Voices on the fringe

[Thinking Man's Idiot]

Voices on the fringe

(Friday 10 October 2008)

GREG PHILO seeks the missing perspectives in our news media.

News is a procession of the powerful. Watch it on TV, listen to the Today programme and marvel at the orthodoxy of views and the lack of critical voices.

When the credit crunch hit, we were served up a succession of bankers, stockbrokers and even hedge fund managers to explain and say what should be done.

These were the people who had caused the problem, thinking nothing of taking £20 billion a year in City bonuses. The solution that these free-market wizards agreed to was that taxpayers' should stump up billions to fill up the black holes in the banking system.

But where were the critical voices to say it would be a better idea to take the bonuses back?

Mainstream news sometimes has a social-democratic edge. Complaints are aired about fuel poverty and the state of inner cities. But there are precious few voices making the point that the reason why there are so many poor people is because the rich have taken the bulk of the disposable wealth. The notion that the people should own the nation's resources is close to derided on orthodox news bulletins.

When Northern Rock was nationalised, TV news showed us pictures of British Leyland and the old problem-ridden car industry. Never mind that it was actually privately owned when most of the problems occurred and that company policy had been to distribute 95 per cent of profits as dividends to shareholders rather than invest in new plant and machinery.
This is all lost in the mists of history and what is conveyed is the vague sense that nationalisation is a "bad thing."

Glasgow University Media Group showed how this approach affects public understanding by asking a sample of 244 young people in higher education about the great spate of privatisations which had taken place in the 1980s.

We asked whether the industries involved had in general been profitable or unprofitable. Sixty per cent thought that the industries had been losing money. Actually, the major ones - gas, electricity, oil and telecommunications - were both profitable and major sources of revenue to the state.

This is especially poignant now that energy prices are being jacked up and the foreign owners of many of these companies are not interested in passing on their windfall profits to the British people.

Countries such as China, Venezuela and even Russia keep key industries very firmly in state hands, but where are the critical voices in broadcasting in Britain. Who is given space to raise these arguments?

Critical voices can be heard in the outer reaches, occasionally on Question Time, Channel 4 News or Newsnight. But is this what the population wants?
At the start of the Iraq war, we were given the normal parade of generals and military experts. In fact, a consistent body of opinion then and since has been completely opposed to it.

We asked whether people such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Naomi Klein and Michael Moore should be featured routinely on the news as part of a normal range of opinion. Seventy-three per cent of respondents opted for this rather than wanting them on just occasionally as at present.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another area of great imbalance. Our study of the main TV news output showed that pro-Israeli speakers were featured about twice as much as Palestinians.

This year, BBC News covered Israel's "birthday" marking 60 years since the setting up of the state. This was also the anniversary of what, from the Palestinian perspective, was the great disaster when they were forced from their homes and land.

But Israel's superior public relations machine meant that it set the agenda on broadcast news. The Palestinians were featured, but rather less and almost as an afterthought.

As a presenter on the BBC Today programme put it, "Today, Israel is 60 years old and all this week we have been hearing from Israelis about what it means to them." Quite.

We commissioned YouGov to ask a sample of 2,086 UK adults whether they thought that more coverage should be given to the Israeli point of view, more to the Palestinians or equal for both.

Nearly twice as many people thought that the Palestinians should have the most coverage as compared with the Israelis, but the bulk of the replies - 72 per cent - were that both should have the same.

Only 5 per cent of the population supported what the broadcasters have actually been doing.

Politicians and broadcasters say that they are worried about a growing lack of interest in politics, especially among the young, but there is no lack of interest in lively critical debate.

The problem is that a news agenda that largely features the views of two political parties with very similar free-market policies at home and Washington abroad does not provide this.

Greg Philo is research director of the Glasgow University Media Group.

http://www.rinf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3343