Page 304 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

294 Chapter I I

seize the two high-ranking Iranian security officers" was "a far more serious and
aggressive act. It was not camed out by proxies but by U.S. forces directly."53
While the Independent's reports were subsequently picked up by other
mainstream British media sources:4 neither the story, nor its charges, appear to
have received any headline coverage in the major American print media. There
was no coherent or systematic effort in the American press to report charges that
the two abductions were directly related. This decontextualization is best seen in
a breakdown of the nineteen stories (out of the total forty-nine major stories on
the British-Iranian "standoff) in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and
Washington Post that did mention the U.S. January abduction in their reporting.
Out of those nineteen stories, only five (all from the Washington Post) suggested
that there might be a causal relationship between the U.S. and Iranian detain-
ments; fourteen stories either suggested no link or explicitly refuted suggestions
of one. Only one story (from the Los Angeles Times) directly referenced the In-
dependent story, although the reference was not in the headline, but buried deep
within the article. Importantly, none of the forty-nine stories on the British-
Iranian "standoff' discussed the charge that Iran's detainment of British person-
nel might have been motivated by the failed U.S. attempt to seize senior Iranian
officials a few months earlier.
Whether it is in the over-reliance on British and American official sources
over nonofficial ones, the systematic marginalization of comparable news cov-
erage implicating both U.S. "enemies" and the U.S. in aggression or violation of
international law, or the suppression of explosive charges against the United
States for provoking a hostage crisis, the American press has revealed itself as
subservient to the agendas of the American foreign policy elite. Official "ene-
mies" are vilified (although at times for good reason), while the questionable
actions of American leaders are largely left unchallenged, as professional norms
of "objectivity" do not allow for the challenge of official statements. As the
propaganda model suggests, American reporters have faithfully taken to the role
of an unofficial propaganda arm for the state, most blatantly during times when
the United States rules in favor of allies and client regimes against powers
deemed antagonistic to U.S. interests.

North Korea: A Devil in the Making

The Bush administration and media have generally proceeded much more care-
fully with the North Korean regime of Kim Jong 11, than with Iraq, mainly as a
result of the country's deterrents (military and nuclear) to attack. Despite Rums-
feld's calls for regime change in North Korea, he, along with other U.S. political
leaders, has generally been hesitant to announce any specific plans for military
action against the regime. Along with the Bush administration, the mainstream
press has also taken to denouncing the North Korean regime, although mostly
refraining from calls for a military attack.
Restraint in plans for war has not meant an absence of accusations and
speculation concerning the North Korean debacle. Neil Cavuto of Fox News