Page 199 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Doctrines of Media and State 189

genocide and the elimination of whole villages and tribes, such brutal tactics are
not an option for a democratic superpower.'*3
Although thousands were reportedly dying as a result of the cycle of vio-
lence, the notion that the U.S. was concerned with limiting collateral damage
continued unabated. One of the most popular methods of promoting this notion
was the framing of attacks on "insurgent targets." Headlines such as "U.S. tar-
geting insurgents in Northern Iraq," "109 Insurgents Killed in major [Falluja]
offensive," and "U.S. Bombs Insurgent Targets in Baghdad" were common in
sources such as CiKV, the Los Angeles Times, and the majority of media out-
let~!~ Offensives were said to take place against "insurgent dominated areas" as
the U.S. "put pressure on insurgent hideouts and bases.'*5 "Rebel controlled"
cities were attacked, giving the impression that those killed within those cities
were consistently and overwhelmingly sympathizers with, or supporters of resis-
tance groups!6 In obliterating "insurgent havens," U.S. leaders assured Ameri-
cans that they went "to great lengths in avoiding civilian casualties by carefully
weighing intelligence and following strict protocols," bombing with "near-
pinpoint precision.'*7 Such promises were shown to be false considering the
large number of civilians killed by American bombing, as indicated in the Lan-
cet reports.
Mainstream reporters who were reliant on official sources often found it
difficult to question those same sources of information in terms of their accuracy
in estimating civilian deaths. This likely has much to do with the dramatic cut in
money allocated in the corporate press toward international reporting, and the
increasingly dangerous prospect of reporting on the ground in Iraq outside of the
protection of American troops. Media critics Robert McChesney and John Nich-
ols claim that commercial pressures to cut down on reporting expense have led
media corporations to limit their reporting from within conflict zones: "U.S.
news media have few if any reporters on the ground to provide context for the
story. What this means is that there is less capacity for journalists to provide a
counterbalance to whatever official story Washington puts forward.'**
A major reason for the media's failure to challenge official claims has to do
with the escalating violence throughout countries like Iraq. As sectarian tensions
continue, and attacks between U.S. forces and resistance become worse, most
reporters fear for their lives. They fear being abducted by terrorist groups, guer-
illas, or various militias, or being killed by American bombs. While such fear is
understandable, it has led to less of a capacity to question official promises when
it comes to alleged efforts to limit collateral damage. As Patrick Cockburn, one
of the few reporters operating outside of military protection in occupied Iraq
explains: "So dangerous is it to travel anywhere in Iraq outside Kurdistan that it
is difficult for journalists to provide evidence of the slaughter house the country
has become without being killed thern~elves.'*~ The most important reason for
journalists and editors disregard for Iraqi casualties likely has to do with their
hesitance in challenging official propaganda concerning "collateral damage."
Journalists are inclined to accept proclamations that the U.S. is unique in world
history, particularly in its commitment to pursuing just wars and limiting civilian
casualties and destruction.