John Lombard

In the past 40 years, there has been a disturbing trend in the way those in authority have refined their ability to lie to us. And even though these people don't always get away with it, it is even more alarming the way the media is being used - and abused - as the messenger

News today is accessed as it happens. No longer does a journalist in the field send a carrier pigeon with his or her dispatch from the war front with publication taking place days or even weeks later. These days, we don't even punch telex machines any more. Technology has changed everything

Now, we watch terrorist atrocities live on television. Remember September 11, 2001, when we sat transfixed and appalled before our television sets as hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York. Last year, with a click we turned on the Second Gulf War and watched the American war machine pulverize Baghdad. Now terrorists murder abducted civilians and soldiers and film their grisly and gruesome deeds on their Hi-8 cameras for replay on television or easily accessible websites

And it gets worse. A video posted on a militant website and broadcast on Arab television that purported to show an American being decapitated in Iraq turned out to be a hoax last week. The man shown in the video said he'd videotaped the staged beheading at his friend's house using fake blood. The idiot perpetrator said he did it to attract attention and to make a statement about how easily these types of videos can be faked

This raises enormous questions. Can we believe what we read, see or hear any more? Can we believe our politicians? Can we believe the journos?

We're faced today with "reality media." And it's not just in Iraq. Turn on the television here and the schedule seems to be dominated by reality TV. In the week ending 31st July, the three top rating shows on Australian television were: 1. Big Brother final 2. The Block: auction and 3. Big Brother: final eviction. The three shows watched by a total of 7.31 million people. On top of that, there's Australian Idol, and a show called The Apprentice where the revolting Donald Trump gets to fire people on air

And last Sunday night the offering on the ABC was a documentary which included the filming of an abortion. Earlier in the evening, the ABC's contribution to reality television is about a group of volunteers pretending to live in Regency times

Recently we had Channel-7 showing an interview with a woman who has since been charged with murdering a man who had allegedly assaulted her and robbed her of a bag of money. Interestingly, all the commentaries seemed to take the view that as the woman had been interviewed and paid $100,000 before being charged everything was OK. Peter Meakin, Channel-7's news and current affairs director said: "We have a policy that we don't pay people who are criminals or people charged with criminal offences. She doesn't fit into either of these categories."

Hold on, please. This woman was seen on all television networks the night of the shooting. It was crystal clear even to Blind Freddie what she had done and it was only a matter of time before she would be interviewed and charged. The fact that it took a week before she spoke to the police on the grounds that she was medically unfit doesn't in my mind lessen the responsibility of the television network not to broadcast an interview with her. The Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Chowdery QC appears to agree and has since taken action to prevent the woman from getting her money from Channel-7.

Returning to Iraq, journos were embedded in the second Gulf war which meant the military could keep a close eye on them and the journos were able to report some graphic material. But did it mean a better informed public? I doubt it. We got to see some fire fights but what about the lead-up and the rationale for being at war in the first place?

Before the Gulf war, the world was fed a diet of WMDs, threats to our national security, the evils of terrorism etc etc. We were told the policy was to disarm Iraq, not regime change. Finally, the United States took unilateral action in Iraq as leader of the so-called coalition of the willing. We followed because of John Howard's belief in George W Bush and the US alliance and in the intelligence he had been given. So too did Tony Blair. Now all three leaders are in varying degrees of trouble with their electorates over their decision.

And Malcolm Turnbull has livened the local debate with his observation that history will assess the invasion of Iraq as either an "unmitigated" or "unadulterated" error. He is now disputing the use of the adjective. No matter. An error is an error and doesn't need much more description. I see this is causing the Prime Minister some discomfort. But the fact is there is a much more widespread sense of alarm and concern about this "error" among Australians than many politicians realise. This week's statement by former Service chiefs and diplomats is very welcome because it articulates what a lot of middle of the road, normally a-political people think. They feel they've been not only ignored but duped by John Howard. They feel, as the statement says, that "Australia has not become safer by invading and occupying Iraq and now has a higher profile as a terrorist target."

We're not alone. Maureen Dowd in a recent column in the New York Times summed up her predicament just before the Democrat convention in the following way: "Maybe it's because I've been instructed to pack a respirator escape hood along with party dresses for the Boston convention. Maybe it's because our newspaper has assigned a terrorism reporter to cover a political convention. Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again). Maybe it's because there are just as many American soldiers dying in Iraq post-transfer, more Muslims more mad at us over fake W.M.D. intelligence and depravity at Abu Ghraib, and more terrorists in more diffuse networks hating us more.

"Maybe it's because the F.B.I. is still learning how to Google and the C.I.A. has an acting head who spends most of his time acting defensive over his agency's failure to get anything right. Maybe it's because so many of those federal twits who missed the 10 chances to stop the 9/11 hijackers - still run things. Call me crazy, Mr. President, but I don't feel any safer."

John and Jean Lombard

Depressingly, the responses to the Group of 43 from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have been as impoverished as they are predictable: don't talk about the issues raised, blame the messengers. De-Anne Kelly, the north Queensland National Party backbencher, came up with the alliterative "Doddering daiquiri diplomats." Hands up those Daiquiri dipso dodderers! Again, this highlights the paucity of the debate and adds to the distrust of politicians. The list as far as John Howard is concerned is getting longer by the week: Tampa, children overboard, the Mick Keelty affair, Iraq. Then, there is the treatment or lack of action on the part of the Government in defending the rights of the alleged Australian terrorism suspects David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, who've been incarcerated in Gauantanamo Bay for more than two years without charge. But the coming election campaign could change that. I think Truth in Government will be an issue

(I commend to you the article by Paul Kelly in today's Australian newspaper in which he argues that the group of 43 has got it exactly right in claiming the Iraq war has not made us any safer. Three grounds: 1. we should not invade other countries; 2. we should only resort to military force either in self-defence or under UN auspices; and 3. we should be wary of deploying military forces in pursuit of unattainable political objectives.) John Menadue, one of the statement's instigators, is quoted as saying: "The media is not well enough equipped to handle the way politicians and business handle the media."

This, to me, is part of the problem. Government media machines have become very much more sophisticated. There is less discussion and debate about the big issues of the day, and a whole lot more (too much more) about where Nicole Kidman had lunch and who with. Unfortunately, stories about the latter sell more newspapers.

And yet, there is hope. Documentaries like Fahrenheit 9/11, Control Room, even Supersize Me have proved enormously popular. Of course, they attract headlines like "Overheated Propaganda" and commentaries that Mike Moore's film is an "unbalanced, truth twisting, hate-filled diatribe." But all these films get people talking, thinking, and maybe some of them will even act - in the ballot box.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a polemical statement with a single aim: the downfall of George W Bush. And as a movie, it succeeds at various levels, although it could do with tighter editing. A much better - and more interesting - view is expressed in Jehane Noujaim's film, Control Room, largely because she seems to straddle the conflicting cultures with great ease. Noujaim was born in Kuwait of an American mother and an Egyptian father. She lived in Cairo from the age of 7, then moved to the US when she was 16 and later went to Harvard

In the film, the Iraq war is seen through the eyes of Al-Jazeera producers and the US media spokesman, Lieutenant Josh Rushing. I thought two comments summed up the dilemma. One of the Al-Jazeera producers Samir Khader speaks about the use of propaganda on both sides and says: "In the end, victory is the only thing that counts. Nobody talks of justification." Another producer laments the passing of moderate, middle of the road, honest journos like himself. "We're ignored these days," he says

Now Al-Jazeera has been ordered to close its Baghdad office for a month by the Iraqi administration on the grounds that it slants its news against American interests. This is a bit rich for anyone who watched the Gulf war through the eyes of Fox news

Just before I finish, I can't resist the temptation to quote to you the latest example of Dubya's terror-speak. You may have seen it on television in the last few days.

The President was addressing a high-level meeting of Pentagon officials and told them: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful - and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

Perhaps even more worrying was the reaction by his White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, who said that Mr Bush's mistakes should reassure rather than alarm. "The American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction," Scott said. "And the terrorists know by his actions he means it."

Well, there are elections due here and in the United States this year and everybody has the opportunity, indeed the privilege, to vote. I just hope the people speak with a very clear voice.