*BREAKING NEWS*

*ON THE RADIO IN SOUTH AFRICA*

*THE MEDIA AND IRAQ*

As I write, first, BBC World, and within seconds, CNN are featuring “Breaking News” out of Afghanistan as a bomb goes off in a crowded downtown market–signaling perhaps a new wave of terror as the anniversary of September ll approaches. Here in South Africa, where I remain staring at the beauty of the Indian Ocean, many feel the terrorists have the edge. I just spent an hour as a guest on Cape Talk, a popular radio station serving Cape Town, on the other side of this vast country, talking with callers. One compared President Bush to Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe because both were arrogant and uncaring about the consequences of their policies. Another suggested that the era of big powers dictating to the world was over and that the War on Terror was a loser.

I followed an interview with Scott Ritter, the former US military man turned UN weapons inspector in Iraq, who was down here to encourage the South African government–as the head of the African Union and Non-aligned movement–to oppose any war on Iraq. Last week Nelson Mandela spoke with Saddam Hussein and then called President Bush, but he wouldn’t take his call. Ritter reminded listeners here that it was the US who forced the last round of inspectors out of Iraq, not Saddam. He noted that Iraq had been brought into substantial compliance with the UN’s disarmament goals. He did acknowledge that it does have the capability to build new weapons systems but has seen no evidence that they are. He supported more inspections, but scoffed at the suggestion that Iraq has a nuclear weapons program that can be considered a threat. When Vice President Cheney suggested as much, again with no proof or persuasive evidence, Ritter said he was lying.

ARE THE BRITISH BULLISH?

On Saturday Britain’s Tony Blair meets with George Bush to map joint strategy. It appears as if Britain will be asked to provide a dossier of “evidence” to prepare public opinion for Bush’s talk next week to the UN. (Blair played a similar role when the US targeted Al Qaeda as the terrorist threat after 9/11.)

In Britain, public opinion is now running 71% AGAINST going to war with Iraq. The MEDIA LENS group that monitors British media coverage offers a critical take: “Defenders of the mainstream media tell us there is a wide spectrum of views - we have, for example, a choice between he ‘right-wing’ Times andthe ‘left-wing’ Observer, they say. George Orwell took a different view:

“I really don’t know which is more stinking, the Sunday Times or The Observer. I go from one to the other like an invalid turning from side to side in bed and getting no comfort which ever way he turns.” (George Orwell, quoted, Bernard Crick, George Orwell, A Life, p.233, Penguin Books, 1992).

…Today, Tony Blair and Tory leader Ian Duncan-Smith are as one in lining up with George Bush in pushing for “action” against Iraq. Blair insists that “Iraq poses a real and unique threat to the security of the region and therest of the world.” (Patrick Wintour, ‘Blair: Saddam has to go’, The Guardian, September 4, 2002)…

“Duncan-Smith informs us that Iraq has ballistic missiles with the capacity to strike Europe, the UK included. This is part of what he describes as the “clear and growing danger” represented by Saddam Hussein.

“A permanent feature of media reporting is that the words of Western leaders are reported at face value, while the hidden agendas behind the words ofour ‘enemies’ are remorselessly sought out and exposed. On BBC’s News At Ten O’Clock, John Simpson (of Kabul) described a visit to Johannesburg by Iraq’s deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz. Simpson said:

“What they [the Iraqis] want to do is to give the impression that they are being reasonable and sensible… in order to show that they are innocent. Because they know that works, that really does schmooz people here. Tariq Aziz has been schmoozing people ever since he arrived, and doing it verysatisfactorily from his point of view.” (Simpson, September 3, 2002)”…

THE US PRESS: “A WILLING ALLY”

And what about the American media? Just as bad, says S Taylor in Canada’s Halifax Herald:Limited “AS PRESIDENT George W. Bush and his hawkish advisers continue to argue their case for a war with Iraq, they appear to have found many willing allies in the North American media.

“Journalistic values, such as printing only provable facts, have been all too frequently replaced with dangerously irresponsible jingoism. The intent of this inflammatory rhetoric appears designed to whip up an anti-Iraq war fever among an increasingly skeptical public.

“Referring to Saddam Hussein as the Butcher of Baghdad and revisiting his notorious resume, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the use of poison gas against Kurdish rebels, can be viewed as fair comment in such pro-war editorials.

“However, the only real issues that President Bush can use to justify launching a military strike to “change the regime” in Iraq are the linking of Saddam to a terrorist plot and allegations that Iraq continues to possess weapons of mass destruction. Until now, the U.S. has had great difficulty in producing proof of such activities.”

NIGHTLINE TO THE RESCUE?

Just as I was dispairing over the disappearence of the US media from its responsibility to cover the Earth Summit here in South Africa, I noted that ABC’s Nightline was airing a show to probe why folks in other countries hate us, or more precisely, US policy.

Executive Producer Leroy Sievers wrote in an note annocuncing last night’s show that I didn’t see. (How was it?) : “I was driving into work this morning, listening to the radio, and they mentioned a poll done in six European countries. More than half of the people surveyed said that the U.S. is at least partially responsible forthe attacks on 9/11. In other words, U.S. policies contributed to the terrorism. Now our own polling unit, who brought you the poll we used last night, have pointed out some problems with the poll, but it is still getting some play in the papers.

Now we have done broadcasts in the past that we called “Why do they hate us?” that focused primarily on the Islamic world. But today we want to take a much broader look. A lot of our friends are angry at us too. The reasons are varied: environmental issues, economic issues, anger over whatis seen as U.S. unilateralism, and of course, Iraq. So we went tojournalists in countries all over the world and asked them how they are covering the U.S., and what issues loom large in their countries. Michel Martin will pull all of that together for tonight’s broadcast.”

Now we have done broadcasts like this in the past, and many people have said something to the effect of “who cares what they think?” But I think we have to care. One of the things that the attacks on 9/11 showed us isthat we ignore the rest of the world, or at least some parts of it, at our peril. We cannot afford to be surprised again.”

ISRAEL’S NEW LOOK

Israel is retooling its PR campaign reports the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “Israeli officials have been deeply impressed by an American study of Israel’s public relations needs in the U.S., and say they intend to carry out most of its ecommendations. Among them: Be less confrontational and more hopeful in television appearances; don’t trash Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat or the Palestinian people; and, whenever possible, stress Israel’s desire for peace, its vibrant democracy, and the values it shares with America. But Israeli officials balk at stopping their negative campaign against Arafat. They point out that discrediting Arafat is not just a PR gambit but a central element of Israeli policy.”

WHAT IS CHINA WATCHING?

What are viewers in China watching? More than we think — and more, in many cases than most US viwers get to see according to the Fare East Economic Review;

“Picture this satellite snafu. In February, the government sought to tighten its grip on what the Chinese people can watch by ordering all foreign television channels to broadcast into China only via Sinosat-1, a state-owned satellite. Since then, the government’s public enemy No. 1 has hijacked its output, frequently over a week-long period, the illegal market for pirated satellite television technology is thriving as never before, and both the state regulator and approved foreign broadcasters are losing business.

“Launched initially as a way to extend the reach of state television channels into mountainous and other remote regions, Sinosat’s broadcasts weren’t exactly gripping fare. But in recent months as major American, Hong Kong, Japanese and other regional sports, news and entertainment channels signed on in line with government orders, the stodgy satellite has become much more popular. Seeing a golden opportunity, entrepreneurs have provided cheap decoders with pirated technology to unlock Sinosat’s transmissions, boosting the already sizeable market for foreign channels.

“The result, for Beijing, is a big mess, which only helps pirate entrepreneurs and ordinary TV viewers — both foreigners and Chinese who for a small fee can now watch 26 foreign channels and dozens of domestic ones. Already about 45 million people view foreign channels picked up on illegal large satellite dishes, according to James Mitchell, a media analyst with Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong. And that number is growing rapidly as sales of pirated Sinosat decoders take off. There has “definitely been an increased interest in the platform,” says Mitchell.”

GETTING IT RIGHT

Sorry that I screwed up the column’s date yesterday as well as the name of the new Australian film I called to your attention. It is “The Rabbit Proof Fence” directed brilliantly by Phillip Noyce. It depicts a true story of three aboriginal girls snatched away from their families because they were deemed “half castes.” Taken to a government run “school” to train them to be servants, they escaped and walked clear across the country to return home. It is amazing….(See comment on yesterday’s column for a link to a review in Australia than is more critical and probably more informed than my emotional response)

The worst images I saw here were pictures of the South African police pushing angry NGO activists away from the Convention Center just as the Summit was closing, with a final document that many considered a betrayal of the principles of the summit in Rio a year ago, and a sell out to corporate interests, as Canadian author Naomi Klein explains in this week’s Nation.

I hope to be on my way to Europe tomorrow. Keep your letters coming to dissector@mediachannel.org