This is the last article you can read this month
You can read more article this month
You can read more articles this month
Sorry your limit is up for this month
FROM what I can tell, a new report from monitoring group Airwars, concerning US media coverage of the US-led military interventions in Iraq and Syria since 2014, has been ignored by the entire British media, except for the Morning Star.
“News reporting on civilian casualties from international and US actions was found to be largely absent during key periods of the conflict,” the study concludes.
The extraordinary depth of this Western power-friendly journalism is highlighted by Airwars’ survey of more than 900 US Department of Defence transcripts of press conferences.
Incredibly the research “found that [US military] officials were … the first to raise civilian harm in three-quarters of the press conferences or briefings in which the issue was broached since 2014.”
This lack of coverage was linked by US journalists themselves to a variety of factors, including “the limited presence of reporters on the ground,” a news cycle dominated by US domestic politics and credibly sourcing claims of civilian casualties.
However, these justifications ring somewhat hollow when you consider arguably the most interesting finding of the study: “Major US media were … five times more likely to report on civilian harm from Russian and Assad regime actions at Aleppo than they were from US and allied actions at Mosul” (the report notes “civilian harm outcomes” in Aleppo and Mosul “were often similar”).
So it turns out the US media does report on civilian casualties — as long as the civilians are harmed by Russian and Syrian government forces.
US writer and media critic Adam Johnson has humorously coined The North Korea Law of Journalism, in which “editorial standards are inversely proportional to a county’s enemy status.”
If journalists are considering crimes committed by the US and its allies then “rock-solid, smoking-gun evidence” is usually required to run a story.
In contrast, journalists can “pretty much make up whatever [they] want” with little or no evidence to back up their claims if they are criticising North Korea, and nations like Iran, Russia and Syria.
Though the Airwars study only looked at US media, there are indications the British media also acts as a defacto “propaganda system” when it comes to reporting on Western intervention in the Middle East.
Take three well-known commentators working at two respected newspapers: The Times’s David Aaronovitch and Jonathan Freedland and George Monbiot at The Guardian.
Monbiot is arguably the most radical journalist working in the mainstream media. No doubt all three of these experienced journalists see themselves as critically minded, free-thinking writers.
Their Twitter feeds suggest a different story.
Culminating in December 2016, the battle for Aleppo involved Syrian government and (from September 2015) Russian forces unleashing hell on areas held by assorted rebel groups in the northern Syrian city.
Aaronovitch has tweeted about Aleppo 13 times. “Aleppo is Stalingrad” and the “destruction of Aleppo” is “awful” were two of his outraged hot takes.
Freedland tweeted about Aleppo six times up until December 2016.
Monbiot has tweeted about Aleppo nine times, according to Interventions Watch blog. “A monstrous crime against humanity” and “a crime beyond reckoning,” the enraged Monbiot commented.
Monbiot’s “response to events in another Syrian city, however, was markedly different,” Interventions Watch explains.
From June to October 2017 the US (with British support) led an intense assault on Raqqa, targeting the city being held by Islamic State with airstrikes and artillery barrages.
An April 2019 investigation by Amnesty International estimated the US-led coalition killed over 1,600 civilians during the assault.
“Never before have I seen a city so completely devastated. Not just in one district area, but almost entirely,” Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK, reported after visiting the city. “Think Dresden and you’d be close.”
“The intent may have been different … but through modelling the impacts, we have determined that there was not a huge difference in terms of civilian harm between the coalition in Raqqa and Russia in East Ghouta and Aleppo,” Airwars director Chris Woods told The Times in December 2018.
Monbiot’s response to this slaughter? Tumbleweed. “Monbiot *said nothing*. Not a word of condemnation, not a single attempt to highlight the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding, not even a passing mention, either as it was happening, or afterwards,” Interventions Watch note.
Likewise, Aaronovitch and Freedland have not tweeted one word about the US-British bloodbath in Raqqa as far as I can tell.
This brief Twitter review echoes the findings of Dr Florian Zollmann, lecturer in journalism at Newcastle University, who analysed US, British and German newspaper coverage of human rights abuses in Kosovo (1999), Iraq (2004), Libya (2011), Syria (2012) and Egypt (2013) for his 2017 book Media, Propaganda and the Politics of Intervention.
“If countries designated to be ‘enemy’ states of the West conduct human rights violations, the news media highlights these abuses and conveys demands for action to stop human rights abuses,” he notes.
“If, on the other hand, Western states or their ‘allies’ are the perpetrators of human rights violations the news media employs significantly less investigatory zeal in its reporting and virtually no measures to stop abuses are conveyed.”
This systematic bias can only increase the worrying level of ignorance of British foreign policy among the public — a status quo the government and military will be more than happy with.
“There is a general policy by the MoD [Ministry of Defence] to keep the horror of what’s going on in Afghanistan out of the public domain, and that’s probably for political reasons,” a senior British officer told the Sunday Telegraph in 2008.
“If the real truth were known it would have a huge impact on army recruiting and the government would come under severe pressure to withdraw the troops.”
With the media providing such poor, power-friendly coverage, how is the general public supposed to gain an accurate understanding of the world?
How can politicians make good decisions when it comes to future votes on war and peace?
And what chance does the public have of understanding why many people in the Middle East and beyond have an unfavourable view of Britain?
Rather than being the tenacious Woodward and Bernstein-style Fourth Estate of journalists’ fantasies, it’s clear that when it comes to the Middle East, the US and British media have, by and large, given their own governments and their militaries a free pass, shamefully helping to hide the bloody reality of Western military action from the US and British people.
Follow Ian on Twitter @IanJSinclair.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by become a member of the People’s Printing Press Society.
The Morning Star is a readers’ co-operative, which means you can become an owner of the paper too by buying shares in the society.
Shares are £10 each — though unlike capitalist firms, each shareholder has an equal say. Money from shares contributes directly to keep our paper thriving.
Some union branches have taken out shares of over £500 and individuals over £100.
You can’t buy a revolution, but you can help the only daily paper in Britain that’s fighting for one by donating to the Fighting Fund.
The Morning Star is unique, as a lone socialist voice in a sea of corporate media. We offer a platform for those who would otherwise never be listened to, coverage of stories that would otherwise be buried.
The rich don’t like us, and they don’t advertise with us, so we rely on you, our readers and friends. With a regular donation to our monthly Fighting Fund, we can continue to thumb our noses at the fat cats and tell truth to power.
Donate today and make a regular contribution.