|
World Tribunal on Iraq: Spinwatch gives evidence |
|
|
|
In Istanbul between 23-27 of June the Final session of the World Tribunal on Iraq will take place. I will be there as a wirtness on the role of the media in crimes against humanity. A synopsais of my evidence is below. The full programme is here: http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=69
Media Wrongs against humanity in the Invasion and occupation of Iraq
David Miller
17 June 2005
The conduct and role of the media in the case of Iraq must be understood in terms of the underlying interests and policies of both the media institutions themselves and of the US and UK governments in relation to information. It is important to understand the philosophy, administration and practice of the propaganda apparatus in order to understand how the media have performed. My evidence therefore focuses first on the philosophy of information control, then on the apparatus and administration of propaganda, before examining its effects on media performance.
1. The US and UK decided to pursue a policy of regime change.
2. They mounted a huge propaganda campaign to legitimise their policy by claiming that the invasion was for reasons of threat from Iraq
3. Their propaganda apparatus was comprehensively overhauled to accomplish this.
4. Their philosophy of propaganda recognises no distinction between propaganda apparatus and independent media, all are part of the information apparatus to be encouraged or destroyed
5. The mainstream and corporate media very largely went along with this. In both the US and UK, there was no significant questioning of the evidential basis of the threat, though there was criticism of elements of the cover story.
6. Misinformation on alleged 'links' to al Qaeda, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the noble intent of the coalition was widespread in the media.
7. The creation of a climate of fear in coalition countries on the threat from 'terrorism' which is largely fabricated and certainly inaccurate.
8. Reporting was overwhelmingly dominated by official and pro-war sources.
9. Government and other official sources were extremely alert to criticism of their case and used intimidation, the law, censorship and legal measures to ensure that alternative voices were marginalised and that journalists did not step too far out of line.
10. During the invasion of Iraq, the system of embedding journalists resulted in a great success for coalition information management. In general, journalists came to identify with their military minders and few reported critically on military actions.
11. During the occupation there has been a media refusal to properly cover ongoing issues in relation to the resistance, the alleged use of chemical or biological weapons (and DU shells), alleged massacres in Fallujah and elsewhere, the role of Multinational corporations in Iraq and questions of torture and ill treatment.
12. Much independent information has come out of Iraq with independent journalists and human rights organisations, but this is almost systematically ignored by the mainstream media.
13. Propaganda and media complicity resulted in very significantly misinformed public opinion on the threat posed by Iraq. As a result citizens of the coalition (in the UK and US) were much more likely to support war than would otherwise be the case and - especially in the case of the US much more likely than citizens of other countries (with the exception of Israel) to support war.
14. An additional key effect of media coverage in the coalition countries was to whip members of the elite into line to support war.
15. In Iraq the propaganda and disinformation were intended to strike fear into those who might resist the invasion. In other words mainstream media and direct propaganda (psychological operations) were instruments of terror in Iraq.
16. In the wider Middle East - notwithstanding the role of Al Jazeera and others - the propaganda and western media were important in shoring up elite support for the US (accompanied by other material incentives) |
Events Calendar