i know that this is going to be controversial, but i think it's something that's well worth thinking about. something i've been interested in for a while is the way in which the media works to produce a 'reality' that is widely seen as objective, whilst it is inevitably produces something subjective. i'm particularly influenced by
herman and chomsky's propaganda model of the media, and those like
medialens who apply it to the british media. the crux of this model is that, due to the ownership and control of the corporate media, it inevitably produces a message that is pro-corporate, and pro-establishment.
what got me going was the increasing realisation that every commentator on the london bombings has somewhere included the disclaimer that runs something like "of course, the bombings were totally unjustifiable". these are not found just in the mainstream media, but also from respected left wing journalists such as john pilger ("
While not doubting the atrocious inhumanity of those who planted the bombs (as if anyone could)"). of course, in that piece pilger went on to lay the responsibility with tony blair, but the inclusion of the compulsory disclaimer detracts from this view. first i want to examine why i think this insertion has become ubiquitous.
were anyone to not include the disclaimer, particularly a fairly radical writer, the 'moral' powers that be would descend upon it and villify the author as a supporter of terrorism. the unspoken rule is that unless you specifically condemn terrorism, and in britain specifically the 7/7 bombings, you are sympathetic to the perpetrators and are therefore fair target for a tirade of outraged criticism. this is reinforced by the government's aims to introduce 'terror laws' to specifically prosecute those who make statements in support of terrorism. if you support terrorism you ought to be deported or locked up in belmarsh say the government, with some degree of public support. those who fail to condemn the bombings and terrorism as a blanket term are increasingly seen as terrorist sympathisers who are worthy of similar treatment. writers, especially those with views that put the blame with the establishment, go to great lengths to distance themselves from terrorism hence the appearance of statements to the effect of "no matter what else i think, i think the london bombings were entirely unjustifiable". once this became a recurring theme of such opinion pieces it morphed into a necessary one. if x includes this, you can imagine writers subconsciously realising, i'm going to have to as well.
herman and chomsky's propaganda model suggests that information must be able to pass through various filters to make it into the final media product. the fourth of these is flak, essentially criticism from external apparatuses. they describe it thus:
If flak is produced on a large scale, or by individuals or groups with substantial resources, it can be both uncomfortable and costly to the media. Positions have to be defended within the organization and without, sometimes before legislatures and possibly even in courts. Advertisers may withdraw patronage. Television advertising is mainly of consumer goods that are readily subject to organized boycott. During the McCarthy years, many advertisers and radio and television stations were effectively coerced into quiescence and blacklisting of employees by the threats of determined Red hunters to boycott products. Advertisers are still concerned to avoid offending constituencies that might produce flak, and their demand for suitable programming is a continuing feature of the media environment. If certain kinds of fact, position, or program are thought likely to elicit flak, this prospect can be a deterrent.
it is clear that any article perceived to be condoning terrorism can never pass through this filter and emerge in the media. government officials would leap to condemn it, the public would be outraged and there may even be legal ramifications. no sane publisher would print such a piece, even if they agreed, because they would be vilified and boycotted.
to return to herman and chomsky, the fifth filter is ideology.
manufacturing consent was written at a time when the official threat to the west was still communism, hence the references to the "red menace". in modern times, the official threat to the west is terrorism. terrorism is the spectre invoked to explain an increasingly broad range of threats to state power and corporate interests, including certain segments of protest movements and those fighting for human rights and self-determination. the government propaganda message, largely faithfully adhered to by the media, is that anything we say is terrorism is the same as the london bombings, which we say were totally unjustifiable attacks on civilians. terrorism becomes the dark intangible terror lurking in every shadow, which we should never try to understand. those who do attempt to understand the motives of terrorists are immediately victims of flak and are considered terrorist sympathisers.
when a tape made by one of the london bombers, mohammed sidique khan, was widely aired, establishment and media figures leapt to refute his claims to be "a soldier" responding to "crimes our government commits abroad" by stating that terrorism is never justifiable (see
alex's excellent blog article). these weren't real refutations of khan's arguments, they were attempts to stifle the debate about establishment responsibility for the bombings. they were flak, pure and simple, a demonstration to the media that any attempt to try to understand khan's motivations would be publicly denounced so don't even think about it. whilst many still do have the courage to speak up about blair's responsibilities, and the obvious connection between britain's role in the 'war on terror' and our increasing vulnerability to terrorism, these arguments are still accompanied by the disclaimer. i don't doubt that this is an unconscious reflex but it is proof of the power of the censors.
of course, there are very few of us who don't condemn the acts of the bombers, that were so obviously designed to cause loss of civilian lives and increase our fear. that's not the point. this is something so obvious and widespread a view that it is surprising that it still needs to be mentioned like a mantra with such regularity. it is an ideological bias. comment pieces never feel the need to say "of course, the british/american/israeli/turkish (insert state of choice here) government's continued terror against the people of iraq/afghanistan/palestine/kurdistan (insert people of choice here) is totally unjustifiable and abhorrent". writers do not struggle to distance themselves from warmongering butchers when they have power over their reputations and paypackets. the difference is ideological, not objective. it reinforces the idea that what "they" do to "us" is despicable and not even worthy of empathy, whilst what "we" do to "them" is actually good work to improve our security and prosperity.
one thing that does come through from mohammed sidique khan's statements are that he did not feel secure:
Until we feel security, you will be our targets.
Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight.
We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.
this is really not very different to the rationale behind the 'war on terror', simply make the 'we' and 'my people' refer to westerners, and the methods of repression bombings and kidnappings, and this could be a statement by bush or blair. both types of terrorism are grotesque and feed one another's insecurities. we must stop them both.