Page 54 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

44 Chapter 2

the media establishment who challenge the legitimacy of the 007 License are
often punished or disciplined swiftly as to deter future criticisms.
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has become a leading force, although far from
the only news source that relies on belligerent nationalism as a means of com-
bating dissent. Murdoch's statement about the "War on Terror," that Fox News
would "do whatever is our patriotic duty" to further war efforts, is well reflected
in the channel's views of the necessity of the Iraq war and the channel's attacks
on anti-war activists and other grassroots Leftist groups and individuals who
challenge U.S. foreign poli~y.22 That the owner of Fox News considers it a duty
to do "whatever" is deemed by the Bush administration as necessary in fighting
terror reveals the level to which mainstream media outlets defer to the authority
of political leaders.
Along the same lines, mass media framing of the "War on Terror" relies
heavily on positive and negative labelingz3 of specific developments and ideas-
labeling that is often determined by the degree of support for, or opposition to
the Bush administration and the Iraq war. As the Murdoch example demon-
strates, simplistic language and labeling can be useful in reinforcing pro-war
stances and attacking anti-war ones. In an ardent pro-war climate, reporters and
editors strongly defend the reasons given by the Bush administration for war. In
the pre-war climate, reporting lent serious credibility to the administration's
claims that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Pre-
war framing strongly reflected a trust that had developed between the adrnini-
stration and the establishment media, as the administration's claims that Iraq
retained ties with A1 Qaeda, and that the United States was committed to democ-
ratizing the Middle East were accepted as unworthy of substantive challenge.
A similar trust was accorded to pro-war media analysts, pundits, and activ-
ists who were allotted significant time and attention throughout the media. On
the other side of the fence, anti-war media analysts, pundits, and activists in the
independent press presenting foundational criticisms of the validity of the "War
on Terror" were often ignored or attacked. To name just a few examples, Brit
Hume of Fox News argued that anti-war protestors "don't have a credible argu-
ment" and are "intellectually and morally confused,"24 while Jack Dunphy of the
National Review maintained that those who resist the Iraq war are pacifists.25
Another important method of framing is the use of artificial balancingz6 in
creating a perception that the corporate press has presented a wide variety of
viewpoints in the debate over war, when in fact it consistently relies on a very
narrow range of opinion. Balanced reporting requires an inclusion of many dif-
ferent ideological viewpoints, meaning that media is expected to incorporate
substantive anti-war views in addition to pro-war attitudes in order to achieve
more balanced coverage. Establishment "liberals" such as Alan Colmes of Fox
News' Hannity and Colmes, and Paul Begala and James Carville of CWs
Crossfire are promoted as the "liberal" answer to Right-Wing conservatives such
as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Robert Novak. Contrary to this conventional
portrayal, progressives presenting structural and institutional criticisms of west-
em-led neoliberalism and the Iraq war, such as Amy Goodman, Barbara Ehren-
reich, Edward Herman, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Nor-