[NUJ Bristol] All Murdock's 175 editors support the war

--=======4818593=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4F9E4DF; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Their master's voice

Roy Greenslade in The Guardian, Monday February 17, 2003
http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=3D1993
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,896864,00.html

Rupert Murdoch argued strongly for a war with Iraq in an interview this=20
week. Which might explain why his 175 editors around the world are backing=
=20
it too.

What a guy! You have got to admit that Rupert Murdoch is one canny press=20
tycoon because he has an unerring ability to choose editors across the=20
world who think just like him. How else can we explain the extraordinary=20
unity of thought in his newspaper empire about the need to make war on=20
Iraq? After an exhaustive survey of the highest-selling and most=20
influential papers across the world owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, it=
=20
is clear that all are singing from the same hymn sheet. Some are bellicose=
=20
baritone soloists who relish the fight. Some prefer a less strident, if=20
more subtle, role in the chorus. But none, whether fortissimo or=20
pianissimo, has dared to croon the anti-war tune. Their master's voice has=
=20
never been questioned.

Murdoch is chairman and chief executive of News Corp which owns more than=20
175 titles on three continents, publishes 40 million papers a week and=20
dominates the newspaper markets in Britain, Australia and New Zealand. His=
=20
television reach is greater still, but broadcasting - even when less=20
regulated than in Britain - is not so plainly partisan. It is newspapers=20
which set the agenda.

It isn't always clear exactly what Murdoch believes on any given issue, but=
=20
this time we know for certain, courtesy of an interview in the Australian=20
magazine, the Bulletin (which, by the way, he doesn't own). To cite the=20
report of that interview in Murdoch's own Sydney Daily Telegraph, the=20
"media magnate...has backed President Bush's stance against Iraqi leader=20
Saddam Hussein". Indeed, his quotes are specific. "We can't back down now,=
=20
where you hand over the whole of the Middle East to Saddam...I think Bush=20
is acting very morally, very correctly, and I think he is going to go on=20
with it". Then came words of praise for Tony Blair. "I think Tony is being=
=20
extraordinarily courageous and strong... It's not easy to do that living in=
=20
a party which is largely composed of people who have a knee-jerk=20
anti-Americanism and are sort of pacifist. But he's shown great guts as he=
=20
did, I think, in Kosovo and various problems in the old Yugoslavia."

Most revealing of all was Murdoch's reference to the rationale for going to=
=20
war, blatantly using the o-word. Politicians in the United States and=20
Britain have strenuously denied the significance of oil, but Murdoch wasn't=
=20
so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to=20
cheaper oil. "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world=20
economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in=
=20
any country."

He went even further down this road in an interview the week before with=20
America's Fortune magazine by forecasting a postwar economic boom. "Once it=
=20
[Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which=20
will be a bigger stimulus than anything else."

So there was the maestro's music. What then of his editors' lyrics? His=20
single paper in the United States is the New York Post, a raucous tabloid=20
which doesn't sell as well as its rival but makes more than enough noise to=
=20
be heard far and wide. Its editor, Col Allen, is Australian, as is its=20
leading polemicist, Steve Dunleavy, a long-time Murdoch acolyte. A series=20
of gung-ho front pages have been backed up by vehemently pro-Bush articles=
=20
inside. A typical example, by a retired US army intelligence officer, Ralph=
=20
Peters, heaped praise on a "flawless" Colin Powell for doing "a superb job"=
=20
in revealing "hard evidence" which justified war on Iraq. Peters assailed=20
"the world's do-nothings" and "Saddam's apologists", such as France, which=
=20
he alleged was "desperately trying to protect its client in Baghdad".

This was a precursor to a front-page assault by Dunleavy on France as part=
=20
of the "axis of weasel". Americans had died freeing Europe of Hitler but=20
the French wouldn't fight "today's Hitler", Saddam. A picture of second=20
world war graves in Normandy was headlined "Sacrifice: They died for France=
=20
but France has forgotten". I doubt that Murdoch disagreed with form or=20
content. Nor could he have much to complain about with the recent attitude=
=20
towards the war adopted by his British tabloid flagship, the Sun. The=20
editor, Rebekah Wade, has been much more forthright than her predecessor in=
=20
supporting Blair and Bush. In a return to the Kelvin MacKenzie era, the Sun=
=20
has also enjoyed putting the boot into Britain's old enemies across the=20
Channel, decrying the "three stooges": France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's=20
Gerhard Schr=F6der and the "pipsqueak Belgians". Instead, in a pro-American=
=20
fervour which is echoed in virtually every Murdoch publication, it urged=20
Blair on Friday to "stick with the friend you can trust through and through=
=20
- America".

How lucky can Murdoch get! He hires 175 editors and, by remarkable=20
coincidence, they all seem to love the nation which their boss has chosen=20
as his own. The papers he owns in the country of his birth, Australia, are=
=20
noticeably more muted than the New York Post and the Sun. But it doesn't=20
require a semiologist to see that the leader-writers are attempting to=20
break down stubborn public opinion: some 39% of Australians oppose a war,=20
even with UN backing, while 76% oppose a war unless there is full-hearted=20
international support.

Even so, the insistent message on the editorial pages of the five largest=20
Murdoch papers in the main Australian cities - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane,=
=20
Perth and Adelaide - is that Bush is pursuing the right path. These papers=
=20
show their colours by giving unswerving support to the rabidly pro-American=
=20
prime minister John Howard, who has sent troops to the Middle East, and=20
heaping scorn on the opposition leader, Simon Crean, for what the Melbourne=
=20
Herald Sun calls "political opportunism" in opposing war.

Anti-war demonstrators have also been derided. The Advertiser in Adelaide=20
took the organisers of one protest to task because they had supposedly=20
advocated civil disobedience. The Sunday Times in Perth disparaged unions=20
for threatening industrial action should there be a military strike on=20
Iraq. One Australian media-watcher said that all the papers' right-leaning=
=20
columnists have been given licence to bang the war drums while belittling=20
opponents. Space has been given to pro-war contributors, too. In the=20
Brisbane Courier-Mail, churchgoer Geoff Hines urged Christians to support=20
an invasion because "there is such a thing as a holy and just war".

Murdoch's national title, the Australian, is regarded as more sober than=20
the city papers, and it's true that many of its leading articles are=20
masterpieces of fence-sitting waffle. But that isn't true of the latest=20
crop and there cannot be any doubt where its editor, Michael Stutchbury,=20
stands. The daily slogan, "Countdown to war", suggests that the paper is=20
cheerleading the inevitability of an invasion, as did one of its more=20
militant leaders two weeks ago. "Twelve years of defiance by Hussein show=20
that the old policies of containment no longer work", said the editorial.=20
"Appeasement is not an option when it comes to dealing with=20
Hussein...Failure to disarm Hussein would make the world a much more=20
dangerous place." On Saturday, the paper called on readers to "accept that=
=20
the US is not the aggressor on the world stage, and that the real threat to=
=20
the safety of the Australian people comes from Baghdad and Pyongyang", and=
=20
took a sideswipe at anti-war demonstrators.

In New Zealand, there is widespread hostility to the war. Its government,=20
led by the prime minister, Helen Clark, is trying to maintain a neutral=20
stance. But Murdoch's papers are eager to push readers and politicians=20
towards belligerence. The influential Wellington Dominion-Post argued last=
=20
week: "There is always a temptation to take every means to avoid the=20
carnage of war. Yet there also comes a point at which appeasement itself is=
=20
little more than a charade...The doubters must say how much more time they=
=20
would give Saddam to play his delaying games."

In London, the Times and the Sunday Times have left none of their readers=20
in two minds about their pro-war sentiments, despite the overwhelming=20
popular opposition to war. It is fascinating to note that papers which=20
acknowledge that the British people's distaste for war is partially due to=
=20
anti-Americanism are trying to change their minds by appealing to an older=
=20
form of prejudice, Francophobia. The Times, for instance, last week used=20
its strongest language during this so-called phoney war to admonish the=20
French president. Taunting Chirac for his opposition to what the French=20
supposedly "Wrongly depict as a relentless American juggernaut", the Times=
=20
concluded that he is leading France into a cul de sac and has therefore=20
consigned it to "unsplendid isolation in the anteroom occupied by history's=
=20
losers".

The Sunday Times also laid into the French and Germans, claiming that to=20
adopt their attitudes "would be, to adapt the three wise monkeys, neither=20
seeing, hearing nor acting on a brutal regime that defies the UN". An=20
earlier Sunday Times leader revealed the truth about the worldwide struggle=
=20
of the Murdoch press to secure the hearts and minds of its millions of=20
readers. "Winning the public-relations battle is almost as vital as=20
military victory," said the Sunday Times. So that's what the editors have=20
been doing then. Needless to say, my attempts to discuss the oddity of=20
Murdoch's editors all agreeing with their boss failed. No editor returned=20
calls or emails.

Finally, though, a word of praise for one of Murdoch's smallest papers, the=
=20
28,000-circulation Papua New Guinea Courier Mail. Its editorials in the=20
past two weeks have been about domestic affairs, but it did publish a=20
militant anti-war message: "The UN inspectors have so far not found any=20
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. How can a civilised country attack=20
another country without any proof of misconduct?" It was, of course, a=20
reader's letter, but what a breath of fresh air beside the war cries in the=
=20
rest of Murdoch's press.

http://www.mwaw.org/article.php?sid=3D1993
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,896864,00.html


Bristol branch - National Union of Journalists
10-12 Picton Street
Montpelier
BRISTOL
BS6 5QA
http://lists.southspace.net/listinfo/nuj_bristol/
http://www.gn.apc.org/media/nuj.html
http://www.nuj.org.uk
0117 944 6219

--=======4818593=======--