Page 191 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Doctrines ofMedia and State 181

as when the administration began to push for neoliberalization of Iraq through
the passing of the Bremer Laws (2003), as well as the introduction of an Iraqi
law (which was passed by the Iraqi Parliament in 2007, but drafted largely in the
United States) which allows for the partial privatization of Iraqi oil through the
use of Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs).
Such paternalistic dominance was also evident in recent political develop-
ments, such as the Bush administration's pressuring of former Prime Minister
Ibrahim a-Jaafari not to seek a second term, and the domineering negative ap-
praisals of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as seen in a memo from National
Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. The memo, faulting Maliki for the growth of
sectarian violence in Iraq, spoke of the possibility that the U.S. might need to
push for the reconfiguration of Iraq's parliament. It also expressed displeasure
with Maliki's performance, wondering whether the U.S. and Maliki "share the
same vision for Iraq," and judging that Malih may not be "willing and able to
rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others.'*

The Construction of a Clean War

Perspectives criticizing the one-sided coverage of civilian casualties in Iraq sel-
dom receive serious attention throughout media reporting, although there are a
few important exceptions. One such exception was an episode of Oprah Winfiey
aired on January 23 2006. Oprah's guests included Peter Bergen, terrorism ex-
pert and author of Holy War Inc., Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden,
CMV Correspondent Michael Holmes, and Thomas Friedman, author and Op-Ed
writer for the New York Times, among others.'
The guests shared many similarities in their support for U.S. policy in Iraq,
and in their absence of bedrock challenges to the administration's central war
claims. Friedman has long been known as a proponent of war and occupation, as
was made apparent in analysis of his New York Times Op-Eds in chapter 4. Mi-
chael Holmes was intent to focus primarily on the "terror attacks. . . on Ameri-
can invaders," in contradiction to the traditional definition of terrorism as attacks
on civilians rather than military targets. Perhaps the most critical perspective on
this program, however, was that of Bergen, who spent the most time discussing
the failure to make Iraqi civilian casualties a serious subject of criticism in the
United States' media. In questioning Bergin, Oprah wondered why American
media networks and papers traditionally shy away from discussing Iraqi civilian
casualties, while American military casualties are meticulously documented. In
contrasting CMV International (which has generally taken a more balanced ap-
proach to reporting both Iraqi and American casualties) with ChTV in the United
States, Oprah's question was an important one for a journalistic system that is
known to place more of an emphasis on American casualties. In general, Bergen
agreed with Oprah that the American press has reported casualties in a lopsided
manner, asserting that the escalation of Iraqi deaths was one of the reasons why
the U.S. is "not liked" by many Iraqis. Bergen felt that that the failure of Ameri-