Page 215 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Doctrines of Media and State

Iraqi Democracy:
Public Opinion and Elections

Media defenses of US "humanitarianism" in Iraq have generally failed to ad-
dress mass Iraqi resistance to occupation, and the implications of such resistance
for the legitimacy of "democracy promotion" claims. John Kampfner, producer
for the BBC News program "War Spin" observes that, "In the [United] States, as
far as I can ascertain, there is a presumption that politicians are right, and truth-
ful and honest. That is the default from which everything else operates."'34 This
default requires that certain questions about U.S. involvement in Iraq receive
precedence, while others are not addressed. It is common, for example, to ask
questions about how long it will take for democracy to come to fruition, or
whether the costs in terms of monetary drain on the US. economy are worth it
or not. However, some questions are deemed off limits. Some of those questions
are included below:
What does it mean to speak about the importance of "pacification" of Iraqi
resistance to occupation and about bringing "democracy" to Iraq when the vast
majority of Iraqis are against the U.S. presence in Iraq, and most actively sup-
port attacks on U.S. troops?
How strong is the government's commitment to democracy abroad when
the Bush administration is reluctant to even consider American opinion at home,
where most of the public would like to see a move toward phased withdrawal,
rather than prolonged, indefinite occupation?
Can democracy be imposed or initiated from the outside, or is it inherently
dependent, rather, upon domestic activism and struggle to be legitimate?
How "democratic" were the elections in Iraq when the U.S. largely failed to
involve the Iraqi people directly in the political process?

This question is perhaps most relevant at a time when the US. was claiming
democracy promotion as its main pre-text for remaining in Iraq, and when evi-
dence on the ground suggested otherwise. A poll from the International Repub-
lican Institute (IRI), for example, showed that, whlle 71.4 percent of Iraqis ques-
tioned intended on voting in the 2005 election, few Iraqis actually knew what
they were voting for 54.5 percent of Iraqis questioned provided wrong answers
to the question of what they were voting for, claiming they were either voting
for a President (they were not), or that they "didn't know" who they were voting
for, while only 28 percent correctly answered that they were voting for a trans-
national assembly.'35
It is easy to argue that reporters should not try and answer such questions if
they are interested in letting readers decide for themselves about the nature of
the U.S. presence in Iraq. However, questions like these should, ideally, be rep-
resented on at least some level in media reporting if the goal is to promote open
dialogue, and critical thought. Scholars and anti-war critics could easily be con-
sulted in media reporting, if reporters and editors were to reconsider their com-
mitment to propagandistic news coverage. Such fundamental questions about
U.S. humanitarianism have arisen in dissident magazines and other news