 |
| Tamara Kidd & me protesting the war in Eugene, Oregon March 2003. |
It's hard to believe that 10 years have passed since Bush's declaration of war on Iraq. I joined a march against the war before "shock & awe" ensued on March 19, 2003, and several times afterward, yet despite our
best efforts, the voices and images of hundreds of thousands of people around the globe
were ignored, marginalized, drowned out by the steady drumbeat of war rhetoric coming from the hawks in Washington D.C. (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et.al) and promoted by a complacent media.
Indeed, as a journalism student at the University of Oregon it provided much
fodder for my essay writing, but it also made me angry with my profession; disgusted by their
lack of ethical standards, manipulation and, in some cases, outright lies. Despite my growing cynicism; however, the events served to pique my interest in politics and forced me to be aware and ever watchful, and to realize that we cannot allow ourselves to become apathetic, nor can we believe everything the media reports.
With that said, to remember what led up to Bush's debacle and the manipulation that followed, I dug up this term paper I wrote for a media
ethics class, aptly titled "Selling War."
“When war is declared, truth is the first casualty.”
— Hiram W. Johnson, senator from California, to the US Senate in 1917
Introduction: Truth
The preamble to the
Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics clearly states that it is
the duty of journalists to seek truth and “provide a fair and comprehensive
account of events and issues” (Bivins, 189). The first code of ethical behavior
is to “seek truth and report it,” and includes among it guidelines to follow to:
“avoid inadvertent error; support the open exchange of views, even views they
find repugnant, give voice to the voiceless; recognize a special obligation to
ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open and that
government records are open to inspection; avoid misleading re-enactments or
staged news events; and that deliberate distortion is never permissible” (Bivins, 190). Further, according to the code,
journalists should be accountable to the public and admit mistakes and correct
them promptly. Indeed, the cornerstone of classic journalism is truthfulness.
By definition, news reporters are required to chronicle events, not create
them, and to be trusted to inform the public accurately and honestly in their
coverage. However, the ethical question of whether journalists have a
responsibility to report unbiased truth even if it is negative or harmful was
replaced in the run-up to the war in Iraq with a more cynical question
of whether journalists have any obligation to tell the truth if it doesn’t fit with
their corporate or personal agenda.
Although typically reserved for advertising or public
relations, the art and strategy of persuasion became apparent in the news media
after 9/11 when the line between journalism and marketing became blurred and
distorted through a collection of varying degrees of truth, half-truth, and
untruth. Writer and philosopher Sissela Bok defines lying as “coercion,” and the
government’s use of the mainstream media to perpetuate lies and disinformation
to influence public opinion and acceptance of its decision for a preemptive
strike against a sovereign nation forced the public
to respond in a different way than had they been told the truth.
I chose the topic of truth in news media because having an
informed public is essential to democracy. It is unethical and undemocratic to
withhold information that is vital to the public and to marginalize and skew
news through deceptive language and practices to fit a political agenda; it goes
against the idea of a free press, and results in an uninformed and easily
manipulated public. Journalists have a moral responsibility to provide
information that allows citizens to engage in fully informed self-governance;
to have the opportunity to be engaged in the process of democracy. And, in my
opinion, it is terribly tragic that we must resort to tuning into a comedian’s
fake news show to get to the “truth.” I have chosen to explore how
institutions of power and influence, in tandem with a compliant media
constructed meaning through language and images to sell the public on the war
in Iraq, and then continued to frame it in such a way
as to make it more palatable, and to illustrate how the truth is being twisted
and suppressed not only by media practitioners themselves, but specifically by
the corporate owned media outlets.
Background/Literature Review
Even before the
ashes and debris at Ground Zero had stopped smoldering, the Bush administration
had begun a massive behind-the-scenes PR campaign to take America to war—not
against Al Qaeda, the terrorists responsible for September 11th, but
against another Middle Eastern country—Iraq. In her book The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily
Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them, Amy Goodman
writes: “On September 12, 2001, Rumsfeld reacted to the WTC and Pentagon
attacks by declaring that the U.S. should immediately attack Iraq (37).
Established in
1997, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think
tank comprising such notable figures as Elliott Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeb
Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among
others—was quietly compiling what is essentially a blueprint for U.S. world
domination. Goodman cites in her book a former intelligence briefer, Ray McGovern’s
observation about the neo-con members of PNAC: “When we saw these people coming
back to town, all of us said ‘Oh my God, the crazies are back.’”
The full report, “Rebuilding
America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” which can
be read online at (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), openly states that absent
of “some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” the goals of
U.S. global dominance would not be palatable to U.S. allies or the American
public. When the planes commandeered by mostly Saudi terrorists plowed into the
twin towers on September 11th, PNAC’s plans shifted into high gear,
launching a PR media propaganda campaign to sell war to a wounded American
public.
Generals, corporate media, and government officials used
the power of the media to shape a sophisticated discourse of fear in which
journalists were warned to “watch what they say, watch what they do” and
to promote news stories with a distinctive government spin, lest they be
labeled “unpatriotic.” Goodman lists numerous instances during this heightened
emotional climate in which journalists and others lost their jobs because they
spoke out in opposition to the war. She includes a quote from FOX’s Bill
O’Reilly, who framed his position this way: “Once the war against Saddam
begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if they can’t do
that, to shut up” (192).
Because this war would have to be “sold” to the public, the
first order of business was to blur the boundaries between truth and myth by
intrinsically linking 9/11 to Iraq
whenever possible. Through a steady drumbeat of allegations and insinuations
from the government and media, the public’s perception was that Iraq posed an
immediate threat. The lead-up to the invasion of Iraq presents an interesting case
study of opinion management. Through the manipulation of language, media
institutions taking their cue from the government unleashed onto a frightened
American public Orwellian “newspeak” that consisted of bold and innovative
words and phrases such as Axis of Evil, evil-doers, Dead or Alive,
“you’re either with us or against us,” homeland security, the Patriot Act, Code
Orange, war on terror (which has recently been recast as the new and improved “global
struggle against violent extremism). Other words and
words with fresh meanings arose to represent and promote an ideology of
war: Patriot, Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), changed to Operation Iraqi
Freedom for the obvious acronym, mission accomplished, shock and awe, unpatriotic,
weapons of mass destruction, cakewalk, jihad, freedom, heroism, free-speech
zones.
New uses for duct
tape popped up in the American lexicon, along with mixed messages that
encouraged citizens not to worry; to go shopping, lest the terrorists win
because, after all, they “hate us for our freedom.” Likewise, according to Noam
Chomsky, to whip up support for war, a public relations approach is necessary.
“Public relations slogans like ‘Support our troops’ don’t mean anything…You
want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s
going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything”
(Media Control, 11). Essentially,
change or remove the meaning from language, and you can condition human thought
and behavior. Indeed, in a 1994 GOP memo Newt Gingrich candidly identified
language as “A key mechanism of control” (Information Clearinghouse). Thus, after 9/11, a
frightened public became an easily manipulated public.
Historically, using
the media for propaganda is nothing new. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson established
the Creel Commission, a propaganda panel that succeeded in reshaping public
opinion in favor of World War I (Media
Control, 11). In her book Information
War: American Propaganda, Free Speech and Opinion Control Since 9-11, Nancy
Snow writes about propaganda strategies used in the Reagan era: “The pattern
was set early in his administration: leak a scare story about foreign enemies,
grab the headlines. If, much later, reporters poke holes in the cover story, so
what? The truth will receive far less attention than the original lie, and by
then another round of falsehood will be dominating the headlines (42). It
appears that Karl Rove took a page directly from the Reagan playbook. Goodman
writes “This is not a media that is serving a democratic society, where a
diversity of views is vital to shaping informed opinions. This is a well-oiled
propaganda machine that is repackaging government spin and passing off as
journalism (9).
Despite global dissent on March 20, 2003 the U.S. attacked Iraq, but
government had learned a lesson from Vietnam—that losing control of the story
would mean losing public support, so this time there would be no daily
television images of this war. The American public would see only reports and
images from one, carefully crafted perspective; one that neglected to show the
true horrors of war and invasion; that instead portrayed a neat, sanitized
patriotic, heroic effort of liberation. With the media successfully cowed into
patriotic submission, manipulation of the American public began through a
variety of means. Michael Parenti’s book 20
Years of Censored News includes six methods of media manipulation:
Omission and
suppression: Omission or suppression of facts
that might have weakened their case for war, citing old news as if it were
relevant today, or applying the art of distraction to refocus the public’s
attention away from any negative press that might creep in; for example, the
government’s ban on photography of the caskets of returning soldiers to not
remind the public of the grim toll. This also includes self-censorship. Goodman
quotes Dan Rather’s May 16,
2002 comments regarding journalists who censor themselves: “There
was a time in South Africa
that people would put flaming tires around people’s necks if they dissented,
and in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a
flaming tire of patriotism put around your neck” (165).
Lies and
repetition: If you repeat something enough it becomes “truth.” For example, linking the war to the 9/11
attacks to build loyalty and support of flag and country. “Half of Americans
believed that Iraq
had WMD and links to Al Qaeda, which had been debunked by 2004. Americans
believe these lies not because they are stupid, but because they are good media
consumers” (Goodman, xvi).
Labeling: Describing American invaders as the “coalition,”
who is there to “liberate, not invade.” Building intense, but unfounded fear in
the public mind. Planting a frightening impression in the minds of trusting
citizens, for example, Islamist holy warriors and nuclear weapons. Defining and
dehumanizing the enemy and the country. Minimizing the war’s toll on Iraq’s
citizens: Referring to them as “collateral damage” rather than innocent
civilians. Casting protesters as unpatriotic; as traitors. Promoting patriotism
by wearing a flag lapel pin; encouraging citizens to wrap themselves in the
flag and to shun those who do not.
Face value
transmission: Media practitioners accept
at face value what are known to be official lies and uncritically pass them on
to the public without adequate confirmation. Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times is a prime example of
this. Before the war, Miller filled the front pages with unchallenged
government propaganda. The government leaked lies to her, which were then
published. When called on it, the white house masqueraded behind the
credibility of the Times. Miller
continued to trumpet administration leads and other bogus sources to back the
administration’s false premise for war. After the war, none of the allegations
about chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons she reported on panned out.” The
Times never bothered to publish
corrections.
 |
| Dissent and anti-war protests were marginalized. |
False balancing: The code of ethics states that journalists should support
the open exchange of views by tapping competing sources on both sides of an
issue. In 2001, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) looked at who
appeared on the evening news on ABC, CBS, and NBC. “Ninety-two percent of all U.S. sources
interviewed were white, 85 percent were male, and 75 percent were Republican”
(Goodman, 153). “Washington
Post media reporter Howard Kurtz
quantified just how lopsided his own newspapers pro-war tilt was. ‘From August
2002 through March 29, 2003, launch of the war, The Post ran more than 140 front-page stores that focused heavily on
administration rhetoric against Iraq’” (Goodman, xv). Dissent and anti-war protests
were marginalized through false reports of low attendance or through the use of
close-in camera angles rather than wide pans of the crowd that would have revealed
the true numbers.
And finally, Framing:
Framing—bending the truth rather than breaking it—perhaps had the biggest
impact on reporting of the Iraq
war. According to Goodman, the embed program, which placed members of the media
with American soldiers was “the culmination of years of effort and
experimentation by the Pentagon to control the media during war” (70). Of the program, she writes: “In war,
journalists should offer a nuanced mosaic…you form your opinions based on the
full range of views that you hear. But you’ve got to hear from all sides, and
that was what was so deeply compromised by what happened with the embedding of
reporters… (174–175).
In addition to the embedded reports, the way the news was
packaged; the amount of exposure; the placement—whether it ran as a lead story
or was buried in back; the tone, the headlines, and the images all promoted
misleading perceptions about how well the war was going.
 |
| "Rent-A-Crowd" |
The
code of ethics also says that journalists should avoid misleading re-enactments
or staged news events and if a re-enactment is necessary to tell a story it
should be labeled. One of the most famous images of the war in Iraq was the
carefully stage-managed footage of the toppling of the Saddam statue. According
to Goodman, a small group of Iraqis were allowed into the heavily guarded plaza to cheer for
the cameras as the statue was brought down and the site for this defining image
of war was conveniently located across from the Palestine Hotel, which was the
main media site. “The marines established a three-block perimeter around the
area, ensuring they could control every angle of this global photo op (205).
Later, BBC long shots showed a much different event—a sparse crowd of mostly
journalists and American soldiers. Goodman cites Rev. Neville Watson, an
Australian peace activist who was there: “It was a rent-a-crowd.” And Robert
Fisk of the Independent, who
described it as “the most staged photo opportunity since Iwo
Jima” (206). Goodman adds, “Facts don’t matter; only the framing” (207).
Additional
examples of stagecraft included the President landing on the deck of an
aircraft carrier emblazoned with the words “Mission Accomplished,” and the
Hollywood-type film documentary of a heroic, yet completely inaccurate rescue
of a young, pretty white soldier.
One must wonder
why, now that many of the stories are being debunked didn’t the media raise
questions at the time? Goodman sums it up nicely: “According to Vassar College
sociology professor William Hoynes: “The problem is in the norms and practices
of the profession and how news is gathered and produced. Journalists rely upon
officials for both professional status and information, which is one of the
reasons why news is so heavily tilted toward the views and actions of
officials. Add to that the economic structure of the news, the profit
orientation of the major media and the power of advertising, the broad
ideological climate in the post-9/11 era—a narrow version of patriotism, dissent
cast as treason—and the news management/intimidation strategies of officials,
and you have a news media that often produces this kind of shameful reporting”
(267).
To conclude, this
blatant disregard for the public trust continues and many in the media continue
to swallow it. Unfortunately, the result is a misinformed public who distrusts
the media, which ultimately leaves a stain on all journalists in the
profession.
“Democracy works only when people can fully inform themselves and debate
issues freely.”
— Amy
Goodman
Works Cited
20 Years of Censored News. “Methods of Media
Manipulation.” Michael Parenti. 3
Aug. 2005
The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians,
War Profiteers, and the Media That Love
Them. Amy Goodman and David
Goodman. New York:
Hyperion 2004.
Information Clearinghouse. 5 Aug. 2006
Information War: American Propaganda, Free speech and
Opinion Control Since 9-11. Nancy
Snow
Media Control. Noam Chomsky. Online excerpts. Seven
Stories Press, 2002. 3 Aug.
2005
Mixed Media: Moral distinctions in Advertising, Public
Relations, and Journalism. Thomas
Bivins. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers,
2004.
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and
Resources For a New Century. Project for
