Page 152 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

142 Chapter 6

tive sources), as revealed by various quantitative studies. One study conducted
by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) showed a lack of interest in dis-
sent to be a chronic problem for the T.V. networks during the initial stages of
the Iraq war. In reviewing the period from March 19 to April 9 2003, when the
war began, FAIR exhaustively studied nightly news programs including ABC
World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, CNWs WolfBlit-
zer Reports, Fox S Special Report with Brit Hume, and PBS's News Hour with
Jim Lehrer, showing that over two-thirds of all the on-camera sources used by
the programs were pro-war. While 71 percent of the guests who appeared on
these programs favored the war, only 10 percent of the guests were opposed.39
The situation was more extreme prior to the invasion. FAIR'S Steve Rendall
explains that, of the guests "on the four flagship shows on each of the four [ma-
jor] networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News) who spoke about Iraq over a two
week period in February [2003]. . . less than 1 percent anti-war voices were
heard.'" FAIR found the same tendency toward marginalizing dissent during the
war against Afghanistan. Analyzing New York Times and Washington Post edi-
torials during the first three weeks after 911 1, FAIR found that "columns calling
for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a great deal of
space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international law approaches as an
alternative to military action were nearly non-existent. A total of forty-four col-
umns in the New York Times and Washington Post clearly stressed a military
response, against only two columns stressing non-military solution^.'^^
Anti-war critics have been portrayed as opponents of democracy and as
pacifists. In the Los Angeles Times, conservative activist David Horowitz de-
picted anti-war protestors as anti-democratic, arguing: "the [anti-war] 'move-
ment' is now in full attack mode against its own democratic government in a
time of war. . . . This is no longer a loyal opposition. It is no longer the voice of
a progressive future that once upon a time would have opposed misogyny, thug-
gery, and the depravity of regimes like Saddam ~ussein's.'*~ The New York
Times labeled Barbara Lee (D-Ca), and anti-corporate globalization activist
Kevin Danaher as "pacifists" shortly after the 9/11 attacks.43 This was not the
first reference to "pacifists" in the New York Times, as the paper ran a headline a
few days earlier titled "Protestors in Washington Urge Peace with Terrorists," in
reference to an anti-war demonstration that had recently taken place.44 Other
references to "pacifists" were more blatantly hostile. Michael Kelly of the Wash-
ington Post railed critics of the Afghan war, claiming that, "Pacifists are not
serious people. . . and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the mo-
ment." Continuing his pro-war diatribe, Kelly invoked the right of self-defense:
"In the situation where one's nation has been attacked-a situation such as we
are now in-pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the
case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of the murderers, and it is
on the side of letting them murder again.'*'
The simplistic use of the "pacifist" label fails to address serious grievances
of anti-war protestors. Reviewing the statements of Danaher and other anti-war
figures attacked in the media, it becomes clear that the debate over war cannot
be accurately characterized by the simple-minded dichotomy presented by the