News Limited still at it ten years on

Ten years ago today US-led forces invaded Iraq, in one of the most egregious breaches of international law of the last fifty years. It’s hard now to credit – indeed for many of us it was hard even at the time – the number of apparently sane, intelligent pundits, policymakers and other opinion leaders who appeared to take leave of their senses and advocate for an adventure that patently lacked legal or moral justification. (John Judis in the New Republic this week tries to recapture some of the atmosphere.)

One of the key elements in the rush to war was the unanimity expressed by the media outlets of News Limited (or News Corporation, as it’s known internationally). Not a single one of Rupert Murdoch’s 175 or so papers editorialised against the invasion; his major outlets were vociferous cheerleaders for it.

I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that the Bush administration wasn’t quite capable of going to war on its own, without News’s prompting. But such strong media support must have played some part in creating that circle of mutual reinforcement of pro-war views that allowed people to ignore the obvious warning signs about what they were getting into.

Even so, public opinion remained mostly anti-war. Imagine how powerful it could have been if all those newspapers had been doing their job and telling the truth rather than acting as propagandists.

Ten years later, News Ltd is showing the same unanimity again, this time in its campaign against government plans for media reform both in Australia and the United Kingdom. The issue is several orders of magnitude smaller, but the tactics being employed are strikingly similar.

The campaign for war against Iraq rested on presenting an assertion as if it were established fact. Murdoch’s papers did not try to argue that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; that would have opened it up as a matter for debate. They just proceeded on the assumption that he did, taking it as a given and going on to argue about the appropriate response. (You can see a later version of the same thing in the repeated references to “Iran’s nuclear weapons program”, where the threshold question of whether such a thing exists is just ignored.)

The campaign against the Gillard and Cameron governments over media regulation works much the same way. The claim that the proposals represent a limitation on press freedom is not defended but simply assumed, so that debate can be confined to the consequences of that – which, since most of us think press freedom is a good thing, will generally go in News Ltd’s favor.

My point is not to defend the particular changes that have been proposed. I have some serious reservations about the Australian package (some of which overlap with those of my colleague Margaret Simons), and even more so about the peremptory way it has been put forward. But opposition can fall short of demonisation – just as, of course, one could be opposed to Saddam Hussein without believing all the lies told about him or believing that the rule book had to be torn up in order to reach him.

As other commentators have pointed out, the media’s current behavior is providing as good an argument as you’ll get for why some sort of regulation is necessary. I’m a free speech absolutist, so I’m utterly opposed to any government-imposed regulation. But I have no problem with the idea that certain privileges that the government accords to journalists and media organisations should be restricted to those that sign up to an appropriate scheme of self-regulation.

(One of the most significant of those privileges is apparently not written down anywhere, namely the exemption from prosecution for fraud that our media organisations seem to enjoy. I’d be inclined to start there, rather than with the Privacy Act.)

Nor do I have any sympathy for the argument, made against the Australian reforms, that restrictions on ownership are a limitation of free speech – an argument fairly obviously tailored to suit News’s business interests. Freedom of speech demands that everyone be free to start a newspaper, not that everyone be free to buy one. Restrictions on the latter freedom may or may not be a good idea, but they are not a free speech issue.

In each case, mendacity exacts a price. The Iraq war helped to discredit the whole idea of promoting democracy in the Middle East, and the media regulation campaign threatens to tar free speech as a sham that shields the interests of unscrupulous media barons. That would be a much more serious consequence than anything we might have to fear from a revamped press council.

The moral of the story is that supporters of freedom should think very carefully before getting into bed with News Ltd.

9 thoughts on “News Limited still at it ten years on

  1. Excellent article, but one tiny correction (I think). I understand that one Murdoch newspaper opposed the Iraq invasion – the Port Moresby Post Courier. I don’t know whether this was tolerated because opposition was so strong there that it would have been commercially disastrous to do otherwise, or if Murdoch simply wasn’t paying attention to what such a small part of his empire was doing.


    1. Thanks Stephen. I haven’t tried tracking it down any further (the Post Courier‘s website doesn’t look very helpful), but the Roy Greenslade article I cited mentions that it published “a militant anti-war message”, but only as a reader letter – it doesn’t sound as if it actually editorialised.


  2. As much as I like freedom of speech (I use it liberally), I would love to see some regulation on political reporting.

    It sounds as though I am suggesting a Putinesque state, but what I take umbrage at in that realm of ‘journalism’ is the misleading use of polling data and the wild predictions made by the press gallery.

    As in physics, the observation of a thing CHANGES THE THING. The press gallery and polling articles are not even trying to report on *facts* – they are deliberate attempts to influence public opinion. If someone reads that in a single poll the Labor Party has lost popularity, their opinion of the Labor Party is going to be affected. It’s misleading and it’s deleterious to the democratic system.

    How would you respond to regulations requiring journalists to use facts and not opinion, and forcing media outlets to show poll trends over periods of time, rather than single results which do not show an overall picture?


    1. As with many such cases, it’s easy to make a proposed regulation sound reasonable until someone asks, “but who will do this regulating?” I don’t think the market has done a great job of giving us quality media, but I still trust it a lot more than I’d trust politicians to regulate political reporting (or indeed any reporting at all). I do think there are things we could do to help break up the current unresponsive media oligopolies: one (which I mentioned) is to actually enforce laws against fraud and deception; another would be to stop subsidising them with huge quantities of government and political advertising; another (which the current legislation specifically rules out) would be to issue more commercial TV licences.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.