[R-G] 'My tour of duty as a British propagandist'

[Anthony Fenton]

  My tour of duty as a British propagandist  	

17 September 2007
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4317/8/
Image
British propaganda outlet
The UK government seeks to boost pro-British sentiment in the Middle  
East through news management at a government-funded TV news agency.  
BRUCE WHITEHEAD used to work there.

I WAS IN Riyadh reporting for British Satellite News, a government- 
funded news agency. We were covering an official visit by Bill  
Rammell, the minister for lifelong learning. Saudi Arabia is keen to  
educate and train its own teenagers in order to reduce the country's  
dependence on imported labour and skills. The visit was designed to  
establish potentially lucrative educational ties between the two  
countries.

In line with UK policy Bill Rammell asked the Saudi ministers about  
democratic and social reform. Sipping mint tea in the sumptuous  
majlis, or parliament, the minister's first attempt to tackle the  
Saudis on human rights was ignored. Instead, the Saudi ministers  
emphasised their country's need for welders. The minister took the  
stonewalling well, seamlessly praising his hosts for limited reforms  
in local elections, while coaxing them again: when would women get  
equal opportunity? And when would the Saudi people get the vote?

At this point, the UK Ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who'd  
been whispering in the minister's ear throughout, intervened. The  
Saudi translator, he said, wasn't up to the mark, and had made  
several mistakes. The ambassador, a fluent Arabic speaker, announced  
that he would take over as the minister's personal translator,  
whispering in his ear. Fine for the minister, but impossible for  
anyone else to hear.

I protested quietly that I wouldn't know what the Saudis were saying,  
but I was ignored. Later I was told the Saudis had explained that  
women were being allowed equal employment and education, but would  
remain segregated for their own good. They would not be allowed into  
politics or given the vote.

Nor would anyone else get the vote: the Saudi people had shown that  
they were perfectly happy with the House of Saud in charge, so why on  
earth would the House of Saud want to impose democracy?

If this was what Bill Rammell heard he was unable to debate it. The  
meeting was over, we were off to film at the medina and the minister  
was off to inspect oilwells in Eastern Province.

Returning to London, I wrote my report, including what I had been  
able to glean from the exchanges at the Saudi parliament. The report  
was doctored by the editor, Mike Nolan, to remove the Saudi  
government's views on democracy and women's rights.

We now know, what I did not know then, that Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles  
is the man who warned the UK government that the Saudis would end  
security co-operation if the police investigation into allegations of  
£60 million worth of hospitality for the Saudis in connection with  
British Aerospace's "Al Yamamah" arms deal went ahead. The inquiry of  
course was duly dropped.

For me as a journalist the Foreign Office's editorial influence at  
BSN was making it more and more difficult to do my job. I reported  
remarks by Dennis McNamara, the UN's highly respected adviser on  
displacement, denouncing the west for flooding Africa with arms. Mike  
Nolan called me in for a little chat. Did I realise who our client  
was? Why did I persist in writing critical reports?

I tried to argue that our job was not to report professionally, so  
that the clients - in my view overseas broadcasters, and not the FCO  
- would trust us. Mike Nolan told me the UN adviser's words were "too  
close to the bone" and they were removed from my report.
I no longer work at BSN, but its biased and flawed material is being  
used by hundreds of TV stations in the Middle East and Asia. All this  
is funded by the Foreign and Diplomatic Service, courtesy of the  
British taxpayer, to the tune of some £3 million per year.

Another tale that ran into trouble was when I reported perfectly  
friendly remarks by Tony Blair about Islam, the war on terror and  
other contentious issues, made on the record to a world audience.  
Even these were removed by BSN on FCO orders. If the Foreign Office  
can censor its own Prime Minister to feed distorted news to the Arab  
world, how can Britain be trusted there?

Mike Nolan said: “Unlike Bruce, I have no intention of breaking my  
confidentiality on what went on between the two of us. I completely  
refute his version of events. “It is wrong to suggest I doctor  
scripts. Bruce was certainly not alone in having his material subbed.  
When material was reduced I nearly always took the time to explain  
why. Bruce’s claim he ran into trouble when he reported friendly  
remarks made by PM Blair about Islam is untrue. I am not censored by  
the Foreign Office; I did not censor Bruce. BSN prides itself on  
providing accurate and balanced information on news and developments  
in the UK.”