Accuse the accuser
Open, informed debate is in crisis and, without doubt, the Iraq war and the 'war on terror' have tested the abilities of independent journalists to the full. These have been the most divisive 18 months of the information age. As Washington's desire to reduce both conflicts to a simplistic 'Good versus Evil' confrontation intensified, so media outlets in those countries that supported Bush came under increasing pressure to toe the line. Even now, nearly three years after 9/11, the vast majority of the U.S. media remains in patriotic repose, with only a few high-end newspapers (The New York Times and The Washington Post) prepared to analyze this administration's actions beyond its own perception of accuracy.
Although in the UK opposition to the invasion was more vociferous, again the media seemed to be working to a different agenda; down-market papers were predictably gung-ho at the prospect of removing a tyrant, and at the high-end only The Independent and The Guardian openly debated the accuracy of the intelligence on the basis of which the UK was dragged into an unpopular war.
However, neither the 9/11 Commission in the USA nor the two inquiries in the UK (both presided over by judges appointed by, er, Prime Minister Blair) have found it possible to apportion blame to any individuals; in the case of the former, to prevent the World Trade Center attacks, and in the case of the latter, to justify the misrepresentation of the threat posed by Saddam's non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). For both governments, this has effectively given them further justification to bend reality, and the short hop from battlefield weapons (with a range of five kilometers) that might, possibly, be made ready to use against troops in 45 minutes, to fully-fledged WMDs (with a range of 400 miles) targeted at Europe, was an easy one.
This policy of slanting, warping and skewing the facts has also created, among other things, not only a sense of deepening mistrust in Western politicians, but also a raft of conspiracy theories. In this atmosphere of half-truths and falsehoods, one term is becoming increasingly overused.
Propaganda is an ugly word, and we all have our own perception of what's a fact, of what's spin, and of what's a lie. Poles, probably more than any other nationality, are inured to this concept, having put up with their history being rewritten on more than one occasion; so they should know propaganda when they see it.
This week, Jacek Szczerba reviewed Michael Moore's anti-Bush polemic Fahrenheit 9/11 in Gazeta Wyborcza, and his opinion was picked up by numerous papers in the UK and the USA. He called the film a "foul pamphlet" and likened it to work by Nazi propaganda director Leni Riefenstahl.
Doubtless Szczerba was writing for his own readers, and didn't consider how his comments would read to millions of Westerners whose knowledge of this country is at best sketchy. In his review, which was headlined in the West as Poles call 9/11 film 'propaganda,' he was of course playing to the pro-war camp, whose lack of preparedness for Moore's sustained attack this year has been enjoyable not least because it has been one of the few times that Washington hasn't had the bulk of the Western media dancing to its tune. Now, however, the right is regrouping, and anti-Moore sentiment is on the increase. And with three months still to go before the presidential election, the neo-cons have enough time to regain the initiative.
But just how is Moore more guilty of propaganda than the other players in this tragedy? He himself has said his aim is to see Bush out of office, and he's made no apologies regarding Fahrenheit 9/11's slant. In any event, it doesn't begin to match the spin (or should it be propaganda?) run out in the run-up to and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.
Something we all learn eventually is that the best form of defense is attack; if someone accuses you of something, you do not refute or clarify, you simply accuse them straight back, usually of the same thing. This children's-playground attitude to reasoned debate is becoming more and more prevalent. As the propaganda on which the USA, the UK and Poland et al went to war is subjected to propaganda against it, so the water becomes more muddied and the point is quickly reached at which objective facts get swept up into the maelstrom of divisive rhetoric.
In this age of 24-hour rolling news and the ubiquitous Internet, good, concise reporting is now more in need than ever. Commentators agree that the forthcoming November poll will be the most polarizing presidential election since at least 1968. Its outcome will affect many more people than just Americans. And whatever you think of Moore's film, the fact that it was made at all sends a dangerous and worrying signal that impartial debate has been squashed underfoot, and the line between fact and spin blurred as never before.
Propaganda is on the increase. Time to look at what you read through Polish eyes.
Although in the UK opposition to the invasion was more vociferous, again the media seemed to be working to a different agenda; down-market papers were predictably gung-ho at the prospect of removing a tyrant, and at the high-end only The Independent and The Guardian openly debated the accuracy of the intelligence on the basis of which the UK was dragged into an unpopular war.
However, neither the 9/11 Commission in the USA nor the two inquiries in the UK (both presided over by judges appointed by, er, Prime Minister Blair) have found it possible to apportion blame to any individuals; in the case of the former, to prevent the World Trade Center attacks, and in the case of the latter, to justify the misrepresentation of the threat posed by Saddam's non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). For both governments, this has effectively given them further justification to bend reality, and the short hop from battlefield weapons (with a range of five kilometers) that might, possibly, be made ready to use against troops in 45 minutes, to fully-fledged WMDs (with a range of 400 miles) targeted at Europe, was an easy one.
This policy of slanting, warping and skewing the facts has also created, among other things, not only a sense of deepening mistrust in Western politicians, but also a raft of conspiracy theories. In this atmosphere of half-truths and falsehoods, one term is becoming increasingly overused.
Propaganda is an ugly word, and we all have our own perception of what's a fact, of what's spin, and of what's a lie. Poles, probably more than any other nationality, are inured to this concept, having put up with their history being rewritten on more than one occasion; so they should know propaganda when they see it.
This week, Jacek Szczerba reviewed Michael Moore's anti-Bush polemic Fahrenheit 9/11 in Gazeta Wyborcza, and his opinion was picked up by numerous papers in the UK and the USA. He called the film a "foul pamphlet" and likened it to work by Nazi propaganda director Leni Riefenstahl.
Doubtless Szczerba was writing for his own readers, and didn't consider how his comments would read to millions of Westerners whose knowledge of this country is at best sketchy. In his review, which was headlined in the West as Poles call 9/11 film 'propaganda,' he was of course playing to the pro-war camp, whose lack of preparedness for Moore's sustained attack this year has been enjoyable not least because it has been one of the few times that Washington hasn't had the bulk of the Western media dancing to its tune. Now, however, the right is regrouping, and anti-Moore sentiment is on the increase. And with three months still to go before the presidential election, the neo-cons have enough time to regain the initiative.
But just how is Moore more guilty of propaganda than the other players in this tragedy? He himself has said his aim is to see Bush out of office, and he's made no apologies regarding Fahrenheit 9/11's slant. In any event, it doesn't begin to match the spin (or should it be propaganda?) run out in the run-up to and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.
Something we all learn eventually is that the best form of defense is attack; if someone accuses you of something, you do not refute or clarify, you simply accuse them straight back, usually of the same thing. This children's-playground attitude to reasoned debate is becoming more and more prevalent. As the propaganda on which the USA, the UK and Poland et al went to war is subjected to propaganda against it, so the water becomes more muddied and the point is quickly reached at which objective facts get swept up into the maelstrom of divisive rhetoric.
In this age of 24-hour rolling news and the ubiquitous Internet, good, concise reporting is now more in need than ever. Commentators agree that the forthcoming November poll will be the most polarizing presidential election since at least 1968. Its outcome will affect many more people than just Americans. And whatever you think of Moore's film, the fact that it was made at all sends a dangerous and worrying signal that impartial debate has been squashed underfoot, and the line between fact and spin blurred as never before.
Propaganda is on the increase. Time to look at what you read through Polish eyes.
