Page 112 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

102 Chapter 5

U.S. role in Iraq, as the two poles have constructed vastly different identities for
the private military forces and contractors working throughout the country.
While mass media outfits openly labeled those killed as civilian contractors,
independent media sources often portrayed them as private soldiers of fortune,
taking part in the violent pacification of the Iraqi people. Russell Mokhiber and
Robert Weissman of Counter Punch magazine referred to the thousands of mili-
tary contractors working alongside the American military in Iraq as an "informal
army of occupation.'" Mokhiber and Weissman made reference to the fact that
Blackwater Security Consulting, one of the many private military contractors
working in Iraq, partook in "full-scale" military battles in Najaf, "with the com-
pany flying its own helicopters amidst an intense firefight to re-supply its own
commandos" only a few days after the death of its four mercenaries in Falluja.
In Alternet magazine, Bill Berkowitz characterized them as "soldiers-for-hire"-
"veterans of some of the most repressive military forces in the world, including
that of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and South Africa's apart-
heid regime."' The Telegraph of London reported stories of mercenaries, work-
ing for Aegis Defence Services, who randomly fired at Iraqi civilians as they
drove through the streets of Baghdad-promoting a "trophy" video of their at-
tack~.~ These depictions stand in great disparity to those of mass media outlets
such as CMV, which represented private military forces and contractors more
positively as providing "everything from security to catering to engineering to
consulting in Iraq," and as instrumental in "the protection of personnel working
for private companies and non-government organizations in ~ra~."~
At a time when the U.S. began out-sourcing responsibility for military op-
erations, the private contractors were typically portrayed as a necessary part of
the war effort. The deaths of contractors in Falluja in March of 2004 evoked
rage and denunciation, since these forces were seen as providing much needed
help to an overstretched American occupation army. The New York Times de-
scribed the incident as a "gruesome" and "grisly" attack: explaining that the
"enraged mob" of Iraqis "jubilantly dragged the burned bodies" through town?
The paper censured the attackers for "one of the most brutal outbursts of anti-
American rage since the war in Iraq began more than a year ago," as a "group of
boys yanked a smoldering body into the street and ripped it apart."10 The paper
explained that the boys tore the corpses from the vehicle, and pulled the "black-
ened bodies" as the "frenzied crowd" began "mutilating" them.''
The characterization of the attackers was much the same in other main-
stream news sources. The Chicago Tribune reported the killings as a "celebra-
tion" of "cheering" and "dancing," while the Washin ton Times described
"cheering crowds" that "reveled in a barbaric orgy."" The Son Francisco
Chronicle rebuked this "act of savagery shocking even by the blood-stained
standards of Iraq's worst trouble spot."I3 In perhaps the ultimate denigration of
anti-occupation resistance, the New York Times portrayed the people of Falluja
as fiercely anti-American: "Hatred laces the conversations. It hangs from the
walls. It bums in the minds of children. As nowhere else in Iraq, Falluja bristles
with a desire to confront the American soldiers, to kill them, and to celebrate
when they fa11."I4 In general, the New York Times' portrayal of the people of