Page 89 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

The Media 's War 79

The New York Times is far from the only paper that subscribed to the "de-
The New Re-
mocratic reforms the U.S. is trying to install" in the Middle ~ast.~
public commended American leaders who "took up the sword against Arab-
Muslim troubles and dared to think that tyranny was not fated and inevitable for
the ~rabs."~ The Washington Post highlighted U.S. "grand strategy for the Mid-
dle East," specifically the attempt "to launch a bold initiative for democratic
reform across the region.'"' The paper predicted in 2004 the emergence of "a
new transitional government with real executive powers," despite the fact that
the interim government lacked independence under the American occupation
and the Coalition Provisional Authority headed by Paul ~remer."
The reporting of the Los Angeles Times lauded the US. effort to "build a
future for the country [Iraq] on lofty concepts of constitutional democracy."12
Portrayals of Iraqi sovereignty and democracy were plentiful throughout the
mainstream, as headlines like "Iraqis Quietly Take Power after Bremer's Early
Exit" and "Transfer of Power to Iraqis is said to be Well Under Way" were
common in newspapers during the alleged transfer of power from the occupation
authority of L. Paul Bremer I11 to the interim government of Prime Minister
Ayad ~1lawi.l~ The assumptions that the Bush administration had transferred
full power to the interim regime, and that Iraq was becoming a sovereign nation,
were taken as fact, while the US. exercise of defacto rule over the country was
generally omitted from discussion.
Many stories in the media have been subtler in implying U.S. commitment
to democracy and goodwill in Iraq. In one example, ChW News Night's Ander-
son Cooper explained the "bad news" and "positive news" in a report broadcast
in June of 2004-the bad being that four Marines had died in battle, and the
good that Iraqi "oil was again flowing" throughout the country after sabotaged
oil pipelines had been repaired.14 Cooper did not elaborate on why it was good
news that the oil was flowing again, although his statement seemed to suggest
that the flow of oil is a necessary part of reconstruction and the transition from
dictatorship to elected government. Nowhere in Cooper's report, however, did
he consider the opposite view, taken by many American dissidents that Ameri-
can control of Iraqi oil was detrimental to Iraqi sovereignty and independence in
that such resources might be used for selfish purposes, rather than humanitarian
reconstruction.
That the U.S. might have invaded Iraq in significant part to gain control of
this valuable resource is a perspective that is left continually unaddressed, out-
side of a few rare exceptions. Indeed statements reinforcing American humani-
tarianism have been the norm. Nonetheless, increased U.S. reliance on foreign
oil will remain an important issue in the future, regardless of whether the mass
media acknowledges this fact. As prominent anti-war critic Michael Klare main-
tains: "the wars of the future will largely be fought over the possession and con-
trol of vital economic goods--especially resources needed for the functioning of
modem industrial ~ocieties."'~
Another example of subtle pro-war framing is seen in the mass media's
handling of Iraq's resistance to occupation. Reporting Iraqi frustration with the
occupation nearly a month after the invasion of Iraq, The New York Times ran a