One really irksome feature of war is the opportunity it gives to goody-goodies to parade their piety; it is to the undying credit of this newspaper that we sometimes publish such unctuous sanctimony - freedom of the press and all that. Yet how our sub-editors must have gagged as they processed John Pilger's posturing effusions about the Serbian crisis last Saturday. It speaks volumes for them that they went ahead and printed it anyway. Stomachs of iron. Gad sir, makes you proud.
Actually, it was well worth reading - but only as an example to students of journalism of What Not To Write and How Not To Write It. I shall cut it out and keep it beside me in my country retreat lest I inadvertently reach for the Paraquat rather than the gin; and then a hurried scan of the Pilger and hey presto, up come the contents of the old tum. A Pilger should be in first-aid boxes everywhere; especially recommended for bulimics of all ages. The Hughie Green of journalism.
Most rapacious empire
Let us now sample some of this pilging . "The most powerful and rapacious imperial power in history will stop at nothing to secure its domination over human affairs," he wrote. What empire is he describing as the most rapacious in world history? The Soviet Union, whose victims numbered in the scores of millions? Nope. Communist China, ditto? Nope. Nazi Germany, ditto again? Nope. Who? The US, of course.
Yes indeed, the US is the most rapacious empire in world history, and I am Mother Teresa. Ah well. Forward the Light Brigade. I gallantly pressed on a) because I am something of a Pilger aficionado, b) my psychiatrist is treating me for masochism with aversion therapy and c) there was a certain iffy oyster which I wished to return to the Great Outdoors.
The problem about pilges is that they tend to wander all over the place and it's difficult to keep track of them. So, we started with a bash at the Yanks, which is fine. Nothing new about that. What next? Why, the Brits of course. Here goes. "On the contrary, `the West' (as the Anglo-American imperial forces are known) has consistently used humanitarian rhetoric to justify intervening in the Balkans, mostly on the side of the regional power."
What did these rotters do? This. "It was an American plan . . . that handed the Milosevic regime and the fascist Bosnian Serbs the entire arsenal of the former Yugoslavia."
Ah. But might the reason why the Milosevic regime retained the Yugoslav arsenal be that it was and it remains the government of Yugoslavia? At times of secession, do central governments normally pat the departing bits on the back and say, By the Way, Have Your Share of the National Armoury? Was the US any more capable then of prising Milosevic's blood-soaked hands off Yugoslavia's weaponry than it is now? Furtherm . . .
Watch out! Incoming pilge! "NATO navies in the Adriatic Sea and UN (mostly British and French) troops at Bosnia's airports enforced an arms embargo against the Sarajevo government." Ah. Suddenly the Anglo-American imperium has extended in one bound to include all of NATO. And then in another bound the French (who of course are not in NATO). And then in yet another bound, the UN becomes the villain as well.
Falsification of reality
Now it's not just the sheer intellectual sloppiness of such garbage which repels; so too does the outright falsification of historical reality. For example, two of the most substantial garrisons in the Sarajevo region during the war came from the Ukraine, whose troops were actually manning Sarajevo airport when I was last there, and Russia. Tools of the Anglo-American imperium of course. Yawn.
Pilging paragraph after pilging paragraph of such piffle follows, with classic trade mark pilgerisms such as "what we are not told" and "substantially unreported." I see. He's talking about journalism here. Does this scattergun blast of moral superiority at everything that moves now include this newspaper? Are we too part of the Anglo-American imperium? Has anybody informed our editor yet? Chap would like to know.
One report
Let us finish with one quote. "Among a number of proposals seriously considered by the Americans for NATO is a nuclear expeditionary force `primarily for use against Third World targets' according to one report."
Ah yes, that old familiar, "according to one report," which alongside "allegedly" can be thrown into any story, e.g. according to one report the Pope is a cannibal. Please. First lesson in journalism school, the one Pilger missed: who - when - where?
This farrago of pious rant and egregious falsehood would not pass muster in a fourth form debate, when, thumbs under collar, the class prig (who is probably bullied, and rightly so) lets loose, never mind in the middle of the gravest world crisis since 1961. Of course, its real purpose is to show us how morally superior John Pilger is. I grant him his moral superiority. And this I swear: if I ever find myself sitting next to him at a dinner party, he'll get my fork right in his morally superior eye.