I only read the first paragraph....this was enough to provoke a response.

The public aren`t bored with the MSM version of Iraq, the pubklic are bored by the LIES told by the MSM and the likes of the BBC.

Not only the lies, but the fact that Iraq is a construct, the current situation is by design and the early and middle phase were Iraqi warlords, hired guns (likes of Blackwater) and special forces who were tasked to kill coalition forces to justify the occupation. It then moved into the civil war phase and now we could be witnessing the wind down....if we could ever believe the MSM.

Mr Cathcart, smell the coffee, the public now knows that Britain and the US have become the evil of the evil...

....just imagine, our legacy can only be suppassed if a million or two UK/US citizens are murdered in a ground war on our own soil....I know its a remote prospect, but this is an illustration of just how evil the West has become.

Understand that I believe the Second World War and Hitler were part of a UK/US elite conspiracy. Of course, we are fighting established history written by the winners. In the case of Iraq, the NWO will have to resist people like me and many others who will never stop countering silly articles like this. Mr Cathcart must have missed that old lady who called Mr Blair a "war criminal"...she sounded just like my Nana, but thank God she never had to witness what the West has become.

aflatoon
13 November 2007 at 16:54

dear sir, i just wondewhat is happening to our feelngs,our sensitivities.where we are going., towards what.?you may call it indifference,or insensitivity,but the cruel fact is this we are a divided lot,closed in our own invisible walls, erected by not only our media & politiciansbut our own prejudicesmas well.instead of rueing at the no of casualities pointing fingers towards THE WELL KNOWN CULPRITS AND CRIMINALS we should devote our selves towards peace by solving all the problems facing us.we must learn to be more kind, considerate & accommodative towards others.we should shed our xenophobiac attitudes.

but how?who will lead us? who will show us the torch.?is every thing lost already incluging hope?arman najmi

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should the third runway at Heathrow go ahead?