Page 151 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Free Speech Fatalities 141

Attacks on dissent are not restricted only to conservative media commenta-
tors and editorialists. At the onset of the Iraq war, CBS News anchor Dan Rather
argued that "It's not a time to argue" over the legitimacy of the invasion, while
admitting that, during the Afghan war, the media "didn't ask enough thorough
questions" (he claims this is "usually the case in war time'').35 Rather, however,
was simply reiterating his longstanding position on the inappropriateness of dis-
sent in times of war, as he argued during the Afghan war that, "George Bush is
the president. He makes the decisions. . . wherever he wants me to line up, just
tell me where."36 Peter Beinart of the New Republic professed a similar point of
view, stating shortly after the September 11 attacks that, "This nation is now at
war. And in such an environment, domestic political dissent is immoral without
a prior statement of national solidarity, a choosing of sides."37
Dissent is also limited when it comes to those who argue that the U.S. is
indirectly fueling anti-American hostility and contributing to the likelihood of
terrorist attacks on American soil. Thomas Friedman, the well-respected estab-
lishment liberal from the New York Times, contends that, "After every major
terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zion-
ism, colonialism, or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers
are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be ex-
posed.'"8 Friedman's comments hardly seem intended to promote an open forum
for discussion of the root causes of terrorist attacks, (at least with those who
claim the U.S. may be inciting terrorism). Such open debate should be the goal
in any democratic media system. Quite the contrary, Friedman's comments fall
in line with administration justifications that absolve the U.S. in any blame for
fueling the anti-Americanism of groups like Al Qaeda, while attacking those
who do not agree as anti-American.
Rather, Friedman, and Beinart's comments show that denunciations of anti-
war perspectives are not limited to conservatives in the press. Liberal news
mediums like CBS and the New Republic subscribe to what amounts to strong
support for authority and in the post-911 1 political climate, allowing only narrow
limits from which to dissent against government policy. The adherence to offi-
cial state doctrines proclaiming American commitment to democracy and jus-
tice, while simultaneously attacking anti-war views protected under the 1st
amendment, constitutes is a serious problem from a democratic standpoint, as
disagreement with elected officials never requires a permission slip from gov-
ernment. The freedom to disagree with political leaders and others without being
blackballed from public discussion is supposed to be a guiding principle of
American democracy and freedom of speech in the media. The media's uncom-
fortable reactions to anti-war dissent throw the alleged commitment to balanced
reporting into serious question. Reporters, pundits, editors and owners have of-
ten shown that they would prefer to downplay or ignore anti-war protestors and
their arguments rather than discuss their views rigorously and respectfully
through open dialogue.
CBS and the New Republic are not the only liberal establishment outlets
opposed to substantive criticisms of American foreign policy. Disapproval of
anti-war views encompasses the entire mainstream media (liberal and conserva-