Red Rag

Richard Alston’s dossier on alleged bias at the ABC is going to bring us an entertaining ride. Especially when you couple it with Ross Cameron’s subsequent comments. Lindsay Tanner thinks it adds up to a privatisation plot:

Yesterday Senator Alston said the ABC would be defunded if Parliament thinks it has lost the plot. Today influential Liberal MP, Ross Cameron, said on ABC radio that the ABC should be privatised or turned it into a subscriber service.

The agenda is clear. Not content with turning Medicare and Higher Education on their heads, John Howard now plans to end public funding of the ABC. John Howard is systematically destroying all of Australia’s key national institutions whilst he wallows in the luxuries of overseas hotels and Plasma TVs.

I don’t know about that, but I do think the dossier is a bit lacking. Even Uncle at ABC Watch thinks it’s looking a bit hard for bias on occasion:

… the cartoon is open to another interpretation. I’d be happy to see it as a comment on the childish immaturity of the aging peaceniks who wanted Iraq to be a quagmire.

That was my immediate reaction, too.

I had planned to go through the whole dossier and investigate each point, but I stopped after five because the whole thing appears to be a complete beat-up. At worst, it shows some sloppy journalism. Anyway, I’ve posted my responses below.

(also, you can add “the inability to close an <i> tag” to the list of the Minister for Information Technology’s website screw-ups)

1. Example of a beat-up

Alston claims that by reporting that aid agencies feared “hundreds of thousands” of displaced Iraqis and a humanitarian “catastrophe” or “crisis”, AM was beating things up.

The Red Cross still refers to the situation in Iraq as a humanitarian crisis. In fact, the main headline on their website is “Humanitarian crisis in Iraq”.

Three days before the AM report, Red Cross announced it was preparing for hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqis:

The organization can also provide food and other items for up to 150,000 people displaced inside Iraq during the first month of the emergency. If necessary, it will quickly be able to mobilize the supplies needed to assist up to 500,000 people for a longer period.

On the day of the AM report, the Iranian Red Crescent announced that it was planning for 200 000 or more displaced Iraqis.

On the day of the AM report, the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid referred to “the imminent disaster of a humanitarian crisis”.

On the day of the AM report, the UN Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq noted that “[t]he worst case scenario indicates an influx of 200,000 refugees” in Kuwait alone. It also noted that there were an estimated 300 000 to 450 000 internally displaced persons in northern Iraq, and that 85% of the 120 000 residents of Dahuk had fled the city.

On the day of the AM report, World Concern announced that it was working to equip a Jordanian refugee camp and “predicted that 20,000 to 60,000 could arrive at the camp in the coming weeks”.

On the day of the AM report, Oxfam gave details of its preparation for hundreds of thousands of refugees, noting:

The UN are planning for influxes of up to 100,000 Iraqi refugees in Syria, up to a million in Iran, and up to 50,000 in Jordan - with the possibility of an additional 60,000 third-country nationals transiting through from other countries.

On the day of the AM report, AmeriCares announced that “[t]he heightened conflict in Baghdad has prompted more Iraqis to flee the country. … AmeriCares continues to prepare for a possible mass refugee exodus into other bordering countries such as Jordan and Iran.”

On the day of the AM report, a spokesman for Caritas announced that they were “working under the assumption of attending to the needs of a population estimated to be between 200,000 and 500,000 of displaced persons, both within Iraq as well as in neighboring countries”.

On the day of the AM report, Presbyterian World Service & Development estimated that “[m]ore than 900,000 people could be forced from their homes, on the move without food, water or shelter”.

Three days before the AM report, the Los Angeles Times reported that Aid Agencies Fear a Humanitarian Disaster in Iraq.

2. Example of, at least, exaggeration

Alston suggests it is exaggerated to suggest that “tens of thousands” of people protested against the war “across the Middle East”. (It should be noted that there will always be varied estimates of the size of a given crowd.)

On the day of the AM report, Associated Press reported massive protests around the Middle East:

In Yemen, three people are dead from gunfire outside the U.S. Embassy — where 30,000 people assembled after prayers. Riot troops resorted to live ammunition after tear gas and water cannons failed.

In Beirut, one leader called for toppling Saddam Hussein — but said an “arrogant power” such as the U.S. should not occupy Iraq.

In Amman, Jordan, 4,000 Palestinians jammed into a mosque courtyard to hear a cleric urge them to fight back with car bombs and to martyr themselves.

In Egypt, police used riot sticks and water cannons to beat back 10,000 protesters in Cairo.

On the day of the AM report, the Independent reported that Cairo, Beirut and the Gaza Strip each attracted 1000 demonstrators, among other protests “scattered across the Arab world”.

On the day of the AM report, Agence France-Presse reported that US Embassies around the world (including in the Middle East) were closed due to anti-war demonstrations.

Amnesty International notes that “[i]n Turkey, riot police used batons to disperse about 5,000 people who had gathered after Friday prayers on 21 March [the day of the AM report] to protest against the war outside the Beyazit mosque.”

3. Comments by the Arab League chief

Alston notes that the introduction to a report stated that “the Arab League warned that it fears the US could turn its attention to other Arab countries”, while the sound bite from the Arab League chief stated that “What is important is to preserve the Iraqi state intact”.

It is true that the introduction does not tally with the sound bite, but it does not follow that the ABC is biased against the US. Indeed, a sound bite is merely a grab from a wider range of comments, and the introduction may accurately reflect what the Arab League chief said.

Alston’s dossier ignores another comment made by Amr Moussa in the report: “Protest against war, against the policy of invading Arab countries”. Although it doesn’t exactly match the introduction, this statement indicates a fear of a general US policy to invade countries other than Iraq.

Other reports offer a clear indication that the Arab League leaders were concerned about that possibility.

CNN reported that “Amr Moussa, the head of the 22-member Arab League, said ‘no Arab with any remnant of conscience can tolerate’ the bombing of Baghdad, … [and] warned a war against Iraq could ‘open the gates of hell’ in the Middle East.”

On the day of the AM report, Radio Free Europe reported:

Arab League Deputy Secretary-General Said Kamal today said he feared the U.S. might turn its attention to other Arab countries after Hussein’s regime is dealt with.

“After Iraq, one day it will be the turn of other Arab countries,” Kamal told Agence France Presse in Cairo.

4. Turkey’s support for the US

Alston claims the ABC provided no evidence to suggest that the Turkish parliament’s decision to allow the US to fire missiles across its airspace was “grudging”.

The evidence was provided in the second half of Peter Cave’s statement: The decision was made “as thousands of demonstrators across the country protested, sometimes violently, against the war.” Turkey was being squeezed between popular opinion against the war and strong US pressure (including bribery) to support the war.

CNN reported:

Erdogan’s new government has been under intense pressure to let U.S. forces use its territory to open a northern front against Iraq. But opinion polls in Turkey show the public overwhelmingly opposed to war.

In another report, CNN’s correspondent was more explicit:

After three hours of deliberations, the Turkish parliament voted in favor of U.S. military overflights to begin their air assaults over northern Iraq.

The votes, 332 yes to 232 no, comes after parliament really was put into a corner in that it at first wanted to reintroduce a proposal that was introduced and rejected earlier in the month.

The BBC reported that the decision came at “the end of a long and often tortuous process of negotiation, demand, counter-demand and final grudging acceptance.” (My emphasis.)

5. Gratuitous Barbs

Alston asks “[o]n what evidence is a US media briefing characterised as a negative, dubious and grudging propaganda exercise?”

Is there any need to rebut this point? (The first casualty and all that…)

Some people think the US was winning the PR war, some think it was losing, but everyone agrees that the PR campaign existed.

PR Watch reports that the public relations/propaganda campaign (call it what you will) in the lead-up to the war on Iraq was massive. For example:

The Washington Post reported in July that the White House had created an Office of Global Communications (OGC) to “coordinate the administration’s foreign policy message and supervise America’s image abroad.” In September, the Times of London reported that the OGC would spend $200 million for a “PR blitz against Saddam Hussein” aimed “at American and foreign audiences, particularly in Arab nations skeptical of US policy in the region.” The campaign would use “advertising techniques to persuade crucial target groups that the Iraqi leader must be ousted.”

Of course, who could forget the Office of Strategic Influence?

As part of George Bush’s war on terrorism, the military is thinking of planting propaganda and misleading stories in the international media.

A new department has been set up inside the Pentagon with the Orwellian title of the Office of Strategic Influence.

It is well funded, is being run by a general and its aim is to influence public opinion abroad. …

The most controversial suggestion is the covert planting of disinformation in foreign media, a process known as black propaganda.

Is it any wonder that journalists take American claims with a grain of salt? To do otherwise would be a dereliction of duty.