Page 63 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

All the News That's Fit to Omit 53

promoted pro-war views. David Edwards and David Cromwell critique corpo-
rate media in both the U.S. and U.K. as part of the "propaganda system for elite
interestsyh9; they fear that mergers and acquisitions, corporate monopolization,
and stronger ties between the U.S. and Britain throughout the Iraq war is leading
to a convergence in the British media "towards a similarly closed and intolerant,
U.S. style media system."50 While such criticisms are well taken, to assume that
the British mainstream media is on par with the American media in terms of
relying on pro-war propaganda would be a mistake.

The Illusion of Journalistic Neutrality

Although highly touted, journalistic neutrality exists only in the minds of report-
ers, rather than in actual practice. The structural factors characterizing corporate
media framing discussed above confirm this. Historian and activist Howard Zinn
states, "It is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain direc-
tions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality
means accepting the way things are now. It seems both impossible and undesir-
able to be neutral in those conflict^."^' As the co-founder of the New Republic
and a member of the U.S. Committee on Public Information, Walter Lippmann
understood this reality well. Working as a pro-war propagandist for the U.S.
government, Lippmann played an instrumental role in shaping public opinion in
order to convince a once hesitant American public to support U.S. entrance into
World War I. Concerning the myth of journalistic neutrality, Lippmann states:
"Were reporting the simple recovery of obvious facts, the press agent would be
little more than a clerk. . . . Every newspaper when it reaches the reader is the
result of a whole series of selections as to what items shall be printed, how much
space each shall occupy, what emphasis each shall have. There are no objective
standards here."52
In a society where there are winners and losers in implementing public pol-
icy, and where the mass media reinforces ideologies that benefit corporate inter-
ests in profit, media reporting on important events can never realistically be ob-
jective. But a lack of objectivity is not limited only to corporate ownership of
media. Progressive-Left media outlets, of course, are just as biased in their re-
ports, although they make no such claims to objectivity or neutrality. In this
sense, one can conclude that, regardless of the form of ownership (corporate or
non-corporate), media outlets are incapable of achieving objectivity.
What is not reported determines a reporter or paper's bias just as much as
what is reported. What is focused upon and what is ignored, the way a story is
written, and how much time is spent, or not spent on it, all play a major part in
ensuring each reporter's and each media organization's subjectivity. Nonethe-
less, it is possible to draw a distinction between objective reporting (which has
never realistically existed), and the importance of achieving a greater level of
balance in reporting. As chapter 9 shows, the British mainstream press has
tended to be more balanced in its reporting, in that it is comprised of both pro-
war and anti-war leaning papers.