Page 58 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

48 Chapter 2

news reporting? Is there really a difference between media reporting and gov-
ernment propaganda in the "War on Terror"?
In December of 2005, it was also revealed that the U.S. government had
spent millions of dollars to print over a thousand pro-U.S. ads and news stories
in a number of Iraqi newspapers.36 In coordination with the Lincoln Group, the
Bush administration published stories covering issues such as the Iraqi econ-
omy, the growth of Iraqi resistance groups, and the general Iraqi security situa-
tion. The Boston Globe attacked the administration, as it "trashes the principles
of a free press,'137 although some newspapers were a bit easier on the president.
The New York Times, for one, situated the paid news articles within the context
of the Bush administration's efforts "to build democracies overseas and support
a free press.'"8
The planting of pro-govemment, pro-occupation stories in American and
Iraqi newspapers is only the most blatant infringement on independent journal-
ism. More often overlooked are the voluntary efforts of American reporters and
editors to uncritically repeat official statements. As indirect agents and dissemi-
nators of pro-war views, reporters claim "objectivity" by uncritically transmit-
ting the pro-war statements of American political leaders who have consistently
advocate continued war in Iraq.
The close relationship between the corporate media establishment and
American political leaders translates into an extensive reliance on the part of the
mass media on government points of view. The bond between the government
and media is characterized by a high degree of trust, as members of the media
establishment are more likely to take official statements and assertions at face
value than to seriously question them. In short, reporters and editors fear insult-
ing the official sources upon which they rely to report the news. A study by me-
dia watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting conducted during the first
three weeks of the Iraq war revealed that, out of all the guests interviewed by the
major television networks, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and PBS
News, 68 percent were either current or previous government officials, while
two-thirds of them were from the U.S. military.39
Media critic Edward Herman refers to media acceptance of official propa-
ganda as the "media gullibility quotient," explaining that the "symbiotic rela-
tionship between dominant sources and the media makes the latter more reluc-
tant to transmit dissident claims.'*0 Media gullibility in accepting pro-war
claims is reflected in the statements released from media outlets themselves, as
CNN announced at the beginning of the "War on Temr": "in deciding what to
air," the channel would "consider guidance from appropriate authorities.'" That
CAWS decision characterized the government as an "appropriate" source of
guidance in its reporting reveals how the media reinforces a cooperative, rather
than adversarial relationship with the government in the post-911 1 period. Such a
position makes it more difficult to question government statements during times
of war.
Over-reliance on government statements and official press briefings, how-
ever, has its benefits, at least from a profit perspective. Constructing news sto-
ries based predominantly around official statements allows media corporations