Page 114 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

1 04 Chapter 5

insurgents," "radical insurgents," and "Saddam Loyalists," to name a few. The
term "resistance" is almost never used, as it carries with it an assumption that
large numbers of Iraqis are opposed to, rather than supportive of the occupation.
The media has even gone as far as labeling entire cities, as seen in the case of
Falluja, as "virulently anti-~rnerican,"'~ as the "epicenter of Anti-American
hatred"I7 and "anti-American insurgency."18
Attempting to compete with Fox's fiercely nationalistic pro-war coverage,
other establishment media outlets fault the "insurgency" for causing the Iraqi
people "great anxiety."19 The Associated Press condemns resistance attacks on
Iraqi oil pipelines as attempts to "undermine the nations' interim government"
and "undermine reconstruction effort^."^' The Washington Post has been equally
critical of resistance attacks against U.S. soldiers, which it frames as "a relent-
less campaign of bombings and ambushes by the ins~r~ents."~' The Los Angeles
Times berates resistance factions for having "stymied U.S. led reconstruction
efforts," arguing further that "insurgent" attacks are designed to "destabilize the
The
government's a~thority."~~ Los Angeles Times went further to agree with the
Washington Post, that the groups' "sabotage" hurts "the nation's fragile infra-
structure" and is responsible for "thwarting economic progress."23 Depicting the
depravity of these guerillas, Time magazine explained: "all the troops in the
world may not do any good against an enemy that's firing on you from inside
ambulances and using children as human shields."24
While it is easy enough to demonize violent Iraqi resistance resulting in the
deaths of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure, such one-sided attacks
obscure U.S. responsibility for mass death and destruction. Attacks that place all
the blame for death and destruction at the feet of "insurgent" groups do little to
accurately portray the cycle of violence in Iraq. American forces are inaccu-
rately portrayed as benevolent and peaceful, while only "other" groups-namely
the "insurgents"-are guilty of aggression, destabilization, or violence. Any
violent actions taken on the part of the U.S. are, by definition, "defensive" and
"peaceful" efforts to bring democracy and security to the Iraqi people; any vio-
lent efforts undertaken by enemies of the U.S. military are deemed the opposite.
Even if U.S. bombings lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians and result in
widespread damage to Iraqi infrastructure, such potentially explosive details are
downplayed or de-emphasized in favor of lambasting Iraqi terrorists. This is
hardly an example of reporting independently from pro-war government propa-
ganda.

All or Nothing

Media portrayals of those resisting occupation have followed an all-or-nothing
approach that typically classifies the U.S. armed forces, outside of some isolated
deviations, as heroic, and those opposing them as utterly treacherous. Critical
news outlets in the Progressive-Left press argue that this reductionism omits
from responsibility the force guiltiest of destabilizing Iraq: the United States.
Mass media outlets largely exempt the U.S. from responsibility in escalating