Page 175 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

A World of Orwellian Doublethink 165

expected even in Orwell's life. Corporate consolidation of the media has contin-
ued unabated in recent decades, as fewer and fewer corporations promote a mo-
nopoly, not only on media ownership, but on the very ideas that influence and
shape public opinion in regards to the "War on Terror."

War is Peace:
The Myth of the Peaceful War Machine

Much of the doublethink in corporate reporting of the Iraq war could very well
fit within the pages of Orwell's 1984. The belief that wars of aggression can be
fought in "self defense" is welcomed by U.S. leaders and by the media. The idea
that the United States can pursue a large number of wars, one after another, al-
ways under the banner of "self-defense," has also been a main characteristic of
military propaganda. One of the most poignant examples is illustrated in the
1947 name change of the "Department of War" into the "Department of De-
fense." In this case, Orwellian doublethink was effectively employed in order to
mask expansionist ambitions under the justification of defending the U.S. from
Soviet imperialism. Today, the doublethink "war is defense" ideology is appli-
cable to the conflict in Iraq and beyond. The belief that "Operation Iraqi Free-
dom" was intended to protect Americans against weapons of mass destruction
and the "threat" of a Baath Party-A1 Qaeda alliance is an important part of this
trend. Charles Weingartner remarks on the perception that increases in military
spending are always and inherently "defensive" initiatives by explaining: "Eve-
ryone, including generals (at least publicly) is 'against' war":

According to the military, we need to spend more and more money every year
for weapons systems not to be prepared to conduct a war but to 'protect the
peace.' This form of lunacy seems always to have been popular, but after al-
most forty years of media assisted training in paranoia, the American public
now 'requires' any presidential candidate to vow a commitment to national de-
fen~e.~~

Doublethink in the "War on Terror" began with the Bush administration's
portrayal of the United States as simultaneously committed to peace and
permanent war. The contradictory trends were apparent from the beginning,
even if many Americans chose not to notice, as President Bush characterized the
U.S. is "a peaceful nation,"26 while also explaining that, "Our war on terror be-
gins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist
group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."27 The shock at the
911 1 terrorist attacks may very well have been enough to obscure this Orwellian
framing, as many Americans seemed to ignore the long-term implications of
Bush's plans for war without visible end in favor of the short-term goal of bring-
ing the 911 1 attackers to justice. On the other hand, American perceptions seem
to have changed to a significant degree as the "War on Terror" continues. As the
war in Iraq progresses, many Americans wonder whether it is possible for
Americans to live in peace while at the same time committing to a "War on Ter-