A reader asked for our reaction to comments made on his blog about the media and Media Lens..
Thanks, Jon. Good to see an intelligent discussion on these issues. Thanks
for the kind words on the book. Would be interesting to conduct an
experiment by lending the book to one of your more sceptical pals and seeing
if it has any effect (either way!)...
Comments below:
Tom said:
"i think we are privelleged in this country to have newspapers like the
independent, and the BBC, who may not be entirely impartial, but i'd have
them over Fox News and the Daily News anyday."
It's commonly argued that the British media are superior to the US media.
Interestingly, Noam Chomsky - a very experienced and astute media watcher -
disagrees. He says "not better, just different", and cites the New York
Times as the one paper he would read if he had to choose. A good example is
Bush and Blair's truly audacious campaign of deception over Iraqi WMD - a
half-decent media would have exposed this instantly. But even the most
obvious questions were never asked - it was quite staggering.
Tim said: "I don't see how it is particularly different in essence to other
news providers, in that you have to give your trust over to them to believe
that they are reporting factually (which I do). Handing stuff over to the
public is admirable, but not really the way to ascertain truth."
I disagree strongly - there's no reason why anyone should trust a single
word we say, and we don't expect them to. People should examine our
arguments critically, check our sources (check if we've selectively chosen
or manipulated quotations - it's very tempting to do) and decide for
themselves if we're making sense or not.
We +are+ different from the mainstream media in one key respect - we are not
corporate, that is we are not profit-oriented, in fact we are not even
revenue-oriented. We write for free and if people like it, they can send us
donations, but we're happy to do it for free. We think that motivation is
key in determining journalistic willingness and ability to report honestly.
US press critic, George Seldes said it well as far back as the 1930s:
"The most stupid boast in the history of present-day journalism is that of
the writer who says, 'I have never been given orders; I am free to do as I
like'. We scent the air of the office. We realise that certain things are
wanted, certain things unwanted." (US press critic, George Seldes, quoted
Extra! November/December 1995)
We aspire to be motivated by concern for suffering, by compassion - by
contrast, media businesses are legally obliged to prioritise profits above
all other considerations (see Joel Bakan's book, The Corporation). That
makes a difference, we think.
rob said: "what makes it any more true than othe media sources? i visited
the site and, as suspected, it came across almost instantly as left wing."
Again, nothing makes our version of events intrinsically "more true" -
readers have to decide for themselves if our arguments are credible. We try
to make this possible by openly providing, say, the mainstream media view on
why the UNSCOM weapons inspectors left Iraq in December 1998 - were they
kicked out or withdrawn? Are we doing it honestly? Well, we cite many
referenced examples from the UK and US media, which can all be checked. We
then contrast these arguments with checkable evidence presented by credible
experts (or are they? people can decide) - chief UNSCOM weapons inspector,
Scott Ritter, for example, UNSCOM chairman Rolf Ekeus, and so on. We also
quote from US and UK media reporting at the time in December 1998. We then
invite readers to come to their own conclusions.
Often we aren't asking readers to take our word for anything - we're
pointing to referenced facts and experts that can be checked, so that people
can decide for themselves. After all, if we - two people writing on the
internet - came out and said: 'We believe the inspectors were withdrawn, not
thrown out, in December 1998', people would say - 'Well who cares what you
think?!' And it would be a very fair point.
Best wishes
David Edwards
Wednesday, 25 January 2006
Wednesday, 18 January 2006
Response To Fisk Alert
We've had many positive responses to the 'Blog-O-Bots' alert, and two or three critical ones, as we expected:
I guess you would do to Robert Fisk what Stalin would have -- send him
to the gulag or have him executed. I didn't see any of you anonymous
holier-than-all media critics do the hard yards in Iraq or the Middle
East over the past 30 years but I guess it's so much easier for you to
rubbish Fisk for doing what any of you have yet to do -- provide
accurate reporting or insightful commentary (as opposed to sprouting
ideology or a party line).
Nit-picking over one interview thousands of miles away from the
frontline doesn't take any courage, experience or intelligence --
qualities your prosecutor is so sadly lacking but which would have been
forgiven, even rewarded, by the KGB.
May I suggest you turn your sanctimonious venom against those
journalists and news outlets which have supported this war from day one,
not those who have revealed its ugly futility or dared elaborate on its
consequences.
If the war mongers hate Fisk's reporting and you now hate Fisk for being
a corporate media lackey, does this mean you are now in league with the
lying, murdering neo-cons?
Is Fisk to be condemned by you lot of self-appointed executioners for
committing the same sin of "ideological impurity" as former generals
Wesley Clark or Sir Michael Rose?
You now read like a bunch of leftist "jihadis" and just as frightening
as the rightwing brand.
Comrade Jack
Dear Comrade Jack
It's an ironic defence of Fisk's work that ignores the arguments and instead
smears us, in effect, as 'Stalinists'. Fisk is a superb, courageous
journalist - primarily because he bases his reporting on facts, rational
argument and his own critical thought. We disagree with what he said about
the mainstream British media, and about internet-based media - we've
explained why with arguments and facts. We're happy for people to take issue
with those.
We do not "hate" Fisk, there was no "venom" in our piece - we are
"condemning" no one. We are raising important issues for discussion - more
like elephants in the living room than "nits" to be picked. The idea that
the best journalists should be exempt from all honest criticism because
they've done the "hard yards" (and Fisk has certainly done those) is a
concept I've never understood. Are they, then, not humanly fallible any
longer? How do we decide who is beyond criticism? It also says nothing about
our own righteousness - if we horribly flawed humans had to be perfect
before we discussed ethical issues, nobody would ever have said a word on
the matter.
Best wishes
David Edwards
David,
OK the "hate" and "venom" words were a bit too strong but "smear" you?
Never. Under Australian defamation law, a smear has to be: a)
broadcast/published and b) result in some damage to the smearee. I'm
pretty sure, neither occured on this occasion. So let's call it an
accusation.
I did not suggest Robert Fisk was above criticism. His reporting,
analysis and commentary on the Middle East have mostly been first rate.
His observations and opinions about the media aren't his area of
expertise and he probably should have kept his mouth shut. But you have
portrayed him as corporate media lackey/apologist, thus smearing his
reputation as the independent, wildcard reporter.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember The Pop Group's song We
Are All Prostitutes but that's what most of us wage-earners are.
I'm a journalist working for a crappy, rightwing corporate Australian
newspaper. I do what I do because I cannot do anything else. Nothing I
do makes one iota of a difference but there are millions of people like
me in the world who need the money and will do whatever it takes to
support our families.
We aren't bad people -- even though I suspect you think we lack your
ideological purity and revolutionary zeal and have, therefore, sided
with the "dark side" and probably deserve to die the death capitalism
has invented for us.
Let's face it, man, most of us humans live in a fucked world and we get
fucked every day. Whingeing about it has never worked to our advantage.
In fact, it's made matters worse.
People like me don't like the "dark side" anymore than we like the
"right side" -- simply because both sides can be found on the same coin.
Yours Comrade Jack
Many thanks, Comrade Jack. I really don't agree that we've smeared Fisk as
an apologist - we've disagreed with what he said about the media. We've
cited and praised him endlessly as an honest and courageous journalist in
our alerts. But when someone - even somone you respect - says something that
is plain wrong and damaging, then it's time to speak out as honestly as he
so often does.
You write:
> We aren't bad people -- even though I suspect you think we lack your
> ideological purity and revolutionary zeal and have, therefore, sided with
> the "dark side" and probably deserve to die the death capitalism has
> invented for us.
No, there's no ideological purity on our side. We make the same compromises
you do every day - we pay taxes that fuel the arms industry, we shop in
supermarkets killing the Third World, we drive cars and fly in planes that
are killing the planet, we deceive ourselves out of self-interest. Our
concern is: what are the psychological forces and deceptions in all of us,
and in our society, that allow terrible things to happen with so little
resistance? Is there anything we can do to resist these forces in ourselves
and others?
You may not have read some of our earlier criticisms of Fisk, Monbiot and
others. The point we've often made is: Look, we understand that they can't
criticise their host media beyond a certain level - we believe they can
often do more than they're doing to challenge the media more generally, but
there +are+ real limits. We're not asking them to commit professional
suicide. But what we're saying is that everyone who believes we have a free,
open and honest media system should be aware that even our very best
journalists are simply +not+ able to speak openly. That doesn't mean those
journalists are wrong to hold their tongues (or even that they +are+
consciously holding their tongues) - it means it's wrong for people to be
fooled into thinking that the press is free.
Best wishes
David Edwards
I guess you would do to Robert Fisk what Stalin would have -- send him
to the gulag or have him executed. I didn't see any of you anonymous
holier-than-all media critics do the hard yards in Iraq or the Middle
East over the past 30 years but I guess it's so much easier for you to
rubbish Fisk for doing what any of you have yet to do -- provide
accurate reporting or insightful commentary (as opposed to sprouting
ideology or a party line).
Nit-picking over one interview thousands of miles away from the
frontline doesn't take any courage, experience or intelligence --
qualities your prosecutor is so sadly lacking but which would have been
forgiven, even rewarded, by the KGB.
May I suggest you turn your sanctimonious venom against those
journalists and news outlets which have supported this war from day one,
not those who have revealed its ugly futility or dared elaborate on its
consequences.
If the war mongers hate Fisk's reporting and you now hate Fisk for being
a corporate media lackey, does this mean you are now in league with the
lying, murdering neo-cons?
Is Fisk to be condemned by you lot of self-appointed executioners for
committing the same sin of "ideological impurity" as former generals
Wesley Clark or Sir Michael Rose?
You now read like a bunch of leftist "jihadis" and just as frightening
as the rightwing brand.
Comrade Jack
Dear Comrade Jack
It's an ironic defence of Fisk's work that ignores the arguments and instead
smears us, in effect, as 'Stalinists'. Fisk is a superb, courageous
journalist - primarily because he bases his reporting on facts, rational
argument and his own critical thought. We disagree with what he said about
the mainstream British media, and about internet-based media - we've
explained why with arguments and facts. We're happy for people to take issue
with those.
We do not "hate" Fisk, there was no "venom" in our piece - we are
"condemning" no one. We are raising important issues for discussion - more
like elephants in the living room than "nits" to be picked. The idea that
the best journalists should be exempt from all honest criticism because
they've done the "hard yards" (and Fisk has certainly done those) is a
concept I've never understood. Are they, then, not humanly fallible any
longer? How do we decide who is beyond criticism? It also says nothing about
our own righteousness - if we horribly flawed humans had to be perfect
before we discussed ethical issues, nobody would ever have said a word on
the matter.
Best wishes
David Edwards
David,
OK the "hate" and "venom" words were a bit too strong but "smear" you?
Never. Under Australian defamation law, a smear has to be: a)
broadcast/published and b) result in some damage to the smearee. I'm
pretty sure, neither occured on this occasion. So let's call it an
accusation.
I did not suggest Robert Fisk was above criticism. His reporting,
analysis and commentary on the Middle East have mostly been first rate.
His observations and opinions about the media aren't his area of
expertise and he probably should have kept his mouth shut. But you have
portrayed him as corporate media lackey/apologist, thus smearing his
reputation as the independent, wildcard reporter.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember The Pop Group's song We
Are All Prostitutes but that's what most of us wage-earners are.
I'm a journalist working for a crappy, rightwing corporate Australian
newspaper. I do what I do because I cannot do anything else. Nothing I
do makes one iota of a difference but there are millions of people like
me in the world who need the money and will do whatever it takes to
support our families.
We aren't bad people -- even though I suspect you think we lack your
ideological purity and revolutionary zeal and have, therefore, sided
with the "dark side" and probably deserve to die the death capitalism
has invented for us.
Let's face it, man, most of us humans live in a fucked world and we get
fucked every day. Whingeing about it has never worked to our advantage.
In fact, it's made matters worse.
People like me don't like the "dark side" anymore than we like the
"right side" -- simply because both sides can be found on the same coin.
Yours Comrade Jack
Many thanks, Comrade Jack. I really don't agree that we've smeared Fisk as
an apologist - we've disagreed with what he said about the media. We've
cited and praised him endlessly as an honest and courageous journalist in
our alerts. But when someone - even somone you respect - says something that
is plain wrong and damaging, then it's time to speak out as honestly as he
so often does.
You write:
> We aren't bad people -- even though I suspect you think we lack your
> ideological purity and revolutionary zeal and have, therefore, sided with
> the "dark side" and probably deserve to die the death capitalism has
> invented for us.
No, there's no ideological purity on our side. We make the same compromises
you do every day - we pay taxes that fuel the arms industry, we shop in
supermarkets killing the Third World, we drive cars and fly in planes that
are killing the planet, we deceive ourselves out of self-interest. Our
concern is: what are the psychological forces and deceptions in all of us,
and in our society, that allow terrible things to happen with so little
resistance? Is there anything we can do to resist these forces in ourselves
and others?
You may not have read some of our earlier criticisms of Fisk, Monbiot and
others. The point we've often made is: Look, we understand that they can't
criticise their host media beyond a certain level - we believe they can
often do more than they're doing to challenge the media more generally, but
there +are+ real limits. We're not asking them to commit professional
suicide. But what we're saying is that everyone who believes we have a free,
open and honest media system should be aware that even our very best
journalists are simply +not+ able to speak openly. That doesn't mean those
journalists are wrong to hold their tongues (or even that they +are+
consciously holding their tongues) - it means it's wrong for people to be
fooled into thinking that the press is free.
Best wishes
David Edwards
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
