Page 172 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

162 Chapter 7

cation of "enemies" is undoubtedly relevant within the context of the "War on
Terror," particularly in reference to the countries labeled as part of the "Axis of
Evil" by the Bush administration. The applicability of Orwell's tale of endless
war has not been lost today in many understandings of the "War on Terror"
which view the Bush administration as attempting to indoctrinate the public so
as to justify aggressive and illegal war, as well as reinforce a permanent "War
on Terror" with no clear end or exit plan in sight. In citing George Orwell,
Nancy Snow, author of Information War and Propaganda Inc. claims: "The
slogan 'war on terrorism' remains a convenient state tactic to control public
opinion, expand the climate of fear, and shut down opposition to war in Iraq and
elsewhere. . . to many, we live in a climate of fear that chills dissent from the
state's declaration of war.'"'
Of course, government and media propaganda have always been essential in
efforts to convince citizens within democracies of the veracity of officially es-
poused war aims. The war in Iraq is only the most recent in a longstanding effort
on the part of the government and the media to portray the U.S. as uncondition-
ally committed to spreading justice, freedom, human rights, and democracy
throughout the globe. In this sense, the mass media serves its role well in deter-
ring dissent directed against the war. While the media should obviously not be
considered the direct equivalent of the government "thought police," in 1984,
the American media has performed a vital role in reinforcing the pro-war ortho-
doxy at the expense of radical anti-war criticisms. By marginalizing anti-war
activists from public discourse, the mass media sends a clear message that cov-
erage of dissent is not a priority if such views frame the U.S. government as a
repressive and malicious force in world affairs. The negative responses to criti-
cisms of the Iraq war discussed in chapter 6, including the Korean Newsweek
"scandal," the smearing of Cindy Sheehan, the attempted censorship of Michael
Moore, and the expulsion of Phil Donahue from MSNBC, reflect the larger trend
of policing media discourse in favor of pro-war doctrines.
Numerous American and British corporate media outlets have used Orwell
in their diatribes against the Left. Time and Life Magazine saw Orwell's work as
an attack against the English labor party, ignoring the long-standing support
Orwell had extended to it. Other conservative newspapers like the Wall Street
Journal and the Economist saw 1984 primarily as anti-c~mmunist,'~ contrary to
Orwell's original intentions. In his essay Why I Write, Orwell dispelled such
misinterpretations, and confirmed his commitment to socialism, as he recounted
that, "Every line of serious work I have written since 1936 has been written,
directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I
understand it."I4 Orwell elaborated: "My recent novel is NOT intended as an
attack on Socialism or on the British Labour Party (of which I am a supporter),
but as a show-up of the perversions to which a centralized economy is liable and
which have already been partly realized in Communism and Fascism. . . . I be-
lieve also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals eve-
rywhere. . . The scene of the book is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that
the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that to-
talitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere."'5