Media Lens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Media Lens is a media analysis website based in the United Kingdom. It was established in 2001 to highlight "serious examples of bias, omission or deception in British mainstream media", with a strong focus on media generally thought of as objective or left-wing (BBC, Channel 4 News, The Guardian, et al.), and to encourage members of the public to challenge the relevant journalist, editor, newspaper or broadcaster. It is run by editors David Cromwell and David Edwards.
The website is maintained by webmaster Oliver Maw, and is financed through voluntary subscription and donations from grant-funding bodies. The Media Lens editors have published their first joint book, Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media (Pluto Books, London, 2006) [1]
Contents |
[edit] Propaganda model
The editors of Media Lens claim that "mainstream newspapers and broadcasters provide a profoundly distorted picture of our world" and act as a "de facto propaganda system for corporate and other establishment interests". However, they strongly reject the idea that this might be the result of a conspiracy, or that mainstream journalists may be guilty of self-censorship and conscious lying. Instead, they base their media analyses on Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's Propaganda model which seeks to explain systemic bias in the media in terms of structural economic causes, and which proposes that news passes through five conceptual filters before publication. They stated that "We all have a tendency to believe what best suits our purpose; highly paid, highly privileged editors and journalists are no exception. In any case, professionals whose attitudes and opinions most closely serve the needs of corporate power, whether in media institutions or elsewhere, are more likely to be filtered through to positions of authority within such institutions."
The two editors regularly produce "Media Alerts" wherein they highlight what they see as incidents of bias, often encouraging email or letter-writing campaigns. The editors also frequently engage in dialogue with British journalists. Media Lens hosts a 'chat' message board and a discussion forum, used for dissection of political and media issues. Media Alerts, which are free, are distributed worldwide to around 6,000 people.
[edit] Criticism of Media Lens
In January 2006, Media Lens launched what became a four-part series of "Media Alerts" against what it saw as the "massive bias and gaps" in the Iraq Body Count project, a group that compiles press reports of civilian casualties resulting from the US-led coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iraq Body Count wrote a lengthy response disputing the Media Lens pieces, which it described as a "misdirected campaign against IBC".[2]
Former BBC journalist David Fuller, who was involved in the IBC/Media Lens debate, acknowledged that Media Lens has "support among a younger, intelligent, internet-savvy generation who were politicised by the Iraq war and increasingly reject the traditional media" but accused the site of being "unaccountable" and refusing to engage in debate, pointing out that when invited to appear on the BBC's Newsnight to discuss their argument that the media was "softening up" Britain for a war with Iran they declined. [3]
The Media Lens editors have been criticised by writers such as Johann Hari and Nick Cohen[4]. Hari criticised Media Lens for what he saw as their failure to engage with critics[5]. This followed a Media Lens article that referred to the work of journalist Mary Riddell. Riddell wrote in The Observer Newspaper that playwright Harold Pinter "was disgraceful in his misreading of Slobodan Milosevic"[6]. MediaLens argued that Riddell had added that only because she did not want to give the "wrong impression" to her colleagues and employers[7].
Media Lens and its methods have also been criticised by investment banker and Times guest contributor Oliver Kamm, who described the organisation as "a shrill group of malcontents who exploit the patience of practising journalists", and its practices as "pernicious and anti-journalistic". Kamm took isue with their criticism of a review of the film Flags of Our Fathers, published by The Independent. Kamm challenged Media Lens' editors' knowledge of source material relevant to the decision to use the Atomic bomb on Japan in WWII and claimed this was "a subject wholly outwith Cromwell's competence."[8] David Cromwell wrote further on the debate in January 2008. [9]
The editors dispute the claim that they do not respond to critics, pointing out the replies they have given in their 'media alerts' and replies on the website message board to various journalistic responses[citation needed]. They deny the claim that they should post their critics' replies in the same prominent part of their website as the original Media Lens analyses, pointing out that Media Lens receive only a small space in the letters page of what they call the "corporate press" to put their responses when they are criticised[citation needed].
