Page 290 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

280 Chapter I1

contingency plan in which the U.S. might use "low-yield, precision guided nu-
clear weapons."' The countries on the list considered for attack included: Libya,
Syria, China, Russia, Iran, Iraq (pre-invasion), and North Korea, all of which
were considered, to varying degrees, as risks to American power if left un-
~hecked.~ The possible targeting of these regimes was directly addressed in Na-
tional Security Directive Seventeen, issued by the Bush administration in De-
cember of 2002, which indicated that the U.S. considered first-strike scenarios to
"prevent any enemy from using WMD against the u.s.'*
Although the Nuclear Posture Review only discussed the possible, not
planned use, of nuclear weapons "in the event of surprising military develop-
ments" or in retaliation for nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons attacks
against the U.S.; one can only imagine the reaction of American policymakers
and media pundits if an "enemy" state on the NPR list were to release a similar
document indicating potential plans to bomb American targets with nuclear
weapons. One would expect extensive coverage of such threats to U.S. national
security in the American mass media, although such coverage did not material-
ize in relation to U.S. threats made in the NPR against other countries.
Major criticisms of, and challenges to, the NPR were lacking from main-
stream media coverage. That the U.S. is moving to prohibit other countries' de-
velopment of WMD, while simultaneously advocating the construction of a new
generation of nuclear weapons for potential use on enemy targets, was not an
issue singled out for media commentary, as discussion about the potential for a
re-ignition of the nuclear arms race through development of a smaller generation
of nuclear weapons was largely cast aside. The U.S. possession and use of
WMD against civilian populations (whether through use of nuclear or chemical
weapons or conventional bombing), all the while claiming that other countries
must dismantle their WMD stockpiles, has also generally been an area of criti-
cism considered out of bounds in media reporting and debate. Much of this re-
lates to the ideological assumption-discemable throughout American elite cul-
tur-that the U.S. responsibly retains weapons of mass destruction, whereas
enemy states irresponsibly possess or pursue them.
The American media establishment has generally declined to push the Bush
administration on whether there is a specific timeframe in which they expect the
"War on Terror" to be completed; rather, most reporters seem to have accepted
the thesis that today's world is one in which global terror threats are constantly
materializing, and prolonged engagement in foreign wars may be necessary for
decades to come in order to fight terrorism. In light of this reluctance to push for
a foreseeable end to the "War on Terror," media institutions have reaffirmed
their subordinate status to the Bush administration, as non-adversarial standards
of reporting prohibit journalists from actively playing a role in politics by put-
ting forth critical analysis and questioning administration policy plans.
Media deference is apparent in a wide range of cases, as the examples of the
verbal attacks on Syria, Iran, and North Korea demonstrate. The interests of
these regimes are portrayed as inimical to the safety and way of life of the
American people, as major print headlines discuss Iran and North Korea's hav-
ing "Reignite[d] Fears" amongst Americans of "Atomic Programs9'-with the