Another editorial brought to you by the good people at Wombat
It has been a month and a half since the destruction of the World
Trade Center, and the electronic news media continues to devote almost
every minute of its programming to war-related events. There is reporting on
the bombing and other aspects of the military campaign, there are features
on what "the terrorists" may do to us next, there are pronouncements from
our leaders (some meant to be reassuring, some alarming), there is continuing
coverage of rescue efforts at ground zero, and even the human interest
stories tend to be how one person or family or class room is "showing their
support." Meanwhile, the various networks try to outdo each other's patriotic
montages and snappy catch-phrases written in red, white, and blue and
embedded in a waving old-glory graphic that is permanently and prominently
visible at the bottom of the screen. First it was "America under Attack",
"America Morns", and "America Unites." At last glance, Fox was using the
beligerent "America Strikes Back", while CNN was using a rather
gleeful-sounding "America's New War," (which I cannot hear without being
reminded of the James Brown song "Papa's Got a Brand-new Bag"). Comedy
Central's "Daily Show" has chosen to use the more apt "America Freaks Out."
Well, the September 11 disaster compares in terms of scale of destruction and loss of life with the Kobe Earthquake of 1995, which is certainly newsworthy enough. What's more, if this leads to major warfare, that is also demanding of news coverage. However, is our news media really covering the events? As has become the routine since the Gulf War, the media thoroughly covers every press conference or briefing by any government official. Is this news or propaganda? The viewer is not given the chance to make a determination because he is provided with no oppositing view points and precious little independent information. Rather, the networks parade a multitude of "experts" in front of the cameras who invariably contribute to the hype and paranoia of the situation while praising the president for saying the right things and his administration for doing the right things. Meanwhile, the networks do their best to screen out any discussion of the underlying causes for the wide-spread hostility towards the United States and this country's responsibility for creating the deplorable situation in Afghanistan in the first place. Indeed, Fox's Bill O'Reilly self-rightiously pulled the plug on one of its guests while on air the moment it became apparent that this guest would raise these issues.
Some observers attribute this kind of jingoistic news coverage to censorship and a state-controlled media. However, this might be putting the buggy before the horse. True, the government has asked news organizations not to broadcast bin Laden's statements in the original Arabic and not to disclose information about on-going military maneuvers. Still, this does not refute the happy fact that the press in the United States is guaranteed freedom under the constitution. The sad fact, however, is that the media wants to provide jingoistic news coverage. No government agents need to twist their arms. William Randolf Hurst discovered more than a century ago that wars sell newspapers, and it is as true today with the electronic media as it was with papers back then. CNN especially is not just covering the war, they are sponsoring it. CNN and their other news conglomerates are packaging it as entertainment and promoting it with advertisement like some sort of perverse sporting event. Moreover, some of the other media giants stand to profit immensely from their non-media divisions in case of a prolonged conflict, especially G.E. and Westinghouse, which are major defense contractors. Also, it cannot be overlooked that certain news companies like the New York Times are steadfast partisans for Israel in its colonial rule over Palestine, and they see this war as a chance for Israel to gain a free-hand to take whatever military actions it wants. (I know that "colonial" is a loaded word, but permanent occupation without annexation is by definition colonial.)
But it is not just the media's free-will in promoting the war that leads me to the conclusion that we have a media-controlled state. Remember, it is the media that chooses our political leaders. Voters participate in elections, of course, but who runs the elections? Isn't it the media who decides who is invited to participate in the debates during the primary season? Doesn't the media supply the moderators at these debates and ask the questions, thus setting the agenda? Don't they have the power to derail any presidential campaign by ignoring it? Look at the last presidential election. Of all the people in all the parties who ran for president, the media only gave significant coverage to four candidates it found acceptable: Bush, McCain, Gore, and Bradley. Policy differences between these men were minimal and none of them presented any threat to the media giants or corporate America in general. Indeed, long before the first primary vote was even cast, a dozen or so well-known politicians had thrown in the towel due to an inability to raise funds or get air time. That regular people participated in elections refereed by the media did not make voters the primary actors in selecting the president. The same goes for state and local elections.
At the end of the process, we wound up with a president whose "election" was certainly not democratic (nobody disputes that more people voted for Gore), and probably wasn't even constitutional (the anti- democratic institution of the electoral college that the framers of the constitution inserted to protect themselves from the popular will was not allowed to function as the Supreme Court intervened to stop the counting of votes in Florida). Yet, the media happily embraced this priveleged son of a Bush, and praises his brilliance in waging a war on evil despite his obviously limited intellect, his stunted literacy, and the inherent contradiction of his attempting to end hatred through war. He is their man, and they tell us he is our man, our leader, for despite his ignorance and simple-mindedness (or is it because of it?) we see ourselves in him. This is what we are told by CNN -- America's New War Party -- and the war's other sponsors.
Titus North
Editor-in-chief, Wombat News
Center
October 27, 2001