Page 297 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

A Game Plan for Infinite War?

American Media and the British-Iranian Standoff:
An Application of the Propaganda Model
As those who were following news events unfolding in the Middle East in
March 2007 certainly knew, there was no shortage of govemment propaganda
on all sides of the British-Iranian detainment crisis. British and American lead-
ers denounced Iran for intimidation, coercion, and arrogance, while Iranian
leaders made similar charges against the Bush and Blair governments. The dis-
pute between the three countries finally came to an end with the unconditional
release of the British "hostages" (as they were labeled by Western leaders) two
weeks after their initial detainment by Iran. It is worth seriously reflecting on
American media coverage of the British-Iranian standoff, at least if one is inter-
ested in understanding the nature of American foreign policy news coverage of
events in the Middle East.
In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Ed-
ward Herman and Noam Chomsky lay the foundations for a "propaganda
model," which postulates that American mass media reporting and editorializing
strongly and uncritically privilege official perspectives. Official sources are
treated with deference, and U.S. humanitarian rhetoric elaborating high-minded
goals of American foreign policy is left largely unquestioned. The propaganda
of U.S. allies and client regimes is accorded positive coverage (and certainly not
referred to as propaganda), while dissidents and officially designated "enemies"
of state are denigrated and denounced for coercive, terrorist, andlor aggressive
behavior. Such claims against the American mass media are not meant to be
taken lightly, as they should be made the subject of serious empirical testing and
scrutiny. It so happens that the British-Iranian standoff represents an important
opportunity to test the propaganda model in the real world.
On March 23, 2007, an Iranian gunship detained seven marines and eight
sailors of the British Royal Navy near the Shatt al-Arab waterway off of the
coast of Iran and Iraq. The British Navy personnel were inspecting vessels sus-
pected of smuggling goods to and from Iraq when the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard picked them up, claiming they had illegally entered Iranian national wa-
ters. American media reports soon referred to the situation as a major confronta-
tion between Britain and Iran, as both governments placed blame squarely on
the other, refusing to admit to any sort of wrongdoing.
American leaders, retaining a long history of antagonistic relations with
Iran, predictably reacted by denouncing the detainment as a violation of intema-
tional law and as an act of unprovoked aggression. Dan Bartlett, White House
Counselor, described "a long history from the Iranian government of bad actions
it's taken, further isolating themselves from the international ~ornmunit~."~
President Bush called the detainment "inexcusable," claiming about the Iranian
personnel: "They're innocent, they did nothing wrong, and they were summarily
plucked out of water^.''^
Those hoping the American media would react more calmly than the U.S.