PRIMARY RESULTS

“COSTUME REVEAL”

BBC DEBATE CONTINUES

KERRY

EDWARDS

LIEBERMAN NO MORE

RICIN TESTS: POSITIVE

DEFINING OBSCENE

Yesterday morning at a panel of industry heavies at New York’s swank Four Seasons eatery, I watched Tom Freston, the head of MTV and proconsul of the Viacom Empiresay he welcomes an FCC investigation because it will show that CBS and MTVwere not responsible for the now infamous Superbowl “nipple” incident. SingerJanet Jackson has officially apologized, also giving the networks a pass.She says in a heavily PR-ized statement: it was her idea and it went toofar. Sorry.

“The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final rehearsals. MTV was completely unaware of it. It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologize to anyone offended — including the audience, MTV, CBS and the NFL.”

It was poor taste (and good marketing) but was it obscene? What is obscene? How about some proportionality. The war in Iraq was not obscene to FCC Chairman Michael Powell who was insulted by a “costume reveal” but has no interest in a  “war reveal.” You will recall that Powell justified the need for more media concentration on the grounds that only big media companies can cover a war the way this one was covered. That’s an “ideology reveal.” Years ago, women breast -feeding their babies in public was obscene. So what will be done: The network will clamp on more control.

ENHANCING IT

“NEW YORK (CNN) — CBS announced Tuesday it will broadcast Sunday’s Grammy Awards ceremony with an “enhanced” tape delay system, an apparent effort to avoid a repeat of the Super Bowl halftime show in which Janet Jackson’s right breast was displayed live to a national television audience.”

I must say I am sympathetic to the producer of the show whose career may go into “unemployment reveal.” It happened to me back in l980 at WCVB in Boston when a rock band I had on a late night show chose to perform their cult classic “Butt F*ck” live and in color. Sample lyric: “It really reeks when you spread those cheeks.”  Don’t laugh. I wasn’t for long when I was swiftly relieved of my duties. At that time, we had six 3 a.m. calls. Three savage complaints and three viewers demanding more. Their answer was also a tape delay system, a good old techno-fix and blame game. My career took off even as I lost my job and the show was dealt a fatal blow. The whole incident is described inmy “The More You Watch The Less You Know.” You can’t make this stuffup.

BBC DEBATE CONTINUES

David Traynier’s views on the BBC/Hutton report were challenged yesterday by a BBCjournalist. Traynier responds today. Parenthetically, this is the very type of exchange you rarely see and I welcome:

“I’m delighted to see that BBC people are reading your web log and are even taking me to task. I should point out to you and your readers that I’m not a media “expert” of any kind – in fact there’s no reason why anyone should take my views seriously. That said, I’d like to respond. I amconscious, however, that you don’t want to turn your daily blog into a debatingforum. For that reason, I would be entirely content for you simply to forwardthis to your BBC correspondent, if you think that would be a better option.Certainly, I shall try to be brief.

“Your BBC correspondent rightly points out that “If you’re going to make big claims, you need to be able to back them up.”  Well, I’m happy to admit that my “big claim”, that the BBC was the most pro war of all the broadcasters is, to some extent, subjective. However, research carried out last year byMedia Tenor for Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, showed that, ofbroadcasters in five countries, the BBC featured the lowest level of dissent of all: 2%. This compared with the (still low) 7% found on the US’ ABC (David Miller, “The anti-war movement accuses the BBC of having had a pro war bias; the government says it was too Baghdad friendly. So who is right?” in The Guardian, April 22, 2003)

“Likewise, research carried out at Cardiff University’s School of Journalism found that “The corporation displayed the most ‘pro war’ agenda of any broadcaster.” This study further revealed that, during the conflict, “11% of the sources quoted by the BBC were of coalition government or military origin, the highest proportion of all the main television broadcasters.” Auntie was also the leastlikely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV orChannel 4 News to use independent (and usually more critical) sources suchas the Red Cross.

“The Cardiff study also found the BBC placed least emphasis on Iraqi casualties, which were mentioned in 22% of its stories about the Iraqi people. Casualties received most prominence on Channel 4 News, figuring in 40% of its reports about Iraqis. The corporation was also the least likely to report on the unhappinessof Iraqis about the invasion (Matt Wells, “Study deals a blow to claims of anti-war bias in BBC news,” in The Guardian Media, July 4, 2003. Admittedly, that is only two quantitative studies that I have cited but if there are others which suggest a contrary conclusion, I’m unaware of them.

“On the matter of the BBC accurately reflecting public opinion, again these are subjective judgments. Personally, I was concerned about the comments of Richard Sambrook (the director of BBC News), in a memo to his staff that warned program makers against:  

… broadcasting too much dissent and “attracting some ofthe more extreme anti-war views (even though) there is no question thereis a majority public view which is against unilateral US action.”
(John Pilger in The Daily Mirror, March 20, 2003. Available at Pilger’s article archives.)

“On the strength of this, Sambrook allegedly told “editorial directors to dismiss the strongest views by phone-in callers and emailers,” (Gary Jones and Justine Smith “Fury at BBC Gag on War Protesters,” in The Daily Mirror, February 10 2003).

“Your BBC correspondent also neglects the very real concern that the reported measurement of public opinion – and by extension the BBC’s policy towards reflecting it– can serve to actually shape opinion. This has been known for decades inthe area of demographics, and one has only to consider the matter for a momentto realize that opinion polls can serve to legitimate opinions in the publicmind. The BBC, by arguably giving the impression that the UK was broadlyevenly split on the Iraq invasion, actually served Government interests bygiving undue legitimacy to a policy that, in the runup to the attack, wasoverwhelmingly opposed. The person sat at home, with their own deep reservations about the attack, sees their own view underrepresented, and may well suffer a “chilling” effect as a result.

On thefinal two points your correspondent makes, there simply isn’t space to dealwith the matter in depth. That Gilligan wouldn’t have been allowed to makesuch a damning comment about the honesty of the Government is, naturally, my hunch, but I think the BBC’s past form makes it at least plausible. Likewise, I think the evidence suggests strongly that the BBC never fundamentally challenges the Government line. Again, there is the comment of the former editor of theBBC’s Newsnight, Peter Horrocks, who, in a memo to his staff in 1997told them:

“Our job should not be to quarrel with the purpose of policy, but to question its implementation.”
(Cited by Robert Newman in The Guardian. August 7, 2000)

Nor does this attitude seem to be an innovation. In the 1920s, Lord Reith, the BBC’s first director general, noted in his diaries that impartiality was aprinciple to be suspended whenever the established order and its consensus were threatened. In 1965, Lord Normanbrook, then chairman of the BBC board of governors secretly warned the Wilson Government that broadcasting “The War Game”, Peter Watkins’ film for the BBC about the effects of a nuclear attack on Britain, might have a “significant effect on public attitudes towards the policy of the nuclear deterrent’. The film was suppressed for twenty years.(John Pilger, New Statesman, December 8th 2003)

The BBC seems remarkably comfortable with taking the Government at its word even when there is remarkable evidence showing Government duplicity. For example, the BBC managed to ignore the on-the-record statement of Colin Powell in February2001 that Saddam Hussein had “not developed any significant capability withrespect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” (US Department of State) 

Likewise with the statements of authorities on Iraq such as Scott Ritter, Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, Hussein Kamal, and a variety of other statements and facts which reveal the astonishing duplicity of ministers. How many times have Ihad to listen to Jack Straw tell us (without correction) that Iraq “kicked out” UNSCOM in 1998 (they did not) or that the UN, in approving 1441, agreed that Iraq had WMD (they did no such thing).

The BBC accepted the absurd label “War On Terror” without criticism and accepted, broadly without question, that Iraq did have WMD. It continually referred to an attack without the authorization of the UN Security Council as being merely “without its blessing” rather than as criminal, described Blair and Bush’s final attempt to force the UN to agree to the attack as a “last push for peace” and their resulting failure as a “failure of diplomacy”, rather than what it was: a failure of coercion. It is the BBC that has given in —itappears— to ministers’ refusal to debate with experts. We have seen this onthe flagship Newsnight program (Phil Woolas MP refusing to debate withGlen Rangwala but feeling happy to traduce him in his presence) and the sameis true on Radio 4’s Today. When I asked a senior Today presenterwhy they didn’t put ministers up against experts like Scott Ritter the replywas telling:

“Asfor getting a debate between him and Straw/Hoon … are you kidding? They won’t even debate with their political opposite numbers. Please bear in mind, we can’t make them do what we want.” (Private email July 11,2003)

Naturally, anyone defending the BBC could point out that Scott Ritter did appear at leastonce (10.30 p.m. on the minority News 24), that they may have lookedat the influence of oil and US strategic considerations (a five minute package,again on News 24, this time at 3:30 a.m., if memory serves). The fact that our media is ever more fragmented and the fact that the BBC has a massive output allows it to claim —with technical accuracy— that it has “covered” an issue. However, this almost always means pointing to a piece on an obscure channel in the dead of night watched by three people and a dog (News 24 has some excellent material but gets only a few hundred thousand viewers at best.). They know what is watched and what is important as much as we do. The BBC’s principal news programs are those that go out on BBC 1 at One, Six, and Ten – they’re the ones that the overwhelming majority watch and they’re the ones that frequently consist of little more than stenography of Government spokespeople.

The list goes on, but there isn’t space. I agree people should listen to the BBCand make up their own mind. Indeed, I happily concede that there are manyexcellent journalists working there. But people should also look at the coverageof sources like Mediachannel or,in Britain, the excellent Medialens site and supplement their knowledge with the copious information available there – they may find it an eye-opener.

THERE IS MORE

The openDemocracy.net web site in London publishes a piece on the Hutton report by David Marquand, who argues, “Hutton is not a whitewash – it’s worse than that. There is a malaise at the very heart of British political culture.” Here is an excerpt:

“Lord Hutton’s now notorious report on the circumstances surrounding the death of the British government weapons scientist David Kelly, has been greeted with an unprecedented chorus of disdain. Almost without exceptionpress commentators have denounced it as a whitewash. If the polls are anyguide, the public shares their view.

“It is easy to see why. The report exonerated the leading officials involved inthe affair –  not just of deliberate deceit, but of questionable conductof any kind: the prime minister; other government ministers; the prime minister’sstaff at Number 10 Downing Street; the bureaucrats of the ministry of defense;and the spymasters on the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC).

“The BBC, on the other hand, was savagely criticized, not just for giving airtime to a false allegation, but for gross editorial and managerial negligence. Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke, the chairman and chief executive of the BBC, havebeen forced to walk the plank, while Tony Blair smirks beneath a righteous halo.

“Given that the whole affair stems from Blair’s insistence on leading the country into a war of dubious legality, whose ostensible justification has turned out to be false, this seems, to put it mildly, a little odd. Planet Hutton, it seems, is a very different place from Planet Earth.

“But the charge of whitewash misses the point. Any hopes that Hutton may have hadto whitewash the government have not been fulfilled. What he has done – no doubt without realizing it –  is to throw a vivid shaft of lighton a developing crisis of the British state and public realm.

“As I try to show in my new book, Decline of the Public: the hollowing-out of citizenship (Polity Press, 2004) this crisis –  whose roots lie deep in Britain’s history –  has accelerated sharply under Tony Blair. One of its most depressing aspects is, indeed, the current culture of the BBC.”
openDemocracy.net, “Tony Blair and Iraq: a public tragedy,” by  David Marquand. February 2, 2004.

MEDIA NEWS

For the first time in the 46 year history of the Grammys, the network will be able to delete inappropriate video as well as audio, CBS said in a written statement.

The European Journalism Center passes along this report:

“An explosion shook the downtown Moscow apartment of Yelena Tregubova, an independent journalist who recently published a controversial best selling book criticizing the Kremlin. A package was left outside the door to Ms Tregubova’s apartment and exploded as she was leaving to meet afriend. Ms Tregubova’s apartment door was damaged, but luckily nobody was injured. Police and emergency workers arrived at the scene immediately, according to local reports.”
(Committee to Protect Journalists: “Explosion Rocks Home of Russian Journalist,”  February 2, 2004.)

Ex-BBCexecutive jailed for fraud

“An ex-BBC executive has been jailed for 20 months in Hong Kong for taking bribes from agents of firms who made toys linked to children’s programs. Former BBC Worldwide Ltd director Jeffrey Everard Taylor pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from two agents for five Asian toy suppliers.”
BBC News, “Ex-BBC director jailed for fraud.” February 2, 2004.

YOUR LETTERS

Diane writes from the Garden State:

“Bush hand-picking *independent* investigators to investigate so-called intelligence flawed information is entirely consistent with someone charged with an offense, permitted to handpick all jurors who will judge hiscase. Is something wrong with this picture or is citizen lethargy not ahandicap? This needs at least as much attention as the Jackson family’s sexualevolution or is it just another legup media blessing to more of the samefrom the Ken Lays in the White House?

Ethan Young writes from Portland:

“I find it’s interesting that everyone’s making a big fuss over whether the intelligence community or the policy making community should be investigated in relation to the whole Iraq quagmire. After all, absolving one of any wrong doing will in effect damn the other, right? I suppose the danger is in the gray area, as it is possible that the policy makers could have tampered with and cherry picked from already bad intelligence. …

WHITHER BILL MOYERS

On Monday February 2,  I reported on a conversation with Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy who told me that PBS is under pressure to cancel Bill Moyers show, NOW. I passed on his comments because Jeffe is a media activistwith a long history of credibility. I hope to learn more. Jim Longley fromOlympia, WA writes:

I just received a forwarded email that you apparently wrote indicating that Bill Moyers’ show on PBS, NOW, is under attack and may be canceled. Is this true? I can’t find any reference on your current web page. I’m very disturbed to think that my *favorite* show on TV may have its plug pulled. Can you confirm or deny these dire warnings?

“I receivedthe email below from Danny Schechter of MediaChannel which promotes globaldemocratic media. MediaChannel(http://www.mediachannel.org) is supported by, among others, Robert McChesney, Danny Glover, Patricia Ireland, John Pilger, Gregory Palast, etc. [full list at http://www.mediachannel.org/about/advisors/].

Apparently the news show NOW with Bill Moyers is under attack (not surprising). Schechter writes that PBS is being severely pressured to cancel the show.

Richard Deckhart from Minneapolis is also concerned:

“Do keep us posted on that “alarm bell.” I couldn’t find anything further via Google or the Center for Digital Democracy website. But if you haven’t already seen it, checkout the enclosed “Current” article that in turn links to the Common Cause “alarm bell.”

“In previous messages I’ve noted how popular NOW is with TPT’s viewers and members. And for progressives in our region, it’s clearly the “program of choice” on TPT – which via terrestrial, cable and satellite distribution reaches nearly 70 percent of Minnesota viewers and 10 percent of Wisconsin viewers. And as I said before, I believe NOW was again the pledge dollars per minute champion of our most recent December pledge drive, one of three major drives we do each year.

Because we have two analog channels, KTCA Channel 2 (VHF) and KTCI Channel 17 (UHF) and their multicast digital equivalents, we air the live feed Friday evenings on KTCA (or TPT-2 and TPT-2D) and repeat it Monday evenings on KTCI (or TPT-17 and TPT-17D) then follow the repeat with Frontline or another major public affairs program. Since NOW was launched about two years ago, viewership on both evenings has risen to a consistently strong level for thosetime frames.

“So any attempt by PBS to scuttle NOW before or at the end of its second year of 50 episodes would very likely trigger a major viewer revolt in Minnesota, which also has nine other PBS stations.”

ORGANIZE!

Neddy Harris writes about my report about Digital Independence:

“I’ll be short. I would love to help bring independents together. Help make them realize that saving the world is up to them. Seeing what is happening and writing about it to their colleagues is not enough.

“Being very smart, but dyslexic, gives me a valuable perspective. It probably puts me at the same reading level as the majority of Americans, unscrambling sentences by reading them three times, imagining what some big words means, reading one word at a time.

“Academic, independents, could start trying to reach the people. It would mean giving up the art behind their information. It has to be in simple language. Or perhapsthere is another layer of people who could translate, something I believein and do, when I can, but my dyslexia keeps me from doing at a reasonable rate.

“To create a community of practice may afford researchers, who could look up thecontact information for the actions that are urgent and that you suggesttaking. Surely, organized, there would be cash available from some foundationdedicated to democracy and free speech, to support the writers and journalistswith tools to get their messages out.

Let us keep discussing and debating, Your input is welcome. Write: dissector@mediachannel.org  Join ourMedia for Democracy campaign on thehome page. It will feature more on the coverage of the campaign. HastaMañana.