Page 150 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

140 Chapter 6

ering steam, were either missed, underreported, or poorly displayed" in the
mainstream press. Getler admitted that various protests against the war (inside
and outside the US.) in the pre-war period did not receive front-page coverage
he felt they deserved: he considered this a major problem for a paper priding
itself in presenting a diversity of views regarding the war?5 Such introspection
seems less common amongst most mainstream reporters, most of whom promote
the notion that mainstream reporting and editorializing strikes a balance between
different perspectives.
The claim that the American media is disinterested in rigorous criticisms of
U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts has gained more legitimacy in recent
years. Richard Sambrook, Director of BBC News World Service and Global
News division criticizes the American media for having "wrapped themselves in
the flag" and for failing to perform "the role the public expects of them-to ask
difficult questions, to press, to verify" the legitimacy of government statements
about war?6 Sambrook7s view is reinforced when one considers the nationalistic
pressures driving reporters and editors after the 911 1 attacks and throughout the
"War on Terror." Numerous pundits and commentators have demonstrated
strong skepticism of anti-war views throughout the Iraq war, as a "Fox Effect"
was said to have taken its toll on the television news networks. Joe Scarbarough
of MSNBC complained of "leftist stooges for anti-American causes" who "are
always given a free pass," as he asked, "Isn't it time to make them stand up and
be counted for their views?"27 Talk radio conservative Michael Savage dis-
counted anti-war protestors by arguing that, "They are absolutely committing
sedition or trea~on."'~ In his diatribe, Savage insisted that the American gov-
ernment must not only "arrest the leaders of the Anti-War Movement," but also
resurrect the Aliens and Seditions Act of 1918 that made criticisms of the gov-
ernment during times of war illegaLZ9 Bill O'Reilly of Fox News helped lead the
effort to downsize dissent by assailing the "nutty Left" for actions that "alienate"
it from "regular American~."~~
Distrust of anti-war views is based on the assumption that the United States
is committed to fighting a 'tjust war" in Iraq, and that those who question that
"just" war are "harming America." Columnists David Brooks and William
Safire of the New York Times have taken such an approach. Implying that criti-
cisms of the Iraq war equal support for the Baath regime, Brooks argued that,
"We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam,
but.. .this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed."31 Safire concurred, claiming
that those who criticized the administration's war were "prepared to let Saddam
remain in power."32 Along the same line of thought, Brit Hume of Fox News'
Special Report claims that it is "irresponsible" to talk of a withdrawal from Iraq.
Fred Barnes of the conservative Weekly Standard seems to agree, as he views
condemnations of the war as largely motivated by the Democratic party's efforts
to gain a "cheap political advantage" in the post-2004 election period.33 Anthony
Pagden argues in the Los Angeles Times: "When either detractors or defenders
of American foreign policy represent the U.S. as an expansionist empire impos-
ing some latter-day version of the 'white man's burden' on the world, they are
not just being historically misleading, they are courting political danger."34