Page 179 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

A World of Orwellian Doublethink 169

Possibly Imminent War

Media doublethink has a primary audience in mind: the political, economic, and
social elites responsible for formulating U.S. foreign policy. American elites
must be aware, at least on some level, of the contradictions in such an imperial
philosophy if they are to effectively obscure those contradictions when promot-
ing official statements and propaganda. This should hardly be considered a
"conspiracy theory" explanation, as individuals often attempt to reconcile their
beliefs with conflicting realities. The trend is commonly noted in fields like Psy-
chology in reference to the concept of "cognitive dissonance," where individuals
hold two contradictory ideas or beliefs in their mind simultaneously.
Those promoting Media doublethink have attempted to straddle the line
between unrealistic portrayals of current events described in government propa-
ganda, and more realistic accounts of what is really happening in the world. One
of the best examples of the effort to walk this fine line was seen in the media's
treatment of the longstanding policy of members of the Bush administration to
invade Iraq-a policy objective that spans back to well before Bush took office
in 2000. In undertaking this balancing act, the New York Times warned of "pos-
sibly imminent military action against Iraq" [emphasis added] in the weeks be-
fore the invasion.46 This problematic phrasing signified more than just bad use
of language; it was representative of the media's attempts to reconcile two con-
flicting stories: the propaganda approach taken by the Bush administration,
which claimed that war was a last option and that the U.S. would do everything
possible to deter the need for an invasion, and the reality, that members of the
Bush administration had long favored an attack on Iraq not only immediately
after 911 1, but years before Bush took political office. It is clear that the Bush
administration was committed to war with Iraq long before March 2003, as the
Downing Street Memo and other political statements from former members of
the Bush administration reveal.
Albert Einstein once said that, "a country cannot simultaneously prevent
and prepare for war." Mass media outlets like the New York Times, which por-
trayed the U.S. as both intent on war and hopeful to prevent it, largely ignored
this insight. The New York Times was supportive of the Bush administration's
attempts to convince the American public that the war on Iraq was not a choice
made by American leaders, but rather a decision forced upon the U.S. after
countless patient efforts to resolve the weapons of mass destruction "threat"
through peaceful overtures. Despite these efforts, it remained obvious to many
who critically followed the pre-war political climate that the Bush administra-
tion had already decided to go to war with Saddam Hussein, and that the goal
had always been to overthrow the Baath regime. This revelation is difficult to
deny in light of the Blair administration's admission in July 2002 that "military
action" was "now seen as inevitable."
Prominent figures such as Richard Clarke, the former White House Anti-
Terrorism Chief, and Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense, ex-
plained the long-term plans to attack Iraq in detail. Clarke recounted a conversa-
tion he had with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shortly after the 9/11