2007, Volume 5, Number 1
Mass Media and Propaganda in the context of the War on Terror
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the mode of thought in the United States changed dramatically. Since those first horrific images flashed before our eyes, there has been a steady influx of media commentary on what the implications of this act are and will be. In a survey of published material five years after the terrorist attack, three perspectives stand out. In each there is an understanding that in our new technological post-industrial society the lines between journalism and propaganda have significantly blurred. The three perspectives that will be addressed are shaped by how each relates media propaganda to the war on terror.The most obvious and mainstream argument is that in this era of worldwide media proliferation, the “terrorists” utilize propaganda to its fullest and in order for the civilized world to emerge victorious, we must in turn harness the power of media for all its worth (Zuckerman 76; Terror.com; Tierney). The second perspective states that the media have altered our perception of war by utilizing language that justifies our military actions both at home and abroad while demeaning and demonizing the opposition (Hammer 232; Pilger 23; Wekerle and Jackson 35). The third argument recognizes that propaganda is being used on a massive scale, but the concern is that a great majority of it is being used on the American public to shape opinion and rally support for the Bush administration’s militaristic agenda. While similar to the second idea, this third argument goes one step further in asserting that the government is deliberately shaping public policy and opinion in order to pursue a scripted plan to maintain American global supremacy (Newswise; Dalglish and Leslie 1; Rampton and Stauber 6).
In assessing the first perspective on media propaganda, it is essential to recognize that the sources read as a who’s who in terms of American intellectual print media. U.S. News and World Report, The Economist, and The New York Times can be viewed as some of the most credible sources in American media whose primary audience is business and political leaders. These three present a similar message that states, “we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media” (Zuckerman 76). The irony is that these three sources express this point emphatically but the above quote does not come from an American source but from none other than Ayman al-Zawahiri, “Osama bin Laden’s deputy” (76).
The Economist features a book review from a university professor in Israel, which details how “the 40 organizations designated as active terrorist groups by America’s State Department now maintain more than 4,300 websites” (Terror.com). This excessive use of new media, the internet, highlights the struggle the West is in with terrorist organizations. A tool that has become a necessity in the lives of the American public can at the same time be utilized as a weapon against them.
This double edged sword of media epitomizes the comments made by John Tierney in his New York Times column entitled “Osama’s Spin Lessons.” His first sentence declares, “Once again he (bin Laden) has beaten America at an American game: public relations” (“Spin Lessons”). The article details how, throughout the war on terror initiated after 9/11, bin Laden has used media presentation to further his motives even while the U.S. decimated al-Qaeda’s infrastructure. The essential point to take from these periodicals is that in this post-modern age, war has dramatically changed and these days words can often be as dangerous as bullets.
The second mode of thought certainly agrees that words are dangerous but feels that the words used by the media provoke violence by hiding its true danger. Rhonda Hammer, in her work “Militarism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Approach,” feels the media “sanitize and aestheticizes war” (232). She argues that modern media packages and presents war in the same way it presents its television shows. This framing of war allows the people to view the death of human beings as they do the characters on TV. “The bombing of Afghanistan…is translated as a “war on terrorism,” rather than a war on men, women, and children” (232).
Hammer details how the media continually bombard us with images of war that are always in the context of a struggle against terrorism. John Pilger continues with this line of thought by saying that while many people and organizations do commit acts of terror, the primary source of violence in the world comes from governments. This fact is concealed from us in the ways that Hammer described, but Pilger adds that another level to the problem is that, “the media have no language to describe state terrorism” (23). Thus, when “the enemy” detonates small explosives they become terrorists and make headline news, but when the United States, Britain, and Israel massacre thousands of innocent civilians, not a word is paid to that destruction of life. “If the word terrorism has any modern application, it is this industrial state terrorism” (23).
While Hammer and Pilger discuss how the media “sanitize” the war on terror that is going on around the world, Wekerle and Jackson write about how the internal spaces of America are being shaped by “the anti-terrorism Agenda” (35). This agenda involves analyzing how every space within the country could be utilized for a terrorist act and taking steps to mitigate the danger. A consequence of this has been that social movements within the country have had to tread lightly in terms of the political and social actions they take because of the possible repercussions of being branded a terrorist by the media, who have also learned to tread lightly and not question the administration’s motives because “the ‘War on Terrorism’ quickly expanded to a generalized chill on dissent” (35). In an effort to police those who dissent too much, there has been a formation of “’pop-up armies,’ the collaboration of military, security, and local police forces” (35). In their uncompromising adherence to public policy, the mainstream media have projected this terrorist label on the social progressive movements and failed to question the heavy-handed tactics of the militarizing police forces who have targeted these groups.
The previous authors have given us clear examples of what has and is happening in the war on terror but the final three share a perspective on why this is happening. David Altheide is a Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University and has recently released a book that claims, “the U.S. government used the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., as a catalyst to unleash a sophisticated propaganda campaign” (“Book Details Use of Fear”). The article that reviews the book hits on many of the topics that have already been discussed, as well as indicating that the events that have happened since 9/11 were planned well before the attacks happened. Altheide asserts that it was the media going along with the government’s version of the story that allowed the country to go in the direction it did. As was shown in the first perspective, the mainstream print media are still using the same approach. Altheide points out that “the use of “entertaining fear” applied to the war on terrorism,” was used on the American people (“Book Details Use of Fear”). This is precisely what Hammer described. Pilger noted how the real terrorists are the governments engaging in war while Altheide describes the group who drew up the plans for preemptive war a decade before The Iraq War included many of Bush’s cabinet members as well as the vice-president. His book also corroborates the opinions of Wekerle and Jackson when he says, “the goal is to encourage the U.S. people to relinquish certain privacy rights for protection and a safer world” (“Book Details Use of Fear”).
It is important to reiterate the difference between the second group of perspectives from this third opinion. The second group consisted of scholarly journals that detailed aspects of the war on terror and its repercussions. Altheide is making a leap from the actual occurrences, which can be viewed as a natural unfolding after a dramatic event, to an intent to orchestrate this unfolding. With this in mind, the comments by Lucy Dalglish and Gregg Leslie in Homefront Confidential take on dramatic consequences. The forward to their yearly report on the public’s access to information states, “In the days immediately following September 11, the U.S. government embarked on a disturbing path of secrecy” (1). They go on to describe the countless breaches of civil liberties that were once the hallmarks of American society.
Finally, a book entitled The Best War Ever by Sheldon Rampton and Jon Stauber reiterate the implication that the administration deceived the American people again and again. “One of the saddest realities about Iraq is that the American people have had to relearn a lesson they already learned during the Vietnam War: that the nation’s leaders, like the leaders of other countries, are capable of misleading the public even with respect to matters of life-and death importance” (6).
The opinions presented in this review, while espousing three continues with this line of thought by saying that while many people and organizations do commit acts of terror, the primary source of violence in the world comes from governments. This fact is concealed from us in the ways that Hammer described, but Pilger adds that another level to the problem is that, “the media have no language to describe state terrorism” (23). Thus, when “the enemy” detonates small explosives they become terrorists and make headline news, but when the United States, Britain, and Israel massacre thousands of innocent civilians, not a word is paid to that destruction of life. “If the word terrorism has any modern application, it is this industrial state terrorism” (23).
While Hammer and Pilger discuss how the media “sanitize” the war on terror that is going on around the world, Wekerle and Jackson write about how the internal spaces of America are being shaped by “the anti-terrorism Agenda” (35). This agenda involves analyzing how every space within the country could be utilized for a terrorist act and taking steps to mitigate the danger. A consequence of this has been that social movements within the country have had to tread lightly in terms of the political and social actions they take because of the possible repercussions of being branded a terrorist by the media, who have also learned to tread lightly and not question the administration’s motives because “the ‘War on Terrorism’ quickly expanded to a generalized chill on dissent” (35). In an effort to police those who dissent too much, there has been a formation of “’pop-up armies,’ the collaboration of military, security, and local police forces” (35). In their uncompromising adherence to public policy, the mainstream media have projected this terrorist label on the social progressive movements and failed to question the heavy-handed tactics of the militarizing police forces who have targeted these groups.
The previous authors have given us clear examples of what has and is happening in the war on terror but the final three share a perspective on why this is happening. David Altheide is a Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University and has recently released a book that claims, “the U.S. government used the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., as a catalyst to unleash a sophisticated propaganda campaign” (“Book Details Use of Fear”). The article that reviews the book hits on many of the topics that have already been discussed, as well as indicating that the events that have happened since 9/11 were planned well before the attacks happened. Altheide asserts that it was the media going along with the government’s version of the story that allowed the country to go in the direction it did. As was shown in the first perspective, the mainstream print media are still using the same approach. Altheide points out that “the use of “entertaining fear” applied to the war on terrorism,” was used on the American people (“Book Details Use of Fear”). This is precisely what Hammer described. Pilger noted how the real terrorists are the governments engaging in war while Altheide describes the group who drew up the plans for preemptive war a decade before The Iraq War included many of Bush’s cabinet members as well as the vice-president. His book also corroborates the opinions of Wekerle and Jackson when he says, “the goal is to encourage the U.S. people to relinquish certain privacy rights for protection and a safer world” (“Book Details Use of Fear”).
It is important to reiterate the difference between the second group of perspectives from this third opinion. The second group consisted of scholarly journals that detailed aspects of the war on terror and its repercussions. Altheide is making a leap from the actual occurrences, which can be viewed as a natural unfolding after a dramatic event, to an intent to orchestrate this unfolding. With this in mind, the comments by Lucy Dalglish and Gregg Leslie in Homefront Confidential take on dramatic consequences. The forward to their yearly report on the public’s access to information states, “In the days immediately following September 11, the U.S. government embarked on a disturbing path of secrecy” (1). They go on to describe the countless breaches of civil liberties that were once the hallmarks of American society.
Finally, a book entitled The Best War Ever by Sheldon Rampton and Jon Stauber reiterate the implication that the administration deceived the American people again and again. “One of the saddest realities about Iraq is that the American people have had to relearn a lesson they already learned during the Vietnam War: that the nation’s leaders, like the leaders of other countries, are capable of misleading the public even with respect to matters of li e-and death importance” (6).
The opinions presented in this review, while espousing three different perspectives, make one point perfectly clear. Terrorism affects virtually every aspect of modern American life. Because media, television, internet, and print, pervade our culture, it is impossible to escape the barrage of propaganda that continually flash before us. Many Americans spend their entire days in a media propaganda vacuum. They wake up to headlines of destruction in their newspapers, drive to work with reports of terrorist activity on their radios, are employed in buildings that are considered “soft” targets for terrorists, utilize the internet for a variety of workplace tasks and view the latest breaking news stream across their screen, watch the evening news with stories of the government’s daily efforts to enact legislation to protect them, and settle into bed with their favorite magazine’s description of what could’ve, should’ve, or would’ve been done if only we knew more about why “they” hate “us”.
WORKS CITED
“Book Details Use of Fear to Support War on Terror.” Newswise. 15 Sep. 2006. http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/521877/
Dalglish, Lucy A., and Gregg P. Leslie. “How the War on Terrorism Affects Access to Information and the Public’s Right to Know.” Homefront Confidential Sep. 2005.
Hammer, Rhonda. “Militarism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective.” Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies 25.3 (2003): 231-256. Academic Search Premier. U of Hawai’i-Hilo Lib., Hilo. 13 September 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com
Pilger, John. New Statesman 133 (2004): 23-24. Academic Search Premier. U of Hawai’i-Hilo Lib., Hilo. 13 Sep. 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com
Rampton, Sheldon, and John Stauber. The Best War Ever. New York: Tarcher, 2006.
“Terror.com; The internet.” The Economist. 29 Apr. 2006. LexisNexis. U of Hawai’i-Hilo. Lib., 18 Sep. 2006.
Tierney, John. “Osama’s Spin Lessons.” New York Times 12 Sep. 2006. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/opinion/12tierney.html
Wekerle, Gerda R., and Paul S. B. Jackson. “Urbanizing the Security Agenda.” City 9.1 (2005): 33-49. Academic Search Premier. U of Hawai’i-Hilo Lib., Hilo. 13 September 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com
Zuckerman, Mortimer B. “What It Will Take to Win.” Editorial U.S. News & World Report 140.18 (2006): 76-76. Academic Search Premier. U of Hawai’i- Hilo Lib., Hilo. 13 September 2006. http://search.ebscohost.com
This paper was written for English 215 (Writing for the Humanities and Social Sciences).