With respect to media coverage of this crisis, I'd like briefly to consider the example of Chief UN Weapons Inspector, Han Blix's report to the UN yesterday. I heard the report and read the transcript. I then compared what I read with the online headlines of some major media outlets. The results, in my view, tell us something about how our media serve us. You might be interested to know that of the four sites I consulted for the transcript, each had a different word count, varying from 2800 to 3200 words. The Washington Post, for instance, left out this line: “the impression remains [that Iraq] had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process – most importantly prompt access to all sites.” The CNN transcript omitted a large section on “the role of intelligence in connection with inspections in Iraq,” including an important line referring to Colin Powell's claim that Iraq was moving munitions sites from place to place on mobiles; Blix was making the point that “the reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection.” The omitted line from the CNN transcript is: “We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart.”

The balance of Blix's report was generally positive towards Iraq, praising it for co-operation, though pointing out some areas where more cooperation is required. Even when it was critical of Iraq, however, it acknowledged the difficulty for Iraq to “provide the evidence needed” “in all cases.” Moreover, one significant criticism of Iraq related to its intransigence – not today but in 1991; Blix suggests that had Iraq been more cooperative then, we wouldn't be in this crisis today. On balance, then, all of the lines from Blix's report that were either indirectly or directly critical of Iraq amount to approximately 10% of the report. A headline which accurately reflected this ratio might go something like this: “Inspections Working, Blix Says, But More Cooperation Required.” As we know headlines are highly suggestive, and can influence immediate and even long-term perceptions on any given issue. How, then, did our media represent Blix's report immediately after it was delivered?

Well, here are a few examples: CNN's headline yesterday was “Iraq Still Defiant”; ABC's headline was, “Saddam Playing Tricks.” NBC – owned by the largest weapons manufacturer in the world, General Electric – juxtaposed its report on Blix with a terror alert. The CBS page, with its prominent heading, “Showdown With Saddam,” had the headline “UN's Great Divide on Iraq,” along with an advertisement for a special by Dan Rather on the inadequacy of gas masks in use in the US. The BBC's headline was “Arms Report Deepens UN Split.” As for Canada, I'm sorry to say that both the CBC and The Globe and Mail were in the spin business: the Globe's headline was “Iraq Not Fully Cooperating, Blix Says,” while the CBC's was “Many Weapons Still Missing.” Canwest Global used Blix's report to aim yet another criticism at the Chretien government for indecisiveness, stating “Report Lets Liberals Stay on the Fence.”

In a functioning democracy citizens require accurate information in order to make informed judgments while exercising their democratic rights. For this reason democratic governments have long recognized the need to have some regulation over print and electronic media. In Canada that job falls to the CRTC, or The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. It is governed by the Broadcasting Act of 1991, which stipulates, among other things, that broadcasters “provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern.” However, it has become increasingly clear that the CRTC has become little more than a rubber stamp for major media companies to do as they will. CanWest Global's integration of newsrooms of television stations and newspapers in 2001 is a case in point, the result of which was to significantly decrease diversity of opinion available to Canadians. Also, in return for their license – in effect a “license” to print money – cable companies are to provide, among other things, community programming. I presume by this the CRTC means a good deal more than a cat-rescue, someone running around with a mini-cam trying to interview a squirrel, or never-ending footage of a burning log.

With respect to print media, a 1981 Royal Commission on Newspapers stated that “'freedom of the press is not a property right of owners. . . . It is a right of the people.' And diversity of opinion is the cornerstone of a healthy, vibrant democracy. . . . Today Canada has one of the most concentrated media ownerships of any Western industrialized country.” CanWest Global, owner of most of Canada's major daily newspapers (including the Nanaimo Daily News) and the Global television network, has effectively imposed its views on the newspapers it owns, with serious consequences for those editors who stray too far from the “company line.” On its web page – the same for all of its online newspapers (over 50 of them) – the section on the present crisis is called “Target Iraq.”

With respect to the Nanaimo Daily News, United for Peace and Justice has had one small notice about this event today, and not for lack of trying. I would think that after holding the second-largest rally in BC on January 18th – perhaps one of the largest per-capita in Canada – there would be more local media interest. It appears that our local paper is dutifully carrying out the wishes of its masters in Winnipeg. Shaw Cable 4 has also provided zero coverage, despite repeated appeals.

We own the airwaves, and we do have regulatory control over concentrated media ownership. Given the perilous times in which we are living, as well as the willingness of our governments to deceive us with help from corporate media, perhaps it is time that we exercised these rights.

Thank you.

1. Another case of curious omission relates to Osama bin Laden’s reputed message last week, which Powell cited as evidence of Iraqi–al Queda cooperation. “An MSNBC.com report on the bin Laden tape carried the following sentence: ‘At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader’. Less than twenty minutes after this report appeared on MSNBC, that sentence was deleted from the report” (William Rivers Pitt, “Osama Rallies Muslims, Condemns Hussein,” http://truthout.org/docs_02/021303A.htm).
2. Broadcasting Act, 1991, http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/LEGAL/BROAD.htm
3. “It’s time to press for press freedom,” ICPBFI, http://www.presscampaign.org/commentary5.html.