Page 98 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

88 Chapter 4

paper's "anti-war stances," a picture emerges of what it means to be critical of
the war, according to the standards set out within the mass media. By starting
with a review of the paper's Op-Ed page-one of the most openly biased sec-
tions of the paper--one begins to see that its writers retain many similarities
with conservative and "centrist" commentators and pundits.
The New York Times' Op-Ed columnists provide criticisms of style (how to
better fight wars) rather than substantive challenges (whether U.S. wars are fun-
damentally imperial or immoral). Out of all the Times ' liberal columnists, Tho-
mas Friedman has been the most passionately pro-war, although he has taken
issue with what he considers the real problem: that "Iraq has still not been fully
~iberated."~~ analysis of the occupation fits well within the neoliberal para-
His
digm, which claims that capitalism and corporate globalization, complimented
by U.S. military force, are necessary means of spreading democracy, human
rights, and justice throughout the globe. Friedman's analysis reflects a logic that
seeks to reconcile what many critics consider contradictory principles and de-
velopments. While admitting that the U.S. is guilty of having overthrown de-
mocratic governments in the past, and that the U.S. "support [s] repressive Arab
dictators so they will sell us cheap oil," Friedman still views the U.S. as "the
greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history."69 In
his portrayals of a liberal American empire, Friedman believes that the Bush
administration selflessly dedicated the U.S. to "the first democracy-building
project ever in the Arab world" by committing to a long-term occupation of
~ra~.~'
Friedman's method of pro-war propaganda is incredibly effective, as it
seeks to include in public discourse evidence that largely contradicts his own
ideological stance. Friedman has reframed conscious American support for re-
pressive Arab dictatorships as a commitment to global democracy. This ap-
proach is very different from other propaganda approaches in conservative
mainstream media institutions that seek to totally ignore and discount evidence
that challenges America's global dominance. While conservative pro-war
propagandists such as Bill O'Reilly and Robert Novak rarely, if ever, admit to
flaws or mistakes in American foreign policy (except that maybe the U.S. is not
tough enough in its war efforts), the liberal propaganda approach seeks to lend at
least some legitimacy to criticisms of American foreign policy, while ultimately
attempting to reconcile, downplay, or discount substantive criticisms in order to
reaffirm American hegemony.
In further elaborating on his "democratic-imperialist" paradigm, Friedman
explains that the capitalist system relies on military force in order to successfully
dominate the globe. Friedman declares: "the hidden hand of market capitalism
will never work without the hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without
McDonnell Douglas. . . and the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon
Valley's technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and
Marine Critics have argued that it is difficult to divorce Friedman from
advocacy of war crimes, considering that he has consistently advocated the de-
struction of Iraqi infrastructure on a massive scale72 in order to "democratize"
Iraq. In a piece titled "Tom Friedman: The Imperial Chronicler," Mike Whitney