|
Recent
Stories
May
13, 2003
Saul
Landau
Clear Channel Fogs the Airwaves
Michael
Neumann
Has Islam Failed? Not by Western
Standards
Uri
Avnery
My Meeting with Arafat
Steve Perry
The Saudi Arabia Bombing
Jacob
Levich
Democracy Comes to Iraq: Kick Their Ass and Grab Their Gas
William
Lind
The Hippo and the Mongoose: a Question of Military Theory
The
Black Commentator
Fraud at the Times: Blaming Blacks for White Folks' Mistakes
Stew Albert
Asylum
Hammond
Guthrie
An Illogical Reign
Website
of the Day
Sy Hersh: War and Intelligence
May
12, 2003
Chris
Floyd
Bush, Bin Laden, Bechtel, and Baghdad
Dave
Lindorff
America's Dirty Bombs
Sam
Hamod and Elaine Cassel
Resisting the Bush Administration's War on Liberty
Uzi
Benziman
Sharon and Sons, Inc.
Jason
Leopold
The Decline and Fall of Thomas White
Rich Procter
George Jumps the Shark
Federico
Moscogiuri
Going to Israel? Sign or Else
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/12
Book
of the Day
Fooling
Marty Peretz
Website
of the Day
T-Shirts to Protest In
May
10 / 11, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Rosenthal Faces the Music in Key
Med Marijuana Case
JoAnn
Wypijewski
Labor in the Dawn of Empire
Annie
C. Higgins
The Last Time I Saw Mus'ab
Ron Jacobs
The Devil in New England
William
Mandel
One on One with Sen. Joe McCarthy
Jason Leopold
Halliburton Still Flouts the Law as It Profits from Terror
Patrick
Cockburn
The Iraqi Quagmire
Larry Magnuson
William Bennett: Next Viceroy
of Iraq?
Sasan
Fayazmanesh
The Good Terrorists?
Anthony
Gancarski
Chalabi: Drowning in Ba'ath-water?
Steven
Sherman
A Letter to My European Friends
Khaled
El-Bizri
Mr. Bush Comes to Santa Clara
Bruce
Jackson
How Fear Curdles the Soul
Adam Engel
Flag in the Rain
Poets
Basement
Reiss, Guthrie, Hamod & Albert
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/10
Website
of the Weekend
Killing Again
May
9, 2003
Rahul
Mahajan
Don't Lift the Sanctions Yet
Wayne
Madsen
When Lying Pays Off: Neo-Con Fabricators
Chris
Floyd
The Karamazov Question
Don Monkerud
The Great Christian Schism: War or Peace?
Sam
Hamod and Elaine Cassel
Drunk on Power: Bush, Power and the
Pathology of the Dry Drunk
Hammond
Guthrie
Bombastic Promise Keeping
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/09
May
8, 2003
Julie
Hilden
When It's a Crime to Visit Your Son
Mickey
Z.
Partisan Protests?
Mark
Zepezauer
Evil is as Evil Does
David Lindorff
The Coming Senior Revolution
Abu
Spinoza
The Detention of Dr. Huda Ammash
Ben
Tripp
The Other "F" Word
Norman
Madarasz
God in the Service of the Security
State: a Dispatch from Brazil
Stew Albert
Pushovers
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/08
Website
of the Day
Department of Sexual Security
May
7, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Quoting Under the Influence: Breasts,
Martinis, Hitchens
David
Krieger
Winning the War; Alienating the World
Sen.
Robert Byrd
Bush's Troubling Speech
Bruce Jackson
Bill Kunstler's Last Big Speech
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/07
Website
of the Day
The Truth About Bush's Military Records
May
6, 2003
Paul
de Rooij
An Activist in the Trenches: an Interview
with Gretta Duisenberg
Anthony
Gancarski
Money to Burn: in Defense of Bill Bennett
John
Stanton
Bush's War on Jesus
Sam
Hamod
W. Bush: the Little Snot, the Little
Bully
Robert
Fisk
Bush Says the War is Over: Tell It to
the Shi'a
Kathleen
Christison
A Roadmap to Nowhere
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/06
May
5, 2003
Gary
Leupp
Phase Two: Syria and Iran
Jorge
Mariscal
The Militarization of US Culture
Ishmael
Reed
A Family Values Man
Tarif Abboushi
Sharon's Confidence: Bush Won't Come to Shove on Roadmap
Leila
Matsui
Regime Change Begins at Home...Literally
Steve
Perry
Bush's Wars
Sam
Smith
Coalition of the Shilling
May
3, 2003
Ron
Jacobs
Tears of Rage: Remembering May 1970
Elaine
Cassel
William Bennett, a Freudian Perspective
Sam
Hamod
Understanding the Shi'a of Lebanon
Scott
Fleming
Getting Shot on the Oakland Docks
Mickey
Z.
Cuba and Puerto Rico: 100 Years of Terror
William
S. Lind
Don't Take Col. John Boyd's Name in Vain
Dr.
Bruce Blair
The New Nuclear Terrorism Threat
Joanne
Mariner
Cluster Bombs Over Iraq
Anthony
Gancarski
Hot Fun in the Summertime
Ilian Pappe
Searching Jenin
William
MacDougall
America's Kids Are All Right: Pre-Teen Conservative Commentators
Seth Sandronsky
Incarcerated and Invisible
Rich
Procter
Over Our Dead Bodies
Lenni Brenner
How Bob Dylan Found His Voice
Adam
Engel
American Bulk
Poets'
Basement
Reiss, Guthrie, Albert
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/03
May
2, 2003
Caoimhe
Butterly
Crowd Control American-style
Neve
Gordon
US: No Right to Know About the Disappeared
John
Chuckman
Tom Friedman's Life as a Pet Hamster
Bradley
Burston
Betting on Abu-Mazen...To Lose
Harvey
Wasserman
Bush's Military Defeat
John
Troyer
Question Those Writing History
Saul Landau
The Cuba Conundrum
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/02
Website
of the Day
Moussaoui's
Quiz
May
1, 2003
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Santorum: That's Latin for Asshole
Iain
Boal
A May Day Message to the FCC: "We
Are Many; They are Few"
Diana
Johnstone
About Cuba
Sam
Hamod
Killings at Al Fallujah, City of Mosques
Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Intelligence Fiasco
Lee Sustar
Greed Air: Airline Workers Agree to Pay Cuts, While Bosses Stuff
Their Pockets
Peter
Linebaugh
May Day at Kut and Kienthal
Stew Albert
Straight Shooters
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 5/01
Website
of the Day
South Bay Mobilization
April
30, 2003
Ashley
Smith
Under Uncle Sam's Thumb: a History
of Washington's Occupations
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 4/30
Gary
Leupp
Shooting Schoolboys: Preliminary Thoughts on the Fallujah Massacre
Robert
Jensen
Fighting Alienation in the USA
Wayne
Madsen
The Four Horsemen of Propaganda
Ahmad
Faruqui
Bush's Strategic Myopia About the Middle East
Gabriel
Kolko
Iraq, the US and the End of the European Coalition
Adolfo
Perez Esquivel
A Nobel Laureat's Letter to Bush:
"You Talk of Freedom; You Detest Freedom"
April
29, 2003
Gary
Leupp
Disorder and Opportunity: the Results
of the Iraq War
Uri
Avnery
Don't Envy Abu-Mazen
Anthony
Gancarski
Brush with the Law
Mickey
Z.
POWs: Then and Now
CounterPunch
Wire
How to Spin Israel on the Hill: Internal Lobbying Documents
Robert
Fisk
Did the US Murder Journalists?
Chris
Floyd
Bush Telegraphs His Punches on Syria
Wayne Madsen
About Those Iraqi Intelligence Documents
Wallace
Gagne
Pilgrimage or Demolition Derby?
Eliot Katz
Playing Catch with Cracked Globes
Steve
Perry
Bush's War Web Log 4/29
Hot Stories
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
May
14, 2003
The Hydra's New Head:
Propagandists
and Selling the US-Iraq War
By PAUL de ROOIJ
Just as weapons have gotten "smarter,"
so too has the military gotten more sophisticated about how to
use the media to meet military objectives.
-- Jerry Broeckert, Lt. Col., public
affairs officer in the US Marines Corps. [1]
As the fog of war lifts, the propaganda model
followed by the United States to sell the US-Iraq War is now
clear, and the best way to understand this campaign is to consider
it as psychological warfare against the US population [2]. From
the beginning, the propagandists opted for a "sports show"
metaphor as the overt image for this campaign. There are numerous
features of this propaganda campaign that are worth examining
since they are innovations, and sometimes contravene previously
held assumptions about such campaigns. There remain questions
about its long-term effectiveness, and whether the same formula
can ever be used again.
A war looking for
a pretext.
The US-Iraq war started years ago, but
it was only in Sept. 2002 that a decision was made to finish
the job, and the hot war phase started on Mar. 19, 2003 [3].
It was in mid-September that the US sought to pass a UN resolution
with onerous conditions attempting to elicit an outright Iraqi
rejection, and thus create a trigger for war [4]. Unfortunately
for the US, several Security Council members objected to the
purpose of the proposed resolution and forced its watering down,
resulting in UNSCR 1441. It is important to view the ongoing
bombing campaign against Iraq in this context.
The bombing campaign beginning in September 2002 was meant to
provoke the Iraqis to reject the UN resolution--which would have
given the US the needed pretext for the war. (See
Graph [5]). Once UNSCR 1441 was passed early in Nov.
2002, then the level of provocation escalated again in an attempt
to get the Iraqis to reject the UN inspectors. However, it is
also clear that once the decision to go to war was made the propaganda
machine was set in motion. This was evident because key propagandists
initiated their campaign at the Pentagon in Nov. 2002 [6]. A
deliberate use of bombings seems to have been made to justify
the war; the propagandists seem to have found a new implement
for their toolkit. The Pentagon has officially integrated the
propagandists into its ranks; but it is also evident that propagandists
may be using the military for their own ends.
Prior to Nov. 2002, one witnessed a remarkably inept attempt
to justify the war. This so-called public diplomacy failed to
deliver a credible justification for it, and made it very difficult
for the subsequent propaganda campaign, the one meant to herd
the population and squash dissent. The war-drummers not only
had to stoke up the usual levels of jingoism, but also required
a search for a pretext. This job was made even more difficult
by the unwillingness of the UN to play along and the unprecedented
opposition to the war in Europe. This is one of the unusual aspects
of this war.
After Nov. 2002, public diplomacy sputtered
along until it was completely replaced by the war drummers after
Feb. 6, 2003 -- when Powell ineffectively accused Iraq of violating
UNSCR 1441 in his address to the UN Security Council. From that
point, it was clear that war was inevitable, and no further attempts
were made to justify the war in a serious way. The justification
phase was simply over, and it was time for the war-drummers to
take over.
Targeting the home
population.
When one thinks of "psychological
warfare operations" (psyops), one thinks of airplanes dispensing
leaflets over Iraqi army positions, but it also encompasses threatening,
starving, and even terrorizing the enemy population. Psyops is
meant to instill deep fear and defeatism. The implements of such
psyops are blunt, transparent, and of questionable effectiveness.
One generally doesn't think of psychological warfare as something
waged against the home population; but this is perhaps the best
way to appreciate the US experience during the past few months.
The objective of such a campaign was to stifle dissent, garner
unquestioning support, and rally people around a common symbol.
Americans, and to a lesser extent Europeans, have been subjected
to a propaganda barrage in an effort to neutralize opposition
to the war, and this fits directly into a psyops framework.
Psyops appeal to the base human behavior
of large groups. In the case of the enemy, fear and even terror
are likely to achieve the desired results. In the case of the
home population, it is the stoking of jingoism, the "we-ism"
in the crowd, the intimidation of dissent-- and the fear factor
is there too. The American flag acreage on display everywhere
is a clear manifestation that we are dealing with psyops targeting
the home population.
Psyops specialists know that one of the
strongest human tendencies is to try to conform to a group. Their
objective is to create a din of jingoism pushing for "our"
team intimidating others, and at the very least causing dissenters
to lay low. It is not a good idea to go against the grain in
the middle of a riled crowd. This is achieved by filtering the
news so that it fits in with the desired message by, e.g., "embedding"
of journalists, incorporation of censors within the main media
networks, and shutting out alternative news sources. The result
was stoking rampant jingoism in the US--and a mostly silenced
anti-war movement.
In the current military jargon, there
is a distinction: psyops are targeted at the enemy, and "military-media
relations" are meant to target the home core population.
But the people involved in these different operations tend to
be the same, and there is a certain amount of overlap. Jerry
Broeckert, the US Marines media specialist, wrote about "coordinat[ing]
our information management campaign" with the psyops officer
[7]. And stated: "[using the media] blurs the line between
public relations and psychological operations". The integration
of propaganda specialists in the military, and in turn, their
coordination with the media during this war means only one thing:
the home population is specifically targeted, and is probably
the primary target of this campaign. This raises disturbing questions
for the media on whether they want to become an implement in
psyops against the home population.
Restricting the Channel
A great part of the media campaign post
Feb. 6, 2003 entailed restricting the information emanating from
Iraq. Robert Fisk wrote about the censorship built into the major
networks where all incoming news items would be made propaganda-compliant
[8]. The major American networks complied willingly and seemed
to have become part of the propaganda structure. BBC's Gavin
Hewitt, an embedded journalist, claimed recently that no restrictions
were placed on his reporting, and that he could beam out whatever
he pleased [9]. It just means that the filtering took place with
his embedded editors in London, or that he only saw what the
army wanted him to see.
A second important aspect was the cleansing
and control of the news flow. As the BBC's Jonathan Marcus wrote
on April 17th: "You had this absolute avalanche of material
from our colleagues in Baghdad and with the actual units in the
field. But in a strange sort of way a lot of it was like looking
through a key-hole at a very small piece of the war." All
the blood and gore were expunged, and there were only hints of
Iraqi suffering. During the 1991 Gulf War the video of bombings
played a central role, but this time, its usage was toned down.
Some at the Pentagon must have been upset at this because the
US armory had upgraded much of the video capability of its weapons.
The "smart weapons" had been upgraded to "smart
multimedia weapons". Alas, the images generated from these
weapons are now mostly meant to make Rumsfeld chuckle. Ah! one
can only imagine him watching these with Wagner playing in the
background!
The Sports Metaphor
Propaganda campaigns usually follow a
theme or have a flavor-of-the-month. The propagandists borrow
from product advertising campaigns that are conducted in a similar
fashion. During the 1991 Gulf War, the theme was the "video
game", which was evident due to the number of demolition
video clips. This theme couldn't be reused because the video-game
scenes raised some uncomfortable questions about this enterprise
especially among opponents of the war. It was therefore necessary
to conjure a new theme, and all indications are that this campaign
followed a "sports show" metaphor. The main advantage
of this approach is that Americans are very comfortable with
the "sport show" -- it is part of their daily diet,
it is intelligible to them, and it gives them a passive "entertained"
role. Casting propaganda in such a known, comfortable framework
makes people adjust favorably to the message.
Given that the war didn't have an accepted
justification, the propagandists opted to stress the "support
our troops" refrain, paralleling the "support our team"
chant. It doesn't matter if people opposed the war; they could
still understand supporting the troops in the current context.
This proved to be a very effective ploy. Erstwhile opposition
groups changed their stance overnight when the "hot"
phase of the war started. The Liberal Democratic party in the
UK switched from an anti-war stance to "support our troops"
mode overnight. Although base political calculations may have
come into play, opposing British troops once they went into action
was not tenable even if the party continued to oppose the war.
Presenting the war as a sports event
enabled the propagandists to circumvent the thorny issue of why
the US was so eager to engage in this war in the first place.
When one watches a sports game, there is no need to think about
the "why" of anything; it is only an issue of "supporting
our team". You are also only supposed to root for the "good
guys" team, and hate the "Iraqi meanies". Dissident
voices are also drowned out--you are only supposed to cheer for
the home team. Cheering for a team in the opponent side's benches
is a dangerous proposition--which can even entail mortal danger
[10].
Equally important is that sports fans
are supposed to react on cue, and otherwise are expected to be
quiet. This passivity is ideal for the propagandists, and possibly
this can be imbued in the war spectacle.
Sports matches are informal events, and
the presentation of this war followed a similar setup. There
was no need for a formal declaration of war. Just the starting
whistle was necessary for the game to begin. Even the non-recognition
of the Iraqi "regime" was part of this--the US was
playing against Saddam, and we refer to the other players by
their first names. If this game is informal, then no appearance
is given that the whole enterprise may have any serious consequences.
The 24-hour Newscast networks portrayed
the "war as sports show" splendidly. The networks constantly
fed news snippets without context. In sports, context isn't necessary,
and carrying this through to the war circumvented awkward questions.
Context is a dangerous thing because it raises questions, and
propagandists don't want to foster that. The newscasters also
showed the "good guys" in action from many angles,
and only slow motion replays were missing. Exposed to this spectacle,
one is only meant to cheer, drink beer, and release one's jingoistic
id. Truculent slogans like "shock & awe" conveyed
the might of our team, and appealed to primitive behavior; the
name of the putative American strategy resembled the name of
a wrestler, and is something that can be ignored due to its artificiality.
The "play-by-play" military
analysts incorporated the sports analogy completely--with maps/diagrams,
advice to players, and making the audience think about the marvelous
strategy. The military analysts in CNN certainly were portrayed
as retired football coaches. In the morning, these "Xs"
(ex-military-so-and-so) would congregate for Pentagon briefings.
One can only speculate what briefings they received and from
whom, but their uniform terminology indicates that the propagandists
had a major say. "Once our troops go over the red line"
and similar nonsense was sports talk generated by the propagandists.
Sportsmen in the US have their names
inscribed on their shirts. Before the war, all tanks had names
stenciled -- in large, black, easy-to-read letters -- on the
barrels of the gun. The tank commanders were encouraged to write
an evocative name on their tanks, and the sporting analogy is
obvious. The staged nature of this activity was also evident
since all tanks had the lettering on the same spot. This is the
first time known that tanks have been labeled in such a fashion.
Lies don't matter in sports events. If
you are told that your team is the best and eat poodles for breakfast--no
harm is done. Planting lies, semi-truths and deceptions is useful
for the propagandists, and in the current context, it is necessary
because no viable justification has been found. So it is not
surprising to find even war supporters making statements like:
"Everyone knows he [Bush] lied about weapons of mass destruction
being the point of the war." But then it doesn't matter
that Bush lied! [11]
The war even had a trophy--covering Saddam's
face with the American flag that hung outside the Pentagon on
9-11 was a salute to the propagandists themselves. Now that they
work for the military, they will certainly earn medals for this!
Propaganda Highlights
The toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue
on April 9th was certainly a propaganda coup. (NB: The same propagandists
who fabricated the throwing-the-babies-out-of-incubators story
in 1991 produced this event. [11.5]) These scenes certainly had
an impact around the world, and it briefly seemed that it justified
the war. However, US Marine Corporal Edward Chin admitted that
he was ordered to wrap the face of Saddam in the US flag before
toppling the statue--nothing spontaneous about this. Furthermore,
some Iraqis were bused in for the occasion, to join the small
crowd that was mostly made up of journalists. The crowd wasn't
even able to topple the statue by themselves, but an engineering
vehicle was handily available on site to finish an American operation.
Mark Damazer, the BBC's deputy director
of news, accepted that they were carried away in broadcasting
this event, and only later "did questions arise about it".
Nevertheless, he justified its broadcast because it symbolized
a defining moment in the demolition of the regime. Unfortunately,
it was a defining moment for propaganda since the event was entirely
staged, and major media unquestioningly broadcast this message.
Now that the war is almost over, and that the search for a justification
of the war continues apace, there is a need to be skeptical of
many of the "discoveries" taking place. Anyone who
remembers the "discovery" of stashes of whiskey and
the like after Salvador Allende was killed in Chile should not
have been surprised to see the discoveries in Uday's lair [12].
Uday Hussein may not have been a nice guy, but it is highly unlikely
that stashes of pornography were left lying around. On the face
of it, there is a high probability that many such items were
indeed planted.
Another dubious claim is that regarding
the discovery of a "suicide-belt factory"--with the
suicide outfits neatly hung in dry cleaner's plastic. This is
a rather absurd story, for the simple reason that suicide bombing
was a concept foreign to Saddam Hussein's "regime".
Some of the foreign volunteers fighting in Iraq may have been
so disposed, but it is difficult to imagine their setting up
such a factory. The propagandists seem to want to have it both
ways: on the one hand Iraqi soldiers must be threatened by enforcer
squads in order to coerce soldiers to fight, but on the other
hand, some people are so motivated that they are willing to die
for the "regime". It is highly unlikely that this story
is legitimate, and it was produced to provide another after the
fact anti-terrorism justification.
There is perhaps a simple proof that
the suicide-belt story was a sham. If the story were true, then
we would have heard it repeated many times over. Journalists
would have been allowed to inspect this a bit closer. But the
story disappeared in no time, and indicating that it had served
its purpose. It is also curious to see the faces of some of the
same soldiers reappear in several of these seemingly staged events.
One of the soldiers in the suicide-belt factory seems to be the
same one showing off a tacky poster in one of the palaces.
The emergence of a general rule: If a "news"
item about a grotesque aspect of the regime, WMD, or terrorism,
appears on TV for a day or two and then disappears, it is safe
to bet that it is a fabrication. Similarly, if the reporter from
such a story is not identified, then you are watching another
fabrication.
It is certainly taking a long time to find chemical weapons--the
staging of such an event must take some time. By 1995 UNMOVIC/UNSCOM
had demolished "95 to 98%" of all weapons of mass destruction
and their infrastructure, and therefore there may be precious
little proof lying around. The propagandists may have to ship
in barrels of the stuff, and maybe even entice an admission out
of Dr. Ammash, known to the propagandists as "Dr. Anthrax".
For her cooperation, she may end up getting a position at a mediocre
Texas university.
Ah! the embedded journalists
The word embedded itself suggests a carnal
relationship with the Pentagon. Questions arise about who is
using whom, and about the journalists' integrity while riding
along in a tank. Any illusions of retaining independence are
entirely dispensed with. In fact, the Pentagon used the embedded
journalists, and not the other way around. NB: the Pentagon views
the media as a "force multiplier". These journalists
were stitched onto the military machine to sell its war, and
perhaps unwittingly they became part of the machine. As Tony
Jenkins, President of the UN Correspondents Association, recently
remarked about the embedded journalists: "But boy were they
played like a musical instrument by the Pentagon." Or Kenneth
Bacon, a former Pentagon spokesman, wrote in the Wall Street
Journal recently that: "You couldn't hire actors to
do as good a job as the press has done" from the Pentagon's
point of view. [13]
There is an issue of guilt by association.
Some of the embeds were dubious reporters to begin with. Alexander
Cockburn has recently analyzed the pathetic role played by the
permanently embedded Judith Miller of the New York Times
[14]. Similarly, an embedded journalist from the Jerusalem
Post spewed pernicious propaganda, e.g., the March 23rd "chemical
weapons factory discovery". Some other so-called journalists
even participated in the looting spree. Unfortunately, there
were many other such examples of dubious reporters. The key question
is if any legitimate reporting can take place when so many are
implicated in dubious and uncritical reporting.
The modus operandi of the embeds was
to be busy reporting on some of the action directly in front
of the units they were attached to; but they never asked any
of the obvious questions. Often embedded journalists would "interview"
one of the military officers who would utter dubious statements.
The journalists usually played along, and didn't question the
previous statements that by then had proven to be false. For
example, "there is an uprising in Basra" was repeated
several times by British officers, regurgitated by the embedded
journalists, but then no questions were posed when this proved
to be a deception. Journalists cannot play along with so much
deceit without tarnishing their credibility.
Several journalists pointed out targets
to the soldiers they were traveling with. No sooner had the BBC's
Gavin Hewitt pointed out an enemy truck than it was shot to pieces
and several Iraqis were killed. One CNN crew had an armed escort
who shot some Iraqis. Once journalists start taking part in a
war in this fashion their objectivity and purported neutrality
is compromised, and they become legitimate targets too.
Some of the embeds reported from the field as if they were the
main attraction of the story. ITN's Juliet Bremner posed in front
of the camera to report a story, and it seemed that her presence
was more important than the scene behind her--often there was
nothing else to report. She was copying the "I am the story"
style of CNN's Christian Ananpour. When the journalist becomes
the story and not the one who puts images and stories into context,
then again, journalism is diminished.
The embedded journalists didn't direct the military where to
go, and the military only showed the embeds what it wanted them
to see. The troops seldom passed the areas that already had been
laid waste by B52s or artillery, and thus the embeds didn't see
much blood and gore. One also wonders if the embeds would broadcast
any blood and gore scene even if they were given the opportunity.
Most of these so-called journalists manage to conjure dozens
of justifications on why not to broadcast such images. In the
process, the image of this war is kept antiseptically clean,
and the horrors of war aren't apparent to the TV-viewing public.
Painting such a clean image makes war more palatable, doesn't
raise awkward questions, and makes future wars even more likely.
Besides the publicized embedded journalists
there were "other" reporters. When the army crossed
the "red line", unidentified reporters shot the video
footage of a Colonel talking about the "level two chemical
weapons alert", but the reporter didn't appear on the video
footage. Similarly, an unidentified camera team filmed the "suicide-belt"
factory. It is therefore highly likely that there were dedicated
propagandists among the embedded reporters. It was very easy
to hide some propagandists among the 810 embedded reporters.
The propagandists' reportage or deception gained credibility
because an impression was given that it was the embedded journalists
doing the reporting. It is an old game played anew: the wolf
masqueraded in the journalist's clothing.
In total, the role of the embedded journalists in this war was
a disgrace. It is clear that the participation in this Pentagon
propaganda program will have deleterious effects on journalism
in general, and the media's role in reporting during the next
war in particular. Journalists have a clear choice: to retain
their independence and objectivity, or to drag the second oldest
profession into the realms of the oldest one.
The British experience
After the hot war started, the British
troops stationed in the Gulf complained that the BBC coverage
of the war was not getting them into the festive mood. They wanted
to have bloody red meat, but instead they got porridge. To instill
a bellicose spirit required switching to CNN or Fox News.
By any standard, the BBC coverage of
the war was more subdued than CNN's, and another characteristic
is that it restricted its output over time. That is, while CNN
devoted almost all its programming to the war, the BBC reduced
its output to the extent that at the beginning of April the war
coverage amounted to about an hour per day on the major BBC channels.
To understand this one must remember that the opposition to this
war in the UK was overwhelming. Polls before the war suggested
that around 70-80% of the population opposed a war without a
UN mandate. The BBC could hardly beat the war drums like Fox
News in the US because of domestic sensibilities. Instead, it
opted for a toned down CNN formula, and it sought to make it
bland--a BBC specialty. And just like CNN, dissenting voices
were entirely squeezed out of TV programming.
Differences and innovations
Jacques Ellul has analyzed propaganda
extensively, and has distilled some key points for it to be effective.
Some of those points are relevant when analyzing the current
propaganda campaign.
Ellul postulates that propaganda must
have a monopoly and drown out everything else. In the current
context, it is remarkable that the major media are nearly homogenous
and with no critical edge. So, although there are thousands of
independent channels and newspapers, it is remarkable how uniform
they were in the message conveyed, and this is especially noticeable
in the US. To obtain such uniformity must be deemed a clear victory
in this propaganda campaign. The same cannot be said for the
UK, where some media remained critical throughout. It also indicates
that although the propagandists have sold the war to the American
people, spreading the message elsewhere has been a less than
stellar job.
Propaganda is usually thought to make
a population act in a certain manner, whereas the current campaign
seems to have had passivity as its main goal. Its major challenge
was to shut out the dissident voice, and to stifle criticism.
This seems also to have been a great success since the peace
movement seems to have gone mostly into hibernation during the
war.
Finally, propaganda has moved from a big lie repeated often enough
to one where a barrage of deception is put forth. The credibility
of the propaganda media has been tarnished in the process. The
US-Iraq war strained the propaganda campaign because it lasted
longer than expected. Everyone assumed it would be over in a
matter of days, and we believed the propaganda on this issue.
When this didn't happen the propaganda mill required pushing
more deception, and it is likely that this cannot be sustained
for a protracted duration [15]. It is also likely that this formula
cannot be repeated often.
Conclusion
There are lessons for all in the current
experience. For those seeking to avert future wars, there must
be a realization that organizing marches or using the political
process is not enough. Besides these means, it is essential to
obtain independent media outlets, so that the power of the established
media conglomerates may be challenged. This war exposed the corporate
media networks as adopting a unified role in selling this war
by shutting out dissent and beating the war drums. Such a media
structure will not in itself challenge the new American Imperial
role, and it has equally disturbing implications for democracy
everywhere.
We must realize that we are dealing with
extremely cynical people who think that entire populations can
be herded and cajoled. They think journalists can be used for
their own ends. Their success, at least in the US, is a dark
omen. It is a very dangerous development that such people have
joined forces with the mean-spirited neocons. Democracy, freedom
of speech and peace are under threat if these groups are not
challenged vigorously now.
For the first time, the US military has
fully integrated the media into its wars; this integrated propaganda
is seen as part of its arsenal--this is the "force multiplier".
It is also evident that the propaganda weapon in this war has
been highly sophisticated and effective. After all, it managed
to sell the war in very difficult circumstances. Part of their
success entailed commandeering most media channels and journalists
to sing their tune.
The Hydra has acquired a new head.
Notes
[1] Jerry Broeckert, Loose
Lips Float Ships!: How the military uses the media today,
April 2003. Good account of the history of "military media
relations" and how it has evolved in the. It contains some
discussion of the US-Iraq War.
[2] Propaganda also determined the name
of this war. "Gulf War II" is deceptive because it
conveys the impression that the attack was part of an internationally
sanctioned coalition--just like the 1991 Gulf War. In the current
war, it is only the US and the UK that are clearly involved,
the main components of the meager "coalition". However,
the UK's contribution to the war is less than 10%, and after
the recent US troop increases, the UK's contribution to the force
is closer to 7%. It is therefore clear that this is an American
war; thus the "US-Iraq War" is the most appropriate
name. How can a war be "in Iraq" and then be
called "Gulf War"?
[3] See War: It's
Already Started,
[4] The US has engineered other such
diplomatic traps, e.g., the Rambouillet Agreement that sought
to impose onerous conditions on Serbia. Its rejection provided
the desired trigger for war. US diplomacy doesn't seek to avert
war, but on the contrary, it seems to engineer wars even where
they could be avoided.
[5] Colorado Campaign for Middle East
Peace [CCMEP] has an excellent
website. It has a sizeable record of US-uk bombings of Iraq.
The graph only refers to the incidents that were confirmed by
the US. A date when there was one or more bombings is classed
as a one, and zero otherwise. NB: this is an underestimate of
the bombing activity since the US military sometimes refused
to confirm or deny an action. From independent accounts by activists
in the area, two other incidents were added. Some confirmations
were obtained from the BBC (unfortunately, online BBC reports
scroll and disappear as a record).
Although CCMEP's data is very useful,
it excludes some important features. It doesn't reflect the number
of flights over Iraq. These flights may not have damaged anything,
but they are part of the same provocation campaign. The level
of over flights went from dozens per day earlier in the year
to several hundred. The data available is spotty, but on two
occasions, the US acknowledged up to 500 over flights on a given
day in February 2003. Even one over flight over the US would
be considered a serious hostile act.
[6] Jerry Broeckert, ibid. The Nov. 2002
date cited stems from: "the move of Jim Wilkinson was sent
from the White House Office of Communications to head strategic
communications at the Pentagon's U. S. Central Command with General
Tommy Franks."
[7] Jerry Broeckert, ibid.
[8] It
is remarkable that censors are embedded. NB: CNN deny such
a setup except on their text services.
[9] Gavin Hewitt talking at a conference
"Journalists at War", City Univ., May 2, 2003.
[10] In Brazil some sports fans were
found cheering the opposing team in the supporters' benches.
They were set upon and one was killed. Moral of the story: supporting
a team in the middle of a hostile crowd is dangerous.
[11] Robert Steinback, Did Our Leaders
Lie to Us? Do We Even Care? CommonDreams, April 29, 2003.
[11.5] David MacMichael and Ray McGovern,
Ex-CIA Professionals: Weapons of Mass Distraction: Where? Find?
Plant?, CommonDreams, April 25, 2003.
[12] A few days after president Allende
was killed in 1973 soldiers exposed stashes of whiskey and other
things that suggested Allende was a closet bourgeois. Similarly,
Noriega's house was raided after the US invasion of Panama to
reveal stashes of pornography and cocaine. Both incidents were
staged. Sources: Veja magazine in the 1980s ran a story
about a Brazilian intelligence officer involved in the operation
in Chile. About the action against Noriega, his lawyer has stated
as much. Even the furniture of his house was changed and "frogs"
were introduced everywhere--supposedly one cannot respect a person
who loves frogs.
[13] Tony
Jenkins speech transcript and audio: ; Kenneth Bacon reference
comes from the same source.
[14] Alexander Cockburn, The Decline
and Fall of American Journalism (Part LXV): the Case of Judy
Miller, CounterPunch, April 25, 2003,
[14.5] Broeckert, ibid.
[15] See my Arrogant
Propaganda.
This article is refinement of Arrogant
Propaganda, and the Glossary of
Warmongering.
Paul de Rooij
is an economist living in London and can be reached at proox@hotmail.com (NB:
All attachments will be deleted automatically)
Today's
Features
Saul
Landau
Clear Channel Fogs the Airwaves
Michael
Neumann
Has Islam Failed? Not by Western
Standards
Uri
Avnery
My Meeting with Arafat
Steve Perry
The Saudi Arabia Bombing
Jacob
Levich
Democracy Comes to Iraq: Kick Their Ass and Grab Their Gas
William
Lind
The Hippo and the Mongoose: a Question of Military Theory
The
Black Commentator
Fraud at the Times: Blaming Blacks for White Folks' Mistakes
Stew Albert
Asylum
Hammond
Guthrie
An Illogical Reign
Website
of the Day
Sy Hersh: War and Intelligence
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|