'Opinions are not facts,' announced a condescending advertisement for the Guardian newspaper in March 2007. 'What happened and how you feel about it are two different things. And people should know which is which.' In this superb new book, David Edwards and David Cromwell - co-editors of the Media Lens website - expose the conceit of the mainstream media's much-vaunted objectivity.
The liberal media, in hock to state or corporate sponsors as the case may be, find themselves structurally bound to follow an editorial line that tends towards sympathy with the political and economic status quo. This is reinforced on an individual level by an expectation that critical faculties should be suspended for the sake of personal career progression. The consequence is that what passes for balanced reporting on the 'war on terror' means allowing British and US leaders to 'frame reality without challenge'.
For example, the standard media portrayal of the ongoing Iraqi insurgency centres on the involvement of dark external forces stirring up trouble for their own ends, although in actual fact the majority of insurgents are Iraqis - militias composed of 'tailors, barbers, and car mechanics'. For the mainstream media to accept this would mean to accept by extension that the insurgency is a war of national resistance, and hence legitimate. Iranian involvement in Iraq, in negating the role of the Iraqis as actors in the drama, is therefore a critical component of how the US-led coalition constructs its mission; accordingly, the mainstream media, liberal and conservative alike, dutifully refrain from highlighting the primarily national character of the Iraqi resistance.
As well as a providing a well-researched indictment of the failure of the liberal media to live up to their own platitudes about objectivity, the authors also challenge the notion that objectivity per se is desirable in media reporting. They describe this as 'the fiction that journalists can or should be disinterested technicians standing neutrally between murderers and their victims'. Linked to this is the politicisation of the very idea of journalistic style itself: why is it that the Pilgers and Chomskys of this world are regularly accused by their opponents of 'ranting', despite the serious and rational quality of their work?
Contradictory Dickens On the bicentenary of Charles Dickens' birth, Terry Eagleton looks at the contradictions of the man and his work
Tweetin’ ’bout a revolution: Paul Mason interview Newsnight’s Paul Mason, author of a new book on the revolts sweeping the world, speaks to Red Pepper
Catch 22: war satire still bites in the age of Fallujah and Helmand Catch 22, by Joseph Heller, reviewed by Matt Owen
An ‘excess of democracy’: what two generations of radicals can learn from each other The philosophy and experience of 1960s/70s radical movements are in several ways complementary to the ideas of the direct action movements of today. Hilary Wainwright examines the possibility of forging a new kind of political economy by learning from the best of both
N30 and after: was that it? A debate on the public sector strikes Gregor Gall analyses the 30 November strikes. With a response by Heather Wakefield
Audio: Rebellious Media Conference Exclusive podcast with Dan Hind, James Curran, Zahera Harb
Leanne Wood: Why I’m standing for the Plaid Cymru leadership Leanne Wood AM sets out a socialist vision for Wales.
After Durban: All talked out? The UN climate talks in Durban followed a familiar script of inaction. Oscar Reyes asks if activists should still be focusing attention on them
Red Pepper is a magazine of political rebellion and dissent, influenced by socialism, feminism and green politics. more »
Get our email newsletter, with news, offers, updates and competitions.