Page 97 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

The Media's War 87

mean to argue that the mass media is liberally biased or anti-war? Despite the
attacks of many of those mentioned above, media viewers are often left with at
least some idea of what pundits mean when they complain of liberal or anti-war
bias. Many media commentators equate being liberal with being unpatriotic, and
threatening American democracy and prosperity. Some of the usual suspects
who fit this profile include notable media polemicists such as Anne Coulter,
Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh, among many others.
In spreading "anti-American" views, liberals are thought to be guilty of
threatening the American government by undermining public confidence in the
American political system and in the Bush administration. The argument has
even been made that liberals enable terrorism by supporting "Islamic fanatics,"
leading to an undermining of the Bush administration and the "War on error.'"^
Despite many attacks made against the liberal media, Americans would do well
to better understand what separates liberal, allegedly anti-war media establish-
ments like the New York Times, and conservative pro-war media outlets.
A closer look at the New York Times-the most prestigious liberal and al-
legedly anti-war newspaper in the nation--reveals a great deal about the nature
of its framing of Iraq, and even more insight into the methods employed in order
to create what are largely exaggerated distinctions between establishment liberal
and conservative media institutions. To be sure, there are some substantial dif-
ferences between establishment liberal papers such as the New York Times and
the Washington Post as opposed to more conservative papers like the Wall Street
Journal and the Washington Times, as well as between liberal networks like
CNN and conservative channels like Fox News. Conservative elite media outlets
are much less likely to tolerate any type of dissent against government and the
military, except perhaps those critiques faulting the Bush administration for in-
adequately escalating the occupation and pacification campaign in Iraq. Con-
versely, liberal establishment outlets like the New York Times and Washington
Post allow more room for criticism of government, although within narrow lim-
its.
Although the New York Times and the Washington Post have been willing
to challenge the Bush administration on at least some issues in the Iraq war, the
papers typically refuse to put up challenges to the occupation on a bedrock level
by questioning the legality of the war, or the government's commitment to de-
mocracy in Iraq. What is apparent after an extensive review of media wartime
criticisms is that more radical to liberal-progressive critiques of the war are ei-
ther totally un-represented or largely omitted from liberal establishment sources.

The New York Times and the Anti-War Myth

The New York Times stands at the forefront of the "liberal" establishment news,
as seen in the paper's reporting, editorials, and columnist commentaries (Op-
Eds). An exploration of the paper's views, particularly in relation to the Iraq
war, is a valuable endeavor if one is to understand the range of opinion in the
paper, as well as in the rest of the liberal mainstream press. By investigating the