Page 95 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

The Media's War 85

elections was systematically repressed in most reports.55 This reality is focused
upon more thoroughly in chapter 8, specifically in regards to Guardian reporter
Jonathon Steele's reporting on the United States' strong opposition to elections
in Iraq. Other predictions of a newly established Iraqi sovereignty were made by
David Brooks of the New York Times, who promised, "the arrival of a new gov-
ernment would also mean the end of the American-dominated authority."56
While Brooks was correct in that the election meant the official end of the U.S.
appointed and imposed interim government and the dissolution of the U.S. Coa-
lition Provisional Authority, he neglected to discuss the implications of an in-
definite occupation on Iraqi "sovereignty." Likewise, Peter Jennings of ABC
News made Orwellian remarks concerning post-election conditions: "It is now
an Iraqi government having to deal with largely Iraqi violence against what was
the occupation [emphasis added]. It is no longer in that sense an occupation,
even though the military stays here as the guardian of peace and to some extent
the guardian of the sovereignty."57
The favorable portrayal of the American oversight of "democratic" elec-
tions and the continued occupation-although deemed illegal by the U.N. Secre-
tary General Kofi Annan-were necessary in constructing an image of the U.S.
as committed to Iraqi self-determination and independence. Media pundits inter-
preted the election as a vindication of their commitment to the liberalization and
democratization of Iraq. Brian Williams, reporting for NBC Nightly News ex-
plained that "lately, even the harshest critics of President Bush have been forced
to admit that maybe he's right about freedom's march around the globe. . . .
What if we are watching an example of presidential leadership that will be
taught in American schools for generations to come? It's an idea gaining more
currency."58 The Wall Street Journal also joined in, in the support for the Bush
administration's "vision of spreading democracy-of getting to the 'tipping
point' where tyrannies start to crumble"-a campaign that "seems not only to be
working but also winning some unexpected convert^."^^ Time awarded George
W. Bush their "Person of the Year" during the 2004 holiday for leading "Amer-
ica's efforts to plant the seeds of liberty in Iraq and the rest of the Middle
~ast."~'
Election euphoria was not simply a result of Christmas goodwill on the part
of the news media; it represented a long-standing campaign on the part of the
establishment media to convince the American public of the good intentions of
the U.S. in Iraq. Pro-war framing in the media closely paralleled official justifi-
cations for war. Most of the observations above do not only somewhat resemble
the Bush administration's guidelines for acceptable discourse over the Iraq war,
but take it a step further by mirroring government statements. To take one ex-
ample: the Coalition Provisional Authority's promise to "help Iraq recover from
decades of dictatorship, to help the people of Iraq gain elections, democracy,
and freedom desired by the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people'"' could
just as easily have been delivered by the editors of the New York Times, the
Washington Post, or the Los Angeles Times (or any other major corporate pa-
per), or by television pundits such as Bill O'Reilly or Lou Dobbs of Fox News
and CAN.