Mass
Media Siege: Comparing Coverage Of Mosul and
Aleppo
By Media
Lens
July
18, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- When
Russian and Syrian forces were bombarding
'rebel'-held East Aleppo last year, newspapers
and television screens were full of anguished
reporting about the plight of civilians killed,
injured, trapped, traumatised or desperately
fleeing. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
Russian leader Vladimir Putin, both Official
Enemies, were denounced and demonised, in
accordance with the usual propaganda script. One
piece in the Evening Standard
described Assad
as a 'monster' and a Boris Johnson
column in the
Telegraph referred to both Putin and Assad as
'the Devil'.
As the respected veteran reporter Patrick
Cockburn
put it:
'The partisan reporting of the siege of East
Aleppo presented it as a battle between good
and evil: The Lord of the Rings, with Assad
and Putin as Saruman and Sauron.'
This, he said, was 'the nadir of Western media
coverage of the wars in Iraq and Syria.' Media
reporting focused laser-like on 'Last
calls (or
messages or
tweets) from
Aleppo'. There were heart-breaking accounts of
families, children, elderly people, all caught
up in dreadful conditions that could be pinned
on the 'brutal' Assad and his 'regime'; endless
photographs depicting grief and suffering that
tore at one's psyche.
By
contrast, there was little of this evident in
media coverage as the Iraqi city of Mosul, with
a population of around one million, was being
pulverised by the US-led 'coalition' from 2015;
particularly since the massive assault launched
last October to 'liberate' the city from ISIS,
with 'victory' declared a few days ago. Most
pointedly, western media coverage has not, of
course, demonised the US for inflicting mass
death and suffering.
As Cockburn
pointed out,
there were 'many similarities between the sieges
of Mosul and East Aleppo, but they were reported
very differently'.
He
explained:
'When civilians are killed or their houses
destroyed during the US-led bombardment of
Mosul, it is Islamic State that is said to
be responsible for their deaths: they were
being deployed as human shields. When Russia
or Syria targets buildings in East Aleppo,
Russia or Syria is blamed: the rebels have
nothing to do with it.'
For
example:
'Heartrending images from East Aleppo
showing dead, wounded and shellshocked
children were broadcast around the world.
But when, on 12 January, a video was posted
online showing people searching for bodies
in the ruins of a building in Mosul that
appeared to have been destroyed by a US-led
coalition airstrike, no Western television
station carried the pictures.'
Cockburn
summarised:
'In
Mosul, civilian loss of life is blamed on
Isis, with its indiscriminate use of mortars
and suicide bombers, while the Iraqi army
and their air support are largely given a
free pass. [...] Contrast this with Western
media descriptions of the inhuman savagery
of President Assad's forces indiscriminately
slaughtering civilians regardless of whether
they stay or try to flee.'
Mopping Up
Pockets Of Resistance
In October 2016, the US-led coalition stepped up
its bombing raids and artillery attacks on
Mosul, over and above what had already been an
intensive military campaign following the city's
capture by ISIS in 2014. According to a new
report by
Amnesty, 5,805 civilians were killed as a result
of attacks launched by the coalition between
February and June of 2017. As with Iraq Body
Count figures for the whole of the country, this
figure is likely to be
much too low.
Moreover, it excludes the first few months and
the final few weeks of intensive bombardment.
Amnesty
says that the
people of Mosul were subjected to:
'a
terrifying barrage of fire from weapons that
should never be used in densely populated
civilian areas.'
US political writer Bill Van Auken
comments:
'In
Amnesty's typically cautious fashion in
dealing with the US government, the report
stated that "US-led coalition forces appear
to have committed repeated violations of
international law, some of which may amount
to war crimes."'
Van
Auken adds:
'While Amnesty indicts ISIS with far greater
conviction than it does the US military, it
raises no questions as to who is responsible
for ISIS in the first place, much less the
historical roots of the human catastrophe
inflicted upon Mosul.'
As
informed people are all too aware:
'ISIS had been well-armed, funded and
trained for use as a proxy force in the wars
for regime change orchestrated by the CIA
and Washington's regional allies, first in
Libya and then in Syria.'
This is
all part of a bigger picture involving decades
of:
'war, sanctions, invasion and occupation
inflicted by US imperialism on the oil-rich
country, resulting in the decimation of an
entire society, the loss of well over a
million lives, and the turning of millions
more into homeless refugees.'
Media coverage of the 'victory' over ISIS in
Mosul has omitted this history, of course; just
as it has either ignored or downplayed the huge
numbers of civilians killed by the coalition
there. True, there are now
reports
emerging of the
plight of civilians
leaving Mosul, and the BBC has
noted Amnesty
'allegations', while giving prominent space to a
coalition spokesperson dismissing the Amnesty
report as 'irresponsible and an insult'. But if
BBC News was genuinely impartial, for the past
few months it would have regularly headlined the
destruction wreaked by the US-led coalition,
with particular emphasis on the massive civilian
death toll. Instead, this BBC
headline said
so much about its coalition-friendly stance:
'Battle for Mosul: Iraq army mops up final
IS pockets'
The
article's opening line was:
'The Iraqi army has been mopping up the last
pockets of resistance from Islamic State
(IS) militants in Mosul, after a long battle
to recapture the city.'
And how
many civilians had been killed by these
US-backed forces in 'liberating' the city? The
piece did not say.
On March 17 this year, as many as 240 civilians
were killed in an air strike on Mosul by the
coalition. Patrick Cockburn
reported that
three buildings were reduced to rubble, while
many people were seeking refuge in cellars.
For months before and after this atrocity, BBC
News had featured several reports from its
correspondent Jonathan Beale who was 'embedded'
with Iraqi troops. These pieces had titles like
'On the ground with Iraqi forces in battle for
Mosul', and
they were sprinkled with propaganda phrases such
as:
'The US-led coalition appears confident that
fighters of the so-called Islamic State (IS)
will be defeated in Mosul.'
'a
brutal fight for every street.'
'The troops both battle hardened and battle
weary.'
'We
hear coalition aircraft overhead. Then a
whoosh and a thud, followed by an
explosion...There's another whoosh, thud and
boom and then a plume of smoke from an air
strike.'
'No-one can question the bravery of the
Iraqi forces.'
'this is unforgiving, urban warfare and for
the Iraqi forces there is still a mountain
to climb.'
This was a bang-bang style of 'journalism' that
obscured or blanked the deaths of civilians
being killed in the 'Battle for Mosul', as the
BBC News television studio graphic called the
massive bombardment,
time after time,
for months on end. It was always 'Battle for
Mosul'; never 'US air strike massacres
civilians' or 'US seeks hegemony in the Middle
East'. It's Good ('Us') vs Evil ('Them'). The
BBC website offered a single article, titled
'Can civilian deaths be avoided in RAF strikes
on IS?', as a
pitiful 'balance' to the rolling barrage of
pro-coalition propaganda. Tellingly, Beale's
piece revealed its propaganda stance in closing
with the perspective of RAF Air Commodore Johnny
Stringer who said:
'We
have an opponent who just hates us and
everything we stand for. We have to deal
with that and defeat them militarily. And
that is why we're here.'
Beale
ended the article with a line of his own,
indicating that the BBC correspondent stood
full-square behind the coalition:
'They are fighting a brutal enemy, who
unlike them, has no worries about killing
civilians.'
Once the 'last pockets of resistance' in Mosul
had been 'mopped up', the BBC could then publish
a typically
whitewashing report
on its website headlined, 'Mosul: Iraq PM in
city to celebrate victory over IS'. And, of
course, no questions were asked about the
democratic credentials of the Iraqi government
that had 'liberated' Mosul. Does Iraq have free
elections, a free press and full respect for
human rights? These issues have been of little
or no concern for the corporate media since a
puppet government
was installed, amid much PR posturing, in 2004.
'A Heroic Fight
Against Terrorists'
The propaganda pitch of BBC News towards
government power is longstanding; indeed it was
hard-wired from its Reithian origins, as we have
pointed out
many times. Sometimes this propaganda bias is
most obvious when its news reporters examine the
propaganda of Official Enemies, blithely unaware
of how it reflects on themselves and their own
employer.
|
No
Advertising
- No
Government
Grants
-
This
Is
Independent
Media
|
On December 15, 2016, Moscow correspondent Sarah
Rainsford delivered a classic example on Aleppo
in this
segment shown
on BBC News at One (the BBC also published this
article).
Consider her words:
'On
the ground in Syria, Russia's special forces
– shown here for the first time on state
television. The commentary is all about a
heroic fight against terrorists. No mention
here of any civilians caught up in the
bloodshed.'
Imagine
Rainsford saying this of Western reporting on
Mosul:
'The commentary is all about a heroic fight
against terrorists. No mention here of any
civilians caught up in the bloodshed.'
Then,
to camera, Rainsford said:
'For Russia, the conflict in Syria was
always about projecting its power and
influence. As the West stalled [sic], Moscow
moved in. The message to Russians here that
they were helping to protect the world from
terrorism. The message to the world, that
Russia under Vladimir Putin is a political
and military power to be reckoned with.'
A BBC
News reporter would never point out that war in
the Middle East is about the US 'projecting its
power and influence'.
Rainsford continued, over library footage of the
severe damage done by Russian forces to Grozny:
'As
to brutal bombing campaigns, Russia has done
that before. This is not Aleppo, but Grozny
in Chechnya – a city flattened in what
President Putin also called a war on terror.
In this latest conflict, he's faced no calls
at home for restraint.'
Finally, over a clip of ISIS fighters with
captured Russian arsenal at Palmyra:
'But, with all the focus on Aleppo, this
happened. Russian troops were forced to
abandon their positions in Palmyra, as
militants from ISIS moved in. Recapturing
this Syrian city was also once trumpeted by
Russia as a great victory.'
Can you
imagine BBC News ever doing a comparable segment
analysing US or British propaganda about the
assault on Mosul? Or Sirte in Libya? Or
Fallujah? Or Belgrade? Have BBC News journalists
not, in fact, effectively 'trumpeted' each of
these 'as a great victory' for the West?
So, it
is a worthy task for the BBC to critically
assess the propaganda of the evil enemy, but not
that of 'our' own side. Another standard feature
of BBC News, as with all corporate media, is to
identify with the victims of Official Enemy
military action, far more than with victims of
'our' military action. Thus, last year, Bridget
Kendall, could report in this fashion for the
BBC:
'What looks
like a Russian fighter jet in the skies over
northern Syria. And then this. Suspected
cluster bombs. Imagine being in one
of those buildings, apparently
north of the city of Aleppo yesterday.' (BBC
News at Ten, February 1, 2016; clip captured
by Media Lens reader Daniel Collins in this
tweet; our
emphasis)
A BBC
News reporter would never invite the audience to
'imagine being in one of those buildings' – in
Mosul or Baghdad or Gaza, for instance - hit by
'our' bombs or those of a major ally, such as
Israel.
As with the BBC, so with the Guardian. Consider
a Guardian
editorial last
October highlighting a quote by Assad on Aleppo
that he had to:
'keep cleaning this area and to push the
terrorists to Turkey to go back to where
they come from, or to kill them'.
The
editorial continued:
'International diplomacy pays lip service to
the idea that such actions are, if proven,
war crimes.'
And
what, then, of Mosul?
'The west, too, faces a chance to
demonstrate that it does respect the
constraints of international law. Soon
western-backed Iraqi forces will aim to
retake Mosul, Islamic State's last major
stronghold in the country. The conduct of
the battle will determine whether victory
comes at an unacceptable humanitarian cost.'
The
Guardian seems to have missed the fact that the
West has, for decades, regularly flouted, rather
than respected, 'the constraints of
international law'. This blindness and ignorance
was already obvious from the title of the
Guardian editorial which included the
tragi-comic plea, 'The crimes committed in the
wars of the Middle East must in the end be
punished. Meanwhile the west must not add to
them' [our emphasis]; as though the West
had not, in fact, already contributed the
overwhelming bulk of crimes in the Middle East.
We have not been able to find a single Guardian
editorial since October 2016 appraising the
US-led assault on Mosul. The contrast with its
anguished comments on Aleppo is stark. In June
2016, the paper gave its
view on the battle for Aleppo,
saying simply: 'stop it now', and describing it
as 'an urgent humanitarian catastrophe'.
In October 2016, a Guardian
editorial
stated that 'Russian and Syrian warplanes above
Aleppo appear to be intentionally targeting
civilians', and demanded the enforcement of
international law. And, in November 2016, the
Guardian
spoke of 'the
West's grim failure' to stop 'a humanitarian and
military disaster'. The editorial also noted
that:
'Russia's propaganda machine is hard at work
alongside the Syrian regime's, trying to
frame these events as the "liberation" of a
population described as hostages of Islamic
terrorists.'
Again,
to emphasise, at the time of writing, there has
been no Guardian editorial examining whether the
'victory' of the US-led coalition in Mosul has
'come at an unacceptable humanitarian cost'; or
exposing the West's propaganda campaign
promoting 'liberation'. It's no surprise. After
all, that would come too close to demolishing
the myth of benevolent Western power; and the
Guardian's own role in propping up the fiction.
Conclusion
Neil Clark rightly
observes that:
'The very different ways in which the
respective 'liberations' [of Aleppo and
Mosul] were portrayed tells us much about
the way war propaganda works in the
so-called free world.'
The
bottom line is that what we are seeing in Iraq,
and much of the rest of the world, is an
imperial Western project targeting countries
that 1) do not conform to the West's dictates;
and 2) are unable to defend themselves
adequately (unlike China, Iran or nuclear-armed
North Korea, for example).
Clark
notes that:
'The truth of what has been happening is too
shocking and too terrible ever to be
admitted in the Western mainstream media.
Namely, that since the demise of the Soviet
Union, the US and its allies have been
picking off independent, resource-rich,
strategically important countries one by
one.'
David Whyte and Greg Muttitt
point out that
when the UK invaded Iraq, the Middle East
country had nearly a tenth of the world's oil
reserves, and that government documents
'explicitly state' oil was a motive for the war.
But the Chilcot Report shamefully avoided this
evidence and ignored oil as a driving force for
the invasion.
As Mark Curtis
says, after an
illegal invasion and one million dead Iraqis, UK
trade minister Greg Hands recently had the gall
to boast that:
'UK
companies and brands are already well
established in Iraq: from BP and Standard
Chartered to G4S and JLR'
The minister
added:
'Iraq has the world's fourth largest proven
oil reserves, sixth largest gas reserves,
and huge untapped potential across both.'
The
minister proclaimed proudly that UK firms are
'strategically well-placed' to exploit this
massive potential.
Could
the real motivation for the 2003 war be any
clearer?
Moreover, Perpetual War is a highly lucrative
business for arms manufacturers and the military
machine in the West. As Bill Van Auken
observes:
'US
commanders have made it clear that they
don't see American forces leaving the
country [Iraq] in the foreseeable future.
And the Pentagon has asked for nearly $1.3
billion in its 2018 budget to fund continued
support for Iraqi security forces.'
And let's not forget that UK arms sales to Saudi
Arabia have been deemed
'lawful' by the
High Court 'after seeing secret evidence'. With
the nightmare of a US/UK-supported, Saudi-led
assault on
Yemen – beset
by mass starvation, poverty and a cholera
epidemic – the appalling reality of Western
'democracy' is once again exposed.
This article was first published by
Media Lens
-
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
