10 Years Ago: Selling War

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 11^th, 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 11^th, 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

<http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaManip_Parenti.html

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

<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm>.

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

<http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/MediaControl_excerpts.html>.

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

the New American Century (PNAC). <http://www.newamericancentury.org/>.