Page 32 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

22 Chapter I

There should be no illusions about the possibility of pursuing objective,
value-free reporting. As corporate media sources create a favorable climate for
pro-war attitudes to take shape, so too has the American Progressive-Left media
taken great strides in its efforts to contradict officially espoused war aims. The
Progressive media is not alone in this campaign either. Accompanied by the
anti-war leaning sectors of the British, Australian, and Arab media, the Ameri-
can progressive press seeks to present a serious roadblock to the war effort in
Iraq.
In presenting foundational, substantive criticisms of "Operation Iraqi Free-
dom," Progressive media outlets present a critical "frame" that dissects the offi-
cial reasons for going to war in their own anti-war propaganda. They want to
demonstrate that the arguments for war, at their core, are motivated by a preoc-
cupation with American imperial dominance, of which the "War on Terror" is
only the latest incarnation.
American corporate media has overwhelmingly taken the position that the
U.S. presence in the Middle East is driven by a noble effort to promote self-
determination, human rights, justice, and democracy. Although those Iraqis who
resist American occupation are attacked in papers like the New York Times for
relying on "propaganda that has helped fuel the insurgency throughout lraq,'"'
the propaganda of the American media and government are ignored. It is not
considered propaganda, but rather "conventional wisdom," by mainstream pun-
dits like Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek that "that the United States should stay
engaged with Iraq for years."62 Acceptance of this "conventional wisdom" inevi-
tably discredits serious opposition to the long-term occupation of Iraq.
The lesson promoted by Zakaria and others in the media seems clear: only
enemies of the US. engage in "propaganda," as the intentions of the Bush ad-
ministration are considered an axiom that is unworthy of substantive challenge.
Other conventional wisdoms throughout the corporate press include the por-
trayal of U.S. as committed to a "democratic and unified Iraq," resisting the "ter-
rorism and insurgent violence" of resistance cells "whose tactics grow steadily
more lethal" day by day.63 While most would surely agree that many Iraqi resis-
tance groups have engaged in terrorist acts that destabilize Iraqi society, such a
fact does not automatically confirm that the U.S. is unconditionally concerned
with promoting democracy, human rights, and self-determination.
When corporate media outlets do criticize U.S. policy in Iraq, they typically
rely on narrow assessments of the Bush administration, intended primarily to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the war campaign. This commitment
to supporting the Iraq war relies on pragmatic, pro-war frames, whereby those
within the corporate press focus on the best ways to pursue military conflicts
(posing only minor challenges along the way). Jeff Cohen, former producer for
MSNBC News and founder of media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Re-
porting (FAIR) explains this practice in more detail: "Mainstream media allow
dissent about war-but usually only on tactics, not motives. It's acceptable to
critique the Iraq war as ill-planned or ill-executed, but not to suggest that the
war was less about freedom and democracy than about politics or empire or
military bases or oil."64