Channel 4 Self-Kidology

Alex Thomson of Channel 4 writes to a reader: "your definition of a terrorist as one bringing terror is nonsensical as it would encompass all military outfits from al Qaeda to the Royal Fusilliers" (Feb 25, 2005). So an argument is nonsensical if it means suggesting the Royal Fusilliers are guilty of terrorism - interesting logic. In a letter to Arthur 'Bomber' Harris in 1945, Churchill wrote:

"It seems to me that the moment has come that the bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed." (Blitz, Bombing and Total War, Channel 4, January 15, 2005)

Clearly the RAF was involved in terrorism, according to Churchill - although his argument is nonsensical, according to Thomson, because it means lumping the RAF in with al Qaeda.

Thomson also writes:

"not everybody agrees that the Spetember 11th attack was a heinous crime, or indeed a crime at all. I should have thought recognising that fact - however distasteful it might seem - is central to this deabte".

Quite right. Equally, the related idea that the US state is currently by far the greatest source of global terrorism should also be central to the debate on Channel 4. Well is it? Thomson insists "of course [he's] suggesting that" Channel 4 would pass an impartiality test. So by his own standards, Channel 4 has to pass the test of including this argument as central to the debate. Clearly it isn't - I've never heard it so much as mentioned - so clearly he's deceiving himself.

It's quite clear that Channel 4 treats US and UK politicians as fundamentally respectable, credible, law abiding and reasonable. It treats Blair as the prime minister rather than the prime suspect in major war crimes, for example. There's been minimal emphasis on the obviously illlegal nature of the war, on the cynical motives, on the US-UK history of pursuing the same motives with similar results around the world, on the need to impeach Blair, and virtually zero input from the genuine dissident opposition to mainstream deception - Chomsky, Pilger, Herman, Curtis, Fisk, Klein et al. There hasn't even been an analysis of the catastrophic level of pre-war media deceptiveness. It couldn't be more obvious, but I wouldn't for one moment expect Thomson to be able to see it. Upton Sinclair explained:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."