Page 101 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

The Media 's War 91

The point of this analysis is not to take an individual, personality-based
approach to studying the New York Times' Op-Ed and editorial biases. This ex-
ercise is designed for one clear purpose: to demonstrate that, again and again,
what passes for liberal "anti-war" criticisms, in what is considered the most lib-
eral, "anti-war" paper in the U.S., are really merely conventional pro-war criti-
cisms, peppered with either minor or contradictory objections. In this sense, by
looking at each individual New York Times writer, one sees a reemerging pattern
that is institutionalized in the mainstream liberal media. As news reports, edito-
rials, and Op-Eds in liberal elite papers begin to call for withdrawal from Iraq,
they can be expected to continue disseminating administration propaganda as-
suring Americans of the noble intentions of the U.S. in Iraq. By late 2006, the
New York Times' editors had done just this. Although condemning "President
Bush's gross mismanagement of the war" and advocating "one last push to sta-
bilize Baghdad," in order to "mediate [Iraqi] sectarian divisions," the paper's
editors situated their limited support for U.S. escalation alongside expectations
that Democratic leaders present "good ideas for how to get out of Iraq without
creating even wider chaos and terrori~m."~~

Falling in Line

Along with other mainstream liberal critics of the war, the New York Times'
liberal columnists reveal themselves as participants in a corporate establishment
that is hesitant to critique the U.S. as imperialist. The New York Times is not the
only media outlet pushing liberal "anti-war" views. Countless outlets and pro-
grams have taken up this approach as the Iraq war continues. The self-described
liberal halves of bipartisan programs such as CNN's Crossfire and Fox New's
Hannity and Colmes repeat similar arguments that lend credibility to the Ameri-
can presence in Iraq. Paul Begala, former host and self-portrayed leftist of
Crossfire argues that the Bush administration "didn't have enough troops" in
Iraq "because Bush doesn't want to deal with reality9'-reality being determined
by the need to more effectively destroy Iraqi re~istance.'~ Alan Colmes, de-
scribed by the Fox News website as "a hard-hitting liberal known for his electric
commentary,"90 prefers unwavering support for the Bush administration during
the initial stages of war. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News' The
O'Reilly Factor, Colmes admits that, during the Iraq invasion, "I've kept quiet.
My choice has been-I have not criticized the administration or this war effort
while there are men and women in harms way."9'
Rather than criticizing the war as aggressive, illegal or imperialist in orien-
tation, the preferred attacks against the Bush administration are far more paro-
chial and pedestrian, certainly not worthy of being labeled a fierce opposition. In
his appraisal of the "wretched problem of Iraq," David Ignatius of the Washing-
ton Post wonders "How do we win this thing, and if we can't, how do we get
The Los Angeles Times editors concurred, identifying what they feel is a
"terribly botched oc~u~ation"~~-a declaration that complimented the critiques
of military officials on CAN, such as former General Wesley Clark, of a war that