Lets Not Play Follow the Leader

The line the media tows is beginning 2 seem rather disciplined. Previously I was inclined 2 believe gaps in reporting and language were casual concession 2 the political speak of those governing. For example when American politicians refer 2 one nation's agents as "troops" or "soldiers" and another nation's agents as "terrorists", journalists concede these titles and report in such manner. Given that our "War On Terror" was recently declared (relatively recent) I would concede some time for the press 2 figure out what is balanced reporting on terrorism. It's an area that is new 2 my generation.

Being a student of history however I've found that the press throughout the 20th century had plenty of time 2 balance their reporting on terrorism. The "War On Terror" was actually declared in the 1980's with the Regan administration by the same actors in today's war (see Donald Rumsfeld). The war on terror in the '80s was primarily marked by C.I.A. (read U.S.A.) backed terrorist atrocities throughout Latin America. The press in the '80s, like today, would concede language 2 politicians so again the agents of the U.S.A. were "soldiers" or "freedom fighters" carrying out acts necessitated by "terrorists" from enemy countries. Internal government documents on these atrocities are becoming declassified, though highly censored, but I wouldn't expect any retractions from media outlets for what was very clearly poor reporting at the time. You can trace this controlled press back to WWII, explained in a great book "War Without Mercy:Race and Power in the Pacific War" by John Dower. Even WWI gives us Woodrow Wilson's Office of Public Relations which dealt with, among other items, controlling the press coverage 2 drum support for the war, handled very well by Chomsky and Herman in the book Manufacturing Consent. Do today's journalists ignore history?

Let's see how this issue has evolved today: how many times have you heard "WMDs" discussed in the past year? Not very many I imagine. The term you have probably heard more is "democracy building". This term however is being replaced, as the idea fades away, by "unmanageable Iraqi forces" and "uncontrollable sectarian violence". All sides of government are becoming comfortable saving face by pointing fingers at the Iraqi Government, Iraqi forces, and worst of all the Iraqi people. And the press seems willing 2 concede these targets 2 the politicians. This isn't casual concession it's disciplined propaganda. The larger travesty will be if history writes that once again the most powerful force in the equation of war failed 2 internalize the truest cause of failure, a scared and upset nation with arrogant leadership.

*Edit 1/23: I found this clip on youtube that helps to summarize perhaps the largest problem with the American media. (3 min 21 sec)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cceC3DeFcY