Page 90 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

80 Chapter 4

headline, "Free to Protest, Iraqis Complain About the u.s."'~ In the piece, the
paper discussed fierce hostility toward U.S. "liberation" of Iraq as a "para-
doxy'-that is, it was considered unbelievable, but true, that Iraqis would protest
coalition forces after the U.S. selflessly "liberated" Iraq.
Most throughout the mass media did not take seriously the notion that a
country committed to "restoring essential services, developing economic plural-
ism and promoting democratic government" could be driven malicious inten-
tions in occupying Iraq, although this same assumption was not held in many
other countries. This is most apparent in the systematic refusal to consider such
an argument regularly in reporting and editorializing." Progressive-Left media
sources, conversely, often suggested that Iraqi nationalism was fueling resis-
tance to occupation; although this interpretation was hard for many mainstream
media pundits to fathom, considering the role of the U.S. as a "democratic su-
perpower."'8 The reporting seen in these examples represents a dominant prac-
tice in media: newspapers and television news programs allude to U.S. plans and
actions in Iraq as efforts to promote "interim rule" and U.S. coordinated elec-
tions as vital steps toward creating Iraqi democracy; other critical perspectives
are not overtly criticized outright, they are just disregarded through omission.

Noble in Principle:
The Buildup to War

Pro-war framing is discernable throughout the pre-war, invasion, and occupation
periods. Pre-war framing centered on the "threat" of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and, secondly, on the significance of America's "democratic aspira-
tions" in the Middle East. In anticipation of the beginning of the war, MSNBC
ran a countdown based on the forty-eight hour deadline President Bush had set
for Saddam to leave Iraq before he would invade. A Washington Post editorial
praised the United States' "ambitious military campaign" intended to "eliminate
Saddam Hussein's illegal arsenal of weapons,"'9 as the assumption that Iraq
possessed a variety of weapons of mass destruction was deemed an axiom un-
worthy of serious question.
The New York Times and Wall Street Journal anxiously awaited the inva-
sion, running headlines such as: "How Bush Decided that Iraq's Hussein Must
Be Ousted"; "U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike as Iraq Option"; "U.S. Taking
Steps to Lay Foundation for Action in Iraq"; and "U.S. Picks Targets for Bagh-
dad Thomas Ricks, the Pentagon correspondent for the Washington
Post, described the media prior to the invasion as follows: "There was an atti-
tude among editors: 'Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all
this contrary stuff?"' Rick's admission highlights the transformation in thinking
for many reporters, as the consensus amongst reporters and editors shifted from
wondering ifthe U.S. should go to war to predicting when the U.S. would go to
war." The pro-war atmosphere intensified throughout the early weeks of the
invasion, as television and print sources ran headlines such as "How Baghdad
Will Fall"; "Creeping Closer to Baghdad"; "Moving In and Talung Over"; "U.S.