Page 14 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

4 Introduction

Before analyzing the pro-war framing of the American mainstream press, it
is necessary to lay out some of the underlying structural factors that account for
the convergence between the media and the Bush administration's portrayals of
the U.S. "War on Terror." Chapter 2 sets out to achieve this goal. Understanding
patterns of media framing is essential when looking at the ideology motivating
the reporting of the news. Some of the main elements driving reporting include:
media power, as exercised through framing and agenda setting; media omission
and censorship of controversial, anti-war views; the uncritical transmission of,
and reliance on, official statements and propaganda; the use of excessive fluff,
or "junk news," as opposed to news stories that are critical of the war; and fi-
nally, corporate ownership of the media as an impediment to more balanced
reporting of both pro-war and anti-war opinions.
Chapter 3 examines the role of the major American media in reinforcing the
claims of the Bush administration that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruc-
tion (WMD). This chapter starts by looking at the marginalization of the Down-
ing Street Memo, a declassified record of the conversation between British
Prime Minister Tony Blair and his cabinet concerning Iraq's lack of weapons of
mass destruction. The chapter continues with an in-depth analysis of the report-
ing of the New York Times in the months before the war, and reveals a clear pat-
tern of unbalanced reporting in favor of the Bush administration's WMD claims,
at the expense of critical reporting and editorializing.
Chapter 4 provides an extensive background to the media's treatment of the
Bush administration's efforts to "democratize" Iraq. The media role in promot-
ing a charitable, humanitarian vision of the U.S. is examined throughout the
different periods of the Iraq war, including the pre-invasion stage, the invasion
stage, the ongoing occupation stage, and the Iraqi elections. In addition to ad-
dressing the media's views of Iraqi "democracy," the chapter also focuses on the
nature of the criticisms of the Bush administration that have appeared in the
mainstream press. As this chapter shows, these criticisms have taken more of a
pragmatic, limited tone, as they focus on how better to fight the war, rather than
how to oppose it. Such criticisms include faulting the U.S. for not having
enough troops in Iraq for the pacification campaign, for mismanaging the occu-
pation, and for the large cost of occupying Iraq. These criticisms differ substan-
tially from those addressed in chapter 9, as alternative media paradigms (anti-
war sectors of the British and Australian press, the American independent me-
dia, and A1 Jazeera) have presented foundational, substantive criticisms of the
U.S. war in Iraq as illegal under international law, as driven by imperial lust
rather than democracy, and as the primary cause of unfolding humanitarian dis-
aster. Chapter 4 pays special attention to the editors, reporters, and columnists of
the New York Times, who have ofien been inaccurately classified as anti-war.
Chapter 5 addresses the "other side of the coin" concerning the U.S. role in
Iraq. If the U.S. (according to mainstream media coverage) is in Iraq to foster
democracy, promote human rights, and stabilize the country, what is the role of
Iraq's growing resistance? As this chapter shows, Iraqi resistance to occupation
has been characterized in reporting and editorializing as bent on destabilizing
Iraq, derailing democracy, terrorizing the country, and hampering progress. This