Page 149 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Free Speech Fatalities 139

ernment that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these stan-
dards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq." Colbert also placed sig-
nificant blame for the WMD debacle on the mainstream media. Speaking criti-
cally of reporters' deference to the Bush administration's pre-war claims about
Iraq, Colbert stated: "Let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president
makes decisions, he's the decider. The press secretary announces those deci-
sions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce,
type. Put them through a spell check and go home."23
By the end of Colbert's tirade against the press and the President, Bush was
no longer smiling. A number of guests sitting near the President later confirmed
that he had been offended by Colbert's attacks. That President Bush was so
shocked by Colbert's comments itself may be a serious indicator of the failure of
the mainstream press to regularly direct critical questions at the President-for if
such questions were common amongst reporters questioning Bush, why take
them so personally? One thing was for certain: Colbert's tone was far more
harsh and critical than Bush and his Press Secretaries were used to when it came
to their White House Press Corps briefings. Chicago Sun Times TV critic Doug
Elfman claimed that, "For perhaps the first time, the president was forced to sit
and listen to a litany of criminal and corruption allegations." Elfman faulted the
White House Press Corps, which he referred to as "the unthinlung and unblink-
ing herd of pack journalists," for "virtually ignoring Stephen Colbert's keynote
speech," claiming that "The truth is [that] many in the media. . . didn't report
much on Colbert's funnier, harsher jokes. . . shocking lines were barely covered
by any traditional [media] organ," outside of a few exceptions like Editor &
Publisher magazine and USA ~oda~.~~ tendency to downplay the harsher
The
parts of Colbert's speech is far from an isolated incident in media reporting and
editorializing when it comes to restricting anti-war dissent. Indeed, there is a
longstanding pattern of neglecting, glossing over, and sometimes actively at-
tacking anti-war perspectives throughout the mainstream press. Such criticisms
are often viewed as a serious threat to the justifications for war put forth by
American political leaders.
Government and media aversion to anti-war dissent is commonplace during
times of war, and the political atmosphere surrounding the U.S. interventions in
Afghanistan and Iraq has been no different. The mainstream media has generally
been critical of anti-war dissent, as arguments that charge the U.S. with aggres-
sion, and human rights violations represent a diversion from official statements
and media framing which seek to reinforce the veracity of the Iraq war and its
"humanitarian motivations." This chapter is primarily concerned with analyzing
anti-war dissent, as well as the punishments leveled throughout the American
media aimed at restricting that dissent.
In a story run on June 20 2004 entitled, "Looking Back Before the War,"
Washington Post ombudsmen Michael Getler claimed that his paper did not de-
vote adequate attention to the anti-war movement as it was growing in late 2002
and early 2003. He summarized the paper's failure to cover the movement as
follows: "too many public events in which alternative views were expressed
[against the war], especially during 2002, when the debate [over war] was gath-