The Few, The Proud, and the Broken

Control Room and the massive breakdown in media diligence preceding the Iraq war highlight the pitfalls that lie at both extremes of media self-censorship. On the one hand, as the media failure to give credibility to both sides of the WMD story in 2002-3, the consequences of neglecting both sides of a story can be deadly. On the other hand, as demonstrated by Al Jazera's mission to act as a counter to the Western media, emphasising one side of a story because you are the sole defender of that perspective can lead to propaganda.

I leave that beginning as a lead to the post I was going to write. I wanted to illustrate how much I wanted to believe that only Al Jazere was guilty of disseminating propaganda during the Iraq War. However, I had an epiphany at the end of that paragraph, and I think it is the point the Doc was trying to emphasize by selecting these readings: if we find Al Jazeree guilty of spreading propaganda, we must do the same for our own media in the period leading up to the Iraq War. For me, this is such an unbelievable thought; Propaganda is a dirty word I normally associate with the Third Reich, Al Jazeree, and Howard Dean. To add NBC, FOX, and the New York Times is anathema to any red and blue blooded American. But we must, at least for the period preceding the Iraq War.

As we discussed in class Propaganda does not have to mean you are being lied to. Bending the truth also qualifies. Shah lists the following means of Propaganda, none of which involve outright lying:

Elements Of Propaganda
Propaganda can serve to rally people behind a cause, but often at the cost of exaggerating, misrepresenting, or even lying about the issues in order to gain that support.

While the issue of propaganda often is discussed in the context of militarism, war and war-mongering, it is around us in all aspects of life.

As the various examples below will show, common tactics in propaganda often used by either side include:

Using selective stories that come over as wide-covering and objective.

Partial facts, or historical context

Reinforcing reasons and motivations to act due to threats on the security of the individual.

Narrow sources of “experts” to provide insights in to the situation. (For example, the mainstream media typically interview retired military personnel for many conflict-related issues, or treat official government sources as fact, rather than just one perspective that needs to be verified and researched).

Demonizing the “enemy” who does not fit the picture of what is “right”.

Using a narrow range of discourse, whereby judgments are often made while the boundary of discourse itself, or the framework within which the opinions are formed, are often not discussed. The narrow focus then helps to serve the interests of the propagandists.

Control Room documents how Al Jazera was guilty of all these activities during the Iraq War. Here are some examples: (1) As the military information officer observes, Al Jazera choose to emphasize stories that served their purposes. (2) The Officer also mentions the 30-90 second graphic clips that Al Jazera played before every commercial during the war. These fall into the category of "reinforcing reasons and motivations to act due to threats on the security of the individual," as they bring the War home to every Arab. They also are an example of "demonizing the “enemy” who does not fit the picture of what is “right"." By showing emotionally charged pictures, Al Jazera speaks to the Arab heart and not the Arab mind. This is classic propaganda; not a lie, but rather an emphasis on the emotional, "leading to a narrow range of discourse, whereby judgments are often made while the boundary of discourse itself."

But are we any better?

No. That is the conclusion one has to come to when they read the accounts of the skewed reporting that occurred before the Iraq War. We may not be as crude as Al Jazera; we don't show dying American soldiers and massive carnage. Rather, our propaganda was more subtle.

In "Now they Tell Us" Messing illustrates how the U.S Media also selectively choose it stories in the run up to the Iraq War. For example, Colin Powell's detailing allegation that there where WMD in Iraq received 3 front page articles in the NYT the next day. On the other hand, this only made A10:

In short, the IAEA, after weeks of intensive inspections, had found no sign whatever of any effort by Iraq to resume its nuclear program. Given the importance the administration had attached to this matter, this would have seemed news of the utmost significance. Yet it was largely ignored. The Times, which had so prominently displayed its initial story about the aluminum tubes, buried its main article about ElBaradei's statement on page A10. (The paper did briefly mention ElBaradei's conclusion about the tubes in a front-page story that focused mainly on Iraq's lack of cooperation with the inspectors.) One of the few papers to give his statement significant treatment was The Washington Post. Following up on his earlier article on the tubes, Joby Warrick incorporated the IAEA findings into a detailed analysis of the claims and counterclaims surrounding the tubes. The article cited weapons inspectors, scientists, and other experts, all of whom cast strong doubt on the administration's arguments.[3]

Like Al Jazera's violent pre-commercial special, the suppression of doubt about the WMD served as "Reinforcing reasons and motivations to act due to threats" in the eyes of the American public. This is only one example of the many Messing supplies in an article that leaves little room to deny that the American media was as intent in constructing a certain narrative. No other word suits this behavior besides propaganda.

It is alright to label Al Jazera Propaganda. With its story selection and emotional arguments, it may very well may fit the definition. It is not ok to pretend we were not, as least partially, guilty of the same offense in the run up to the Iraq War.