Page 57 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

All the News That's Fit to Omit 47

occupying Iraq has to do with oil, as opposed to the official pretexts offered.
And yet such concerns about America's desire to control Iraqi oil do not arise in
Koppel's reports, which he himself admits have generally looked favorably
upon the official reasons for war. Had Koppel, amongst other journalists, wanted
to focus on U.S. interest in securing access to, and control over, Middle Eastern
(and other regions') natural resources, they could have easily cited from the de-
classified government record; this record has consistently expressed the view
that Middle Eastern oil is a major source of strategic power for the United
States--one in which American leaders remain committed to gaining control
over through the use of military f~rce.~' for those reporters and editors in the
As
American media who claim that to focus on the United States' use of force to
secure control over Middle Eastern oil is tantamount to a conspiracy theory, it
should be pointed out that a very rich analysis of U.S. interest in Iraqi oil is the
norm in other media systems, such as the British mainstream press.32
Contrary to foreign standards of reporting U.S. interest in Iraqi oil, Koppel
is clear on the meaning of "objective" reporting: professional reporters cannot,
and do not place their own observations into reporting; they only report official
statements, even if they believe that the official reasons for war are intended to
deceive or manipulate the public. None of this constitutes "self censorship" to
Koppel, who argues that, "I think you have to be very careful when you use the
word censorship. Censorship has a very clear meaning to me. Censorship has the
force of law. Censorship involves the government saying, 'You cannot report
what you want to report. You have to show us everything that you intend to put
on the air and we will then decide whether you can or whether you can't.' That's
censorship."33 This limited definition of censorship as only arising from gov-
ernment, and not from within the corporate media system, should be reevaluated
in order to gain a clearer understanding of how reporters and editors are subtly
pressured to self-censor and conform to official dogmas in the absence of gov-
ernment punishment and coercion.

Transmission of Official Statements and Propaganda

A report from the New York Times in March of 2005 revealed that the Bush ad-
ministration had coordinated efforts with at least twenty different federal agen-
cies in order to create government sponsored-r as the New York Times re-
ferred to them-"prepackaged news" segments to be run on local television
stations throughout the nation.34 These segments, which cost the American tax-
payers over 250 million dollars, were aired without the acknowledgement that
they were made by the government with the intent of reinforcing initiatives such
as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Such "covert propaganda," as Congress's
General Accounting Office classified it, represents only one example of the reli-
ance of the corporate media on official statements in their framing of the ne~~.~~
With the airing of propaganda, viewers are left to wonder, how can one accu-
rately discern official statements and government misinformation from real