Page 81 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Weapons of Mass Diversion 7
1
outlets, it is generally representative of the dissemination of the news throughout
the corporate press. The extensive use of official sources, considered the main
pre-requisite for professional reporting, is evident throughout all establishment
sources, rather than in merely a few.
When a "positive" reference to the WMD claims was documented in this
analysis, it was primarily from the Bush administration or British officials.
Conversely, the "negative" statements that were reported within the time frame
were predominantly from Saddam Hussein or other unreputable Iraqi officials,
rather than from weapons experts such as Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Mohammed
EIBaradei, Rolf Ekeus, or other critical inspectors and intelligence officials who
were calling into question the WMD-related evidence for war. This likely had a
stigmatizing effect in regards to those arguing that Iraq no longer posed a threat,
as Iraqi government leaders (the primary source for challenges to the Bush
administration's WMD claims) were hardly considered legitimate sources for
disproving any Iraqi WMD danger by most Americans.
One of the few articles that contained a neutral reference to WMD claims
came specifically from a CIA report that posed a question which received very
little attention in most pre-war media coverage: "If [Saddam] didn't feel
threatened ... is it likely that he would initiate an attack using WMD?"~* Such a
line of thought was only reported within three news pieces in the time period
above. Furthermore, in one of the articles, Donald Rumsfeld refuted the claim,
stating that he "view(s) Hussein. . . [as a threat]. . . and [is] not willing to leave
him in power."
The New York Times has long been a major "agenda setter," given its
overwhelming influence over discourse within the mainstream political
framework of discussion and thought. The New York Times' positive framing of
the Bush administration's claims very likely persuaded other mainstream outlets
to report in a similar fashion. Here is a small sample of headlines taken from an
assortment of mainstream newspapers demonstrating a similar framing of WMD
claims in the build up to war: The Los Angeles Times reported the unfolding
WMD story under such banners as "Showdown with Iraq," which implied war
was inevitable, rather than avoidable. Headlines included: "Iraq Defies U.N.,
Powell Says"; "Iraq Seems Unwilling to Give Up Weapons, U.N. Inspector
Says"; "Secretary Presses Case that Iraq Moves and Hides Materials and
Continues Procurement"; "US. Says Baghdad Hiding, Not Dismantling
Weapons"; and "Hussein was going to launch missiles armed with toxic
warheads if Baghdad was hit with nuclear weapons, U.N. inspectors' report
says."49 One headline from the Wall Street Journal read: "Bush Says Iraq is
Short on Time for Disarmament," the assumption being that Iraq possessed
WMD in the first place.50
The slanted reporting on the WMD issue likely limited public debate
regarding the necessity of a war with Iraq. When media sources frame the debate
over war in accordance with administration claims, it consequently discounts
counterarguments challenging official reasons for war. While more balanced
reporting seeks to create a sort of equilibrium between different sides of a
debate, devotion to high level intelligence sources (at the expense of dissident