Page 33 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Public Trust, Media, and the "War on Terror" 23

Media critic Reese Erlich provides further insight into the underlying as-
sumptions of mainstream reporters covering the motivations for, and soundness
of, U.S. foreign policy in the "War on Terror." In the months preceding the 2003
Iraq invasion, Erlich spoke with numerous American journalists in Iraq, only to
find a consensus on the virtuousness of American foreign policy objectives: "I
didn't meet a single foreign reporter in Iraq who disagreed with the notion that
the U.S. and Britain have the right to overthrow the Iraqi government by force.
They disagreed only about timing, whether the action should be unilateral, and
whether a long-term occupation is practical.'"5 While American corporate media
has reported more and more on calls for withdrawal from Iraq as the occupation
continues, its "opposition" to the war still fits within the narrow parameters of
debate discussed above in that it does not challenge U.S. "humanitarian" moti-
vations.

What is Propaganda?

Propaganda is an important concept that has often been misunderstood in
American politics and culture. Propaganda cannot realistically be defined to
include only the rhetoric of America's "enemies" or those who criticize U.S.
foreign policy. A standard dictionary definition portrays propaganda as the
spread of any facts, ideas, or concepts designed deliberately to further one cause
or discount another. Propaganda entails the systematic dissemination of any
given doctrine or dogma, by any party, regardless of their outlook on the Iraq
war or other important social issues. In other words, it does not, at its core, re-
quire deliberate deception. Propaganda, then, is not necessarily inherently
"good" or "bad." This point has been made quite clearly by Edward Bernays, the
father of the American public relations industry.
In his classic work, Propaganda, Bernays put forth a "neutral denotation"
of the term, which has been reinforced in other works in the area of media stud-
ie~.~~ situated the use of propaganda within the "vast and continuous
Bernays
effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity
or idea." Bernays contended that, "propaganda carries to many minds an un-
pleasant connotation. Yet whether, in any instance, propaganda is good or bad
depends upon the merits of the causes urged, and the correctness of the infonna-
tion published.'"7
In his work, Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and
US. Foreign Policy, Robert Entman defines framing as the "highlighting [ofl
some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to
promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, andfor sol~tion.'"~ In this work, I
sometimes use the concepts of framing and propaganda interchangeably, in that
both concepts refer to a systematic bias in coverage in favor of one perspective
or another. I also use the concepts of propaganda and framing in regards to cor-
porate media coverage of the "War on Terror" in order to better convey many of
the harmful effects of mainstream media reporting, as they have tended to limit
open debate on problems regarding American interventions. Jonathan Mermin,