Page 238 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

228 Chapter 9

meaningful self-government."50 Fisk's skepticism is partly based upon a distrust
of the CPA's Bremer laws (named after Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA in
Iraq), which have sought to open up Iraq's economy to foreign investment by
multinational corporations.
Fisk portrays the Iraqi state as in total disarray: "They have no control over
their oil, no authority over the streets of Baghdad, let alone the rest of the coun-
try, no workable army or loyal police f~rce."~' Fisk's assessment of lawlessness
in Iraq is longstanding, as he has reported in other stories that coalition forces
The
control little of Iraq outside of the Green Zone in ~a~hdad.~~ state of anar-
chy and unfolding civil war throughout much of Iraq makes it difficult for re-
porters to travel throughout the country without military escorts for fear of being
kidnapped or killed. Independent editorial reporting has rendered the situation in
Iraq along similar lines. One editorial dated early 2005 questioned the connec-
tion between the invasion of Iraq and the implementation of democracy as one
that is "tenuous at best." Claiming democracy to be primarily a product of in-
digenous struggle, the Independent's editors argued that, "If something akin to
democracy eventually transpires in Iraq, it will be thanks to the determination of
Iraqis themselves-which is the only way democracy can come about anywhere,
and endure."53
Fisk targets the American media specifically for criticism, denouncing it for
its "lobotomized coverage" of the "War on Terror" and for its "incestuous" rela-
tionship with the government.54 Fisk describes his experience with reporters who
intentionally pull punches in their reports so as not to offend the government:
"Over and over again. . . . I talk to my American colleagues [reporting in the
Middle East]. And what they tell me is fascinating. They really have a deep in-
sight, many of them, into what's happening in the region, but when I read their
reports its not there. Everything they have to tell me of interest has been
erased."55
Part of the reason for this trend likely originates in journalists' attempts to
self-censor and conform to pro-war ideology, and from fear of being labeled
"anti-American" or "unpatriotic" should they question the government in times
of war. Little else (short of editorial censorship back home) would explain why
they deliberately change their news reports to reflect more conservative, pro-war
and pro-American perspectives that contrast so much from their own views.
Fisk believes that the terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Britain, are, in
part, motivated by Western injustices committed in the Middle East. While the
Washington Post viewed the July 2005 London terrorist attacks as retaliation
against the actions of "the democracies allied in combating Islamic extremism,"
Fisk took the opposite view by claiming that, while the attacks were clearly a
crime against humanity, they were also a reaction to Western neo~olonialism.~~
Explaining that the G8 Summit day was "obviously chosen, well in advance, as
Attack Day," Fisk believes that these terrorist acts of aggression are likely an
effort to force a British withdrawal from Iraq. Britain may very well become a
target of terrorist groups like A1 Qaeda because of its participation in the Iraq
war, Fisk argues. He speaks critically of media apathy toward "children tom
apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American