EMAIL BLUES

DIGITAL INTERDEPENDENCE AMUST

BBC FIGHT BACK GROWS

Before I welcome to you to a new week, or as a one time New Englander congratulate theteam for its Superbowl win, may I update my travail as one who is tethered to technology? The server that serves me is not. My Dissector mail boxand even danny@mediachannel.org have been thrown into some mysterious “maintenance” status. I know not what I have done — or what has been done to me. Theresult — I have been forced to set up a new mailbox. Please send mail toDschechter[at]mediachannel.org until the shadowy overlords of technology fix the problem. Or not.

I am sorry for any of your ‘ees that may have bounced back. I would like to appoint apanel of experts to investigate this Tech Failure but have neither the meansor the patience to do so. It is hard enough to find someone in customerservice to speak to. … Any suggestions? Anyone?

COMMERCIAL DOMINATION

Of course we didn’t see the MoveOn ad on the Superbowl yesterday, but the larger problem is not even being raised by political activists who have been barragingCBS gatekeepers to open their commercial gates to advocacy advertising Whatwe need to be protesting goes much deeper judging from some informationby Max Robins who is ending his always informative Robins Report at TV Guidefor a bigger and better perch as editor of Broadcasting and Cable.In a column called AD NAUSEUM, Max reveals that commercials are outof control on the airwaves.

“According to a recent study, if you watch three hours of prime time network TV, you’re spending nearly an hour watching commercials and promos,” he reports, citing a Phase One Communications study that shows an 8% rise in promos, pitches and advertising. In 20 years the “amount of commercial time has nearly doubled.” The average commercial break, he reports, is now three minutes long.

Who is moving on the media on this trend which Robins says is driving us insane.

DIGITAL INTERDEPENDENCE

The Digital Independence Conference in San Francisco, which I attended, brought media makers fromall over the country together this weekend to discuss how to respond toa media environment that threatens to further marginalize dissenting voicesand creative players who operate outside the web of media conglomerate power.

The situation is grave. Organizer Neil Seiling quotes none other than Benjamin Franklin’s famous dictum, “We must all hang together or assuredly, we will all hangseparately,” as part of his call to arms. Organizer David Rosen calls forbuilding a new independent media community. I added my three cents to theevent which calls on independents to become interdependent and a “communityof practice.”

DOWN AND DIRTY

There were many speakers and I have a lot to report; I will have more through the week.Having also spent the weekend reading Peter Biskind’s scathing look atwhat’s left of the independent film world, the need to organize is evenmore urgent than I realized. His Down and Dirty Pictures (Simon andSchuster) goes after two icons of Indie Film: the Sundance Film Festivaland its founded Robert Redford, and Miramax and its founders Harvey andBob Weinstein. This impeccably researched and well informed tour throughthe bowels of these sacred cows leaves them all but buried — at leastwhen it comes to any pretense of upholding values that challenge the culturalstatus quo.

If the worldof independent film is a snake pit where even distinguished directors arebullied and robbed, what’s happening in the mainstream makes even less ormore sense, depending on your point of view.

MOYERS SHOW, INTERNET AT RISK

There were many speakers to tell you about (and I will) but this morning I will start with the most urgent warnings from the super informed Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy.

He says thatPBS is under extreme pressure to cancel the Bill Moyers program NOW. Unless we wake up to this and rally behind the program, NOW willsoon become THEN. More on this to come.

But even worse, the Internet as we have known it may be a thing of the past as the phonecompanies and cable companies introduce new technologies that threaten diversityand impose new tech controls in an age when more and more Americans get access through cable modems and broadband.

Chester points tonew network control technologies already at use in many businesses to limitchoices and further commercialize the web, turning it into the kind marketingtool that TV has become. He calls this part of the “brandwashing” of America. I don’t have time to spell all of this out. See Center for Digital Democracy for more. Chester called for more activism on these issues, which go way beyond the FCC rule change fight.

FIGHTING BACK IN ENGLAND

As Independents meet in America to discuss a way of fighting back, BBC staffers in England already are. Just as their former boss Greg Dyke is speaking out againstthe Hutton Report and the British government that stage managed the assaulton the world’s most independent broadcasters, a newspaper ad signed by many BBC employees said: “Greg Dyke stood for brave, independent and rigorousBBC journalism that was fearless in its search for the truth”

Matt Wells of The Guardian reports today:

“The new regime at the BBC began the battle to reunite the corporation’s shocked and angry staff yesterday as it became clear thatthe former director general, Greg Dyke, did not intend to go quietly.

“Mr Dyke stepped up his attack on the Hutton report, described how the BBC governors hadforced him out and accused the government of “systematic bullying” and “intimidation” during the Iraq war. He is reportedly considering hiring lawyers with aview to seeking a judicial review of the Hutton inquiry, according to today’sTimes.

“At the BBC,there were calls from senior journalists for the acting chairman, Lord Ryder,to step aside immediately after his “groveling” apology in the wake of Lord Hutton’s devastating findings.”
The Guardian, “Uphill battle for new BBC regime,” by Matt Wells. February 2, 2004

Meanwhile, the reporter Andrew Gilligan insisted he was correct to say the government had exaggerated its Iraq war dossier

Gilligan hasalso resigned, admitting and apologizing for an error in his report but saying that the BBC has been done “a grave injustice.”

UPDATE 10:01 a.m.
OUR CORRESPONDENT REPORTS

DavidTraynier, who has been keeping us in the loop on these developments, writesfrom Colchester in England:

“The snows have melted, from pure white to grey slush – andHutton’s pristine verdict has gone much the same way.

“I never expected much from Hutton but I was surprised at the sheer one-sidedness ofit all. I think that is a widespread view. Interestingly, a week or so ago,Margaret Thatcher’s former Press Secretary, Sir Bernard Ingham, was on BBCNews 24’s Dateline London. Ingham is fond of berating the Neo LabourGovernment for the excessive media management and spin of which he was aprogenitor (he was once described by ex-Tory Minister John Biffen as ‘thesewer, rather than the sewerage’). According to Ingham, the most troubling thing to him was that most ‘normal’ people he spoke to expected nothing from Hutton. They knew who was conducting it and where his loyalties lay – therefore, expecting him to seriously damage the Government was ridiculous. Of course, experience bears this out, but Ingham found this ‘disturbing’ and an indictment of our politics in general. I have to agree with ‘Bulldog Bernie’, but I don’tthink he has much room to complain.

“Over the weekend, thousands of BBC employees got together to place a full-page advert in the Daily Telegraph in which they complained of the ‘grave injustice’ done to the BBC and stated that “Greg Dyke stood for brave independent and rigorous BBC journalism that was fearless in its search for the truth.” I admire their loyalty but I find it hard to reconcile with, for instance, one of Greg Dyke’s letters to Tony Blair during the invasion, in which he stated that ‘Our role in these circumstances is to try to give a balanced picture.’ But then goes on to reassure Blair that,

“I believe we have made major efforts to ensure that the issues and events surrounding Iraq have been properly reported. Let me explain how we have done that.

“Some weeks ago I set up a committee which … decided to prevent any senior editorial figures at the BBC from going on the anti-war march; it was that committee which insisted that we had to find a balanced audience for programmes like Question Time at a time when it was very hard to find supporters of the war willing to come on.

“And it was that same committee when faced with a massive bias against the war among phone-in callers, decided to increase the number of phone lines so thatpro-war listeners had a better chance of getting through and getting ontothe programmes. All this was done in an attempt to ensure our coverage wasbalanced.”

“It’s an extraordinary definition of ‘balance’, isn’t it? He admits to deliberately rigging audiences and phone-ins, in order to create an impression of ‘balance’ amongst the British public that does not exist. Instead of representing the major views according to the proportion in which they are held, he wants torepresent all the possible views, even if this meanings utterly distorting the country’s prevailing view. Naturally, this serves government – by manufacturing an apparent 50-50 split, government is better able justify taking a ‘tough decision’, which was finally balanced. It’s fortunate that the polling companies don’t use a similar methodology, otherwise opinion polls would become very dull (33% for each Party).

“Still, despite such details, there is a definite backlash against Hutton – indeed, it’s almost in danger of suffering that most ignominious of fates, becoming a compound verb. ‘Doing a Hutton’ may soon become standard parlance for a cover-up. In fact, the out-pouring of loyalty and affection for the BBC is quite-heart-warming – even for someone like me who regards its news broadly as propaganda for the state. It may be hard for people in other countries to appreciate just what a strong part of our cultural heritage the BBC is for many millions of us Brits. It’s almost genetic and it’s no coincidence that she’s referred to as ‘Auntie’. I’m as left as one can reasonably be yetI was brought up on the BBC – it has always been there and, for all events of importance, one instinctively turns to it. Its people, many of whom have been on screen for decades, are as familiar and reassuring to us as members of our own family. Of course, this is all sentimental tosh and I have to remindmyself that the support for the BBC is simply realpolitik – ‘my enemy’s enemyis my friend’. Now Auntie is being praised for holding the Government toaccount, with people stressing that the she must not be ‘cowed’ or cease herfearsome drive to discover the truth. The Gilligan affair is attributed tonothing more than excessive zeal or enthusiasm. Simple facts, like the onerevealed in Dyke’s letter and the fact that the BBC was by far the most pro-warof all the broadcasters are not allowed to intrude. The idea that the BBCis part of the political class and never fundamentally challenges the Governmentis virtually unspeakable. For example, nobody anywhere seems to observe thatGilligan was only able to question the Government’s honesty precisely becauseit was an ad lib. Had his story really gone through the ‘rigorous editorialsystem’ the BBC admits it should have done, it would never had made the airwaves– evidence or not. Of course, all this criticism of the BBC for being tootenacious, too dogged and too adversarial is ‘criticism’ which journalistsapologise for in public but secretly love, because it validates them. You’llseldom get a journo cross by suggesting that he’s too enthusiastic a Sampson– it’s when you point out that they’re just timid lapdogs of the Establishmentwho save their fangs for ‘official enemies’ that they get truly angry.

“The outpouring has surprised the Government, too and I they will have to be care now, not to push their luck when it comes to choosing a new chairman. Indeed, the Guardian is reporting on the ‘belts and braces’ approach being envisaged, with an independent, bipartisan committee, operating under full Nolan rules. All of this will be presided over by ‘Dame Rennie Fritchie’ – another totally unbiased member of the Establishment.

“The big news is still those WMD. Isn’t it amazing how something that isn’t there refuses to go away? At the moment —although not for much longer, I suspect— Tony Blair still refuses to admit that they’re not there. He’s like the little boy who refuses to stop believing in Santa, and, if he would just wish very hard. …

“Ofcourse, the media is on fine form. ‘What went wrong?’ it asks. ‘How couldour intelligence have failed so badly?’ ‘How could we have thought thatweapons were there when they weren’t?’ That’s your dogged and fiercely independentmedia at work again – utterly in thrall to the propaganda line that invadingIraq was a ‘mistake’. It takes real ideological discipline to ignore evidence,logic, and reason and come to this conclusion but have no fear – our mediaare up to the job. I find myself like George Orwell sixty years ago:

“I really don’t know which is the 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 whichever way he turns.“

“Anyway Danny, that’s pretty much the state of play. Hutton is ever more discredited and ignored – except by the Government. The idea that WMD were ever there is ever more discredited and ignored – except by theGovernment. The idea that they were never the reason for invading is ignored– by our discredited media. Good morning to you.”

WHITHER TONY?

As for Blair, David Clark writes in The Guardian this morning:

“Having been so emphatically acquitted of any wrongdoing by Lord Hutton, Tony Blair must be dismayed by the barrage of headlinesand opinion polls suggesting that the country at large is far from impressed. A good cover-up requires at least a veneer of plausibility. In failing to provide one, Hutton has not only tarnished his own reputation, he has provoked a backlash far stronger than the one that would have greeted a more qualified government victory.

“Blair may have cowed the BBC into a grovelling apology, but at what cost? Many now feelthat he has used up a lifetime’s supply of benefit of the doubt and that’sa dangerous position for a prime minister to be in.”
The Guardian, “A half-truth may not be a lie, but it is still dishonest,” by David Clark. February 2, 2004

INVESTIGATING INTELLIGENCE

Of course, all of this takes place against the background of President Bush now agreeing to what is still being called an independent investigation of so-called intelligence failures. (Many critics say it is the Administration that needs investigating.)

David Sangerreports in the New York Times:

“President Bush will establish a bipartisan commission in the next few days to examine American intelligence operations, includinga study of possible misjudgments about Iraq’s unconventional weapons, senior administration officials said Sunday. They said the panel would also investigate failures to penetrate secretive governments and stateless groups that could attempt new attacks on the United States.

“The president’s decision came after a week of rising pressure on the White House from both Democrats and many ranking Republicans to deal with what the head of theSenate Intelligence Committee has called “egregious” errors that overstatedIraq’s stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and made the countryappear far closer to developing nuclear weapons than it actually was.”
NY Times, “Bush to Establish Panel to Examine U.S. Intelligence,” by David E. Sanger. February 2, 2004.

THE QUESTION

So far Tony Blair, more religious than the pope on the correctness of his own intelligence,has not joined Bush — but the edifice of lies on the WMD issue is beginningto crack. The Guardian reports that the Administration says it knewlast May there were no WMDs. Let’s see, why are we finding out about thisso many months later?

The questionbecomes: “What did they really know and when did they forget they knew it.”

US MILITARY RETREAT

In Iraq meanwhile, more US soldiers and Iraqis dead in the aftermath of new rocket attacksand bombings. And now the US military is pulling back and getting soldiersoff the streets. More chaos looms.

On that note, I have to leave you. Dissecting takes time and that’s the one thing I lack this morning. Tech problems and travel have intruded, but I hope to havemore for you tomorrow including your letters. Remember, write to me now at Dschechter@mediachannel.org.