The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
Fisk Had Independence of Mind – Which Is Why He Angered Governments
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Robert Fisk and I often used to discuss the merits and demerits of responding in print to personal attacks on us filled with provable falsehoods. The temptation to refute such falsehood is hard to resist, but we recognised that therein lies a trap because even the most persuasive refutation of a gross lie necessitates repeating the untruth and giving it greater publicity.

It was also self-evident that partisan critics were not going to apologise and retire in embarrassment if their mendacity or misinformation was exposed, but would simply replace one set of lies with another. The effectiveness of this brazen disregard for truth is demonstrated daily by Donald Trump who almost won re-election despite repeated exposure.

Robert, who died on 30 October, spent almost half a century reporting war and civil wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. He understood that people who are trying to kill each other will not hesitate to lie about each other, and about anybody, notably about journalists, whose information – particularly if it is true – they deem not to be in their interests.

It was all too easy to be demonised as a pawn of Saddam Hussein in 2003 if one said, as Robert frequently did, that the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq would end badly. Similar denunciations of partiality were directed against anybody who wrote about the Syrian conflict post-2011 as a genuine civil war, described the armed Arab opposition as being mostly jihadis, and suggested that Bashar al-Assad was likely to stay as leader, given the balance of power between those fighting each other.

Governments and other proponents of such views do not like to be contradicted and will put great energy into seeking to discredit those who do so. Robert knew this very well, writing that “armies at war – like their governments – are best observed with a mighty degree of scepticism, even cynicism. So far as armies and militias go, there are no good guys.” As a reporter, he worked on this grim assumption. He did not mean that he believed that good people did not exist, but he knew that they are almost invariably to be found among the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators.

Robert was obsessively energetic in investigating the truth about what was really going on and stuck to it, even when what he was writing was contradicted or ignored by other journalists. Probably it was this independence of mind which annoyed so much of the media. Over the years, I became used to listening to reporters spluttering with indignation over another front-page exclusive by Robert. At first, I used to keep silent, reflecting that hell hath no fury like a reporter scooped, and recalling the words of a distinguished American journalist friend who dismissed such bad-mouthing of Robert as “80 per cent envy”.

In later years, I would become irritated or bored by such venomous tittle-tattle, and started to ask those who expressed it to justify what they were claiming. Almost invariably they would look alarmed at being challenged and then repeat some third-hand piece of gossip, or say that they had been where Robert was and had not witnessed what he had seen. But when I probed further, it usually turned out that they had not been quite as close to the front line as he was and they had not stayed there for as long as he had.

None of this malicious gossip matters very much and falls into the category of partisan criticism that Robert and I counselled each other to ignore. Some of it surfaced in the obituaries of Robert, though most laud him as a magnificent reporter and historian. Certainly, he was the best journalist I have ever known. But there are some obituaries, negative in tone, which I nevertheless found interesting because they openly express a vision of what good journalism should be that is wholly contrary to what Robert practiced.

At the heart of this was relentless and meticulous eyewitness reporting of events, a refusal to see complex conflicts in terms of black and white, while not surrendering to moral indifference and keeping a sense of outrage when confronted with real evil. Above all, perhaps, he showed an unbending refusal to back down when what he said was being denied, denounced or ignored by politicians and the media.

Such an approach seems to me to be obviously right, but it is very different from the approach to journalism which is conveniently exemplified by an obituary of Robert appearing in The Times, for whom he worked for 17 years until joining The Independent in 1989. It cites, as an example of his partiality for victims over perpetrators, his account of the massacre of over a thousand Palestinian men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut in 1982. It quotes his description of an “old man in pyjamas lying on his back on the main street with his innocent walking stick beside him, the two women and a baby shot next to a dead horse”. In one of the first eyewitness reports of this hideous slaughter, he wrote of the bodies of women who had been raped before being killed and “the armies of flies, the smell of decomposition”.

“The tragedy for Fisk was that this experience changed his perspective forever,” is the surprising conclusion of the obituarist, adding that when Robert went to Northern Ireland as correspondent in 1972 – the year of Bloody Sunday in which thirteen civilians were shot dead by the Parachute Regiment in Derry – “perhaps naively, he was shocked at the treatment of protesters by British soldiers”. In point of fact, it was outrage at such killings, another being the Armenian genocide of 1915, that motivated Robert and should surely motivate all journalists.

ORDER IT NOW

It is curious – and depressing – to find commentators who are still shocked by a journalist who criticised government policies at the time that they were being implemented, even when they have since become thoroughly discredited. Robert reporting from Iraq in 2003 was highly critical of the invasion and led, according to The Times, which appears to consider this a weighty point, to the long-forgotten British defence minister of the day, denouncing Fisk’s reports as showing him to be “a dupe of Saddam Hussein’s regime”.

Robert had great physical courage, something that is sustainable in short bursts, but is much more difficult to keep up over long periods of isolation and danger. Derring-do in times of war usually gets good notices from the press and from public opinion, but moral endurance is a much rarer commodity, when the plaudits are replaced by abuse, often from people who see a world divided between devils and angels and denounce anybody reporting less than angelic behaviour on the part of the latter for being secret sympathisers with the devil.

Real journalism is a simple business, but exceptionally difficult to do well. Its purpose is to find out significant news as fast as possible, disregard all efforts by governments, armies and media to suppress it, and pass that information on to the public so they can better judge what is happening in the world around them. This is what Robert did and did it better than anybody else.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Middle East 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. BuelahMan says:

    Real journalism is a simple business, but exceptionally difficult to do well.

    Glad you realized your capabilities lack.

  2. Robert Fisk’s first interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1993 is legendary.

    Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace: The Saudi businessman who recruited mujahedin now uses them for large-scale building projects in Sudan. Robert Fisk met him in Almatig

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/anti-soviet-warrior-puts-his-army-on-the-road-to-peace-the-saudi-businessman-who-recruited-mujahedin-1465715.html

  3. Bush II and Blair were just useful idiots. The latter’s political career was enabled by Michael Levy who also raised money for New Labour from fellow Jews and other donors.

    Fisk just cornered writing about ‘Anglo-American’ wars which were mostly Zionist projects. I suspect this lucrative niche is why he kept his British citizenship despite living in the Republic of Ireland faraway from Londonistan and other places in Blighty that are turning third world.

    Like certain English people he also cared more about foreign places and people rather than kith and kin. According to Wikipedia he was married to an Afghan. Equally Jeremy Corbyn has an exotic-looking Mexican wife and once dated a Sub-Saharan African.

    • Replies: @Anon
  4. Hans says:

    Fisk ducked the 800lb rabbi in the living room which is why he is praised by hacks. So do Pilger and all the other “great” ones.

    • Agree: ariadna
    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  5. Anon[311] • Disclaimer says:
    @Amerimutt Golems

    You should date and marry . It might make you little more relevant and little more awake .
    Alternatively ask your kith and kin to consider .

  6. Ken52 says:

    I’m surprised Patrick Cockburn praises Fisk. They were exact opposites. Cockburn swallowed the Syria bombs its own people propaganda without any skepticism. Whereas Fisk did actual reporting.

  7. Listen Cockburn: you’re not Fisk and you’re for sure not Alex. I’m not sure why Unz has you on his site, since no one seems to read you. Well, do your function, whatever you have to, but please to not debase Fisk. You are a minnow and a nobody, stop using you talented brother. Go away.

  8. @Hans

    Probably so, but he did some things. This Patrick parasite on the other hand…

  9. Tundra says:

    We lost someone who mattered when Fisk passed. Agree or not, accept or reject his personal life, a sustained devotion to exposing warmongering and lies and a willingness to put up with fools and danger made his life worthwhile.

  10. Your comment, hidden, not surprisingly, behind a ridiculous pseudonym, reveals your lack of knowledge regarding Fisk as well as the lives of foreign and war correspondents over all.

    First of all, since 1975, when he was sent by the Times of London to cover the civil war in Lebanon, Fisk’s main place of residence was a fourth floor apartment on Beirut’s Corniche, overlooking the Mediterranean. His home in Ireland is where he went for the relative silence need to work on his magnificent histories, “The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East,” and “Pity the Nation: The War in Lebanon,” where he escorted me to Sabra and Shatila, 23 years after the massacre to meet a child whose parents had been murdered under the watchful eyes and with the help of the Israeli military. His coverage of Israel’s invasion and occupation of Lebanon was extraordinary and earned him the enmity of the Israeli government, its military and the Zionist Establishment world wide which is why after the Lebanese experience, the Zionist controlled US media stopped reprinting his articles.

    I had met Fisk in 2001 when he came to San Francisco to speak at a meeting of the Armenian National Council which I recorded, him being one of the very rare journalists who remembered and did not want others to forget the Armenian genocide.

    His coverage of the war in Syria displeased both sides because while he exposed, early on, the role of foreign, Western backed jihadists, the fraudulent White Helmets, and at least one instance of false Western claims of the use of chemical weapons in a town he visited, he angered the avid supporters of Bashar Assad by acknowledging that, like every country in the region, opponents of the Syrian government tended to be tortured.

    Leaving aside your racist comments regarding his marriage and that of Jeremy Corbyn to women who didn’t happen to be either British or white, he had earlier been married for more than a decade to another journalist, Lara Marlowe, who was the US correspondent for the Irish Times. As she pointed out after his death, “Robert’s first rule was to go there, be a witness, even if it meant risking his life. He scorned journalists who covered wars from hotel rooms.” Or from behind computer screens, he would add.

  11. Meena says:

    1 “Some might argue that your foreign policies are what drive our hatred. But this particularly reason for hating you is secondary. Even if you were to stop bombing us, we would continue to hate you. Our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.” Andrew Neil of BBC

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/27/the-bbc-has-legal-protection-to-spread-fake-news-the-curious-case-of-isis-andrew-neil-and-jeremy-corbyn/

    ISIS warned its followers it was a fake message not authorized by them.

    2 “I’m struggling to find the role of foreign policy. See, Islamic State was founded well before the invasion of Iraq.”-Andrew Neil of BBC
    ref-ibid

    Fact is ISIS was not a product on the Iraqi shelf before 2003

    BBC hires veteran thoroughbred liar like Andrew Neil . Main purpose of these lies was to discredit antiwar Corbyn in front of the voters . Fisk never had a chance in that cesspool of vile criminal whorehouse known as BBC who never failed to toe the line set up for the media by the transAtlantic war machine .

    I firmly believed that Fisk if allowed to reach the voters with the correct facts out of ME ,could have bolstered the positions of Corbyn . That was predicated on the fact UK had an independent media .It never had since 1991. Fisk in USA can do a better job in explaining what socialism is and why Democrats are not pursuing socialism than any democrats will ever be .

    FOX brings FDD card carrying figures and its founding father to talk of war in ME and Afghanisnatn

    What the are voters going to decide ? The sources that could offer balanced analysis have been relegated behind the background opaque screen .

    Its a system that doesn’t allow Fisk and forces people like Fisk go to Chinse or Russian or Iranian or Syrian or Uruguay or Malaysian media or US off- the grid media But we have already explained to our citizen that these media are the sources of hatred conspiracy and and disruption working agisnt western values .

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr