U.S. Media and The War
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: U.S. Media and The War
topic by
John Calvin
1/15/2002 (19:47)
 reply top
Why have traditionally hypercritical media moved into a position
where they are, on the whole, even more enthusiastic about the
course of the war than the media's traditional enemy, the
military? Why have the media tended to disregard the cautionary
notes in favor of triumphalism? This is not a trivial question
since, in some ways, from a military standpoint, raising false
expectations is more dangerous than negativism.

There are several reasons for this:

* The media simply do not understand the war. The number of
correspondents who have served in the military is trivial; the
number who have been involved in or studied intelligence is even
fewer. They are superb at doing human-interest stories on a war -
- give them a refugee family, and they are good for a week. But
understanding the decision-making within, say, the Taliban, and
understanding what it is trying to achieve is simply beyond them.

* The media confuse demons with morons. The media demonized bin
Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban. If they were devils, they were
also stupid. The idea that the Taliban had a war plan and that
they were executing it when they withdrew from the cities was
simply beyond most of the media. The media are highly emotional,
particularly when covering a major topic they don't really
understand.

* The media are highly dependent on experts. Because reporters
themselves know very little about the subject, they have a great
deal of difficulty identifying who an expert is. Any retired
officer above the rank of lieutenant colonel is an expert. These
officers are dedicated team players, even in retirement. All are
positive about how well their particular service is doing.

* Sept. 11 was partly an attack on New York, the media capital of
the world. It created a particular mind-set within the media, one
that took the war very personally. Reporters have a personal need
to feel that the war has been brought under control, and they see
every action as bringing them closer to safety.

There are undoubtedly other and better explanations. The 'why' is
in many ways less important than that it is happening. The media
are portraying victories where the military is portraying ongoing
campaigns. This can affect the situation profoundly. The media
shape public opinion. On the one hand, the war-fighters are
working to prepare the public for an extended conflict. On the
other hand, the media are presenting the war as a set of dramatic
victories.

In a sense, the media are doing the opposite of what they did in
Vietnam, while at the same time potentially creating an identical
situation: The public expects a quick end to the war and turns
restive when it doesn't arrive in time for the evening news.

stratfor.com
reply by
Barb
1/16/2002 (1:49)
 reply top
Interesting posting!
reply by
Tom Dooley
1/16/2002 (17:02)
 reply top
One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

'There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty_four hours my occupation would be gone.

'The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.'

(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)


reply by
John Calvin
1/16/2002 (19:04)
 reply top
Perhaps the most disgusting hypocracy of all: PBS, the most inane, irrelevant, irresoonsible balderdash on the face of the planet, easily the most destructive, self-deluded, blinding propaganda organ of them all if only because it announces itself 'educational'. At least the commercial networks admit that they are entertainers first, reporters second.