[Media-watch] FW: Newsnight Friday 17 january

[David Miller]

response from Kirsty Wark.

What do you all think?

----------
From: Kirsty Wark <kirsty.wark at bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:08:59 -0000
To: "'David Miller'" <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Newsnight Friday 17 january

Dear David Miller,
 
Thank you for your letter. I can assure you that the questions were not framed in such as to beat a pro war drum. The interview was really about Hans Blix, and was with two former weapons inspectors who purported when talking to our researcher to have very different views about his abilities and effectiveness. I am  sure you can see the merit in asking devil's advocate questions. On Newsnight we have been pretty rigorous, as you would expect, in our analysis of the background to this "Iraqi crisis". You may recall, also last week, my interview pressing Jack Straw, on whether immunity from prosecution for war crimes would be part of an exit strategy for  Saddam and his family and colleagues on the Revolutionary Council. You would not assume I was beating the drum for free passage for Saddam, Yours Kirsty Wark   
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller [mailto:david.miller at stir.ac.uk] 
Sent: 24 January 2003 15:40
To: Kirsty Wark
Cc: NewsNight-INTERNET
Subject: Newsnight Friday 17 january

Dear Kirsty Wark,

I write concerning last Friday's edition of Newsnight (17/01/03) in which you interviewed two former UN arms inspectors.

As you know both the UK and US governments are at present attempting to show that the current Iraqi regime is a threat in order to boost the case for war.  The latest UK government position   appears (depending on which Minister you listen to) to be that the inspectors need to be given time to complete their inspections. The US position seems to be more hawkish.  The problem for journalists in the current situation is avoiding being swept along by official statements  in favour of war and ensuring that both sides of the argument get a fair hearing.  In this case, as you will know, a majority of the UK public appears to be opposed to war in Iraq and in such circumstances it is extremely important that broadcasters give a proper account of  the various arguments.  It seems to me that this did not happen on Newsnight last Friday.

In the interview you asked six questions:

1. Do you think, David Albright, Hans Blix is making war more or less likely?
2. Is there a problem in that Blix sees himself very much still as a diplomat and he is   promoting a third way whereas in fact what he really should be doing is acting simply as the investigative policeman he has been hired to be?
3. But why is Hans Blix pussyfooting around making it clear where he thinks there has been minor breaches or major breaches.  Why is he not being tough?
4. But hasn1t it been rather humiliating to see that Condoleeza Rice amongst others have been having to push him into this position?
5. But Colin   Powell, David Albright, is saying today that he is confident there will be information sufficient to give Saddam Hussein serious problems on the 27th.  We now know that America is going to the UN on the 29th.  Hans Blix is left trying to fill in the linesS
6. Was Hans Blix the wrong man for the job David Albright?


All of the questions were framed by an agenda which suggests that Hans Blix is somehow not doing his job appropriately and is having to be shown the ropes by the US administration.  He is referred to as 'pussy footing',  and 'not being tough'.   Certainly this is the perspective of some of the hawks in the US administration.  But it is not altogether clear to me that this should be the position espoused by a BBC journalist.  There are all sorts of other questions that could be asked of former UN weapons inspectors about their role in Iraq.  These might include being used by the US to further their own foreign policy aims (given what we know about the use of the last inspection team by US intelligence).  From such a perspective a question about   Condoleeza Rice 'having' to push him might have questioned why Condoleeza Rice is trying to put pressure on the inspection team.  This might by itself be seen  as inappropriate and an attempt to manipulate the UN team.    Either way a particular perspective is involved.  

My point is then, that your questions reflected the agenda of US hawks, when there   should have been some attempt to present different perspectives on the   inspection.  Given that there seems to be a fair possibility of a war in Iraq, it does seem to me that broadcasters have a special responsibility not to encourage war.  

At present the UN inspectors have examined all the sites detailed in the UK government dossier of last September and found no evidence of weapons or of weapons programmes.  Given this the obvious questions that should be raised are about the role of the US and UK governments in spreading propaganda about Iraq, yet we hear very little about this on Newsnight.  

After the Falklanda in 1982 and the Gulf war in 1991 many prominent journalists complained of being used for propaganda by government.   It seems plain enough that broadcaster can avoid being used in this way by being as critical of the information they get from the US and UK governments as they are with information from Iraq.  I am writing to ask you to be wary of succumbing to the pro war drum beat being encouraged in much of the media and to question official sources more than - if last   Friday's bulletin is anything to go by - you are currently doing. 

I append a transcript of the interview below.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,


David Miller



Kirsty Wark interview with David Albright, Former UN Weapons   Inspector and Dr Gary Samore, Former UN Weapons Inspector. (Newsnight 17/01/03)

KW:  Do you think, David Albright, Hans Blix is making war more or less likely?

DA:  Well, I think this week-end is going to be extremely important for Hans Blix to send a very clear message to Iraq that you will have to comply or else.  I mean it1s not his manner, but I do think he does need to rise to the occasion and just make it very clear that Iraq has no choice but compliance if it wants to avoid war.

KW:  Is there a problem in that Blix sees himself very much still as a   diplomat and he is promoting a third way whereas in fact what he really should be doing is acting simply as the investigative policeman he has been hired to be?

DA:  Well, the third way would work if Iraq would comply, get rid of its weapons of mass destruction.  There would be an Inspection System that could verify that and then Inspections System or Monitoring System that could provide timely warning of any effort by Iraq to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programmes and that would be ideal.  The   problem is that Iraq doesn1t seem to be complying and I think that the inspectors need to clearly state that.  I think there1s been plenty of cases now so far where it1s clear that Iraq has not complied.

KW"  But why is Hans Blix ‘pussyfooting1 around making it clear where he thinks there has been minor breaches or major breaches.  Why is he not being tough?

Dr Gary Samore, Former UN Weapon Inspector:  I think in private he will be very tough.  I think David Albright is absolutely right that Hans Blix is going to Baghdad this week with the intention of   telling the Iraqis that if they don1t give him something positive, if they don1t demonstrate that they are prepared to proactively co-operate to resolve some of the outstanding questions, he1ll be forced to give a negative report to the Security Council on January 27th.

KW:  But hasn1t it been rather humiliating to see that Candoleeza Rice amongst others have been having to push him into this position?

GS:  I think what1s pushing him into this position is the fact that Iraq is failing to co-operate at the same time that the United States is building up military force.  Remember that the Security Council has made it very clear in 1441 that Iraq has a last   chance to co-operate and disarm peacefully or there will be serious consequences which is diplomatic code for military force and Hans Blix understands that his strongest bargaining chip is the threat of force.  Without that his inspectors would not be in Iraq in the first place.

KW:  But Colin Powell, David Albright, is saying today that he is confident there will be information sufficient to give Saddam Hussein serious problems on the 27th.  We now know that America is going to the UN on the 29th.  Hans Blix is left trying to fill in the linesS

DA:  Well, I think if United States are going to war, they are going to have to present convincing evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or had them recently, and I think we1ll just have to wait and see.  I mean the reports here are not as clear that the United States has a smoking gun.  I mean one hopes but it1s just not as clear.  An alternative I would personally support is that if United States doesn1t have this smoking gun that the inspectors do take more time and they try to develop it.  It1s very important that the inspectors be tough, aggressive, they make use of their rights.  I think in your report you rightly point it out that Hans Blix has dragged his feet on this issue on taking Iraqis out of this country and that1s an important tool that the inspectors should use, and if the Iraqis won1t go, then fine but at least have a confrontation with Iraq over this issue.  Don1t allow them to avoid that confrontation.

KW:  Was Hans Blix the wrong man for the job David Albright?

DA:  No one really wanted the job - that was acceptable to everyone.  There were many candidates and there was an objection to everybody that was put on the list.  I mean my own organisation was   behind a Canadian actually.  We didn1t have much say in the matter but I think Hans Blix emerged at the end of that process as a consensual candidate.  I don1t think the United States opposed Blix but it was not a very ideal job.  I mean the inspection process had been seriously weakened and there was little prospect at the time of having inspections again.  So Hans Blix stepped in.  He was retired and he was acceptable to everyone.

KW: David and Gary, thank-you.




BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do 
not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the 
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will 
signify your consent to this.