主播大秀

Orwellian propaganda on Iran and Venezuela?

• Paul Mason
• 26 Apr 06, 11:51 AM

A sharp eared viewer last night took offence to my description of Iran and Venezuela as "America's enemies". But I did not exactly say that. Here's what I said (in a piece giving the political backplot to the $75 oil price). You can also watch it online at www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight:

"What鈥檚 really spooked the market is global politics, not economics鈥I went on to quote Ahmadinejad's speech on oil prices being too low. I continued...] And America鈥檚 other big critic, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, threatened that if US attacks Iran oil could reach 100 a barrel. But is the market right to react so violently to the threat of conflict between America and its enemies?"

Here's what Ed Murray wrote to me in response, posted on ...

Mr Mason,
Reporting on the high price of oil on Newsnight tonight you used the term "America`s enemies" after showing the Iranian President and Hugo Chavez talking about oil prices.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "enemy" as follows:
1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2 : something harmful or deadly
3 a : a military adversary b : a hostile unit or force
It`s pretty clear you have your description backwards. America is clearly the enemy of Iran and Venezuela but the way you put it anyone would think that Venezuela and Iran are the aggressors against a passive America.
Sorry, but even a cursory glance at the history (recent and not so recent), of American "activity" in Venezuela and Iran and America`s current rhetoric concerning these two countries illustrates the Orwellian propaganda inherent in your statement.
Maybe the next time you report on this you can use the term "enemy" with a little more accuracy, especially given the present climate of warmongering rhetoric from Washington.
Yours sincerely,
Ed Murray.

I did actually think before writing "America and its enemies". I thought I was using it in the sense of 1 above: "one that is antagonistic to another". It was the shortest way of writing it in a 4 minute piece. I don't think it implies that Iran and Venezuela are aggressors against a passive America. However...

Here is what the Dr Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Iranian Pasdaran is reported to have said in a speech in February:

鈥淎merica means enemy, and enemy means Satan.鈥�

Here is what Venezuela's president said in an interview with Democracy Now last year:

"If the imperialist government of the White House led an invasion against Venezuela, well, the war of 100 years will be unleashed in South America. Because with our teeth, with our nails with our knees, we will go to struggle and defend our dignity in South America."

Of course there are also no end of statements of emnity coming out of Washington as well but I think this establishes that there is a mutual state of emnity between the Venezuelan and Iranian governments, on the one hand, and the USA on the other.

Suppose I had said: "is the market right to react so violently to these threats by America's enemies?" - that would have been inopportune and the criticism valid, because what the market is fundamentally reacting to is the story by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker about the nuclear option, which - if true - is a threat by America.

Why didn't I say it? Because, even without the help of Medialens, it is my job to be attuned to whether language sounds biased. And my bible is Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". There is a memorable passage where he vilifies political euphemisms:

"Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification." Read it online .

I think if one country is threatening to nuke another, and it is threatening to fight back, and a third is warning of a 100 years war if the first country should ever invade it, in the interest of avoiding cloudy vagueness it is best to acknowledge that they are enemies.

Maybe the watchfulness about language that is going on here has a deeper root, and that is the feeling among critics of US policy that the media is preparing the way for a war against Iran. That is the bigger issue and one that we on Newsnight are more than ready to engage with, as you can see from the previous posting.