John Pilger: The truth of war is grotesque

2014-11-07T00:38:34+01:00

John Pilger has clear views about the duty of journalists. True to form, his latest film The War You Don't See pulls no punches. Shortly before this film was released, Vanessa Baird had a conversation with John Pilger for The New Internationalist Magazine. The Travel Club is presenting you that interview.

NI: What's The War You Don't See about?

JP: The film asks: 'What is the role of the media in rapacious wars like Iraq and Afghanistan? Why do so many journalists beat the drums of war and not challenge the spin and lies of governments? And how are the crimes of war reported and justified when they are our crimes?' It's a film about truth and justice. In the opening sequence, I refer to David Lloyd George, Britain's prime minister during much of the First World War, who had a private chat with the editor of The Guardian, CP Scott, at the height of the carnage. 'If people really knew the truth,' said Lloyd George, 'the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know and can't know.' My film is about people's right to know. It has always seemed odd to me that as journalists we examine people's professional lives, but not our own. We treasure our myths. Edmund Burke called the press a 'fourth estate' that would check the other great institutions of democracy. It was a quintessentially liberal view. It was also romantic nonsense – honourable exceptions aside. Up till the arrival of the corporate press at the turn of the 20th century, newspapers were often fiercely independent and saw themselves as voices of ordinary people. The media – press and broadcasting – has long since become an extension of the established order, and frequently its mouthpiece and valet. These days, we surely owe it to the public to come clean about the pressures and seductions, crude and subliminal, that subvert our independence. War – the industrial killing of people and the destruction of their society – is the ultimate test. One of my favourite quotations is Claud Cockburn's: 'Never believe anything until it's officially denied.' I suggest some of us might engrave that on our bathroom mirrors.

What led you to do a film on this theme? Was there a specific trigger for it?

The first trigger was the sight of children burned almost to death by Napalm B – which keeps on burning beneath the skin – then finding out that such an atrocity was not an aberration. It was realizing the racism in colonial warfare, and how apologetic reporting perpetuates this.

You've said 'the media is not covering war. It is promoting war.' Are there any media outlets whose activities have especially shocked or outraged you?

Well, you get crude examples of war promotion on Fox television in the United States. However, Fox has the virtue of leaving us in no doubt where it stands; and that's true of most of the Murdoch empire. Murdoch himself has said that war is OK. Too bad about the innocents; war is necessary, says the great baron. Certainly, it is necessary for the arms corporations which are a pillar of the US war economy. The more insidious and perhaps more powerful war promoters are in the respectable media, such as the New York Times and the BBC. Two important studies following the invasion of Iraq received little media attention. Cardiff University found that the BBC overwhelmingly promoted the Blair government's war agenda; and Media Tenor, based in Berlin, found that of the world's principal broadcasters, the BBC gave just three per cent of its pre-invasion coverage to anti-war voices. Only CBS in the United States was worse. Censorship by omission is, in my view, the most virulent form of warmongering. 'When the truth is replaced by silence,' said the Soviet dissident poet Yevtushenko, 'the silence is a lie.'

Do you think the reporting of war is actually worse now than it was at the beginning of your career? Is the modern 'embedding' of journalists a major factor?

It's not worse, it's just better organized – though in many respects it's far less successful. The last British war completely free of state censorship was the Crimea, which produced some of the greatest war reporting of all time: William Howard Russell's exposé of the disaster of the charge of the Light Brigade. He and his editor at The Times, John Delane, were almost charged with treason for telling the truth. This changed completely during the First World War, when journalists saw their job, wrote Philip Gibbs of the Daily Chronicle, as telling 'only tales of gallantry'. The modern idea of 'embedding' is similar. More than 700 journalists were embedded with US and British forces during the invasion of Iraq. They told good action stories and showed us a little of the obligatory 'bang-bang' but they managed to pass over or obscure the truth that the brutal conquest and plunder of a defenceless country was under way. That said, the reporting on the worldwide web was an important antidote; look at Dahr Jamail's powerful, independent reporting from Fallujah and the independent filmmaking that gave civilians a voice. We show some remarkable examples in The War You Don't See.

You have talked about 'wars of perception' in which the news media plays a major role. What do you mean by this?

The term belongs to General David Petraeus, the current US commander in Afghanistan, who wrote in the 2006 US Counterinsurgency Manual that what mattered was not so much military superiority as persuading the public at home that you were winning, regardless of the reality. In other words, the public is the true enemy of governments that pursue unpopular colonial wars which can only be 'won' if the public is successfully deceived. This owes much to Edward Bernays, who is said to have invented the term 'public relations' soon after the First World War. Bernays' dictum was that the facts didn't matter as much as the success of 'false reality', and that the manipulators of public thinking belonged to an 'invisible government that is the true ruling power in our country'. Of course, none of this can succeed without the media as its transmitter and amplifier. And these days it hasn't really succeeded. Some 77 per cent of the British public is opposed to the colonial adventure in Afghanistan, and most were against the invasion of Iraq.

What do you think can be done to improve the coverage of war, so that the public gets a picture of what is really going on?

The answer is: tell the obvious truth; and the truth of war is the grotesque. It is trees hanging with the body parts of children. It is people going insane before your eyes. It is terrified soldiers with their trousers full of shit. It is human damage that runs through countless families: civilians and soldiers. That's war. The coverage of war should be this eyewitness but it should also try to tell us the why. That means journalists not colluding but investigating. One of the most revealing documents released by Wikileaks was a 2,000-page Ministry of Defence document that equated investigative journalists with terrorists. That reflects the lethal stupidity that runs like a current through the war-making industry. It says they are afraid of the truth.

Should we be giving more space to local reporters who are from the regions where the wars are being fought?

Only if they try to tell the why of a war, not dispense sentimentalized tales about soldiers from local families – which the military relish.

You have also talked about 'a war against journalism'. What do you mean by this?

Journalism ought to be about telling as much of the truth as possible in the circumstances. And governments can be expected to wage a constant war on truth-tellers, be they whistleblowers or fearless reporters. That's why the Pentagon recently set up a department to fight 'cyberwar'. To the military propagandists, cyberspace is unconquered and, worse, populated by mavericks they can't control. This is only partly true, of course, but there are enough good journalists writing exclusively for the web to justify the war-makers' alarm.

Do you draw a distinction between the corporate media world of Murdoch, CNN and the BBC and independent media in terms of which stories are told and the ways in which they are told?

Yes, but mostly in style. Look at Andrew Marr's recent interview with Tony Blair to mark, or celebrate, Blair's self-serving memoirs. Marr didn't ask a single probing question about Blair's record on Iraq and allowed Blair to promote an attack on Iran. That's not much different from an interview conducted in the Murdoch media, which I doubt would be as compliant. Look at the BBC's coverage of the day of the invasion of Iraq; it's an echo chamber: the message is that Blair is vindicated. Fox did the same in America for Bush.

Do you see any glimmers of hope in the way important issues are being discussed in the mass media?

There are some superb reporters in the mainstream – Patrick Cockburn in The Independent has been a most honourable exception in Iraq. Ian Cobain of The Guardian has brilliantly exposed the torture and injustice of the so-called War on Terror. On the web, there is some exciting new journalism – not to be confused with top-of-the-head blogging. Look at some of the work posted on Tom Feeley's excellent Information Clearing House and on ZNet. In Britain, Media Lens has broken new ground with the first informed and literate analysis and criticism of the liberal media. This is the new fifth estate.

Is there another issue on which you think the public is currently being massively deceived?

The major deception in Britain today is the political/media consensus that there is an economic crisis requiring a devastation of public finances and people's lives. If you look back on the coverage of the 'crash' in the autumn two years ago, the shock of it forced the media to tell the truth: corrupt banks and an unregulated financial sector were rightly identified as the source of the problem, and that was the news. Within a year, journalists were back 'on message' and the assumptions of the media echoed the nonsense of the political élite that 'we are all in this together': a deception so gross it insults the nation's intelligence. Britain is not on the edge of bankruptcy: this is one of the world's wealthiest economies; the richest 10 per cent control $6,300 billion with an average per household of $6.3 million. An equitable rate of tax would see off the so-called deficit in no time. In any case, the 'deficit' is ideological: the product of an almost cultish obsession of central banks and financiers with shifting the wealth of nations to the very top and keeping it there. At the end of the Second World War, Britain was officially bankrupt yet the Labour government created some of the country's greatest public institutions, such as the National Health Service. None of this would be a mystery to a media that saw itself as an agency of people, not power.

What is the good news?

The good news is that much of direct and indirect propaganda is not working. As I say, most people oppose colonial wars. There is a critical public intelligence that runs counter to the authority of the media in all its wondrous digital forms. Perhaps people sense the historical moment: that their social democracy is being appropriated by insatiable corporatism, regardless of which party is in power. In many countries – Greece, France, Spain – this is well understood and is being translated into direct action. In Britain, it is still a seed beneath the snow. But that will change; it has to.

Mikael Korpela, HitchWiki admin: Restore the trust among people

2014-07-24T12:22:17+02:00

Mikael Korpela is one of the admins of HitchWiki, the biggest encyclopedia for hitchhiking in the world inspired by Wikipedia and Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy containing detailed information on how to hitchhike out of big cities, cover long distances, maps and much more.

In this interview for The Travel Club, Mikael tells us about the future plans for HitchWiki, sleeping in abandoned hotels, why he sometimes hates hitchhiking in Germany and how fun it can be in Thailand and Laos. Besides, he speaks about HitchGathering, the traditional annual meeting of hitchhikers that will take place in Albania this August.

What is hitchhiking for you?

I started back in 2006 because I needed to go the other side of Finland and I didn't have money – and I was like „Wow, this actually works!" After that I started hitchhiking more and more. Nowadays it's not about money at all. It's nice to save money, but there's much more to it: meeting local people, getting advice, sharing stories, getting to know the culture instead of sitting on a bus. Hitchhiking is freedom, freedom to change your plans and go wherever someone can take you.

Why do you think hitchhiking is important (obviously, important enough for you to dedicate your own time and energy to helping other people do it)?

Nowadays people don't trust each other anymore. People ask me if I'm scared to hitchhike, they ask me that even in Finland or Germany, the countries which are among the safest on Earth. It's important to hitchhike in order to restore the trust among people.

Also, I support the concepts of free economy and share economy. It's not only about hitchhiking, I don't mind people paying for a ride – they also are sharing the resources. It's much better than one dude driving a car alone.

Some people see hitchhikers as beggars or social parasites, waiting by the road and begging for a ride, instead of getting a decent job and buying their own car. We can clearly see that from some drivers' faces and gestures. What would you have to say to such people?

I think some drivers are scared and don't trust people they don't know. They were told not to talk to strangers since they were kids and it got incorporated in their brain, their style of thinking.

Some other drivers are simply selfish and miser. They probably think about how hard they had to work to have what they have and don't want you to just stand there and get the same thing for free. An advice to those people: Work less and enjoy more.

It's all accompanied by individualism. That's why I like Eastern Europe. Because of the unemployment problems, they need to rely on their families and friends, and consequently people build trust among them and it creates strong communities.

Tell us how everyone can help HitchWiki grow. And why should anyone bother to do it in the first place.

It's actually pretty obvious – you just fill it in. Anyone can create an account and update the articles. You use it to check the information others have shared with the world and you share the information you have so the others can check it.

There is also TrashWiki for dumpster-diving and the most recent one is NomadWiki.

What is NomadWiki for?

For example, where can you put your tent for free or where can you find free wi-fi. It's all about free or the cheapest way to travel – it's like Lonely Planet but for hippies and tramps. But it's amazing, those Wikies – we just put up a form and people start filling it!

Think about distant future. Where do you see HitchWiki? Where would you like to see it?

This winter we organised a hackathon (a marathon where you hack a lot) in Lisbon and did a lot of programming for HitchWiki and BeWelcome. We rent a small house and 10-20 people come there. There can be up to 12 people at one time, which is not much comparing to the Travel House, but still, it's a lot for a small apartment. The landlord was chill and he actually brought us extra mattresses. Some people got friends with neighbours and got hosted by them.

We have plenty of ideas for HitchWiki. We're basically three dudes working on it, but the other two dudes don't have much time, so lately I've been doing most of the stuff. There are some usual ideas for upgrading the maps and other features, but in distant future I would like to see it not only as a source of inofrmation, but as a community. Now there are a lot of people searching for information on Facebook via hitchhiking-related groups, but I'd like to see it happening on HitchWiki instead. So we have to get people there to ask questions and share their info.

Another thing we're thinking about is HitchWiki hosts. The logic behind it is that people are more keen on hosting „their own kind", hitchhikers love to host and be hosted by hitchhikers, cyclists love to host and be hosted by cyclists because it's easier to be understood and to understand what the other person does, what they need etc.

Do you think CouchSurfing has changed?

It has changed a lot and in a horrible way. Nowadays they want you to spend more time on their website because that's the way to make money for them.

Also, now when you want to register, a page appears telling you that you have to pay €19 to register and somewhere down in the corner there's a tiny link saying that you can skip it. That way many people have been tricked into paying that fee.

The profile of an average CouchSurfer has changed and now a lot of tramps, hippies and alternative people don't feel comfortable there so they started moving away to BeWelcome and other hosting websites. BeWelcome is significantly smaller than CouchSurfing, it's even smaller than HitchWiki so it will take some time to build a community that is big enough.

Can you tell us about your weirdest, most bizarre hitchhiking experience? How about the most emotional hitchhiking experience? Have you ever felt in danger while hitchhiking? Tell us your scare-story.

Once we were hitchhiking in Thailand and we hitchhiked a motorbike that already had two people on it so we were four in total coming down the slopy mountain roads. Hitchhiking in South-East Asia is always bizarre. I sometimes hate hitchhiking in Germany. People speak English and you move fast across the country, it's a bit boring, while in Laos you're hitchhiking in a jungle and nobody speaks English and nobody gets the concept of hitchhiking. There's five people standing around you trying to figure out what the heck you're doing. And then you end up in the back of a pick-up truck and it starts raining and you're in a jungle... The whole Asia is crazy.

I've never felt in danger, sometimes I just felt uncomfortable when a driver would drive too fast.

One time I was trying to go back from Ukraine to Poland. So I come to the border and the officials say that walking across the border is not allowed and that I need a car. It gets dark and I don't want to place a tent there so they don't think I want to smuggle something. I find this shabby hotel, there's no one there, it's totally empty and then this dude shows up asking what I want, do I want to stay the night. He gives me the key and I pay something small for the room. I enter and not only there's no hot water, but there's no water at all. Everything is very dirty, the linen looks like nobody has changed it for years but I just wanted to sleep somewhere so I put my sleeping bag there. In the morning the whole lobby is empty, there's nobody in the hotel, it appears that I'm the only soul in the goddamn building. I look behind the desk and there's nothing but the office chair there – no papers, no cassa (cash register)... I'm trying to find the dude but there's no trace of him so I figure that's an abandoned hotel and the dude just took the opportunity seeing that someone wants to pay some money. I leave the hotel and looking back I see that the half of the hotel sign is off and some of the windows are broken, but I didn't notice it the night before as it was dark and I was tired.

So I go back to the border and the officials say the same thing as the day before – no walking across the border. I finally hitchhike a car that agrees to take me to Poland, but it's full of prostitutes and they also get stopped at the border and they have to go back. Finally, one of the officials asks the next car: "Are you going to Poland?" and they confirm, to which he says: "Ok, take this hippie with you!"

Compare hitchhiking in different countries. Which is the best one, which is the worst one?

Western Europe is complicated, there are highways and it's hard to reach gas stations and it's always from one gas station to another... I prefer Eastern Europe, it's so much easier. Sometimes you can lift the thumb in the city centre and someone will stop! Especially in Turkey, it's a wonderland for hitchhiking.

Give us one hitchhiking tip that we probably don't know.

Many people don't know that there is HitchWiki phrasebook which can be found also as an app for smart phones. It's important to know the basic hitchhiking phrases so you can communicate better where do you want to go, where do you need to be dropped off etc. Just knowing how to say "I need to get to the other side of the city" can help you a lot.

You might already know this, but having a map of the region you're travelling in is extremely useful. I prefer paper maps, but on a mobile phone you get to see where are the gas stations, which is very useful in Western Europe. Actually, we're thinking of making a printable map where you can see the gas stations.

What is HitchGathering? What does it look like to be there? Why do you organise it, what is the purpose of it? How can people contribute?

The initial idea behind it is to promote hitchhiking. It's not actually organised, there's no programme. People often ask me if I organise it, but I'm just a dude who posts a lot on Facebook. The project is self-developing, so feel free to organise it.

The first HitchGathering was in 2008 in Paris, under the Eiffel tower. 150 hitchhikers came to Paris and camped in the middle of Paris. In the morning, at 6 a.m. the police would come and tell everyone to get going. It was very short, less than two days.

The next one (2009) was in Odessa, but it was more about camping and meeting hitchhikers than promoting hitchhiking. We were camping outside city centre and at night we would go to a park to hang out. Odessa was a bit out of hand so there was only 80-90 hitchhikers at that HitchGathering.

Afterwards there were HitchGatherings in Portugal (2010), Bulgaria (2011), Lithuania (2012), Slovakia (2013).

So far we had no problems apart from Paris and Odessa when police was coming to tell us we can't drink there. In Slovakia we got a fine because of the fire and at that time it wasn't allowed to have a fire at all in Slovakia. So we got a €60 fine and got told to get away, but they also pointed us a field where we could go. In the local newspaper there was an article about us saying that there's an illegal trance party in the woods! (laughter)

Where is HitchGathering this year? How do you decide on location? When is it?

There's no real decision making. For example, someone writes: „Hey, I've found a location, do you like it?" We need someone local to confirm that the spot is good for HitchGathering and basically, the location that gets the majority of votes by potential atendees is the location we choose.

For example, this year one Albanian girl found a village and there's a lot of space for camping outside of it so she talked to the locals if it would be okay that a bunch of us comes there and camps. But the location can change even 3 days before the HitchGathering – I mean, not to another country, but someone finds a better spot to camp so the location can move a few kilometers.

So, the HitchGathering 2014 will take place beginning of August in Albania. The local people said it's ok for us to camp there, but I'm not really sure they understood what they invited there – it's going to be a bunch of hippies running around!

And sometimes there's a chain of events, pre-gathering and post-gathering. There were local gatherings in Finland and Norway in June, then one in south of Germany, maybe one or two in Croatia on the way to Albania.

You often mention hippies. What's your definition of hippies? Who is a hippie? Do you think hitchhiking is strictly a prerogative of certain subcultures?

That's a good question. I'm using the term "hippie" broadly because it sounds funny to say "alternative people". Also, if you'd ask my mom or folks from the office, I'm a hippie. I'm sometimes saying just tramps, vagabonds, nomads, travellers... those words are maybe more describing?

To me it looks like "subcultures" are more alive and becoming more mainstream than ever. "Weird things" are more accepted than before and people are seeking more alternative stuff. As for hitchhiking... It's still a hobby of a very small group of people. In Western Europe, that is.

Tags

John Pilger: The truth of war is grotesque

Mikael Korpela, HitchWiki admin: Restore the trust among people