Marketing the Iraq
War
“If people really new the truth, the war
would be stopped tomorrow, but of course, they don’t know, and the can’t know”
-David Loid George
Prime Minister
George makes the above statement to the editor of the ‘Guardian’ in reference
to WWI. He voices a great tragedy that has taken effect in the realm of
journalism and war. Has journalism strayed from its true purpose founded in the
heart of the first amendment? Has the line between the voice of Government and
the voice of the people become blurry? Upon study of the Media’s role in the
Iraq ‘war on terrorism’ one would suggest that this is indeed the case.
After the events
of September 11th, the discussion of war in the media escalated quickly until President Bush declared war
on Iraq in 2003. This is not to say that the vast majority of the Iraqi nation
had anything to do with the collapse of the twin towers, but the marketing of Saddam
Hussein did well to raise public support for the war campaign. Fear of
terrorism spread with images of extremist Muslims and the images of burning
buildings. The face of Saddam became the face of Iraq itself and hatred toward
the nation in the form of patriotism arose in America.
The invasion of
Iraq is strong evidence of the power of the media. Tactics used to sell war are
based on an appeal to the public’s emotions. The ‘symbols of terrorism’
promoted heightened emotions of fear and imperialism demonstrated through the
exploitation of propaganda images. These emotional appeals begin to infiltrate
society and overshadow facts and reason (Pilger 2010, 5:30).
This act of
sensationalism has increased with the rise of Social Media. In a society filled
with news that is riddled with gossip, crime and emotional messages, these
dramatic stories are the most likely to spread. Whether tweeted or posted,
blogged or instagramed, the public has strayed from the responsibility of
honest news, to the high of emotional roller coaster of news porn. Social media
allows for us to customize our own news experience, in a sense, narrowcasting
ourselves and reading only news that appeals to our emotions (Kelly 2013,
para12). As a result of the demand for catchy stories, too much emphasis has
been put into derogatory headlines. The age of buying a whole newspaper is
over. With news streaming across the Internet each article must now sell
itself. This promotes a focus on eye-catching stories with gripping headlines
rather than and honest and factual journalism based on real news. An example of this is the comparison
between the international news offered by CNN and the CNN network’s American
broadcasting station. The news geared towards Americans looks more like a
raunchy magazine one would find in the checkout lane of a grocery store, than a
newspaper providing useful information (Nicholas 2013, pg 41).
Perhaps it was
this type of temptation for dramatic appeal that lead Judith Miller of the New
York Times to falsely report knowledge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction. Upon the breaking of this news all opposition towards invading
Iraq was shamefully silenced and President Bush made a proclamation of war. It
wasn’t until after the invasion that Iraq was found clean of any such weapons.
One cannot help but think that if the lies of the media in regards to weapons
of mass destruction, and other accusations found to be false, would have been
challenged, it is likely we would not have gone to war.
As a result of the
Iraq war, 74,000 women are widows and 4.5 million people have been forced from
their homes. Civilian casualties are up to 90%, and more is added to this
percentage daily. This is alarming in contrast to the percentage of civilian
casualties in past wars. The percentage of civilian casualties
during WWI was at 10%, the percentage rose to 50% during WWII, and 70% during
the Vietnam War (Pilger,
2010). These percentages are enough to question the motives behind government
inspired media and the roles journalists play.
In response to falsely reporting on
weapons of mass destruction, Judith Miller had this to say, “My Job isn’t to
assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst
myself. My job is to tell readers of the New York Times what government thought
about Iraq’s arsenal.” (Mermin, pg 67) If this is true, and reporters and
journalists are merely spokesmen for the government, than true first amendment
journalism has been lost (Mermin, pg 69). Journalists should be independent of
the government as a way to keep the White House in check and give the public
sound opposition when needed. This is not to say that journalist should not
report on what members of congress or the President think about issues, but
there should not be such a heavy influence in today’s journalism.
It is not easy fighting for independence
in journalism, but the risk of losing one’s job, or even one’s life speaks
volumes of its necessity. The unfortunate reality is that journalists who ‘cooperate’
with the government are rewarded with more clearance. In contrast, journalists
who are unfriendly with the pentagon are at risk of loosing sources. In order
to stay ‘in the know’ standard, cooperative reporting is the safest. Being
labeled as un-patriotic is a consequence that could affect an honest journalist
for the rest of his life. Also, just because one writes honestly does not mean
that it will be published. This was true in the case of a Pulitzer Prize
winning journalist who investigated the sites in Iraq marked as ‘suspicious’ by
the U.S. Although these sites were used to justify invasion of Iraq, the
journalist discovered that they, in fact, been
sealed for many years. This story was not printed. The information was no
longer “relevant’ and printing it would be contrary to the decision of government
(Pilger, 2010).
Contrarily, a major story that was
widely broadcast among multiple networks was that of the crumpling of the
statue of Saddam Hussein. The story emphasized the relief and joyous attitude of
Iraqi’s. It did not emphasize the very prominent presence and orchestration of
the U.S. It was in fact an American Psyops officer who ordered the fall of the
statue and there were almost as many American reporters present as there were
Iraqi citizens. At the end of the event, it was an American soldier who placed
an American flag over the face of Saddam (Pilger 2010, 13:35). Was this a revolutionary moment for
Iraqi’s or an emotional appeal of victory for Americans?
Another enemy of independent media, and
perhaps a ploy of the government, is embedded journalism. Journalist’s who work
under the guise of the army are subject to the authority of the U.S. military.
They are not only limited to where they can go, how they get there, what they
see, and what they can report, but they become deeply connected to the men they
live with. This deep empathy creates an obvious bias that negatively influences balanced journalism. It is the
journalists who choose not to be embedded with the military who are reporting
the real news (Pilger, 2010).
“The
problem with embedded journalism is journalists are always seeing the view of
the troupes, we’re not seeing or hearing from civilians who are on the wrong
end of their tactics. Embedded journalism is never ever going to get close to
hearing the stories of the Iraqis.”
-Phil
Shiner (Public interest lawyer acting on behalf of Irais) (Pilger 2010, 46:10).
It has been said that 80-90% of what
one reads in a newspaper is officially inspired. It is the conglomeration of
news networks that infiltrate all forms of mass media with this statistic. The
American Press and other major wire services are used to feed news companies
across the board. A story ‘breaking’ is merely a single story that jumps on the
conveyer belt and deposits itself into the hands of reporters across the
spectrum of various news networks. These stories bounce around in the echo chamber
of twenty-four hour news. Through this process of repetition and mass
production the public is told not what to think, but what to think about.
Although an ‘active audience’ is fully capable of accepting or rejecting
information presented, mass media has the ability to subliminally advertise a
focus on specific news stories while specifically not focusing on others. For
example, the media can mass produce a sense of patriotism by broadcasting
stories of heroics while silencing news such as a story on the torture of
Iraqi’s by American soldiers. Other forms of media help support this bias. U.S.
Movies such as “The Hurt Locker” invoke a sense of American pride in the
efforts made in Iraq, glorifying our decision for war ((Nicholas 2013, pg 43).
With such a picky selection of broadcasted news, are we really as ‘free’ as we
think?
“The intelligent
manipulation of the masses is an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country”
-Edward Burnays
(invented term, ‘public relations’) (pilger 2010, 3:10)
The first amendment of the
constitution states the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Despite opposition and persecution,
true and independent journalism is not only an asset to our country, but a
necessity for maintain a libertarian state. Fighting for freedom must be sought
in our own country through the exposing of balanced truth. The effort needs to
be made to turn the government monologue of American journalism on war into a
conversation among the people. We have the responsibility to ask ourselves this
question, “If our current American
journalism reflected the values dictated in the first amendment, would we have
invaded Iraq? And maybe even worse, would the blood of thousands of innocent
Iraqi civilians still be on our hands?”.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the
light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in
the sight of God.
-John 3:21
Croteau, David, et al. Media/society : industries, images,
and audiences. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: SAGE, 2012. Print. -6-
(Croteau, 2012)
"Daily Kos." : How South
Koreans and Americans Differ On North Korea.Web. 15 Apr.
2013. -5-
Hoffman, Nicholas V. "In the War
Whorehouse." Index on Censorship 32.3 (n.d.): 36-43.
Academic Search
Premier. Web. 14 Apr. 2013.
-3-
Kelly, Robert. "Guest Post – Is
the Media Coverage of the North Korea Crisis
Inflammatory?" Web
log post. Robert Kelly - Asian Security Blog.
Wordpress.com, 9 Apr.
2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2013. -2-
Mermin, Jonathan. "The Medias
Independence Problem." World Policy Journal 21.3
67-71. Print. -4- (Mermin, )
The War You Don't See. Dir. John Pilger and Alan Lowery. 2010. DVD.
JohnPilger.com/TheWarYouDon'tSee. Network, 2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2013. -1-
Water shortages have been so prevalent in northern Iraq, so much so that over 100,000 Iraqis have been forced to evacuate their homes since 2005. UNESCO has hired workers to repair aqueducts in the region, providing relief to northern Iraq.
Iraqi models share their pictures
backstage during a hairdressers' and make-up artists' festival in
Baghdad on Feb. 9, 2013. It was the first time that this kind of
festival had taken place in the Iraqi capital since 1999.
