|
The propaganda we pass off as news around the world
A British government-funded fake TV news service allows mild
criticism of the US - all the better to support it
By
David Miller
02/15/06 "The
Guardian" -- -- A succession of scandals in the US
has revealed widespread government funding of PR agencies to
produce "fake news". Actors take the place of journalists and
the "news" is broadcast as if it were genuine. The same practice
has been adopted in Iraq, where newspapers have been paid to
insert copy. These stories have raised the usual eyebrows in the
UK about the pitiful quality of US democracy. Things are better
here, we imply. We have a prime minister who claimed in 2004
that "the values that drive our actions abroad are the same
values of progress and justice that drive us at home". Yet in
2002 the government launched a littleknown television propaganda
service that seems to mimic the US government's deceptive
approach to fake news.
The British Satellite News website says it is "a free television
news and features service". It looks like an ordinary news
website, though its lack of copyright protection might raise
some questions in alert journalists. Broadcasters can put BSN
material "directly into daily news programmes". In fact, BSN is
provided by World Television, a company that also makes
corporate videos and fake news clips for corporations such as
GlaxoSmithKline, BP and Nestlé. It also produced Towards Freedom
Television on behalf of the UK government. This was a propaganda
programme broadcast in Iraq by US army psychological-operations
teams from a specially adapted aircraft in 2003/04.
World Television produces the fake news, but its efforts are
entirely funded by the Foreign Office, which spent £340m on
propaganda activities in the UK alone in 2001. A comprehensive
post- 9/11 overhaul means that this figure has probably markedly
increased since then.
According to World Television, by November 2003 BSN "news" was
being "used regularly by 14 of the 17 Middle East countries".
"Over 400 stations around the world receive BSN stories," it
claims. "185 are regular users of the stories, including
broadcasters in Russia, Germany, Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia,
Japan and Australia."
The diet of "news" received by viewers of the service includes
an endless pageant of government ministers and other official
spokespeople. Recent headlines on Iraq refer to happy news such
as "Prime minister in surprise visit to Iraq" (December 22 2005)
or "Iraqi ambassador upbeat on elections" (December 14 2005).
Often Chatham House provides the venue for policy discussions,
as in: "The psychology of terror - experts meet" (December 23
2005).
Questioning the occupation is out of the question, but some
criticism of US policy is possible. In an extraordinary apologia
for the British occupation of Iraq in 1920, the "suggested
intro" reads: "This year is not the first time an outside power
has sought to construct a modern, democratic, liberal state in
Iraq. Britain tried to do the same in the 1920s". The
benevolence of the US and the UK is simply assumed: "Today's
USled coalition, like the imperial occupiers of 80 years ago,
are trying to free Iraq's government and security services from
corruption and abuse."
But the clumsy strategy of the US is potentially "alienating a
large section of the population". So the question arises of what
"useful lessons could be drawn" from the British experience. In
reality the 1920 occupation led immediately to a popular revolt
that was ruthlessly suppressed. A puppet monarchy was imposed,
which was neither "modern" nor "democratic" but was, as argued
by the historian Mark Curtis, one of the least popular in Middle
Eastern history.
The BSN strategy seems to be to emphasise Britain's cultural
diversity. Bulletins regularly highlight ethnicminority
contributions to the UK and interview leading moderate Muslims.
But it is possible to hear muted criticism of Israel. One item
featured "A leading Israeli academic who has questioned both the
wisdom and the effectiveness of the controversial 'separation
fence'."
A clue to the thinking behind this lies in a 2003 report for the
Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) thinktank, coauthored by its then
director Mark Leonard. He advised the Foreign Office on its
Public Diplomacy Review in 2002 and was later appointed to the
resulting Public Diplomacy Strategy Board, which directs Foreign
Office propaganda strategy. Leonard wrote in 2002: "If a message
will engender distrust simply because it is coming from a
foreign government then the government should hide that fact as
much as possible." The FPC report suggests the British
government should not be afraid of "bloodying the Americans'
noses" in its propaganda messages on Israel/Palestine. They must
"ensure that the differences between UK and American positions
and thinking are emphasised". The point is to tackle the
perception that Britain "apishly follows every American lead" so
the "usefulness" of "UK support for the US" is increased.
This strategy of criticising the US, in order to support it
better, conforms to Blair's wider Iraq strategy. It is clear
from documents leaked over the past year (such as the Downing
Street memo) that the plan was to use the UN as a device for
gaining legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq. All this makes a
mockery of Blair's claims to progressive values. Indeed it
suggests that such claims are themselves cynical propaganda.
David Miller is professor of sociology at Strathclyde University
www.spinwatch.org
Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
