[Media-watch] The Sun's War on Iraq - briefing and report on protest

Fri Apr 4 13:43:55 BST 2003

 Thanks to everyone who helped with information about The Sun's media coverage. I've enclosed a copy of our briefing on The Sun below. For those who are interested in how yesterday's demonstration went, you can read a report on:

http://uk.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=61404&group=webcast 

It was also covered by BBC Radio London, and by 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2911999.stm 

http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,928749,00.html

[our press spokesperson was a little enthusiastic in guessing at numbers here!]

------------------------

A Daily Diet of Lies

The Sun's War on Iraq 

The following briefing catalogues the lies, distortions and insinuations that characterise Sun and News of the World reporting on the war in Iraq. It was compiled to coincide with a student-led protest at the offices of News International in Wapping on Thursday 3 April 2003. We have focused exclusively on ‘news’ reporting. Needless to say, Sun and News of the World editorial and opinion pieces tend to be even more biased in their attitude to the present conflict. The following list is in no way exhaustive, as these newspapers have printed far too many falsehoods in the past two weeks to document and rebut them all.

Student Action 

3 April 2003

Five of the worst Iraq war articles from The Sun

1. “Killer evidence against Saddam” Sun 31 March 2003. George Pascoe-Watson at US Central Command in Qatar

The article makes an extensive list of insinuations and unsubstantiated claims:

   “An Iraqi terror camp making ricin poison has been smashed by a huge Allied blitz of 60 cruise missiles.” No evidence has yet been produced to support this claim. In fact, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, a US commander in the Gulf, told a news conference on 1 April that no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found in Iraq. 
   “London cops found traces of ricin in a flat above a chemist’s shop in Wood Green.” No evidence is produced to link the ricin found in London with the potentially non-existent ricin found in Iraq. The main connection seems to be the word ‘ricin’.
   “Cops also raided the Finsbury Park mosque in North London and an Algerian asylum seeker was charged with producing a chemical weapon.” There are no grounds for thinking that the man arrested in London has any connection with Ansar al-Islam, whose compound in northern Iraq was destroyed. But the insinuated connection between ‘an Algerian asylum seeker’ and a ‘terror camp’ in northern Iraq could further stir up racist sentiment against asylum seekers. On this issue, see also David Miller (Stirling University), “They were all asylum seekers” (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00262.htm) 
   “A top US General said the camp had links with al-Qu’aida.” The article assumes that this case has been proven, since this link is the premise upon which the connection to terrorism in Britain is sustained. But the alleged link between Ansar al-Islam and Al Qu’aida doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny. See International Crisis Group, “Radical Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan: The Mouse That Roared?” (http://www.intl-crisis-group.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=885) 
   “UK troops found training equipment for nuclear, biological and chemical warfare
 at an Iraqi ordnance facility south of Basra.” The equipment in question amounted to a discovery of protective suits left behind by Iraqi forces (see Hansard 31 March 2003: Column 653: comments of Adam Ingram, British Armed Forces Minister). The connection made by The Sun article, as well as by the Armed Forces Minister, is spurious. It is like saying that the US and British armies have chemical weapons at their disposal in Iraq because they possess equipment to protect them against the use of such weapons. The purpose of reporting a find of chemical weapons suits alongside unsubstantiated claims of a chemical weapons factory is to fit together ‘pieces of the jigsaw’ until an overall pattern of Iraqi possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction is created. What we find, instead, is a patchwork of lies held together by a series of tenuous and unargued connections between quite separate news stories.  
   Colin Powell first drew attention to the Ansar al-Islam camp in his speech to the UN Security Council on 5 February 2003. The Observer's Luke Harding visited it shortly afterwards, and concluded: "If Colin Powell were to visit the shabby military compound at the foot of a large snow-covered mountain, he might be in for an unpleasant surprise. The US Secretary of State last week confidently described the compound in north-eastern Iraq - run by an Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam - as a 'terrorist chemicals and poisons factory.' Yesterday, however, it emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking. In the kitchen, I discovered some chopped up tomatoes but not much else."(see “Revealed: truth behind US ‘poison factory’ claim’ The Observer, 9 February 2003)

2. “Chemical weapon plant ‘is found’” Sun 24 March 2003. Brian Flynn

“A huge Iraqi chemical weapons factory has been discovered, it was reported early today.”

The seizure of a suspected chemical factory in An Najaf was first reported by the Murdoch-owned Fox News channel (as well as by the Jerusalem Post). But US General Tommy Franks later claimed that he “wasn’t entirely sure” that it was chemical weapons factory. No evidence was ever produced to back the claims. Fox News and The Sun quietly dropped the story. No correction or retraction was printed, however.

3. “Killed for TV” Sun 27 March 2003. Nick Parker and George Pascoe-Watson

“Sickening TV film showing two executed British soldiers lying in a dusty Iraqi street triggered outrage and tears last night.”

Tony Blair subsequently spoke of the “executed” soldiers, in response to The Sun article. But the prime minister’s official spokesman later backtracked, saying there was no “absolute evidence” that they had been executed. Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram later expressed “regret” for any distress caused to the families. A number of political commentators have interpreted this as ministerial-speak for an admission that the “execution” claim was unsubstantiated.

4. “Ship, Ship Hooray” Sun March 29 2003. Michael Lea and Neil Syson

“Iraqis cheer Sir Galahad as it lands vital food aid.”

The comments of several aid agencies went unreported by The Sun, however. See Kate Holton, “Aid Groups say military see aid as propaganda tool” (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28442812.htm ). This Reuters piece reported several aid agency perspectives on the Sir Galahad shipment, including the following:

“To put it in context, we have been waiting for the Sir Galahad for days with its 200 tons of food. Under the oil for food programme ... 16,000 tons a day were supplied, so you are looking at 80 Sir Galahads a day just to restore the normal supply” John Davison, Christian Aid

“What they are doing is not humanitarian aid but a 'hearts and mind' operation and that is quite different” Lewis Sida, Save the Children's Director of Emergencies

5. “Enemy of the State” Sun 1 April 2003. Trevor Kavanagh

“Treacherous MP George Galloway was branded an enemy of the state last night after he urged the Arab world to rise up and kill British troops in Iraq.” This front page lead article is the most virulent of The Sun’s daily character assassinations. In response, George Galloway MP has offered the following statement of support to anti-war students protesting at the offices of The Sun on 3 April 2003:

“I would like to greet the students demonstrating against this blot on the country's landscape. The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch; so patriotic that he has been a citizen of three different countries in fifteen years, a kind of serial patriotism which is the last refuge of such scoundrels. If the "dirty digger" is the chief pimp, what words can be found to describe those hirelings who write for them? The Sun lives in the sewers and sometimes ascends to the gutter. All right thinking people should eschew it and it's cancerous racist pornographic propaganda.”

Also rans

“French Smear Dead” Sun 2 April 2003

“Sick French yobs daubed a swastika and vile anti-war slurs at a cemetery for 11,000 British troops.”

This article takes an unrepresentative example of far right extremism as typical of French opposition to the war. The swastika smear is presented as a typical example of “Anti-British feeling [which] has been whipped up in France since President Jacques Chirac refused to let the UN back action against Iraq.” The same day’s editorial makes this connection even more directly: “The treachery of their President has stirred up in them a burning hatred of Britain and America.”

“Brits Glory Night” Sun 30 March 2003

This ‘news’ article is typical of the tone struck by Sun reporting, which dehumanises Iraqi soldiers and revels in news of their deaths:

“Best victories yet as our boys storm in 
 They evaded hundreds of fanatical Iraqi militia to DESTROY five T55 tanks with handheld Milan missiles and WRECK more than five mortar positions. A propaganda TV station was BLASTED and a bunker sheltering a paramilitary death squad was BLOWN UP. Among other operations in the south of Iraq during a night of British glory, 320 senior Ba'ath party militia were KILLED and 300 Iraqis taken PRISONER.”

It also reports that “In nearby Az Zubayr, Desert Rats of 2 Royal Tank Regiment Battle Group routed a nest of al-Qa’eda terrorists and secured the town.” No evidence of an al-Qa’eda connection is presented to back up this claim.

“Rebels executed” Sun 28 March 2003

“Saddam Hussein is using hated Fedayeen paramilitaries as mobile death squads to execute rebels and quell uprisings.”

This article misreports as fact an assertion made by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“Army wives are spat on by Germans” Sun 26 March 2003

One of several xenophobic articles that have littered the pages of The Sun since the start of the conflict.

“Allies to Storm in Tonight” Sun 24 March 2003

The Sun confidently forecast an imminent ground offensive on Baghdad. It did not happen.

“Stop-It Rally ‘Flop’ News of the World 23 March 2003.

“
 fewer than 150,000 took part compared with 2 million on February 12.”

On 16 February 2002 the News of the World reported “750,000 anti-war marchers.” (In fact, the original march took place on 15 February). The later report uses the Stop the War Coalition estimate rather than the initial police estimate in order to accentuate the difference in numbers between the two marches. The Stop the War Coalition estimate for the 22 March demonstration was “at least 500,000,” making it the biggest anti-war demo in wartime.

“Basra ours today” News of the World 23 March 2003

“British and US troops gained total control of the key city of Basra this morning – despite fanatical Iraqi defenders using civilians as human shields.”

Basra is still not under British control. Despite frequent reports of an uprising in Basra, no independent source was able to verify this story. Unembedded reporters consistently denied it. 

“10,000 Surrender” Sun 22 March 2003

“ALLIED forces were last night closing in on the key city of Basra -as a whole Iraqi division surrendered. 

The CO of the 10,000-strong 51st Mechanised Division became the first senior field commander to capitulate.” 

These claims were not substantiated. On Sunday 23 March, the New York Times wire service reported that US officials had “discovered that the ‘commander’ of the surrendered troops was actually a junior officer masquerading as a higher-up in an attempt to win better treatment.” On 31 March, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon stated that “We currently hold around 8,000 prisoners of war
 There have been as yet no defections of very senior politicians or very senior military commanders
”

“On in 9, or Home in Pine” Sun 21 March 2003

“
 two Sun men had to pull on gas masks and run for cover yesterday as Iraq unleashed a terrifying volley of Scud missiles.”

On Thursday 27 March, Hans Blix reported that there was no evidence that Iraqis had used banned weapons (a category that includes Scuds) in the war.

“The Brits are Coming” Sun 21 March 2003

“
 almost immediately, the Commandos and American soldiers captured the strategically important border town of Umm Qasr with hardly a shot fired.”

In common with other news media, The Sun failed to question initial reports of the capture of Umm Qasr. Military sources announced the fall of Umm Qasr nine times. By 25 March 2003, The Sun had changed tack: “Crack British marines swept into Umm Qasr yesterday – vowing to finish off what the Americans had failed to do.” (Neil Syson, “Our Boys Go In to Defeat the Snipers” Sun 25 March 2003).

Check out www.ismproject.net - Independent Student Media Project

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/attachments/20030404/0588c732/attachment.htm