When the establishment media covers topics where Western war industries hold significant stakes, it blatantly abandons any pretense of maintaining critical independence from the state
It is often overlooked that the western media, often hailed as the “free press,” distinguishes itself from outlets in authoritarian countries by claiming to scrutinize those in power, deliver factual reporting, and present unbiased analyses.
“They do propaganda, we do news” is the mantra western media upholds.
The intense media attention following the arrest of five men near RAF Fairford, UK, early Sunday morning severely undermines this assertion.
Here is what is currently known.
A local farmer spotted three white vans, branded with logos belonging to a legitimate fuel transport company, outside her property as she returned from a party. Police quickly responded and detained the five British men, all in their twenties.
It later emerged on Tuesday that one of the suspects had called the police himself earlier, apparently explaining the swift police arrival.
While the men were first arrested on explosives-related charges, no “viable” explosives were discovered. Though terrorism charges permitted detention for up to 14 days, all five were granted bail under regular criminal law within two days.
It was further reported that the vans contained several empty “barrels” along with one holding what the police ominously termed an “accelerant.”
In reality, this “accelerant” was simply petrol—the fuel used in vehicles to increase speed.
Britain’s prime minister, Andy Burnham, convened an emergency Cobra meeting due to the seriousness of the incident.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration intervened because RAF Fairford, despite being a UK base in name, functions as a US air base from which American forces conduct an unlawful war against Iran with the UK’s approval.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed the event “clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor.” When questioned about Iran’s involvement, Trump responded: “It might be.” He added: “I know the answer… I can be very specific, but I’d rather not say.”
According to a New York Times report, intelligence agencies from the US and UK, cooperating with Israel and other Western nations, uncovered threats targeting US bases, including facilities in Germany. [my emphasis]
Despite these limited facts, British media outlets uniformly concluded that the arrests relate to an Iranian terror scheme aimed at the US airbase and its aircraft. The only debate permitted concerns whether the men knowingly participated in this plot or were unwitting pawns.
The Guardian described the case as a “complex investigation,” indicating an “increasingly likely” Iranian connection to the strange events in Gloucestershire over the weekend.
It is worth noting that UK and US officials have strong motives to portray this incident as an Iranian “terror plot,” regardless of the evidence.
Why? Because the US is illegally at war with Iran, operating from British soil with London’s consent. Under the laws of armed conflict, Iran therefore has the right to target RAF Fairford.
If Britain’s media truly acted as a “free press,” they would provide context indicating RAF Fairford is a lawful military target and that an Iranian attack there would not amount to terrorism.
Predictably, no outlet has done so.
Instead, the press has dutifully echoed British and US security agencies’ narrative of a “terror plot” unsupported by concrete proof, framing Britain and the US as victims of unwarranted Iranian hostility.
Putting aside background details, truly independent journalism would withhold conclusions, pose challenging questions, and explore plausible alternative explanations.
None of that has occurred. British media have followed a herd mentality, unquestioningly embracing conclusions that align with UK and US governmental interests.
The constant emphasis on terrorism links—even without evidence—is reminiscent of propaganda typical of authoritarian state media, aiming to stoke public fear rather than seek the truth.
Contrastingly, the New York Times tentatively acknowledged a different possibility, albeit briefly, before siding with the dominant narrative.
The Times asked: “The potential ambiguities – were the men Iranian operatives, petty gas thieves, or both? – added to the confusion surrounding the arrests that the authorities have yet to fully explain.”
“Petty gas thieves”! Men in vans with nearly empty barrels spotted near a farm late at night. Could they simply be criminals?
Such suspicions have circulated widely on social media since the arrests were first publicized. Emerging details have only reinforced this view.
Yet Britain’s “free press” has entirely overlooked this alternate explanation, instead amplifying the US and UK security version.
British reporters would likely dismiss the claim that this was merely a group of criminals as unhelpful “speculation.”
But how is their arguably less credible and certainly more convenient theory—that the suspects were part of an Iranian terror scheme—any less speculative, especially since it benefits Western intelligence agencies?
Other scenarios deserve consideration too, based on the information at hand. For example, Israel, which initially advocated for the illegal and devastating war against Iran, continues pushing the Trump administration to resume full-scale airstrikes.
An incident involving RAF Fairford—whether real or staged—would be a perfect pretext for intensifying pressure for renewed assaults on Iran. After all, there exist precedents of Israel engineering false flag operations.
If Iran, the purported “foreign actor,” can allegedly recruit petty criminals to inadvertently trigger a major security scare near RAF Fairford, why could Israel not orchestrate a similar scenario?
I do not claim to know precisely what occurred near the base. I remain open-minded and critical as further facts become available. I only wish our so-called “free press” exhibited the same approach.
Some readers might find it difficult to accept that the media in our “democratic” nations is not truly adversarial or distant from the state. This notion may be unfamiliar.
That is unsurprising considering how deeply our perceptions—of heroes and villains alike—are shaped by decades of consuming media controlled by billionaire-owned corporations and governments.
Since leaving mainstream media 25 years ago (I was formerly with the Guardian), I have devoted much effort to exposing blatant instances of biased journalism—reporting that consistently crafts narratives favoring the powerful: corporations, Western security agencies, and Israel, central to the West’s war enterprises.
In these circumstances, establishment media readily relinquishes any pretense of neutrality or impartiality, functioning primarily as a propaganda outlet. (A detailed explanation of the Propaganda Model can be found here.)
This distortion is glaring in coverage of Israel’s mass killings in Gaza—an atrocity never labeled genocide.
It was evident in portrayals of Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine, when in reality it was prompted by NATO’s decades-long expansion aimed either at militarily hemming in Moscow or compelling it into retaliating against Ukraine, enabling the West to inflict damage through a proxy conflict.
It appeared in the relentless media campaign of antisemitism allegations targeting Jeremy Corbyn, a rare political leader advocating socialist policies that benefit the public rather than billionaires, and a long-standing Israel critic prior to its genocidal actions.
It was also present in the media onslaught against Julian Assange, whose Wikileaks platform unveiled US and UK war crimes and challenged hierarchical media control. Having mocked his asylum bid in the Ecuadorian embassy amid fears of US extradition, the press then largely ignored his apprehension by British authorities and prolonged imprisonment in a high-security London prison while the US sought his extradition.
I could continue listing examples. When dealing with issues involving our national security interests, establishment media consistently abandons critical independence.
RAF Fairford illustrates how, at critical moments, media outlets effectively become the security state’s megaphone.
Original article: www.jonathan-cook.net
About the Author
