Page 91 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

The Media 's War 8 1

Still Has Long TO-DO List Before War Ends"; "Television Producers are Strug-
gling to Keep Track of War's Progress, or the Lack of it"; and "Bush and 2 Al-
lies Seem Set for War to Depose ~ussein."~~
Most mainstream pundits sprang into action in defending the drive for war.
William Safire, former columnist for the New York Times, promoted the U.S.
agenda as driven "not by any lust for global domination," but by a desire to
"make the Middle East safe for democracy."23 In the Washington Post, David
Riven and Lee Casey announced that the U.S. was obligated to initiate "the swift
collapse of his [Saddam's] regime" in order "to minimize the war's human and
In
material costs, and to ease Iraq's economic and political recon~truction."~~ a
Los Angeles Times editorial titled "Peace Isn't Possible in Evil's Face," promi-
nent author and Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel demonized Saddam Hussein,
arguing: "no other option remains," as Saddam must "be disarmed by whatever
means necessary."25

So It Begins:
Framing the Invasion
The invasion and initial occupation of Iraq did little to change the mainstream
media's commitment to war. The tactical approach to evaluating American pro-
gress ersevered unabated. USA Today news reports judged the war effort "dar-
ing,'"'while the New York Times applauded the U.S. for having "liberated
~ra~."~~ the first month of fighting, Evan Thomas of Newsweek won-
Within
dered: "Did we start the war with enough force?,"28 while reporters Eric Schrnitt
and Barnard Weinraub of the New York Times asked "How hard will the remain-
ing forces fight?" and "How quickly will the coordinated allied air-ground at-
tack destroy the Iraqi force^?"^ In one Op-Ed column in the New York Times,
Nicholas Kristof asked similar questions to those of Schmitt and Weinraub,
pondering: "how much should we involve the U.N.?," "Whom should we hand
over power to in Iraq?," and "How long do we stay?"30 The common assumption
seen here was that the U.S. had a right and obligation to determine how long to
continue the occupation, and who to "hand over power to," despite arguments
made by allies that the invasion was ill-timed, illegitimate, and illegal under
international law and the U.N. Charter.
Headlines from major newspapers did little to nothing in terms of challeng-
ing official justifications for war and more to update readers on the war's "pro-
gre~s."~' As the nation's most prestigious paper, the New York Times was a
prominent leader in assessing war progress, as these sample headlines taken at
the time of the invasion indicate: "Bush Defends Progress of War and is
Cheered"; "U.S. Forces Enter Zone to Confront Republican Guard"; "Key Sec-
tion of City Is Taken In a Street-by-Street Fight"; "U.S. Troops Poised to Oust
Loyalists In Northern City of Tikrit"; "For Allies, the Next Target is Hussein's
Hometown"; "U.S. Picks Targets for- Baghdad Push"; "Little Resistance En-
countered as Troops Reach Baghdad"; "Marines Cruising to Baghdad"; "U.S.
Tanks Make Quick Strike Into Baghdad"; "U.S. Forces Take Control in Bagh-