Page 228 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

218 Chapter 9

cisms of Republicans, Democrats, and military officials, these alternative media
systems are less bound by the conventional dogmas that privilege official
sources, and less likely to allow those sources to dominate news and editorial
content.
In presenting alternative models of framing the Iraq war, the intention here
is not to pick one over all others, but to recognize that many different media
systems provide valuable insights suppressed by American mainstream media.
The national media systems focused on in this chapter distinguish themselves in
one way or another from American mainstream media in that they present sub-
stantive criticisms of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, rather than relying
primarily upon the pragmatic, strategic criticisms described in chapter 4. For
one, the more anti-war leaning parts of the British and Australian Press-
particularly the Guardian and the Independent of London, and the Sydney Morn-
ing Herald-have more vigorously pursued a style of reporting that frames the
news in ways that challenges the legitimacy of the U.S. presence in Iraq and
casts a negative light on U.S. actions throughout the Middle East. The American
independent media (or Progressive-Left media), is another example of a media
system that seriously questions the validity of the U.S. role in the "War on Ter-
ror." These anti-war media aim to counter the propagandistic coverage in the
American corporate media.
Unembedded, "unilateral" journalism is often a preferred method of report-
ing in alternative media paradigms. Unilteral reporters, such as Dahr Jamail,
Rahul Mahajan, David Enders, Aaron Glantz, Christian Parenti, Patrick Cock-
bum and Robert Fisk-all reporting outside the U.S. mass media-pursue a sub-
stantively different method of reporting than American embeds, who get their
news by traveling with the U.S. military. Unembedded journalists have risked
their lives by reporting away from the protection of U.S. troops, as the case of
Mazen Dana demonstrates. Their coverage, however, often reflects their strong
level of independence from government-dominated narratives.
Five months after the 2003 U.S. invasion, and three months after President
Bush declared that, "major combat operations have ended," Iraq remained an
unsafe place for reporters. August 17,2003 marked the death of Mazen Dana, a
cameraman for Reuters news service who was reporting outside of the protec-
tion of the American military from a bridge outside the Abu Ghraib prison in
west Baghdad. Awarded the International Press Freedom Award, and considered
"one of ReutersY finest j am era men,"^ Dana had considerable experience in war-
time media coverage. Reporting in the West Bank for over two years on escalat-
ing Israeli and Palestinian bloodshed, Dana was no stranger to the perils of
chronicling violent conflict. Dana was reassigned from the West Bank for his
own security, after Israeli Defense Forces repeatedly assaulted him, breaking his
hands twice and shooting him dozen of times with rubber bulletx4
Tragically, Dana's situation did not improve after he began reporting from
Iraq, as he was killed by an American tank that fired a large caliber machine gun
round into his chest.' Although American soldiers attempted to resuscitate him,
it was too late, as he succumbed to extensive wounds, his camera having caught
the whole attack in progress. Dana became another of the media's many casual-