Page 174 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

164 Chapter 7

Like the corporate media today, the Ministry of Truth played a vital role in
attempting to erase controversial views that challenged official government po-
sitions and propaganda on issues related to war and peace. However, corporate
media, operating in a democratic society, is not reliant on violent repression of
dissidents; rather, those who vigorously challenge official justifications for war
are typically weeded out through a pattern of verbal attacks and firings, and sup-
pression and omission of controversial views. This is a major point of distinction
that must be made between totalitarian societies as seen in 1984, and democratic
societies like the United States. Like the Ministry of Truth, the American mass
media typically relies on the selective use of framing to portray government
motives as unworthy of challenge. This has clearly been the case amongst more
conservative media outlets such as Fox News, the Washington Times, and the
Weekly Standard, as well as in liberal establishment sources. The crucial differ-
ence, though, that must be taken into account when considering the relationship
between the Ministry of Truth and Oceania's government, as contrasted with the
corporate media and its relationship with American government-is the form of
ownership of the press. While the government directly controlled the ministries
in 1984, corporate media has traditionally operated independently, outside the
scope of direct official control. Noam Chomsky characterizes corporate media
outlets as institutions, not owned by the government, but playing an important
role in "controlling [public] opinions and attitudes." Chomsky declares: "these
corporations are not just taking orders from the government but are closely
linked to the government, of course":"

the press faces powerful pressures that induce it, and often almost compel it, to
be anything but free. After all, the mainstream media are part of the corporate
sector that dominates the economy and social life. And they rely on corporate
advertising for their income. This isn't the same as state control, but is never-
theless a system of corporate control very closely linked to the state.22

Orwell also spoke of the structural biases inherent in corporate ownership of
the media in which Chomsky speaks. Identifying the narrow spectrum of
thought in Britain's media, and discrediting the myth of a corporate "free press,"
Orwell commented that, "the degree of freedom of the press existing in this
country is overrated. Technically there is great freedom, but the fact that most of
the press is owned by a few people operates in much the same way as state cen-
~orshi~.'"~ Such structural impediments to the exchange of a wider range of
ideas concerning the legitimacy of the Iraq war inevitably limit the degree to
which journalists pose questions challenging official wartime motives.
Orwell felt that corporate ownership was a main cause of censorship of con-
troversial ideas. In his discussion of the limits of journalistic freedom, he wrote
that, "Any writer or journalist who wants to retain his integrity finds himself
thwarted by the general drift of society rather than by active persecution." Or-
well was talking, among other trends, about "the concentration of the press in
the hands of a few men," specifically in terms of "the grip of [the] monopoly on
radio and the films" in his day.24 Today, corporate media conglomeration has
been shown at times to rely on doublethink to a degree that may have been un-