or

"Blair refuses to apologise for Iraq war
"PM given cool TUC reception despite praise for movement
...
"Despite the lavish praise heaped by the prime minister on the unions for deciding not to "hark back to the past", his speech was not greeted by a standing ovation. It may be that, in private, the union leadership remains suspicious of Mr Blair's commitments to working closely with them."
Guardian  http://politics.guardian.co.uk/unions/story/0,12189,1304020,00.html

Read all about it...

Most trade unionists opposed the war. Many of us were active in the anti-war campaign. Most of the big unions affiliated to the Stop The War Coalition.

Now it's true that most union *leaders* still back Labour, and manage to keep their unions affiliated. But pressure from members is having an effect. RMT now fund parties outside Labour, FBU have disaffiliated, and CWU came close. The funding debate continues to rage in every union.

Meanwhile unions remain the only effective protection for most workers. So the choice is stay pure but unprotected, or join your union and vote/campaign to stop funding Labour.


Find the right union for your workplace via TUC website:
 http://www.tuc.org.uk

Stop The War Coalition:
 http://www.stopwar.org.uk

>>Most trade unionists opposed the war. Many of us were active in the anti-war campaign. Most of the big unions affiliated to the Stop The War Coalition. Now it's true that most union *leaders* still back Labour, and manage to keep their unions affiliated. But pressure from members is having an effect.

what effect? you can't be reading the news from fallujah or herat. as you say, there's a trade off between domestic workers interests and foreign policy. so far, as the unions continue to support bliar and his mates, domestic interests are coming a resounding first. nothing new there then. the unions have had 18 months to give the labour party an ultimatum over bliar and iraq and have utterly failed to do so. it's no good blaming a handful of knighthood hungry union leaders for that.

so if "it's no good blaming the union leaders" does that mean you blame the members?

even the ones who went on anti-war protests?

>>so if "it's no good blaming the union leaders" does that mean you blame the members? even the ones who went on anti-war protests?

amongst other things (corporate media, big business, foreign governments) i blame the trade union system for keeping bliar in his job. who else is supporting him? i'm not. how is it that half a dozen autocrats can dictate policy for the trade union movement in this country? how is it they are authorised to support a war of aggression which maybe 4m of their members oppose? hierarchical organising of this kind is a manifest failure.

Again we see that some will forget that there is not just one issue out there. Iraq is not the be all and end all, however bad it is. Unions exist to protect their workers/members not to dictate what the country as a whole should be doing. Therefore, if the Labour govt says it will deliver its promises on protections for workers, then the unions are bound to support them. They may have reservations over Iraq but they still want the best for their people.
You may be anti-war, may even hate Blair, but it is for the unions to decide what causes they stand and fight on.
Does one bad policy make the good ones bad as well? What is the alternative?

Daily Mail front page: Blair 'close to quitting' amid family strain

Daily Express front page: Blair's Secret Agony: Why he Nearly Quit

so there you have it. the possibility of bliar's resignation is only discussed in the past tense. even then, it is only talked about as the anguishings of a family man not a warmonger with a case to answer. just as it's all about to go pear shaped at party conference for the PM we get spin from Downing Street press office > Lord Bragg > pro Labour rightwingers at the Mail and Express. it's comedy isn't it?

September 15, 2004


MEDIA ALERT: NO MEA CULPA FROM THE BRITISH MEDIA - PART 3
REPLY FROM THE HEAD OF BBC TV NEWS


In Parts 1 and 2 of this alert, we asked a number of British media editors to conduct publicly available critiques investigating their failings on Iraq. We received several replies. In Part 1, we published responses from The Observer and ITN. In Part 2 we focused on the Independent on Sunday.

On 16 August, 2004, Roger Mosey, head of BBC TV news, responded:

There have actually been a number of academic studies into our coverage of the Iraq War, but the overall point I'd make is that it isn't quite as current myth would have it.

Have a look, for instance, at the Newsnight Special just before the start of the war.
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/07/blair_transcript.shtml

But this wasn't alone: we did a whole Iraq Day across BBC1 before the conflict began which also examined the kind of issues you raise. (Email to David Cromwell)


We sent the following to Mosey on 18 August:

Many thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond - much appreciated.

Re: the Newsnight Special, we did an extensive analysis of [the Jeremy Paxman interview with Tony Blair] at Media Lens (www.medialens.org), which I co-edit. You can see the relevant media alerts of 10 and 11 February, 2003 archived under 'media alerts' at our website. Or click directly on:

 http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030210_Blairs_Betrayal1.tml
and
 http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/030211_Blairs_Betrayal2.html

Although Jeremy Paxman valiantly tackled Tony Blair on the usual deceit that Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors in 1998 (perhaps Jeremy did so partly because he had been deluged with emails on exactly this point by Media Lens readers in advance), the interview failed dismally on a number of
counts.

For example, quoting from part one of our alert:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
How often have [BBC viewers and listeners] seen or heard a discussion describing the extent of the success of Unscom inspections between 1991-98? [...] In fact the remarkable truth is that the 1991-98 inspections ended in almost complete success. Scott Ritter, chief UN arms inspector at the time, insists that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" by December 1998, with 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction eliminated. Of the missing 5-10%, Ritter says: "It doesn't even constitute a weapons programme. It constitutes bits and
pieces of a weapons programme which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited." (War On Iraq, Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, Profile Books, 2002, p.24)

Of nuclear weapons capability, Ritter says: "When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (ibid, p.26)

One might think that this would be vital information for interviewers like Paxman now when Blair, Straw and co are declaring war regrettably essential to enforce Iraqi disarmament. Instead, these central facts have been simply ignored by our media - as far as the public is concerned Iraq did not cooperate between 1991 and 1998. In a recent Panorama documentary, for example, Jane Corbin said merely of the 1991-98 Unscom inspectors, "their mission ended before they completed their task". (Panorama, Chasing Saddam's Weapons, BBC1, February 9, 2003)

Ritter, the most outspoken whistleblower, was not interviewed by BBC TV News or Newsnight ahead of the war. When asked why Newsnight had failed to interview such an important source, editor George Entwistle answered: "I don't particularly have an answer for that; we just haven't." (Interview with David Edwards, March 31, 2003) By contrast, Newsnight 'just had' interviewed war supporters like Ken Adelman, Richard Perle and James Rubin endlessly in the run-up to the invasion and subsequently.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I note your Guardian article of 27 July ('The BBC was no cheerleader for war'). You emphasise that "news is an account of the world as it is and not as we want it to be". But whose account of the "world as it is"? Which perspective is given prominence? Who makes the news? Richard Sambrook replied to a Media Lens reader who had pointed out that BBC coverage accepts without question that the US and UK "coalition" is attempting to bring peace and democracy to Iraq: "We report what is said by Tony Blair and George Bush", Sambrook replied,
"because they have power and responsibility and their own sources of intelligence." (Email from Richard Sambrook to Media Lens reader, 9 July, 2003)

How ironic +that+ comment appears now, post-Hutton and post-Butler.

Also, Mr Sambrook dodged the viewer's challenge that the BBC consistently assumes and portrays US/UK foreign policy as fundamentally sincere, benign and well intentioned, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Why was it 'balanced' and 'responsible' to report and disseminate official warnings with little challenge of the supposed 'threat' posed by Iraq, day after day in the run-up to an invasion? Was this not, in fact, deeply irresponsible, given the plausibility of the contradictory view, now vindicated, and given the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and conscript soldiers in Iraq? Where is the extensive BBC
coverage - any BBC coverage - to the Iraqi survey that the civilian death toll now exceeds 37,000? See:
 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66E32EAF-0E4E-4765-9339-594C323A777F.htm

Given that Bush and Blair have shown themselves to be untrustworthy and irresponsible, even ignoring or overruling the advice of their own intelligence services, should not the BBC now show extreme caution in propagating their views and pronouncements? The problem is that reporting official propaganda is not in fact reporting, as veteran US journalist David E. Hendrix observes: "Reporting a spokesman's comments is not reporting; it's becoming the spokesman's spokesman." ('Coal Mine Canaries', Hendrix, in 'Into The Buzzsaw', edited by Kristina Borjesson, Prometheus Books, 2002, p.172)

Yes, the BBC did and does "report many other views, including those of Hans Blix and Scott Ritter", as Mr Sambrook once noted. But facts, analyses and views that seriously challenge power are afforded minute amounts of coverage. Stating that "we also report other views" is a technically correct but conveniently meaningless response. Norman Solomon, Executive Director of the US-based Institute for Public Accuracy, describes how "scattered islands of independent-minded reporting are lost in oceans of the stenographic reliance on official sources". (Solomon, Target Iraq: What The News Media Didn't Tell You, New York: Context Books, 2003, p.26)

Of course, you may dismiss all of this as the ravings from one of the "wackier websites" [a reference to a dismissive comment made by Mosey in his Guardian article]. Or, on the other hand, you may wish to address the substance of the challenges made.

I hope that you will have the time and motivation to debate further and, if so, I look forward to hearing from you.
best wishes,

David Cromwell

We received this brief reply from Roger Mosey:

25 August, 2004

Hi David
Yes, I'm always happy to debate.

But I should stress our aim is impartiality. I don't entirely know what you would envisage as the way we should report President Bush or Prime Minister Blair in future, but it can't surely be on the basis of having proven themselves to be "untrustworthy and irresponsible"?

And, by the way, we interviewed Scott Ritter many many times - honest!

Best
Roger (Email to David Cromwell)

Last year, Richard Sambrook, then BBC's director of news, told us that Ritter had been interviewed just twice: on September 29th, 2002, for Breakfast With Frost, and on March 1, 2003 for BBC News 24. The latter interview was broadcast at around 3:00am. Newsnight editor Peter Barron told us that Newsnight interviewed Scott Ritter precisely twice on the WMD issue: on August 3, 2000 and August 21, 2002. We also note that Mosey ignored our point about the deaths of 37,000 Iraqi civilians being given scant, indeed probably zero, coverage on BBC TV news.

Sadly, Mosey, and all those who responded to our challenge (or who flatly refused to engage with us, such as Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger), display what psychologist Steve Pinker eloquently describes as "the ubiquitous vice of self-deception, which always manages to put the self on the side of the angels." (Pinker, 'The Blank Slate', Penguin, 2002, p.280)

News coverage, we are told, is balanced and fair; all important views are properly represented. The media did their job properly on Iraq, and we can all relax. That's the message the British public is supposed to accept. In reality, news broadcasters and the press failed in their public duty to hold power to account. Worse than that, they acted as campaign managers for an illegal and immoral war (itself, merely the latest in a long list of murderous foreign 'interventions'). All of this is unmentionable in ‘respectable’ circles.

Somehow highly-paid media managers, editors and star commentators remain immune from fact-based and well-informed public criticism. As for the rest of us, we should be content to consume what +they+ produce, and be satisfied with the occasional tossed scrap of carefully managed public 'feedback' and 'consultation'.

What masquerades as media 'balance' is, in fact, tacit acceptance of the status quo. In his analysis of two pre-war BBC Panorama ‘phone-in’ programmes, the British writer John Theobald notes that they sought "authority and democratic legitimacy by incorporating public participation and thus an aura of genuine dialogue and interaction with the public. Both reveal how what initially seem to be programmes structured with impeccable balance and plurality are in fact disguised acts of persuasion for the standpoint of the UK government, designed to contribute to the luring of sceptical viewers into support for, or acquiescence in, the US/UK government position." (Theobald, 'The media and the making of history', Ashgate, 2004, p. 182)

Indeed, one can generalise from this observation to note that the function of the mainstream media, very much including the BBC, is to lure media consumers into supporting the position of state-corporate power. Coverage of Iraq has been, and remains, a prominent and blatant example, but the pattern is long-standing and systemic.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to the editors below and ask them to conduct publicly available critiques into their own Iraq reporting.

Write to Roger Mosey, head of BBC television news
Email:  roger.mosey@bbc.co.uk

Write to Helen Boaden, director of BBC News:
Email:  helen.boaden@bbc.co.uk

Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:

Email:  editor@medialens.org

Visit the Media Lens website:  http://www.medialens.org

From what looked like a debate on Unions and their relationship with Labour as well as their attitutde to war, this now becomes a piece about how bad the Government is regarding the Iraq war. I have no qualms about people debating that issue but can we have a discussion on the role the Unions have to play with Labour rather than yet another Iraq debate?

As I say, there is a real and necessary debate on the war but can we keep to the subject in hand?

This has been one of the best posts in a long time. It says basically what the vast majority of people felt about the Iraq; to even the most jaded and un-clued up person, the Iraq war has never smelt right!

Unfortunately, the world now turns on such activity, and such totally biased and untouchable media and corporate-power based representation of just what is going on in the world. All those who benefit from injustice, be it economic, business, in social terms, or indeed any terms at all whereby any person benefits unfairly at the expense of someone else, or another group of people, is, however much they wish to bury their heads in the sand, contributing to a world system which has always prospered unjustly, to the high cost of someone else's expense. We see this in Iraq; we see it in the US; we see it in the UK. We see it in the economic divisions between rich and poor, the 'haves' and the 'have-nots', the unfair differences that exist between many different communities all over the world, and of course in Britain. It may be said, quite honestly and openfacedly, the the whole world's system as it is, is based virtually completely on unequal relations of every kind. There is always exploitation; there is always injustice; there is always someone getting paid a huge salary for doing something mostly anyone could do, and someone else getting paid a pittance working hard at a job that most people would rather not do. This is the same in the 'first' world, as it is in the 'third' world. This goes on in Africa, Turkey, Iran, Thailand, as it does in the US, France, Germany and England. It is going on right here in Liverpool, a city awash with wealth but where many of the citizen's are lucky to be earning perhaps slightly more than ten grand a year, working full-time in a demanding job. People turn a blind eye, to the war in Iraq, to the starvation in the world, to the greed of corporations, and to someone working all the hours for a low wage, as long as it doesn't affect them personally. Selfishness in one person, becomes selfishness for us all. And of course, those who are rich and powerful, those who gain when others lose, become guilty or fearful, and others become hard and cold to these naked realities, or assuage their guilt by becoming all 'lefty' and 'concerned' as long as it doesn't challenge their control of good jobs, and nice housing, and advantageous lifestyles and so on. All these things are linked however; you can't exploit someone in one country, and condemn someone else for doing the same elsewhere. One injustice feeds all the rest.

And so we come back to Iraq! I fear that, because the dominant culture's elite's have got away with this, rather than backtrack and keep their heads down, they are going to go from strength to strength, with little or no control on what they do, and I wonder to be honest who is going to be NEXT? Naked power is where it is at, and America is now assuming the mantle of Rome, a republic that is now an empire, and in many cases seriously out of control. Given a sheen of respectability by 'serious' journalists and respected news bodies, such a power can do anything, and become self-justifying to that end. This should worry us all, but I believe that wherever there is injustice, and wherever there is unfairness, each act is adding to all the others.

It is for us who believe in justice, and especially economic justice, to begin to live in a world, and shape around us a world that is based on equal relationships, a genuine egalitarianism that regards all people as worthy of justice and compassion, and that all people are created in God's image. And, for sure, that whether we are rich or poor, of whatever background, that we each try to live within our means and not within our greed; we can all do with far less than we think we need!

re:

"Unions"

"From what looked like a debate on unions and their relationship with Labour as well as their attitutde to war, this now becomes a piece about how bad the Government is regarding the Iraq war. I have no qualms about people debating that issue but can we have a discussion on the role the unions have to play with Labour rather than yet another Iraq debate?"

The issue of the Iraq war and trade unions comes down simply to one fact, as organised labour and the politically advanced section of the working class the trade unions could have very effectively blocked Britain's physical involvement in the Iraq war, and indeed the Yugoslav, Afghanistan, Serrie Leon wars and the previous attacks on Iraq, Blair's five wars.

The trade unions' collective power due to their labour, the greatest power, could have stopped Britain's part in the war simply through withdrawal of their labour, ie T&G could have nationally organised to stop transport of weapons, arms to ports and shipments. It's what happened in support of the Soviet Union, British dock workers refused to load ships with arms heading for imperialist anti-communist forces in Russia circa 1917. I do recall in Scotland a couple of RMT drivers independently refused to move armourments on trains in late 2002, which isn't widely known, but is an admirable stand on political principle.

Trade union's role with Labour:

Back to the issue raised, indeed the vast majority of TUs do still fund the Labour party, that's a fact. As pointed out though, RMT and FBU have withdrawn funding, and
the CWU postal workers union nearly disaffiliated, the CWU could not have had it worse from a Tory government, let us remember here the Labour government have privatised the Post Office (it's now Post Office PLC), however Post Office privatisation is by order of European Union directive 97/67/EC, all three major parties support the European Union with it's agenda of public service cuts and privatisation programmes.

Dodo further wrote: "Unions exist to protect their workers/members not to dictate what the country as a whole should be doing."

That's a very simplistic view of trade unions, basically that's why they exist to protect their members rights, terms and conditions at work. However to use such a phrase as 'dictate' in your second sentence borders on a Thatcherite attack made on the trade unions in the 1980's.

You further say: "Therefore, if the Labour govt says it will deliver its promises on protections for workers, then the unions are bound to support them."

Under this Labour government Britain still has the most restrictive trade union laws in Europe. Where's the promise to link pensions with average earnings.

You add: "They may have reservations over Iraq..."

And Serrie Leon, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan wars and the previous attacks on Iraq as well. Iraq was just the final straw for many, let's not forget there were national protests against the Afghan war as well.

You continue: "...but they still want the best for their people. You may be anti-war, may even hate Blair, but it is for the unions to decide what causes they stand and fight on."

Your view is very simplistic, it limits the political position the trade unions undeniably have. Today (22.9.04) the EU has allowed Britain to keep it's opt out of the Working Time Directive, which would mean workers have their hours limited to 48hours, trade unions will have a say on whether workers will work for more than 48hours, but only where TUs are recognised, and in many places they're not recognised, such as the numerous call centres. The Labour government should have abolished Britain's opt out full stop, no one should have to work for more than 35 hours a week, never mind 48hours a week.

You finished on: "Does one bad policy make the good ones bad as well? What is the alternative?"

The real issue with Labour and the trade unions, is entirely political. On the one hand this Labour government is the most pro-capitalist free market one yet, on the other hand the trade unions have a traditional socialist leaning, they support public services and redistribution of wealth.

Take a look at the FBU's site they support Socialism not Capitalism. With this Labour government privatisating publicly owned council housing, the Post Office, National Air Traffic Service, the Overseas Development Agency, the London Underground, with Foundation Hospitals signaling a further fragmentation of our NHS and effective privatisation through PFIs for schools, housing and hospitals. Let's not forget abolition of student grants, introduction of tuition fees for higher education, let's not forget the cutting of single parents and disabled people's benefits within the first year of the Labour government. Can't of course forget massive Labour government policies forcing housing privatisation across Britain.

Thus for trade unions, the membership of which is overwhelmingly working class, the party they've been affiliated to and funded for nearly a hundred years has very clearly deserted them in the guise of 'New Labour' under Blair & Co. New Labour is clearly a new party and irrevocably in favour of capital and big business which puts it in conflict with the working class and the TUs ultimately. This is the fault line, which is a very fundemental conflict of interest, Labour vs Capital. It's not about to quote you "one bad policy" it's about the political direction and principles of the Labour party, a party of free-market capitalism and a party of war and conflict, Mr Blair has achieved a great deal for corporate big business and capitalism. However Blair is clearly the enemy of the working class, the enemy within what many (falsely) perceived (many are still sadly deluded) as being a party of socialism and for the working class, it was never a socialist party, it was always a party of 'imperialism' and anti-working class in it's policies and outlook especially when in government. The ditching of Clause Four in 1995 by Blair and Prescott was a fundemental change in the Labour party.

Excellent post Kai, getting right to the nub of the jist as usual. Your post makes transparent Labour politics, and if we were being honest, the direction of virtually all politics in Britain and Europe. To me, and I say this not in cynicism at all but mere honesty, the writing is on the wall sadly. It's not that we shouldn't fight it or debate it or be angry about it, but the reality as ever seems to be an economic one.

Let me explain; money, power and wealth seem as ever to dictate the way society is going to go, in spite of all protest, in spite of all notions of social justice and in spite of the fact that a society, a nation, a system run solely for and about economic gain is always going to be a society that is unjust, riven with divisions, hatred, rank unfairness and high levels of dissatisfaction from huge numbers of people. Even the people that benefit from the injustices of capitalist society make themselves miserable and unhappy and shorten their lifespans because they are guilt-ridden, unhappy and full of worry lest they lose their (sometimes ill-gotten) gains. As for the rest of us, it is merely damage limitation exercises all around. There seems there is very little anyone can do to stop what has in reality gone on for centuries; powerful and untouchable individuals, with huge resources of power and wealth, and protected by their social status or their huge wealth or political and other connections doing what they want to increase their power and wealth. England's history is replete with such individuals, just look at the British Empire for the real beginnings of globally exercised power. These individuals in many cases will do what they will, and at the same time flying completely in the faces of the majority of the rest of society. We are seeing that right now, as you rightly note, with the Labour party, which has become a vehicle for careerists and neo-conservatives. The politics hardly matter anymore; everyone is getting on the gravy train, and leaving their morals, scruples and values safely hidden out of view. To buy into this system, in many cases, you have to sell out. And herein is another danger; when people sell out, or feel they have, there is the chance that one bad act can make many more. The politicians in the UK and the US are virtually untouchable, impossible and to challenge and virtually impossible to lobby or speak to. They are so sequestered from reality and ordinary people, by their enormous salaries, wonderful surroundings, fantastic careers and so on, that in every way they are removed from the everyday life most everyone else lives in. Ergo, and simply put, this ain't no democracy, and these are not democratic times! I show you the times, and these times we are now living in are complicated and worrisome. There is no answer, because we have even lost the questions, and there are no solutions because people in power see no problems.

Yesterday, incidentally, I was moved to real anger by the fact that more and more cash machines are charging people to take their own money of the banks!!! This, and so many other things, were charges and taxes are ever going up or being introduced, and the quality of life seems ever to be going down or getting worse, is another fact of life which seems impossible to really challenge, stop or change. When we, as groups and individuals, stand back from the mad whirl, and refuse to be involved as much as possible in it, I believe it will make a difference. All realities converge on the most important political reality, the economic one. If we refuse to buy expensive goods and clothes, cars, watches, food etc, the shops will lower their prices. If we disdain greed and unjust gains in our own lives, families and communities, slowly we make a difference. There will always be greed, there will always be capitalism in one form or another, and there will be someone who wants more merely because they do, because there will always be humans! It is a fact of life, painful but inevitable. When ordinary people live with their means, we force the shop owners, speculators, and others to also do so. If we refuse to buy into nouveau-riche realities, we help them disappear and get real.