Page 276 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

266 Chapter 10

ployers, Ogilvy & Mather and J. Walter Thompson, which worked with high
profile companies such as IBM, Jaguar, and American Express in their PR cam-
paigns.
In efforts such as the "Shared Values" promotion, Beers was responsible for
spreading images throughout the media of Muslims living peacefully and suc-
cessfully in America in order to try and bridge the gap between the "American
way of life" and the estranged "others" in the Muslim world. Beers' campaign
was criticized by some media critics, as well as by members of Congress for
ineffectiveness and deceptive marketing. Beers' efforts focused on comrnunicat-
ing "the intangible assets of the United States-things like our belief system and
our va~ues.''~ Like other members of the current administration, Beers felt that
"the gap between who we [Americans] are and how we wish to be seen ... is
frighteningly ~ide."~' What was her solution?: focus on getting the Muslim
world to accept a more positive image of the U.S. as a country committed to
equal rights, tolerance, and democracy.
The campaign to "better sell" the U.S. image abroad obviously failed in that
it ignored the divergent realities of American freedom at home and oppressive
American policies abroad, as witnessed in such incidents as the Abu Ghraib
scandal and other system-wide abuses on detainees' rights, as well as the loss of
tens of thousands of civilian lives in bombing operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq. While Beers eventually quit her post due to "health reasons," hers and the
State Department's effort to enhance positive perceptions of the U.S. in the
Muslim world was generally seen as a failure. By 2005, a full two years after the
invasion of Iraq, a report by the Council on Foreign Relations revealed that dis-
trust and suspicion of the United States was still "widespread in the Muslim
world," mainly because of "anger at U.S. policies in Iraq, and its role in the
Israeli-Palestinian ~onflict."~'
PR efforts aside, it did not take long for the American media and political
establishment to begin their calls for violent reprisal when the American people
were most shocked (rightfully so) over the attacks on the Pentagon and the
World Trade Towers. In an editorial titled "War Without Illusions," the New
York Times editors concluded that there was "no doubt" that the 9/11 attacks
represented "the opening salvos in the first American war of the twenty-first
century. Less clear is just what sort of war this will be and how the United States
can ensure that it prevails.''3 Within days of the attacks, television headlines
such as "America at War" (CNN) were common, as were print titles including
"It's War" (the front page of New York Daily News) and "Act(s) of War" (USA
Today and Sun Jose Merculy News). Although no enemy had yet been identi-
fied, war was often seen as inevitable. Sebastian Mallaby argued in the Wash-
ington Post that a newly declared "War on Terrorism will be appallingly diffi-
cult," although "it is the least bad option."64 Only four days after the 9/11
attacks, the Washington Post was already preparing for war, listing "a broad
array of potential targets," including Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, and North Ko-
rea, all of which were framed as accused of having "aided terrorists to one de-
gree or another." The paper's editors argued that "It is impossible to imagine the
United States 'winning' this war in any meaningful sense while Saddam Hussein