Page 92 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

82 Chapter 4

dad; Bush Elated; Some Resistance Remains"; "Push to Finish the Job"; "Bush
Says Hussein is Out, But War is Not Yet Over"; and, "Pentagon Asserts The
Main Fighting Is Finished In ~ra~."~'
The importance of an American victory was repeated in corporate television
news as well. Dan Rather, former head anchor for CBS News, exemplified the
apprehension toward questioning U.S. war objectives quite well, explaining:
"Look, I'm an American. . . . And when my country is at war, I want my country
to win, whatever the definition of 'win' may be."33 Rather added about the Bush
administration's charges of weapons of mass destruction: "Look, when a presi-
dent of the United States, any president, Republican or Democrat, says these are
the facts, there is heavy prejudice, including my own, to give him the benefit of
any doubt, and for that I do not apologize.'"4 Rather's comments-specifically
his reluctance to set any concrete criteria for what "winning may be" outside of
the Bush administration's own standards-revealed a strong, yet blind cornmit-
ment to the Presidency during times of war. Rather's deference to authority in
the case of the Bush administration's WMD claims is representative of most of
the reporting in the corporate press before the war. Reporters and media outlets
were hesitant to suggest that the Bush administration might retain ulterior mo-
tives or be lying about its weapons charges, although this was suggested in much
of the anti-war propaganda in the British press, Arab press, and in the American
Independent-Left media. This position of deference makes short work of the
contention that there is an adversarial relationship between a "sovereign" media
system and American political leaders.

Extended Occupation and Evolving Resistance

In the months following the invasion, and as a result of mounting American
casualties and increasingly hostile American public opinion, mainstream media
coverage drew attention to the importance of promoting Iraqi "stability," the
necessity of the "pacification" campaign against resistance groups, and the im-
portance of conducting a prolonged occupation. As most news outlets correctly
understood, the war effort had transitioned from a swift invasion period with
relatively little resistance (in comparison to previous American wars), into a
campaign against guerilla forces that seem to be growing in strength. Under
these circumstances, the "humanitarian" role of the United States was high-
lighted extensively, considering that the WMD justification had been discred-
ited. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times argued that, due to increasing
instability, "Iraq is a country still on life support, and U.S. troops are the artifi-
cial lungs and heart."' The New Republic editorialized: "whether we like it or
not, the hture of Iraq is now an American responsibility."36
As American casualties increased, and the search for WMD ended unsuc-
cessfully, the mainstream press altered its primary justification for continuing
the war from weapons of mass destruction to supporting the "democratic" inten-
tions of the Bush administration. One Washington Post editorial congratulated
Bush for "his commitment to a long-term struggle to promote freedom in the