medialens | The key to what is precisely wrong with corporate journalism is explained in this nutshell by the US commentator Michael Parenti:
'Bias in favor of the orthodox is
frequently mistaken for "objectivity". Departures from this ideological
orthodoxy are themselves dismissed as ideological.'
Examples of bias towards the orthodoxy of Western power are legion
every day of the week. On January 30 this year, David Loyn reported for
BBC News at Ten from Bagram airbase in Afghanistan as US troops prepared
to withdraw from a blood-strewn occupation. Standing beside a large US military plane, he intoned:
'For all of the lives lost and money spent, it could have been so much better.'
The pro-Nato perspective of that remark masquerading as impartial journalism is stark. By contrast, Patrick Cockburn summed up the reality:
'After 12 years, £390bn, and countless
dead, we leave poverty, fraud – and the Taliban in Afghanistan...60 per
cent of children are malnourished and only 27 per cent of Afghans have
access to safe drinking water...Elections are now so fraudulent as to
rob the winners of legitimacy.'
The damning conclusion?
'Faced with these multiple disasters
western leaders simply ignore Afghan reality and take refuge in spin
that is not far from deliberate lying.'
BBC News has been a major component of this gross deception of the public.
The BBC's 'objective' bias in support of power also imbues the
'impartial' stance of alpha-male interviewer Jeremy Paxman, who recently
disparaged 'extreme' WWI conscientious objectors as 'cranks'.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson is another safe pair of hands. He
once described his 'objective' role in the run-up to the illegal
invasion of Iraq (when he was ITN's political editor):
'It was my job to report what those in
power were doing or thinking . . . That is all someone in my sort of job
can do.' (Nick Robinson, ' "Remember the last time you shouted like
that?" I asked the spin-doctor', The Times, July 16, 2004)
We tweeted a reminder of this remarkable admission by Robinson of his stenographic role as a channeller of state propaganda:
'The skewed way in which @bbcnickrobinson sees his role as BBC political editor can only lead to bias towards power.'
US journalist Glenn Greenwald responded pithily:
'That'd make an excellent epitaph on the tombstone of modern establishment journalism'
After we had repeatedly challenged Robinson about his bias towards power (see this recent media alert), he finally responded via email (January 27, 2014):
'We could have this debate forever I suspect.'
But in reality 'this debate' never gets an airing on the BBC. It is simply taboo.
