We noted how Esler had completely failed to challenge Burns on the catastrophe
afflicting Iraq, despite damning reports just published by the Red Cross
and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the desperate
plight of the civilian population. On April 24, Newsnight’s editor,
Peter Barron, responded as follows:
Dear David
Thanks for your note of 13 April concerning Gavin Esler's interview with
Nicholas Burns.
I'm sorry you were unhappy with the way the interview was conducted.
In particular that you felt Gavin failed to challenge Nicholas Burns.
Having watched the entire Iraq section of the programme I cannot find
any evidence to support your accusation. I have transcribed Gavin's questions
from the seven minute interview with Mr Burns on Iraq, and on Iran, which
was the topic Mr Burns had agreed to be interviewed about that evening.
The questions are below and despite what you say each one challenges Mr
Burns' and Britain and America's policies in the region.
On this occasion we picked up on Mr Bolton's points and challenged Mr
Burns from that perspective. That does not mean that the BBC shares Mr
Bolton's views or - as you suggest - that we are preparing the ground
for attacking Iran. It is surely right to challenge politicians from a
range of angles over time, and surely impractical to do so within the
same interview.
One point I would concede is that the way the interview was recorded
did perhaps leave the impression that the questions were served up. The
interview was conducted earlier in the day because it was impossible to
arrange a live link from Mr Burns' location. In that situation, where
the questions are recorded in the studio later, it is more difficult to
conduct an interview with natural interruptions and interjections.
As for repeating a claim such "this is the Iraqis' fight" such
claims are always attributed to those who make them and not to the BBC.
We are always very careful to make sure all claims made on air are carefully
attributed to those who make them. The BBC does not make this sort of
claim.
Best wishes
Peter
Gavin Esler:
Q1. Today's Baghdad bomb means of course that no one in Iraq is safe
?
Q2. But do you worry that it is however demoralizing, 4 years after the
invasion of Iraq and after several weeks of the so called 'surge' in US
troops, more Iraqi troops are on the street and so on ....that you cannot
guarantee the safety of people in what's suppose to be the safest part
of the country ?
Q3. Can I turn now to Iran, how far is the United States convinced that
Iran in some way behind any of the violence in Iraq ?
Q 4. John Bolton, your former colleague, the ex-US Ambassador at the
United Nations, want you to go further though, he said you should move
towards regime change in Iran ..that's the only way to stop them getting
the bomb ?
Q5 . But with the Iranians boasting this week of industrial scale uranium
enrichment John Bolton's point is that they're stringing the Europeans
along, there's no point in continuing a dialogue with them if you're not
prepared to do something ?
Q6. How concerned are you by the apparently rather easy way in which
the Iranians were able to kidnap British sailors at gun point, do you
think something serious has gone wrong here ?
Q7. But you know some people here think it has been a propaganda victory
for the Iranians because of the way it has been handled by the British
Government ?
We’re grateful for Peter Barron’s response. We are also, frankly,
surprised. In our experience, Barron is one of the more reasonable and responsible
mainstream editors we have encountered. This is not saying much, of course,
but the fact remains that he does take the trouble to respond to challenges
- many editors do not - and he has allowed us to state our case on the Newsnight
website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
newsnight/20 07/03/bbcs_iraq_coverage_ biased_or_balanced.html. We were
therefore surprised to receive this irrational brush off. We wrote to Barron
on April 24 asking if he in fact did write the email - it has the whiff
of a bureaucratic BBC response about it - but he has so far not replied.
Barron writes of the questions put by Gavin Esler to Nicholas Burns: “each
one challenges Mr Burns' and Britain and America's policies in the region“.
He then clarifies the nature of the challenge:
“On this occasion we picked up on Mr Bolton's points and challenged
Mr Burns from that perspective.”
One might almost think this was intended humorously. Imagine if Esler had
been interviewing one of the most senior members of the Soviet politburo
during the invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Imagine if the invasion
had slaughtered upwards of 655,000 people. Imagine if, one day before the
interview, the Red Cross had reported the "immense suffering"
of "the entire population" in Afghanistan; and if two days before,
UNHCR had reported that some 4 million Afghans had been displaced by the
violence. Would it have been deemed appropriate by the BBC to pick up the
criticisms of a right-wing critic from within the Soviet government - a
key figure behind the catastrophic and illegal invasion? Would this have
been deemed a reasonable focus in the face of such a crime against humanity?
Would the emphasis of the questioning have been on the failure of the Red
Army to “guarantee the safety of people”, such that this was
“demoralising” for the population and its occupiers?
With hundreds of thousands lying dead in Afghanistan, can we conceive of
a BBC journalist uncritically putting to a senior Soviet politician that
the same warmonger responsible was calling for the same military sledgehammer
to “move towards regime change” in a neighbouring country? Would
the concern, again, be the right-wing Soviet suggestion that the possible
neighbouring target had recently scored a “propaganda victory”
over the military goliath devastating Afghanistan? If we are able to perform
this thought experiment with any kind of honesty, we have to conclude that
it is simply inconceivable that a BBC journalist would respond in this way.
Barron writes:
“It is surely right to challenge politicians from a range of angles
over time, and surely impractical to do so within the same interview.”
Of course it is. And of course it doesn’t happen. Politicians working
for the ‘official enemy’ are regularly subjected to fierce critical
challenge, but ‘our’ politicians - frequently referred to by
Newsnight journalists as ‘us’, ‘we’ - are rarely
challenged from a robustly critical perspective.
When have leading US and UK politicians been challenged by the BBC from
a ‘left’ perspective - for example, on the basis that their
governments have a 60-year post-war track record of subordinating human
rights, independent nationalism and democracy in the Third World to power
and profit? When has evidence been presented to these politicians of the
central role Western corporate greed for natural resources, including oil,
has played in determining US-UK policy? If these suggestions are deemed
outrageous, are they more outrageous than anything Bolton dreams up before
breakfast? When has even the truth of US-UK intervention in Iran - involving
the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected regime of Mossadegh in
the name of access to cheap oil - been raised?
Barron concedes that the questions were “served up”; the problem
being that “where the questions are recorded in the studio later,
it is more difficult to conduct an interview with natural interruptions
and interjections”. But that is not at all what we had in mind. We
meant that the questions were served up like tennis balls lobbed to just
the right height for Burns to smash them away for winners: “How far
is the United States convinced that Iran in some way behind any of the violence
in Iraq?” That was the perfect focus for Burns - an ideal opportunity
to continue demonising Iran on national TV with no risk of challenge from
Esler.
Or consider the suggestion: “you should move towards regime change
in Iran... that's the only way to stop them getting the bomb.” Again,
this supplied a perfect chance to reinforce the demonisation of Iran, the
new enemy. “John Bolton's point is that they're stringing the Europeans
along, there's no point in continuing a dialogue with them if you're not
prepared to do something?” Likewise, ideal, allowing Burns to present
Bush administration policy as moderate, restrained, committed to peaceful
solutions - one of the big lies ahead of the invasion of Iraq - while continuing
to demonise the enemy.
“How concerned are you by the apparently rather easy way in which
the Iranians were able to kidnap British sailors at gun point, do you
think something serious has gone wrong here?” Again, the focus is
on the new ‘bad guy‘ on the chopping block. Newsnight could
not have given the Bush administration easier opportunities to push their
propaganda.
Gavin Esler Interviews John Bolton
In response to our Media Alert, a substantial number of emails were sent
to Gavin Esler and the Newsnight team. Despite Peter Barron‘s casual
dismissal, it seems likely that these emails had an impact.
On April 24, Esler interviewed John Bolton. This was a different Esler from
the anchor who interviewed Burns. Bolton was visibly irked by the confrontational
tone. Indeed the interview involved a standard and somewhat comical Newsnight
approach - asking questions in an aggressively shrill manner in order to
suggest incisive dissent, when in fact the substance of the challenge is
bland and toothless. Thus the challenge, here, was framed in terms of whether
the US-UK was “winning” or “losing” the “war”
(in fact an occupation) - a focus of second order importance for anyone
who understands the gravity and extraordinary scale of the crimes committed
in Iraq in our names.
But the fact remains that Bolton was not treated with the usual deference
- this was closer to authentic journalism. It seems likely that Esler was
reacting to the criticism he had received over the Burns interview. In other
words, as a result of the actions of just a few emailers, a leading US warmonger
had been given a tougher ride - his propaganda was at least to some extent
challenged. This is the power of the media activist Few!
Media corporations are of course authoritarian hierarchies. But they are
run by human beings. Moreover, these human beings may often be well-intentioned.
It is important to remember that elite journalists are the product of privileged
cosseting, of elite public school and Oxbridge education - their world view
is the result of socialisation, education, training, and unconscious compromise.
In other words, elite journalists are not generally liars or conspirators
- they are not monsters.
To send polite criticism based on rational arguments, credible evidence,
and sincere concern for human suffering, is to powerfully challenge this
social conditioning. We all like to see ourselves as reasonable, rational,
compassionate people - or at least we all recognise that these are valuable
human qualities. In the face of the awesome suffering in Iraq, it is difficult,
perhaps close to impossible, for even the most blinkered journalist to reject
a rational argument based on a compassionate impulse in response to that
suffering - especially when they know they are in a key position to make
some kind of difference.
Anger and hatred prevent us from recognising this reality - we will likely
perceive journalists as cynical bad guys, as liars and monsters. Then, our
indulgent emails will be focused mainly on venting our anger, on punishment,
so triggering instant rejection - delete buttons will be hit and nothing
will have changed.
As ever, the crucial factor for anyone hoping for progressive change is
motivation. A compassionate motivation has a power which, while perhaps
not immediately discernible, can manifest in unexpected and potent ways.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect
for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you
to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
printer friendly 
What is Media Lens?