Page 51 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

AN the News That's Fit to Omit 4 1

for the deaths of millions of civilians and the widespread destruction of a coun-
try's infrastructure.
In the first Gulf War, the Bush administration and U.S. Central Command
undertook a systematic effort to limit reporting coming out of Iraq that did not
reinforce the official line. The pool system, used during the invasion of Panama,
was resurrected for the 1991 conflict with Iraq. Journalists were not allowed to
travel in Baghdad on their own, as they were to be escorted by military person-
nel at all times, and let into Iraq in profoundly small numbers. In his work, Sec-
ond Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, John MacArthur
pointed out that the mainstream press was largely willing to accept official
statements regarding "precision weapons" used against Iraqi targets. On ABC,
Peter Jennings discussed the "astonishing precision" of U.S. smart bombs
against Iraq's Defense Ministry, while Time magazine claimed, "the pinpoint
accuracy of the attacks was spectacular."'0
There are a variety of factors that need to be addressed in order to better
explain the major institutional reasons for the prevalence of pro-war reporting in
the American mass media. Some of the main characteristics of mass media re-
porting include: pro-war framing of the news; the consistent omission and cen-
sorship of serious anti-war views and other dissident perspectives; media reli-
ance on official statements and government propaganda in reporting of
international events; the dependence on inexpensive fluff, or "junk food" news,
as opposed to focusing on reporting stories more critical of U.S. foreign policy;
and finally, increasing corporate domination of the media as a structural im-
pediment to more critical, balanced reporting of wartime news.

Dissecting Pro-War Prejudice

Contrary to the denials of many reporters and editors, pro-war framing is a real-
ity that has been well documented by dissident and Progressive media critics. It
is desirable to expand upon many of the categories of media framing that have
been developed in previous academic and media studies, while also providing
relevant recent examples from the "War on Terror." While pro-war framing in
the media has always existed, it has become more pronounced in recent years,
particularly in the era of hyper-nationalistic reporting that has driven the media
establishment since September 11,2001.
A driving factor that contributes to pro-war framing is seen in the mass me-
dia's institutional design. Corporate news outlets are not directly controlled by
government interests or run and owned by the government, as in the case of the
former Soviet Union, but rather work cooperatively, and to a great degree inde-
pendently, alongside the government in order to promote the interests of Ameri-
can economic and political elites. This constitutes the core of what has become
known as the "political economy of the mass media."" Within this political
economy, corporate entities (in this case media conglomerates) willingly work
with government in support of pro-war frames. Essentially, corporate elites and
government elites cooperate in promoting an overwhelmingly uniform view of