Britain is said to be approaching its Berlusconi Moment. That is to say, if Rupert Murdoch wins control of Sky, he will command half Britain鈥檚 television and newspaper market and threaten what is known as public service broadcasting.
Although the alarm is ringing, it is unlikely that any government will stop him while his court is packed with politicians of all parties.
The problem with this and other Murdoch scares is that, while one cannot doubt their gravity, they deflect from an unrecognised and more insidious threat to honest information.
For all his power, Murdoch鈥檚 media is not respectable.
Take the current colonial wars. In the United States, Murdoch鈥檚 Fox Television is almost cartoon-like in its warmongering. It is the august, tombstone New York Times, 鈥渢he greatest newspaper in the world鈥, and others such as the once-celebrated Washington Post, that have given respectability to the lies and moral contortions of the 鈥渨ar on terror鈥, now recast as 鈥減erpetual war鈥.
In Britain, the liberal Observer performed this task in making respectable then-Prime Minister Tony Blair鈥檚 deceptions on Iraq. More importantly, so did the BBC, whose reputation is its power.
In spite of one maverick reporter鈥檚 attempt to expose the so-called dodgy dossier, the BBC took Blair鈥檚 sophistry and lies on Iraq at face value.
This was made clear in studies by Cardiff University and the German-based Media Tenor. The BBC鈥檚 coverage, said the Cardiff study, was overwhelmingly 鈥渟ympathetic to the government鈥檚 case鈥. According to Media Tenor, a mere 2% of BBC news in the build-up to the invasion permitted anti-war voices to be heard. Compared with the main American networks, only CBS was more pro-war.
So when BBC director-general Mark Thompson used the recent Edinburgh Television Festival to attack Murdoch, his hypocrisy was like a presence. Thompson is the embodiment of a taxpayer-funded managerial elite, for whom political reaction has long replaced public service.
He has even laid into his own corporation, Murdoch-style, as 鈥渕assively left-wing鈥. He was referring to the era of his 1960s predecessor Hugh Greene, who allowed artistic and journalistic freedom to flower at the BBC.
Thompson is the opposite of Greene; and his aspersion on the past is in keeping with the BBC鈥檚 modern corporate role, reflected in the rewards demanded by those at the top.
Thompson was paid 拢834,000 last year out of public funds and his 50 senior executives earn more than the prime minister, along with enriched journalists like Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce.
Murdoch and the BBC share this corporatism. Blair, for example, was their quintessential politician.
Prior to his election in 1997, Blair and his wife were flown first-class by Murdoch to Hayman Island in Australia where he stood at the Newscorp lectern and, in effect, pledged an obedient Labour administration. His coded message on media cross-ownership and de-regulation was that a way would be found for Murdoch to achieve the supremacy that now beckons.
Blair was embraced by the new BBC corporate class, which regards itself as meritorious and non-ideological: the natural leaders in a managerial Britain in which class is unspoken.
Few did more to enunciate Blair鈥檚 鈥渧ision鈥 than Andrew Marr, then a leading newspaper journalist and today the BBC鈥檚 ubiquitous voice of middle-class Britain.
Just as Murdoch鈥檚 Sun declared in 1995 it shared the rising Blair鈥檚 鈥渉igh moral values鈥, so Marr, writing in the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister鈥檚 鈥渟ubstantial moral courage鈥 and the 鈥渃lear distinction in his mind between prudently protecting his power base and rashly using his power for high moral purpose鈥.
What impressed Marr was Blair鈥檚 鈥渦tter lack of cynicism鈥 along with his bombing of Yugoslavia, which would 鈥渟ave lives鈥.
By March 2003, Marr was the BBC鈥檚 political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the 鈥渟hock and awe鈥 assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised 鈥渢o take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right鈥. As a result 鈥渢onight he stands as a larger man鈥.
In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities like Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a 鈥渕odel鈥.
So it was entirely appropriate that Blair, in hawking his self-serving book, should select Marr for his 鈥渆xclusive TV interview鈥 on the BBC. The headline across the Observer鈥檚 review of the interview read, 鈥淟ook who鈥檚 having the last laugh鈥. Beneath this was a picture of a beaming Blair sharing a laugh with Marr.
The interview produced not a single challenge that stopped Blair in his precocious, mendacious tracks. He was allowed to say that 鈥渁bsolutely clearly and unequivocally, the reason for toppling [Saddam Hussein] was his breach of resolutions over WMD, right?鈥
No, wrong.
A wealth of evidence, not least the infamous Downing Street memo, makes clear that Blair secretly colluded with then-US President George W Bush to attack Iraq. This was not mentioned. At no point did Marr say to him, 鈥淵ou failed to persuade the UN Security Council to go along with the invasion. You and Bush went alone. Most of the world was outraged. Weren鈥檛 you aware that you were about to commit a monumental war crime?鈥
Instead, Blair used the convivial encounter to deceive, yet again, even to promote an attack on Iran, an outrage. Murdoch鈥檚 Fox would have differed in style only. The British public deserves better.
[Reprinted from www.Johnpilger.com .]