The cyber guardians of honest journalism

No longer trusting what they read, see and hear, people in western democracies are questioning as ne

By John Pilger Published 29 November 2007

What has changed in the way we see the world? For as long as I can remember, the relationship of journalists with power has been hidden behind a bogus objectivity and notions of an "apathetic public" that justify a mantra of "giving the public what they want". What has changed is the public's perception and knowledge. No longer trusting what they read and see and hear, people in western democracies are questioning as never before, particularly via the internet. Why, they ask, is the great majority of news sourced to authority and its vested interests? Why are many journalists the agents of power, not people?

Much of this new thinking can be traced to a remarkable UK website, www.medialens.org. The creators of Media Lens, David Edwards and David Cromwell, assisted by their webmaster, Olly Maw, have had such an extraordinary influence since they set up the site in 2001 that, without their meticulous and humane analysis, the full gravity of the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan might have been consigned to bad journalism's first draft of bad history. Peter Wilby put it well in his review of Guardians of Power: the Myth of the Liberal Media, a drawing-together of Media Lens essays published by Pluto Press, which he described as "mercifully free of academic or political jargon and awesomely well researched. All journalists should read it, because the Davids make a case that demands to be answered."

That appeared in the New Statesman. Not a single national newspaper reviewed the most important book about journalism I can remember. Take the latest Media Lens essay, "Invasion - a Comparison of Soviet and Western Media Performance". Written with Nikolai Lanine, who served in the Soviet army during its 1979-89 occupation of Afghanistan, it draws on Soviet-era newspaper archives, comparing the propaganda of that time with current western media performance. They are revealed as almost identical.

Like the reported "success" of the US "surge" in Iraq, the Soviet equivalent allowed "poor peasants [to work] the land peacefully". Like the Americans and British in Iraq and Afghanistan, Soviet troops were liberators who became peacekeepers and always acted in "self-defence". The BBC's Mark Urban's revelation of the "first real evidence that President Bush's grand design of toppling a dictator and forcing a democracy into the heart of the Middle East could work" (Newsnight, 12 April 2005) is almost word for word that of Soviet commentators claiming benign and noble intent behind Moscow's actions in Afghanistan. The BBC's Paul Wood, in thrall to the 101st Airborne, reported that the Americans "must win here if they are to leave Iraq . . . There is much still to do." That precisely was the Soviet line.

The tone of Media Lens's questions to journalists is so respectful that personal honesty is never questioned. Perhaps that explains a reaction that can be both outraged and comic. The Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler, champion of Princess Diana and Ronald Reagan, ranted at Media Lens emailers as "fascistic" and "beyond redemption". Roger Alton, editor of the Observer and champion of the invasion of Iraq, replied to one ultra-polite member of the public: "Have you been told to write in by those cunts at Media Lens?" When questioned about her environmental reporting, Fiona Harvey, of the Financial Times, replied: "You're pathetic . . . Who are you?"

The message is: how dare you challenge us in such a way that might expose us? How dare you do the job of true journalism and keep the record straight? Peter Barron, the editor of Newsnight, took a different approach. "I rather like them. David Edwards and David Cromwell are unfailingly polite, their points are well argued and sometimes they're plain right."

David Edwards believes that "reason and honesty are enhanced by compassion and compromised by greed and hatred. A journalist who is sincerely motivated by concern for the suffering of others is more likely to report honestly . . ." Some might call this an exotic view. I don't. Neither does the Gandhi Foundation, which on 2 December will present Media Lens with the prestigious Gandhi International Peace Award. I salute them.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

11 comments

Sat, 2012-11-10 23:49 — FreedomYes

If someone with more money than your truly would start an ezine or online news paper that addressed issues with invitations to liberal and conservative leaning news organization to present their news story that speaks to the topic being discusses, I think it would be tremendously popular and would expose Americans to topics that the media currently controls with political motives.

It would create a form of accountability in that if news orgs (ABC, CBS, MSNBC, Fox, etc.) didn't step up to the plate, the ones that did would be rewarded with the attention of millions of readers who they otherwise would not have reached.

Sat, 2012-11-10 23:40 — FreedomYes (not verified)

Thu, 2007-11-29 12:23 — writeon

The Medialens site is a kind of refuge for heritics. A forum where like minded people can discuss and remember the old days and the old ways, before the clampdown. It's as if the modern media functions like the Church before the Enlightenment, and the growth of reason, rationality and science. The modern mass media doesn't really inform, it actually obscures and distorts reality. It's primary objective is to frame and manage the way we see the world in the service of the powerful, which is why there is so much entertainment and so little information. And it's likely to get far worse as our media seeks to ligitimize the great neo-imperial project.

Fri, 2007-11-30 03:25 — GideonPolya

Great article. Media Lens was associated with a great victory recently over the issue of correct reportage of post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths) in Occupied Iraq.

With a few exceptions (the Guardian, the LA Times) UK, US and Australian Mainstream media will simply NOT report the latest horrific estimates e.g. the UK ORB estimate of 1.2 million violent deaths in Occupied Iraq, in agreement with the top US Johns Hopkins medical epidemiologists' estimate of 0.8 million.

Indeed, until about a month ago even the US antiwar organization Antiwar.com provided a gross under-estimate from "Iraq Body Count" of about 80,000 such deaths based on Iraqi government (!) , US (!) and media reports (!).

After protests from people such as myself and London-based journalist Gabriele Zamaparini to Antiwar.com and published on Media Lens, Antiwar.com ceased its 4 year practise of grossly under-estimating post-invasion Iraqi deaths and started reporting the conservative estimate from the distinguished Justforeignpolicy.org (currently 1.1 million).

The actual reality is even more dreaful (see "Iraq: Genocide by all definition, Bush's Iraq War. 2 million excess deaths" on MWC News) - post-invasion VIOLENT excess deaths now total 0.8 million (Johns Hopkins medical epidemiology group) to 1.2 million (UK ORB) and post-invasion NON-VIOLENT excess deaths total 0.7-0.8 million (estimates from UN agency data) yielding post-invasion excess deaths totaling 1.5-2.0 million.

In addition, post-invasion under-5 infant deaths now total 0.6 milllion (UNICEF) and refugees total 4.5 million (UNHCR and the BRussells Tribunal).

The racist, holocaust-ignoring Mainstream media lying by commission and omission over this Iraqi Holocaust is holocaust denial according to Dr Mark Weisbrot of Just Foreign Policy.

It is notable that leading conservative writer and economist Dr Paul Craig Roberts (Father of Reaganomics) correctly refers to the Iraqi Holocaust as the "Iraqi Genocide" (in keeping with the UN Genocide Convention definition of genocide) as does the New Statesman's outstanding humanitarian writer John Pilger.

Media Lens and the New Statesman, MWC News, AlterNet, Countercurrents, Counterpunch, Newsvine etc) are holes in the Bush-ite Mainstream Media and Politician Wall of Silence.

Thu, 2007-12-06 03:30 — benjaminx

I still struggle to find the point in not telling the truth, not getting along as humans and "fucking each other over for a profit" to quote Ellen Ripley.

My tutor at uni told me to read Pilger over Chomsky, if any of you want to read a couple of books that describe our current situation read Friedman’s "Capitalism and Freedom" and Bernaise’ "Propaganda".

Two people who taught profit and consumption (respectively) rather than understanding and charity.

Fri, 2007-11-30 15:53 — jeremylundgr13

Carl,

I enjoy reading your comments; my only criticism is that although I have heard your claims from other commentators I lack any source material to view myself on your theories. Agree with your view on Iraq though, as Klein said it's disaster capitalism in all it furore.

Good article Mr Pilger, I shall add Medialens to my favourites and use it as another source to try and extract some truth out of the world. The more I read the more I feel like I’ve awoken from the capitalist dream fed to me as a child to see the nightmare we truly live in. We fight for a better tomorrow so we don't ask for a better today. Were fed stories of horror, historical or fictional, so that we don't question the hell we find ourselves in. That things could always be worse is not a defence for the state of the world. Keep up the good work John; somebody has to be an iconoclast and show the masses that the façade were fed by the MSM is just that.

Fri, 2007-11-30 13:05 — VC

Good article, but even so, there is much news which is never reported. Pilger has touched on this and so has Fisk. The fact is, the West is supporting both sides in Iraq....we are killing our own men, never mind the poor Iraqi`s. Nicola Calipari discovered this and paid with his life in the comparative safety of Baghdad airport. This led to the ousting of Burlusconi. We had the SAS getting caught red-handed in Basra. There have been other incidents in Basra where Iraqi police have shot British forces and there has also been incidents with US forces. Sure, in the last 18 months there has been a civil war in Iraq, but this is also by Western design.

Iraq is a social experiment. They started with the effects of war on our own troops, then they moved on to Dresden and now the Western elite are doing countries like Iraq. Its strange how the water runs every day for a few hours, its strange how the electricity flows for a few hours every day and its just as strange that petrol is rationed....this isn`t because "every" pipe and cable breaks every day and requires fixing every day...this isn`t because the power station gets bombed every day and is re-built by sun rise. No, this is done as a matter of NWO policy.

In fact, the MSM won`t report that Iraq has been "privatised"...Iraq isn`t a country any more. The Iraqi`s who survive and those yet to be born will forever be enslaved to the great satan, the United States.

The MSM also fails to report that Amerika is building 4/5 $1 billion dollar bases around Baghdad...they are also building the largest US embassy anywhere in the world, in Baghdad...where, no doubt Saddam will have his own penthouse with a "H" on the roof.lol

I can`t knock Mr Pilger. He is positioned on the MSM fringe and if he goes to far, he`ll end up writing for rense, or he`ll be found dead in the woods.

What I want to know is, when will the MSM wake up and start demanding the arrest of Tony Blair for war crimes and treason?

Sat, 2007-12-01 01:06 — VC

"PlanetStarbucks"....are you a banker, or a close friend of Howard Schultz....maybe Mr Schultz himself?

I found Mr Schultz to be very interesting, and dynamic....what I call a "real information sponge". He`s an interesting guy, an "A1" candidate to be seated next to at a boring dinner party.

Anyway, Mr Schultz is a NWO pinup, so best left alone.

I`m really pleased you enjoy my comments....not so sure about the "enjoy" bit?

PlanetStarbucks....why do you need "source material"? I only speak the trurh as best I know it....I don`t wait for the masonic nod, I haven`t spent years at university aquiring fuzzy vision so that I might suck up to the NWO mantra....

...as I tap, I just saw what best emplefies my thinking ...I am (like) the Heston Blumenthal of media, truth and politics....of course this is an impossible quest, but I`m still standing...no rope-a dope for me.lol

Sun, 2007-12-09 05:54 — cypherpunks

Goodness John, how could you miss what is without question the most important of them all? Wikileaks http://wikileaks.org/

Wed, 2007-12-05 02:26 — gnuneo

i've also been reading medialens almost since it started, and i would echo pilger's comments about ut - except that compared to John's opinions, mine are worth little extra. :D

planetstarbucks: i would suggest a combo of chomsky for an overview, structure and critique of political currents, medialens to see how our media is deliberately distorting what we are told, PINR.com for the occasional non-biassed report, and then joining a decent politics forum to read news/discuss with people from around the world. You will soon find your own reporting/analysis sites, and it will all start to fit together.

the only advice i would give is to try to avoid sites that are filled with exclamation marks - conspiracists and exclamation marks seem to go hand in hand!!!! ;)

actually, a second bit of advice would be to work your way through robert anton wilson's books, especially 'prometheus rising', and try to work out the implicit biasses of those you read (about), fot this allows for the comprehension of the value structures of those who are screwing us over.

everything is Out There, and is often easier to find than going to shop to buy 'the sun' etc.