[A-List] UK news media: propaganda problems

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Interesting that, when Cruise missiles can stray into Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Turkey, the possibility of one landing in a residential area of Baghdad, in
the middle of all the supposedly precision targeting, is dismissed.

------

Intelligence veil lifted in media battle

Leaks of secret briefings over civilian deaths

Nicholas Watt, Michael White and Matt Wells
Monday March 31, 2003
The Guardian

Downing Street, which usually makes a point of drawing a veil over
intelligence material, has taken to releasing choice pieces in recent days
as part of its propaganda campaign against Saddam Hussein.

Alarmed by the horrific television pictures in the wake of the bombing on
Friday night of a second Baghdad market, No 10 let slip an intelligence
briefing which said the Iraqis might have been responsible for the carnage.

Tony Blair was reportedly told before Saturday's war cabinet that the head
of Baghdad's air defences had been sacked because his anti-aircraft missiles
were falling back on the city. Musahim Saab al-Tikriti, a cousin of the
Iraqi president, was replaced by a retired officer, General Shahin Yasin
Mohammed al-Tikriti, because of the mistakes, which may have caused the
deaths of scores of people at the two markets in as many days, Downing
Street said.

The claims were lapped up by ITN, which broke the "exclusive" news on
Saturday in a report from its correspondent in Downing Street. It failed to
point out that Brigadier-General Vincent Brooks of the US central command
had made the same allegations 24 hours earlier.

The claims about Iraq's poor air defences came exactly a week after No 10
slipped out another piece of intelligence straight from the war cabinet. In
an attempt to intensify the pressure on President Saddam after the failed
attempt to kill him on the first night of the bombing, Downing Street
claimed he was so badly injured he had to be given a blood transfusion. This
news, which was communicated to the war cabinet, duly appeared in the
following day's papers.

Ministers from Mr Blair downwards are alarmed at the relentless pressure
created by the 24-hour television news channels, and the localised snapshot
view of the war provided by reporters embedded with the invading armies.

But ministers and the BBC moved yesterday to shut down a potentially
damaging row over reports that the Labour party chairman, John Reid, had
accused the corporation of adopting a "friend of Baghdad" role.

Unlike in previous conflicts, most famously Norman Tebbit's attack on Kate
Adie during the bombing of Libya in the 1980s, there has been no formal
protest to the BBC, ITN or Sky, though all have caused irritation at some
point.

Dr Reid and Andrew Marr, the BBC's political editor, both confirmed that
they had had a brisk private exchange last week on the role of Baghdad-based
reporters, which was overheard at Westminster and reported yesterday. But Dr
Reid told the Guardian: "To the best of my recollection I did not use the
phrase 'friend of Baghdad'." Marr said last night he also did not think Dr
Reid had used those words.

Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, used an interview on Radio 4's World This
Weekend to praise journalists who were "risking their lives in this conflict
in a courageous way to bring their stories home".

Ministers and officials fighting the information war none the less worry
about the impact on public opinion of the new globalised media - prompting
the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to wonder in an Observer interview if the
300,000 allied troops rescued from Dunkirk in May 1940 would have got away
if the TV crews had been there.

Whitehall officials' complaints are focused on what they regard as
insufficient "health warnings" about the claims made at official briefings
in Baghdad, which are not subject to the questioning and independent
verification they might get in London or the US.

"It's the difference between being inside a fascist regime and a democracy,"
said one minister - though anti-war critics would respond that the media are
sometimes co-opted by their governments.

British reporters embedded with the forces were able to file dramatic
first-hand accounts in the first week of the war. That suited the coalition
media plan ners, because the journalists were beaming back pictures and
reports of military successes. But since the coalition became bogged down in
southern Iraq, reports from the front line have been less helpful.

American journalists embedded with US forces have tended to stick to the
patriotic line they have adopted since the September 11 attacks. But British
reporters have not been afraid to report the views of soldiers and officers
who have voiced concerns about the military strategy.