|
Not reviewing dissident books
Dissent, the lifeblood of any
free society but the media fear dissidents – they can expose media lies &
incriminating info and thereby stir public unrest.
The techniques used:
-
refuse to review dissident books
- if reviewed at all, ignore the content & line of argument made.
Instead smear & belittle the author, accusing him of egotism, ‘chip on
shoulder’, anger, etc
[Chomsky says they cannot respond to the argument anyway.]
-
don’t invite dissident opinion in major news programs or debates. Or invite a
dissident like E Said and also an opponent of his to trip or rattle & dilute the
force of the points made.
- if a dissident is interviewed on TV/radio
(eg G Galloway by J Paxman on his election win), sidestep the real issues and
instead sneer, smear and ridicule;
Among the people smeared in the
late 1960s were Tariq Ali and the Marxist commentator and
historian Perry Anderson. Tariq at the time was one of the leading figures in
the worldwide student revolt but the mass media presented Tariq as a
mixture of devil, clown and alien. Perry Anderson warned Tariq to watch
his back — there were loonies who could easily take a pot shot at him.
Other who have been targeted: Bernadette
Devlin, Arthur Scargill. These
people don't merely oppose the authorities, like John Pilger or Harold Pinter.
Because they have been selected and elected by movements that are on the march
and drawing in new areas of support, they become the most hated hate figures of
all.
06 March 2006
Guardians Of Power by the editors of Medialens. It was
described by John Pilger as "the most important book about journalism I can
remember". It has not been mentioned, let alone reviewed, once, in any
national newspaper since its publication in January 2006 (it has been
reviewed in the New Statesman and Spectator). This is not through lack of effort
on the part of potential reviewers. Mark Curtis, one of Britain's leading
historians and political analysts, offered to write a review for the
Independent. His offer received this response from the Independent's
literary editor, Boyd Tonkin:
"Not this time, thanks." (Forwarded to Media Lens, February 24, 2006)
Another offer of a review was sent to the Independent by Paul Taylor,
Senior Lecturer in Communications Theory at the University of Leeds. Taylor
received the same message from Tonkin:
"Not this time, thanks." (Forwarded to Media Lens, February 23, 2006)
These curt and dismissive responses are familiar to anyone who has tried to
place articles in the press. Journalists know they
are accountable to no one but their managers, owners and parent
companies. They are not accountable to the public, to reviewers, and
certainly not to dissidents challenging their employers. When profit is the
bottom line all other considerations are an irrelevance, except insofar as they
impact on the primary goal.
On of the authors wrote to challenge the literary editor.
Dear Boyd Tonkin
I am co-author with David Cromwell of a new book, Guardians of Power. I
understand you have rejected offers to review the book from at least two very
competent reviewers (including one of the country's leading historians and
political analysts). Can I ask if you have plans to have the book reviewed by
anyone else?
Best wishes
David Edwards (Email, February 25, 2006)
They received no reply. Tonkin was of course making a point - he is answerable
to no one, and no one has the right to even politely enquire of plans to review
a particular book. This is justified by a further unwritten rule among
journalists - proposed reviewers of a book should have no links with the author
of the book to be reviewed, unless he or she is promoting an
establishment-friendly book, and/or a book written by a journalist working on
the host publication.
The Observer's literary editor, Robert McCrum, generously afforded himself a
1,660-word article to promote his biography of P.G. Wodehouse in the
Observer. (McCrum, 'A lotus-eater in Hollywood,' The Observer, August 29, 2004)
McCrum also permitted Oliver Robinson - who writes reviews for McCrum's section
- to review the paperback version of McCrum's book in the Observer in September
2005:
"McCrum's clear-sighted study... proves a match for the man and is never
short of complexity." (Robinson, 'Paperbacks,' The Observer, September 18,
2005)
Some readers may by now be shaking their heads in dismay and wondering if we
seriously expect journalists not to use their influence to promote their own
work, and whether we really believe it is unreasonable for them to do so. This
is not the point we are making.
Corporate journalists treat the media as their private fiefdoms because
in a very real sense they are. And yet the public have only three or four
'liberal' newspapers on which they depend for their news, reviews and
information.
The reality is also that all corporate media consistently, over decades,
suppress critiques of their own practices, and there is next to nothing the
public can do about it. So claims that if we don't like something, we can choose
something else we do like are a nonsense. Literary editors pretend not to notice
this obvious truth when they choose to ignore the tiny handful of books that
dare to criticise their own profession.
Mark Curtis described the fate suffered by his own books:
"My Web Of Deceit was reviewed only in the Guardian,
and Unpeople was not reviewed anywhere in the mainstream apart from an interview
I did for the Independent at the time. Whereas just take a look at the utter
rubbish that makes it into the review pages of the Guardian, Observer etc... not
that you need reminding."
John Pilger's most recent book, The New Rulers Of The World
(Verso, 2002), was reviewed in just two newspapers in the entire British
mainstream press (the Independent and the Guardian) receiving a
total of 1,523 words. A further 1,800-word extract was published in the
Observer. By contrast, Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow's book, Shooting
History, was reviewed by the Guardian, the Independent, the Observer, the Daily
Mail, the Mail on Sunday, the Times and the Financial Times. In December 2004,
Lexis Nexis media database recorded 48 mentions in the national press over the
previous six months - ten times the number received by Pilger's book.
BBC presenter Andrew Marr's book, My Trade: A Short History Of British
Journalism, was reviewed by the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the
Independent on Sunday, the Times, the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph
(Christmas list Top 20 non-fiction), the Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail,
Evening Standard ("the pick of the year").
Noam Chomsky's book, Hegemony Or Survival, was also granted a handful of
reviews.
But even this does not tell the whole story. Very often reviews of dissident
books are handed to harsh, even bitter, critics. Pilger's book was reviewed in
the Guardian by Roy Greenslade - a remarkable choice given that the book
contains material that is strongly critical of his journalism. Greenslade's
review was generally positive, but he observed of Pilger:
"He is undoubtedly a prickly character. As an
editor once remarked, only a little unfairly, he is a hero until you know him."
(Roy Greenslade, 'Writers on the frontline,' The Guardian, October 30,
2004)
Bill Hagerty wrote in the Independent:
"Meanwhile, the role model of yesteryear [Pilger] has
edited a collection of investigative journalism that will be devoured by the
dribble of students who hold Pilger in awe. Others will doubtless give it no
more than a cursory glance." (Hagerty, 'Hanging out
with celebs has surpassed unearthing news,' The Independent, November 15, 2004)
Ian McIntyre in the Times wrote of Chomsky's "rambling jeremiad", which
contained "preposterous" arguments in a text "shot through with conspiracy
theory". (McIntrye, 'Which end of the telescope?' The Times, January 10, 2004)
Chomsky's book was reviewed in the Observer by Nick Cohen:
"Noam Chomsky is the master of looking-glass politics.
His writing exemplifies the ability of the Western Left to criticise everything
from the West - except itself." (Cohen, 'By the
left... about turn: The reality of Iraq shatters Chomsky's looking glass world,'
The Observer, December 14, 2003)
The Independent gave the review to Johann Hari: "Chomsky
was one of the first public intellectuals in the US to condemn the horrors of
Vietnam, and we would be foolish to discount entirely his arguments now", Hari
noted sagely.
He concluded: "We need an intelligent, reflective left
perspective... but sadly, I doubt we will get that from... Chomsky."
(Hari, 'Books: Bully or beacon,' The Independent, November 21, 2003)
Secrecy and silence are jealously guarded by media
gatekeepers and are rooted in a form of absolute power. To fall out of favour
with a literary editor is to be ignored, silenced, denied access to a mass
audience, without any need for explanation, without any right of reply or appeal.
(See 2002 Media Alert, 'Power, Fear And Silence', for examples:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/02/020919_Pilger_reviews.htm)
Media decisions are made behind closed doors, in corporate meetings completely
inaccessible to the public. No one knows what happens - who decides which books
to review and why, and who should review them and why. No one even knows that
silence on a particular book or topic has been manufactured by corporate media
with identical interests right across the spectrum. It is a kind of negative
thought control - we don't know, and we don't know that we don't know.
==================================
Earlier Examples:
Case of
John Le Carré
[MediaLens 19Dec05]
Novelist David Cornwell, who writes under the
pseudonym John Le Carré, has been for decades been praised for his spy novels.
Then Carre turned into a fierce critic of US-UK foreign policy.
Here's how his novel Absolute Friends was reviewed in the Sunday
Telegraph [07Dec03]:
"The poor fellow
harangues us about globalisation, about George Bush, about Washington
neo-conservatives... With small sense of the ridiculous, he gives us a popular
novel which nods gravely at the names of such as Noam Chomsky... including, yes,
John Pilger.
"What turned this much-loved entertainer into a cosmic prophet? What's eating
him? Who does 'John Le Carré' think he is?"
The reviewer concluded: "It is sad, but scarcely tragic... The Spy Who Came
in from the Cold will be read when most of today's polemics, including those
of angry old David Cornwell, are quite forgotten."
The Sunday Times [14 Dec 03] commented under the heading 'Dispatches
from an angry old man':
"Le Carré's anger comes
across as a bit too raw to work as fiction, its rhetoric more in line with a
Harold Pinter column than a Graham Greene novel. I finished Absolute Friends
hoping that this greatest of all spy novelists writes for decades more...so that
he can gain a more incisive perspective on our troubling times."
(2000-01)
In December 2001, Rory Carroll of the
Guardian produces a 'portrait' of American novelist and essayist, Gore
Vidal. Vidal, we should be clear, is not popular with the mainstream press
because he writes things like: "The bullshit just
flows and flows and the American media is so corrupt that it never questions
it...The New York Times is a parrot for the rulers."
Vidal said: 'The Few are
able to control the Many only through Opinion. In the past, Opinion was
dispensed from pulpit and schoolroom. Now it has been manufactured in the
boardrooms of those corporations that control our lives".
So how does Rory Carrol respond. He gets personal:
"Vidal has long been "the
scourge of the US - and now he's at it again. For over half a century, Vidal has
been a factory of polemic and prose raging against Pax Americana, pouring
off essays of elegant sulphur, scorning everyone from the FBI to the New York
Times as frauds and poodles."
Compare this
talk of a "factory" of "raging", "sulphur" and "scorn" with the Jay Rayner's
Observer review (May 1999), of Harold Pinter's political output:
"Pinter of Discontent: Hated Pinochet; loathed Thatcher; doesn't like
America; deplores Nato; is disgusted when his play doesn't get a West End run.
Good old Harold - he's always bitching about something...Late Pinter is all
about sound and fury."
Compare this, in turn, with the title of Jon Snow's Observer review of
John Pilger's filmic output: "Still angry after all these years."
(Snow, 25 February
2001)
And with the title of Steve Crawshaw's review (Independent
21 February 2001) of one of
Chomsky's political works: "Furious ideas with no room for nuance. Chomsky
knows so much but seems impervious to any idea of nuance."
Joe Joseph of the Times (7 March 2000) notes on Pilger:
"He's an earnest, eloquent tub-thumper. The world, according to Pilger, is
pretty much black and white: his journalistic retina doesn't recognise shades of
grey..."
David Rieff (Independenti) describes one of Chomsky's books as the "latest
effusion... of arrogant fantasy-mongering by a radical conspiracy theorist".
Chomsky is "so far out on the lunatic fringe that even the sensible things he
has to say are lost".
The case of the VERSO PRESS AND
review of JOHN PILGER's book (2002)
On the rare occasions when the
work of dissident thinkers is reviewed in the press, they are invariably treated
with derision and scorn. The focus is on dissidents' alleged personality
disorders: their anger, egotism and irrationality.
In the UK a dissident writer (like John Pilger) knows that the likelihood of a
favourable book review for a mass audience is limited to three or four outlets
and the writer cannot afford to alienate these outlets. This shows how power
over people is concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of people who are
accountable to none.
'Liberal' journalists, with remarkable consistency, routinely dismiss dissident
work as 'black and white', 'lacking in nuance' and motivated by anger. We also
noted that John Pilger's important new book, 'The New Rulers of the World',
had been granted just two (smear-filled) reviews in the entire national
mainstream - in the Guardian and the New Statesman. When MediaLens
invited readers to ask literary editors of selected papers why they had smeared
or failed to review Pilger's book, some did so. Among the literary editors
suggested by us was Susie Feay of the Independent on Sunday.
Surprisingly the Marketing Manager of Verso Press
the publisher of Pilger's book wrote back to MediaLens with copy to Susie Feay:
Dear Medialens:
Please could you ask the visitors to your website to refrain from emailing
the literary editors of national newspapers questioning why they have not
reviewed John Pilger's book, The New Rulers of the World. The
Independent has a review waiting to be published but after receiving a number
of unpleasant emails, all copied in to your email address, they are seriously
thinking of pulling the review.
I am working hard to get other national newspapers to review the book and do not
appreciate having my efforts undermined by people who do not understand the
pressure of space for reviews in newspapers. A paper's failure to review a title
is not always politically motivated.
I cannot stress strongly enough how much damage these people are doing to both
John Pilger's and Verso's reputation and how counterproductive this campaign (if
it is as orchestrated as that) is being.
Yours, Fiona Price
Marketing & Publicity Manager, Verso (July 30, 2002)
In fact Feay had received just two emails! Medialens wrote back to Verso.
Excerpts:
- The idea that the response to honest criticism should be to threaten to
punish the author, publisher and readership, of an important book by one of our
greatest political writers tells us much about the state of democracy in
mainstream media corporations (totalitarian structures all, as you'll know from
the books you've published by Pilger and Noam Chomsky). The fact
that publishers, even excellent radical ones, fail to protest such heavy-handed
threats, even demanding the silence of critics, also tells us much about the
health of the democratic spirit in our country.
- The Independent, the Guardian and the Observer all
have appalling records of neglecting and smearing the arguments and work of
dissident writers, John Pilger included. Pilger has appeared just four times in
the Guardian since 1999, once in the Observer, and not once in the
Independent since January 1999. We would suggest that, so far, your campaign has
borne little fruit - Pilger's excellent book has been either blanked or smeared
by the national mainstream press since May 20. Chomsky is also all but ignored
by the Guardian-Observer, with four of his articles published
since September 1998 (with just one of these published since
September 11, in fact since October 1999). He has appeared once in the
Independent since January 1999, and is ignored by BBC TV, ITV and Channel 4.
Other major writers like Edward Herman and Howard Zinn appear to be completely
unknown to the British mainstream.
- Space in the press is not a natural phenomenon, like a beach, that
expands and shrinks with the tide - it is a product owned and used by
profit-seeking media businesses dependent on advertisers for 75% of their
revenues... You are no doubt familiar with Herman and Chomsky's 'propaganda
model', so we'll skip the details.
When MediaLens subsequently wrote to Susie Feay, she replied curtly:
"I have never suggested 'pulling' this review. Stop playing Chinese whispers."
No review appeared in the next weeks (at least)! Notice that a major 'liberal'
literary editor and a major and excellent radical publisher appear to be willing
to adopt such a fiercely intolerant stance in response to the tiniest expression
of dissent and democratic challenge from the public in the form of one article
by Media Lens, a small internet website, and two emails. This is a shocking
state of affairs
Our society desperately needs to break the wall of silence surrounding the media
and make it clear to the Lords of the Media Manor that the mass media is not
their personal property; it also belongs to the public. Why? Because it is the
public's only means of finding out about the world. It is how we as democratic
citizens monitor and police the actions of our governments and corporations. The
mass media is currently the only means by which most people gain the information
they need to protect the victims of Western excess in the Third World and
environment.
References
MediaLens 19Sept02, 17 Dec 02, 10 May 05, 19Dec05, 06Mar06 (www.medialens.org)
|