Paul de Rooij, 22 August 2007

On 20 August 2007, BBC Newsnight reported on the reactions to climate change protests at Heathrow, and it is a good example of this program's unwillingness to address issues in a serious manner or to provide a wider range of opinion.  Instead of addressing the issues raised by the protesters themselves, Newsnight transformed it into one about current attitudes and concerns of individuals about the environment.  Once this "script" was determined, Kirsty Wark, the program presenter, proceeded to shoehorn the discussion into this circumscribed debate.  There are a number of questions and objections about this program in particular, and the BBC Newsnight format in general.

Boxing an issue
The Newsnight standard presentation of an issue is to provide an introduction that frames the issue in a restricted way, and the remainder of the program is forced to remain within those parameters; editors produce an introduction and a series of "talking points" that direct such programs.  The discussions are conducted live, but they are scripted requiring the issues to be simplified and not to deviate into criticism or hostility.    Kirsty Wark is notorious for putting words in the interviewees' mouths, to ask questions that are not entirely relevant or about which the respondent is not best suited to provide an answer, and to interrupt interviewees who are not giving an answer according to the script.  There are opposing views, but there is scant opportunity for a direct challenge -- the interaction is heavily moderated and the editorial control remains with the presenter.  In most instances, after the introduction there is very little an interviewee can do to rectify or redirect the discussion of an issue.  The interview deals with questions posed by the introduction, and a critical respondent is not allowed to object to the introduction or the questions posed.  On occasion individuals have been invited to appear on the program to discuss a certain topic, but to the discussant's dismay the introduction set the stage to discuss an entirely different issue.  The introduction is sometimes used to ambush someone appearing on the program [1].

The introduction by Stephanie Flanders, a BBC reporter, simply ignored the key issues raised by the protesters by falsely suggesting that people are already aware of the issues.  And, hey, environmentalism was a fashion thing: "green was the new black" -- a cynical note, indicating that the program was not going to deal with the issue in a serious manner.  The introduction rightly points out the government's contradictory stance of saying one thing about the environment, but then stating that it is "impractical to ask people to take fewer flights. Not to mention the expansion of airports…" Although the introduction added a relevant quote by Matthew Price (Friends of the Earth) about the government hypocrisy and unwillingness to intervene to actually do something concrete, Flanders concluded the introduction with another dash of cynicism suggesting that there is no point for "us" to do something if China "continues to build two power plants per week" -- a refrain (a talking point) that was repeated several times during the program. The introduction is already problematic because:

1.    It assumes that the public is properly informed on the topic of climate change, the impact our actions have, and what one can do about it.  If the program sought to add some relevant context it should have shown the extent of the environmental cost of flying, both in terms of carbon emissions, and other environmental effects like global dimming.  The presentation of the survey findings indicate that the public is not well informed and one would hope that the state would address that via informational campaigns.  For some reason, such campaigns are treated with derision in this program, they are referred to as "lecturing us" or "moralizing" etc., that is something the "nanny state" would engage in.
2.    If the program had sought to have an emotional impact, it would have shown penguins dying in the melting snow, but instead, it showed unruly protestors corralled by the police.  It certainly wasn’t an attempt to show the protestors in a favourable light, or even an attempt to hear, let alone understand, their message.
3.    It doesn’t highlight the fact that the protestors actually were challenging the government to do something more than just talk.  At present, the government is actually operating in a business-as-usual regime; government policy and inaction is actually part of the problem.
4.    Flanders states: "Tony Blair came back from the G8 summit jubilant from getting forward movement on climate change from president George Bush. The Heathrow radicals don’t think that goes nearly far enough."  Well, did the G8 do anything to address climate change; are they going to ratify the Kyoto treaty (or even a watered-down version)?  The answer is no, and therefore the "radicals" are correct in criticising Tony Blair and Co.  Again, this presentation of the issue was not meant to address the protestors' objections and concerns.
5.    The introduction dwelled on what individuals could do and what their attitudes were. This is not what the Heathrow protest was about.  The protest sought action to enforce measures that would bite and have a tangible effect in reducing activities that harm the planet.  What is needed is to tax air travel, stop the exemption of tax on airline fuel, and certainly stop the unbridled airport expansion.  Concrete measures that need to be taken were not part of the discussion in this program or the introduction. Appeals for people to take their carbon footprint into account without offering alternatives are not very useful.  The state should inform the public why it will internalize the environmental costs by, for example, adding taxes to fuel and airports -- and for that informational campaigns are needed.  The sections of the government ad shown in Newsnight program introduction are actually of very limited use; yes, we know we have a footprint, but then what?  This ad also has a curious subtext: the environmental impact is a matter of individual choice, and not one about government action.

And now for a bit of balance…
The remainder of the program, the discussion with an environmentalist and a "flying is liberating" advocate, was also problematic.  Sure, BBC aims to obtain "balance", but the choice of an environmental cynic to debate an environmental ethicist was rather dubious.
The issue at hand is not one of environmentalists vs. the enviro-cynics, but it should have been a discussion between environmentalists vs. state policy or industry.  Alas, it was not the latter that was taken to task, but instead Newsnight conjured an enviro-cynic in the form of James Panton, someone who set up the Celebrate the Freedom of Flight webpage.  Panton is a member of The Manifesto Club, which has overlapping membership with Spiked-online, which is in turn, is a reincarnation of Living Marxism (LM), a dubious groupuscle which engaged in controversy for controversy's sake.  Beginning in 2001, Spiked-online collaborated with Hill & Knowlton, a major PR company with a sorry record, in undermining criticism of genetically modified (GM) crops; it even organized seminars at the Hill & Knowlton's head office in London.  Spiked, LM, and the Manifesto Club are simply manifestations of the same cynical group of people who may actually be used (paid?) by PR companies to undermine demands for environmental action.  Maybe the BBC can address how Panton was selected as a discussant, but one thing is certain, his contribution certainly didn’t advance a discussion about what to do.  If anything, his contribution had to do with chastising environmentalists protests as "miserablist [sic] moralizing".

The UK government has hired PR companies in the past to counteract environmental demands, and at one point the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), an environmental public funding body, hired Spiked to conduct "debates" about GM food.  Now, was Panton part of a similar operation to undermine the environmental concerns? Alas, the BBC's reportage is much about protecting and projecting the official line, and it is not about providing space to dissenters or protesters.  The selection of Panton has much to do with the former.

Kirsty Wark's first question to Panton set the stage: "… do you detect a creeping scepticism about what individuals can do in the face of the bigger challenge of China and India".  Presto, that was the third time this issue was rubbed in.  Panton's reply was similar to the PR about smoking in the past, that is, "don’t wag your finger at the smoker, his smoking adds pleasure and fulfilment to his life…"  In the current context the message is, "don't wag a finger at the flyers, they after all are enjoying a flying experience".  After Panton's silly ruminations, Wark turned to Leo Hickman: "… do you agree with James Panton's assessment?" Again, instead of discussing why there were protestors at Heathrow, the issue is one whether Panton's enjoyment factor is the issue.  Hickman provided a standard answer, but one dealing with the implications of air travel, and not one about what government policy should be.  Wark transferred the question back to Panton who put the discussion back on the "moralizing" track -- about environmentalists' demands seen as moralizing, nag, nag, nag… The interview ends with Wark throwing back the question to Hickman: "They accused you of miserablist [sic] moralizing… Leo Hickman".  So, the entire debate didn’t touch upon what the government should be doing, and measures taken to arrest climate change.

Hallmarks of Propaganda
The point that it was difficult to expect British public action in the face of much larger problems in China "building two coal fired power stations a week" has all the hallmarks of a propaganda campaign.  First, it deflects attention away from the United States, the world's number one pollution offender which also sabotaged the Kyoto Treaty.  It then deflects attention away from aircraft carbon emissions, and suitably suggests that nothing can be done, or it is someone else's problem.  Does China really build two coal-fired power stations a week?  Fat chance!  NB: In trying to find the origin of this statistic one finds that it was a UK government spokesman.

It is very curious that the August 20th Newsnight program dwelled on China: twice in the introduction, twice by Kirsty Wark, once by Leo Hickman, and once by James Panton.  The implication is that if China doesn’t do its fair bit, then why should we?  The issue is not only one of economic and social transformation to reduce Britain's environmental impact, but it is also one of acting together with other countries to obtain this result. The Globalization process, the introduction of the neoliberal model globally will certainly have to be modified (it is predicated on the use of cheap fuel), and that is possibly the main reason that there is steadfast opposition to environmental regulation in the US and Britain.  While there is urgent need to reduce our environmental impact, both these countries are removing regulations and refusing to take any responsibility.  It is also very likely that both governments are actually engaged in propaganda campaigns to undermine environmental concerns.  Alas, the big issues were avoided by the Newsnight program.

A world without synthesis
The "debate" ended with Kirsty all smiles, job well done -- oh, oh, Kirsty!  The BBC Newsnight program is not about taking a topic seriously and attempting to educate the public, providing alternatives, and helping shape policy with an informed body politic.  The August 20th program was about artificially restricting the scope of an issue, and then engaging in a hollow "debate".  

During the 1980s a far right-wing organization connected to Rev. Moon's Unification Church sought to influence US university students by launching Consider, a magazine that would devote a few pages on a topical issue, and side by side it provided an opposing view. The magazine harped on the theme "that there are always two sides to an issue".  The problem with this format is that there is never a resolution of an issue, there is never a synthesis, and the unresolved opposing views are just meant to sow confusion.  While students on US campuses may have been sympathetic to the Nicaraguan revolution, Consider put forth an opposing view and thereby sowed confusion.  Consider sought to undermine the possible sympathy with a cause, and that was the whole purpose of the exercise.  The BBC Newsnight approach to discussing an issue is very much the same, it doesn’t promote a synthesis.  If one day Newsnight were to discuss the merits of eating human flesh, one discussant would state that human flesh was delicious and that he didn’t like people lecturing him that it was wrong to eat it.  The opposing discussant would then be asked, "but he likes eating human flesh, what about that?"  The Newsnight format and the way an issue is boxed doesn’t allow for a direct confrontation and a resolution of the issue.  And at the end of the brief exchange Kirsty will be there smiling having gone through her paces again.

Notes

Transcript can be found here: BBC Newsnight 20 August 2007 transcript

[1]    In 2004, Afif Safieh, the Palestinian representative in London, was once invited to appear in the Newsnight program to discuss the Palestinian reaction forthcoming elections.  Safieh agreed to appear on the program only to find out that the introduction only dealt with "terrorism" -- he had been ambushed.  To make matters worse, after a brief discussion with Safieh in the studio, the presenter turned to an Israeli spokesman on the screen -- the image turning exclusively to the spokesman.