Page 153 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Free Speech Fatalities 143

Washington Post of the "good" pro-war advocates versus the "bad" anti-war
"pacifists." In a column for the Washington Post, Danaher was given a chance to
respond to the charges against him and other dissidents after 911 1. Elaborating
upon the nuances of the anti-war-pro-war debate that have often been absent in
the mainstream press, Danaher wrote:

The perpetrators of the recent attacks can be apprehended and brought to justice
without killing innocent civilians if we have the support of the world's govern-
ments. If America were to engage the world in setting up an effective international
criminal court system, the support from other nations would be so strong it would
be impossible for any country to shelter the perpetrators of mass violence.46
While the Washington Post's decision to allow Danaher a chance to respond to
his attackers was a step in the right direction in terms of promoting dissent, most
anti-war activists have not been allotted similar space to respond to their detrac-
tors, or to enunciate a cogent anti-war platform.
Reminiscent of the anti-"pacifist" approach in terms of its simplicity is the
assumption that anti-war views are not worth addressing if the American public
does not commonly hold those views. Rationalizing a failure to incorporate anti-
war views, media outlets sometimes assume that the vast majority of the popula-
tion does not harbor similar perspectives. This belief was widely reflected in the
war against Afghanistan. Rena Golden, executive Vice President and General
Manager of CMV International explains that censorship in that war "wasn't a
matter of government pressure, but a reluctance to criticize anything in a war
that was obviously supported by the vast majority of the [American] people.'*7
When asked if there were any anti-war views amongst the American public after
911 1, Cokie Roberts of National Public Radio responded that there were "None
that matter.'*8 Similarly, Erik Sorenson, President of MSNBC claimed that
"There has not been a lot of debate period," and that "most of the dissent we've
had on the air is the opposite-conservatives like John McCain and Bill Bennett
saying we should bomb more or attack ~ra~."~
The assumption that Americans are not interested in anti-war views is prob-
lematic for a few reasons. First, this position neglects a significant number of
Americans who were actually against the war. As former MSNBC talk show host
Phil Donahue explained, "You cannot say that people willing to speak up
[against the Afghan war] are not in existence. . . . There is just not a lot of enthu-
siasm for this on the [mainstream news] programs."50 Second, the assumption
that anti-war views are not represented amongst the American public overlooks
the media's role in shaping pro-war opinions in the first place. Rather than me-
dia executives, reporters, and pundits asking "why should we cover anti-war
views if the public does not believe in them?," the question posed could have
been: "will public opinion swing in favor of the war if we refuse to expose
Americans to peaceful alternatives to war, instead of just violent ones?" The
media does not simply "reflect public opinion" in its reporting, but plays an ac-
tive role in formulating that opinion. The mainstream media largely failed in its
task of educating the public about the full range of views that existed after 911 1
in terms of potential U.S. responses. One of the most relevant questions, then,