[Media-watch] FW: Crushing Falluja - Part 1

[David Miller]

please write to the BBC/ITN//Guardian if you can

----------
From: Medialens Media Alerts <noreply at medialens.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:07:23 +1000
To: Friend <david.miller at stir.ac.uk>
Subject: Crushing Falluja - Part 1

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media


April 19, 2004

MEDIA ALERT: CRUSHING FALLUJA – PART 1


On April 10, details emerged from aid agencies and hospital sources that
fully 600 Iraqis had been killed and 1700 injured in Falluja, many of them
civilians. From the smashed slums of the city, Aljazeera broadcast the
reality: a child under five with the top of its head missing; a baby with
blast burns to its face and a tube draining from its chest. None of this
appeared in the UK media, which expressed no discernible outrage at the
spectacle of a superpower waging war on residential areas with 70-ton main
battle tanks, bombers and helicopter gunships.

Two days into the attack, ITN’s Lunchtime News devoted 6 minutes to the
fighting on April 7. But the focus was on the killing of 12 American
Marines, US losses that were mentioned 11 times. Iraqi deaths – reported as
66 killed, including many civilians - were mentioned twice. No mention was
made of the British killing of 15 people in Amara.

Three days later, the Independent reported the Iraqi toll had reached a
staggering 600 dead. Nevertheless, the Independent’s front page showed an
Iraqi beating a corpse beside a burning convoy. On April 11, the editors
wrote a leader titled merely: “Let's see some common sense and humility from
the US.” Reporting 450 Iraqi dead on April 10, the Guardian showed a group
of Marines carrying an injured comrade. The banner quotation was from the
single UK mercenary killed:

"We have to fight to a safe haven - but they are all under attack." (April
10, 2004) 

Three bullet points followed:

"UK security guard killed as contractors attacked"
"Six more westerners taken hostage by rebels"
"Death toll in besieged city of Falluja rises to 450"

What was so striking was not merely that the 450 recently killed in Falluja
came last on the list, but the absence of outrage at the scale of the
killing. 

Human rights activist and trainee lawyer, Jo Wilding, describes some of the
reality:

“Screaming women come in, praying, slapping their chests and faces. Maki, a
consultant and acting director of the clinic, takes me to the bed where a
child of about 10 is lying with a bullet wound to the head. A smaller child
is being treated for a similar injury in the next bed. A US sniper hit them
and their grandmother as they left their home to flee Fallujah... Snipers
are causing not just carnage but also the paralysis of the ambulance and
evacuation services. The biggest hospital after the main one was bombed is
in US territory and cut off from the clinic by snipers. The ambulance has
been repaired four times after bullet damage. Bodies are lying in the
streets because nobody can go to collect them without being shot.” (Wilding,
‘Eyewitness in Fallujah’, Sunday Herald, April 18, 2004. See also
:http://www.wildfirejo.blogspot.com)

Blair describes this as “being firm and tough”. (BBC 1 Evening News, April
17, 2004)

On April 13, the BBC Lunchtime News contained a 26-second report on the
plight of Iraqi refugees, including a 10-second interview with an Iraqi
teacher describing the risks faced by civilians in Falluja. Almost nothing
of the true scale of the horror and tragedy was communicated.

This was followed by a deeply emotive, impassioned report lasting more than
two minutes on the death of Michelle Witmer of the US National Guard. We
were given details of Witmer's death, shown the family website, and shown
interviews with the victim and with the victim's parents.

We wrote to BBC director of news, Richard Sambrook, and BBC reporter,
Caroline Hawley, on April 12:

“When the BBC's reporters covered the atrocities in Madrid last month their
horror and outrage were palpable - Stephen Sackur and others did a good job
of communicating the suffering and grief. I have seen nothing comparable in
BBC1 reporting on Falluja. Where is the sense of outrage and horror at the
killing of 600 and wounding of 1700 Iraqis, including many women and
children, by a high-tech superpower?

As you have reported, the casualty rate is 10 Iraqi insurgents and civilians
for every US soldier - your coverage has not reflected that this has
essentially been a massacre.

Why are you consistently placing greater emphasis on the potential threat to
a dozen or so Western hostages than on the actual mass killing of Iraqi
civilians? Perhaps I missed it, but I have seen no coverage of the
condemnation of the slaughter by Iraq's former Foreign Minister on BBC1, and
it would be very difficult to know from BBC1's coverage that British troops
killed 15 Iraqis in Amara last week.

Best wishes

David Edwards

BBC News Spokesman, Peter Roberts, responded on April 15:

“Dear David, 
I’m writing in response to your email to correspondent, Caroline Hawley
regarding the BBC’s coverage of recent events in Iraq.
You draw parallels between our coverage of the atrocities in Madrid, and of
the fierce fighting in Falluja.  I am not sure that is reasonable or helpful
to compare the two events in this way. The situations are different in a
number of ways.   The extraordinary dangers of reporting from inside Iraq at
the moment have also made it very difficult to achieve the sort of vivid
first-hand reporting to which we aspire.  Our news teams are not operating
in Falluja at the moment, and their movements overall are restricted as a
result of the events of the last few days - which as you must surely
appreciate, has heightened the hazards still further.    It would be hard to
underestimate the dangers and difficulties which all journalists are facing
in Iraq, and which have already cost some of them their lives.
These obstacles notwithstanding, it is certainly not true to say that we
have ignored the situation in Falluja.   For example, the plight of the city
was clear in a BBC One report on April 11th, which captured the human cost
to its inhabitants. John Simpson’s report included pictures of dead
civilians and footage of a local children's ward, and clearly referred to
reports of the killing of 600 Iraqis.
Secondly, you say that you may have missed condemnation of the slaughter by
Iraq’s former Foreign Minister; this is indeed the case, as Adnan Pachachi
was heard talking of America’s “excessive use of force” in a live report on
BBC One last week. 
Regards, 
Peter Roberts 
BBC News Spokesman 

We responded also on April 15:

”Dear Peter 

Many thanks for your response.

I agree there are significant differences between the killings in Madrid and
Falluja - I notice, by the way, that you describe the former as an
‘atrocity’ and the latter as merely ‘fierce fighting’, that already makes my
point - but there are also important similarities.

Both involved the mass killing of innocents - men, women and children. It
became quite clear by April 9-10 that around 600 people had been killed in
Falluja, many of them civilians. My point is that whereas BBC correspondents
openly expressed their horror and moral outrage at the slaughter of 200
people in Madrid, there has been almost nothing comparable to communicate
what was surely an American atrocity in Falluja.

The BBC did not have to be present in Falluja to communicate the outrage of
Iraqis, aid agencies and others in response to this atrocity. There have
also been ample opportunities to interview any number of refugees from
Falluja this week. I know you will counter that you have indeed interviewed
refugees - notably a woman teacher - but I simply ask you to contrast the
sheer intensity of the coverage and the horror communicated by the BBC in
reporting the 200 killed in Madrid with the 600 killed in Falluja. There
simply is no comparison, even accounting for the differences of access and
so on.

You would not guess from BBC reporting that a superpower was engaging in a
high-tech massacre of Iraqis - that's what the 10-1 casualty rate signifies
- with 70-ton main battle tanks against lightly armed insurgents. The
impression given was of a conventional battle between two armies - you
appeared to see it as a re-run of the 2003 conflict against the regular
Iraqi army.

On Adnan Pachachi - you mentioned his condemnation of ‘excessive use of
force’, just once, I suspect. Why did you not give an idea of the real
extent of his condemnation? He said:

’We consider the action carried out by US forces illegal and totally
unacceptable.’

Coming from someone the Guardian describes as ‘a secular moderate, who is
much trusted by the Americans and stood alongside Mr Bremer at the historic
press conference announcing Saddam Hussein's arrest’, these words merited
considerable emphasis and in fact repetition over several days, as similar
words were tirelessly repeated after the Madrid bombings, of course.

You write ‘it is certainly not true to say that we have ignored the
situation in Falluja.’ I have not suggested anything of the sort. But the
slaughter of 600 people, many of them civilians, surely requires that the
BBC do something more than not ignore the deaths. The real question concerns
the tone and extent of coverage of the killing. It's difficult to measure I
know, but I can't imagine anyone watching who can have failed to notice your
greater focus on US casualties, on the threat to Western hostages, and on
the ‘coalition’ point of view. There has been precious little on, or from,
the people the ‘coalition’ is said to be liberating.

The impression given by BBC reporting is that the mass killing in Falluja
was a relatively minor incident. Although three times as many people died in
Falluja, Madrid was presented as an infinitely more important and more
severe tragedy. That, I think, takes some real explaining.

Sincerely

David Edwards”

On April 10, we emailed a photograph of a dead Iraqi child from Falluja to
the Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger. We considered the picture moving
rather than obscene:

“Alan
 
Your front cover today was so wrong. This should have been the picture - no
words, just this. A dead Iraqi child captures perfectly the nature of the
West's relationship with Iraq over the past 15 years - war, bombing,
sanctions, more war...
 
Who has paid the price?
 
Best wishes
 
David”

Rusbridger responded on the same day:

“You have t advantage over me.... Have been away and have not seen t paper
and don't know what's on the front page! Happy easter.”

We responded:

“Your paper shows US troops carrying an injured colleague. The Indy shows an
Iraqi beating a dead body beside a burnt out convoy. I find the emphasis
amazing given that 450 Iraqis lie dead in Falluja alone, and 10 Iraqis are
dying for every 1 ‘coalition’ loss.

Sorry to bother you on your break - we all deserve those. Happy easter to
you, too!

Best wishes

David”

Rusbridger responded two days later:

“But there again compare this morning's guardian (death toll hits 600) with
indie (british hostage freed) or times and tel (british hostage freed in
iraq). Swings and easter roundabouts....” (Email to Media Lens, April 12,
2004)

We wrote the same day:

“Yes, swings and roundabouts, but in the same ballpark. What's been
staggering is the level of media indifference to the slaughter of vast
numbers of Iraqis. It's like a superpower army is waging high-tech war on
city slums - so what! Amazing! The plight of a dozen or so Western hostages
has been given far more, and far more emotive, coverage.

On March 12, your leader read: ‘It was like a modern version of the gruesome
wartime images painted by Goya. A Spanish commuter train torn apart. A
headless body lying on its front. A three-year-old child burned from head to
foot. Amputated legs and arms scattered on station platforms, pieces of
human flesh on the road...’ and so on.

There's been nothing comparable to this about the far worse slaughter in
Falluja. And it's not by foreign terrorists - it's by +our+ alliance.

There's a real problem here - Iraqi deaths just don't matter as much as
Western deaths to even our best media; it's a horribly consistent theme. A
lot of their suffering, and our suffering, is rooted in this kind of
prejudicial compassion. That's the whole message of Easter, isn't it?

Best wishes

David”

Curiously, on April 17, one week after the mass killing had been reported,
the Guardian published two strong pieces on Falluja covering much the same
material by Jo Wilding and novelist Ronan Bennett.


Part 2 will follow shortly...


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:

Jonathan Munro, ITN’s head of newsgathering:
Email: jonathan.munro at itn.co.uk

Richard Sambrook, the BBC's director of news:
Email: richard.sambrook at bbc.co.uk

Simon Kelner, editor of the Independent:
Email: s.kelner at independent.co.uk

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian:
Email: alan.rusbridger at guardian.co.uk

Ian Mayes, the Guardian Reader's Editor:
Email: ian.mayes at guardian.co.uk

Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:
Email: editor at medialens.org
 
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

This media alert will shortly be archived at:
http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html







To unsubscribe click on the link below:
http://www.medialens.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/medialens/mailproc/register.cgi?em=
david.miller at stir.ac.uk&act=un&at=2