Iraq, Iran, & the Vanishing
Context in American News
by Anthony DiMaggio
www.zmag.org, August 18, 2007
It's no coincidence that the American
corporate media is the wealthiest communication systems in the
world, yet also one of the worst in terms of educating its citizens.
Extraordinary riches require extraordinary efforts to divert
public attention from extreme inequality and the democratic deficit
under which Americans suffer. Despite the abundance of media
sources throughout this country, Americans still endure a staggering
ignorance regarding the reality of U.S. foreign policy. Horrendous
media coverage no doubt accounts for much of this ongoing tragedy.
While there may be more information available today than at any
time in history (in light of the rise of cable news, the Internet,
and other technological developments), the quality of that news
leaves much to be desired. News reports today do not provide the
public with the context needed to evaluate the events happening
around them in a critical way. This lack of context is of no
surprise to those who understand that media coverage is designed
to indoctrinate and divert attention, rather than to educate.
The prolific comic George Carlin has this insight to share concerning
the American media's commitment to class warfare:
"The real owners [are] the big wealthy
business interests that control things and make all the important
decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there
to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't.
You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own
and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid
for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls,
the judges. And they own all the big media companies so they
control just about all the news and information you get to hear.
They spend billions every year lobbying to get what they want.
Well we know what they want. They want more for themselves and
less for everyone else. They don't want a population of citizens
capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed,
well educated people. That's against their interests. They want
obedient workers."
There's an easy enough way to create apathetic,
obedient consumers: simply take away any meaningful content from
the media system upon which they rely. This is perhaps best seen
in the mass media's extreme reliance on junk food and fluff "news,"
at the expense of real stories that might have some direct relevance
to our lives. A brief survey of television news coverage puts
this reality into better perspective. A poll done by the Pew
Research Center showed that, in the sample period studied (the
week of February 12th, 2007), "While 6% of coverage on all
media sectors (newspapers, network TV, cable TV, radio and the
Internet) was devoted to [Anna Nicole] Smith's death, fully 20%
of cable news focused on this story. At the height of the media's
feeding frenzy (the two day period immediately following Smith's
death), 24% of all coverage and 50% of cable news was devoted
to the story." The effects of such disproportionate coverage
did not go unnoticed by viewers or researchers. When asked who
they had heard the most about in the news, the "most memorable
people" listed in the study was Anna Nicole (recognized by
38% of viewers), followed by George Bush (28%), Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton (both 3%), and Nancy Pelosi (1%).[1] In other
words, Anna Nicole Smith had more name recognition than all of
the other highest scoring figures combined. This is particularly
disturbing for those with even a minimal commitment to democracy,
considering that the Anna Nicole story ranked at the very bottom
of the list in terms stories viewers felt were "deserving
more of my time" (only 3% of viewers felt Anna Nicole deserved
more of their time, as opposed to 15% and 12% respectively who
felt the Iraq war and the 2008 campaign deserved more time).
Viewers can look forward to a deluge of celebrity gossip "news"
if they tune into the cable news networks this summer. A brief
review of CNN shows that in the 99 days of summer from early May
through early August, viewers could find a news feature on one
of three celebrities (Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Nicole
Richie) on average once every other day. That's a pretty extraordinary
frequency considering the stories covered just three people. While
cable news may be the worst medium to follow for those who are
interested learning something from the news, this hardly excuses
print news, which has also performed pitifully in terms of publishing
meaningful stories and information. A summary of the following
stories gives us a better picture of how much is missing from
print media.
1. Hugo Chavez & Iran: A New York
Times story from early August repeated complaints from Argentinean
Jews about Chavez's close ties with their government, in light
of Venezuela's close relationship with Iran.[2] As the story
explained, such complaints come at a particularly sensitive time,
in light of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's supposed
promise to "wipe Israel off the map."[3] Of course,
Chavez has also been routinely demonized by American media outlets
for his alleged "totalitarian" and "anti-American"
disposition, which is thought to justify the Bush administration's
aggressive and belligerent rhetoric and actions against his government
and people.[4]
What you won't hear: Such stories consistently
and conveniently leave out the fact that 1. far from an authoritarian,
Chavez has been democratically elected twice by the people of
Venezuela in heavily monitored elections. Over 72% of Venezuelans
voted in the 2006 election, in which Chavez received nearly 63%
of the vote - over 20% more than Bush received in 2004 when he
claimed to have earned the "political capital" of the
American people. Chavez is quite popular due to his populist
disposition and his commitment to redistributive politics, much
to the chagrin of America's corporate and political elites. 2.
Chavez is not "anti-American," at least if we understand
"America" to include the 300 million Americans who inhabit
it. Far from being a hate-monger, Chavez has actually expressed
deep admiration and sympathy for the American people. It is the
Bush administration that originally incited antagonism toward
Chavez, not the other way around. It doesn't take a genius, but
rather access to decent news coverage, to understand why. It
is now known that the Bush administration conspired with Venezuelan
military leaders during a failed 2002 coup that briefly overthrew
Chavez, and ordered for the dissolution of the country's democratically
elected National Assembly, its constitution, and Supreme Court.
Chavez was quickly returned to power, however, after a popular
uprising against the conspirators. Good luck finding such revelations
regularly reported in the American press - hysterical anti-Chavez
rhetoric plays much better with American elites who are more concerned
with destroying Venezeula's democracy than preserving it. Of course,
one can only imagine what American reporters would say about Chavez
if he had taken part in a coup aimed at overthrowing the Bush
administration. At the very least, a military invasion and overthrow
against Venezuela would be considered quite legitimate amongst
American media reporters, owners, and editors. The equivalent
prescription - that the Bush administration must be overthrown
by Venezuela - is considered unthinkable in the minds of America's
politico-media elite. Better to leave such double standards unaddressed
though, as they fail to flatter American political and economic
elites.
2. The Anti-War Movement: An August 7th
story in the Chicago Tribune reported on the activities of anti-war
protestors throughout America's heartland.[5] The article focused
on the activities of two protestors, Ashley Casale and Michael
Israel, who are traveling to towns and cities across the country
spreading their message against the occupation of Iraq.
What you won't hear: Don't expect to actually
hear anything substantive about why Casale and Israel are protesting
the war - those reasons are nowhere to be found in the Tribune
piece. While the story is full of references to various anti-war
banners carried by the protestors reading "Peace," "Bring
the Troops Home," and "War is not the Answer,"
there is not a single coherent argument against the war visible
throughout the 1,000-word piece. The lack of a context for understanding
anti-war arguments is not isolated to the Tribune's coverage.
A content analysis of articles printed in 2007 (from January
to July) in the New York Times discussing withdrawal from Iraq
reveals a similar pattern. At a time when the majority of Americans
are opposed to the occupation and favor withdrawal within a year,
there are virtually no criticisms of the war (from quoted sources)
reflected in the New York Times coverage. Criticisms of the occupation
as driven by imperialism or a desire to control Iraqi oil are
not mentioned a single time in the coverage. Neither is the challenge
that the U.S. is conducting an illegal occupation. No source
is cited arguing for withdrawal on grounds condemning U.S. terrorism
and American responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands
of Iraqi civilians. Majority Iraqi public opposition to the
occupation is never mentioned by a quoted source in a single story
either. Concern with excess American military casualties is also
left out of quoted sources entirely. Even pragmatic assessments
that the war is unwinnable or too costly are not mentioned at
all. In fact, the only criticisms that appear at all amongst
quoted sources in 2007 coverage include just one mention of Iraqi
nationalism as a motivating force for rebellion (in a story on
Iraqi political leader Moqtada al-Sadr), and three references
to American public opposition to the war. These four quoted sources
arguing for withdrawal throughout 2007 can hardly be characterized
as fulfilling the requirements of a robust debate over the reasons
for staying in or leaving Iraq. On the other hand, arguments for
the war from quoted sources are well represented in the New York
Times coverage. Sources who oppose withdrawal are cited regularly
arguing that Iraq faces civil war in light of current conditions
or withdrawal (a claim that shows up in 23% of stories). In addition,
those who oppose withdrawal cite the threat of Iraqi terrorists
and Iraqi militias/insurgents in 19% and 8% respectively in the
Times articles. Far and away, the largest number of justifications
for remaining in Iraq come from those who reference the importance
of supporting the troops. References to the troops show up in
51% of all the Times stories. It is perhaps fitting that the
"support the troops" rationale is the most commonly
appearing defense of the war in stories on withdrawal, at least
if the point of media coverage is to deter meaningful public policy
debate. The "support the troops" claim is clearly the
most vacuous of all the pro-war arguments. In-and-of-itself,
the claim doesn't constitute a serious defense of the occupation,
considering that both pro and anti-war critics cite the need to
"support the troops" when arguing in favor of, and in
opposition to, withdrawal. Even President Bush has admitted that
both pro-and anti-war advocates support the troops. Such references,
then, can hardly serve as the crux of a substantive pro-war argument.
3. Iran, the U.S., & the Nuclear "Threat"
Iran's alleged nuclear threat to the United States and its allies
has been a mainstay of American media coverage for at least the
last four years.[6] This is clearly the case when reviewing major
media coverage. A content analysis of the Washington Post's news
stories, editorials, and op-ed coverage of Iran's alleged nuclear
weapons shows a pattern of deception, one-sidedness, and manipulation.
A review of over 230 Post news stories, 31 editorials, and 58
op-eds from 2003 through 2007 shows that assertions suggesting
Iran may or is developing nuclear weapons appeared twice as often
as claims or assertions that Iran is not or may not be developing
such weapons. The paper's op-eds and editorials are even more
slanted, as 90% of editorials and 93% of op-eds suggest Iran is
developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to o% of editorials and
16% of op-eds suggesting Iran may not be developing such weapons.
Belligerent rhetoric is also used far more often in regards to
the Iranian "threat" (of which there is no evidence
of to date) than to the far larger U.S. and Israeli military threat
to Iran (which has been announced vocally and shamelessly over
and over throughout the American and Israeli press). Belligerent
terms are applied twice as often in regards to Iranian development
of nuclear weapons. Such terms, portray Iran as a "threat,"
and discuss the "fear" invoked by a potentially nuclear
armed Iran, as well as the "danger" of such a development
- as contrasted with similar references to a U.S. "threat,"
to the "fear" of a U.S. or Israeli attack, or the "danger"
both countries pose to Iran.
What you won't hear: While there is plenty
of vilification featured throughout the stories on Iranian WMD,
you can forget about reading a level-headed review of the actual
intelligence available discussing whether Iran is actually developing
such weapons. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
is referenced in 61% of the Post's editorials and 29% of its op-eds,
the IAEA's actual conclusion that there is "no evidence"
Iran is developing nuclear weapons is referenced in just 1 editorial
(3% of all editorials) and in only 1 op-ed (2% of all op-eds).
Similarly, the IAEA is cited in 73% of all the Post's news stories
on Iranian weapons, despite the fact that the paper tilts by a
ratio of 2:1 in favor of assertions that Iran is developing nuclear
weapons. It appears that the IAEA itself, rather than its actual
conclusions, has propaganda value for U.S. media and political
elites. Don't bother looking for damning evidence implicating
the U.S. for double standards and hypocrisy in dealing with Iran
either - you won't find them. References to the fact that it
was the U.S. itself that originally supported Iranian uranium
enrichment show up in just 1% of the Post's news stories, and
in just 3% of all op-eds, and none of the paper's editorials.
The same goes for admissions that the United States is undertaking
a similar project of enriching its own uranium for use in a new
generation of American nuclear weapons (the major distinction,
however, is that the U.S. openly admits to its project, while
Iran has admitted to no such program). The very activity that
U.S. leaders are condemning Iran for secretly pursuing is arrogantly
advocated and pursued by the United States (the only country to
have ever used nuclear weapons on civilians), although one wouldn't
know any of this from looking at the coverage. U.S. enrichment
of uranium for use in nuclear weapons receives not a single mention
in Post editorials and op-eds, and receives only fleeting mention
in the paper's news stories.[7] Similarly, while the global nuclear
non-proliferation treaty (preventing its signatories from developing
nuclear weapons) is mentioned in regards to Iran in 38% of the
Post's news stories, 39% of editorials, and 14% of op-eds, the
treaty is not brought up in a single news story, and appears in
only 3% of editorials and 2% of all op-eds in terms of it its
application to the United States. The conclusion couldn't be
more obvious to the astute reader - though both the U.S. and Iran
have both signed the agreement, it only realistically applies
to the U.S. International non-proliferation law is meant only
for American enemies: the United States is bound by no such rules,
even when it has ratified them.
Any honest reading of the results above
can lead to no other conclusion: U.S. media coverage has reached
appalling levels. Short of conducting a major research project
like one of those undertaken above, it is very difficult for citizens
to acquire the critical information needed to arrive at realistic
assessments of what is going on in the world. How can citizens
make informed decisions regarding public policy when they are
subject to systematically skewed, propagandistic news coverage?
America's parochial press is not designed to promote debate or
to educate, but rather to repeat the official line. Citizens
(outside the intellectual, political, and business elite) are
expected to conform to the ideal of the apathetic consumers who
know little about international affairs, and care even less.
Such ignorance is encouraged in a mass media more concerned with
selling products than engaging citizens. As Noam Chomsky cogently
argues: in a democracy, "You can no longer control people
by violence. You can't just throw them into a torture chamber.
You have to find other means. One means is propaganda. Another
means is rabid consumerism, to try to drive people into massive
consumption. In the United States the economy has suffered under
the neoliberal policies, as has been the case worldwide, and is
maintained to a high extent by consumer spendingFrom infancy children
are deluged by propaganda telling them: buy, buy, buy, and so
onThese are devices to try to control the populations and ensure
that the private tyrannies endure." The American press is
not producing enlightened citizens, but rather alienated consumers.
Whether the public will stand up and rebel against such contempt,
however, is a question yet to be answered
Anthony DiMaggio is the author of the
book, Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News in
the "War on Terror" (forthcoming December 2007). He
has taught Middle East Politics and American Government at Illinois
State University. He can be reached at adimag2@uic.edu
Notes
[1]Pew Research Center, "Iraq Most
Closely Followed and Covered News Story," 23 February 2007,
[2]Alexei Barrionuevo, "Jews in Argentina
Wary of Nation's Ties to Chávez," New York Times,
7 August 2007.
[3]Even the claim that Ahmadinejad has
threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" appears to be
a distortion originating in Western propaganda, rather than in
the public record. Numerous scholars and reporters such as Juan
Cole and Jonathan Cook have countered the standard claim that
Iran is calling for the destruction of Israel, citing Ahmadinejad's
actual statement, which quoted the late Ayatollah Khomeini as
promising that Israel's illegal occupation of Jerusalem would
"vanish from the page of time." To make such a claim
in opposition to an occupation is quite different from calling
for a state's destruction. All this, not to mention that Iran's
supreme leader Ayatollah Khameini has public supported the Saudi
plan calling for a two state settlement between Israel and Palestine,
in explicit recognition of the right of Israel to exist.
[4]For a recent sample of anti-Chavez
pieces, see the following: Kevin Sullivan, "Chavez Casts
Himself as the Anti-Bush," Washington Post, 15 March 2005,
1(A).; Dale Van Atta, "World's Most Dangerous Leaders,"
Readers Digest, July 2007, > and Fox News, "The Iron Fist
of Hugo Chavez," 4 February 2005, <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146472,00.html>
[5]Colleen Mastony, "Peace March
Becomes Somewhat Less Lonely," Chicago Tribune, 7 August
2007.
[6]For a brief sample of recent mainstream
media pieces on Iran, see: Robin Wright, "As U.S. Steps up
Pressure on Iran, After Effects Worry Allies," Washington
Post, 16 August 2007; and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Bush Differs
with Karzai on Iran," New York Times, 7 August 2007.
[7]I have only found a single story referencing
U.S. enrichment of uranium for use in nuclear weapons from 2003-2007
(within stories talking about Iran), and that story wasn't even
primarily about Iran and nuclear weapons, but focused rather on
the U.S. enrichment efforts. The 690 word story referenced Iran
just once in 12 paragraphs: Walter Pincus, "U.S. Plan for
New Nuclear Weapons Advances," Washington Post, 20 October
2006, 11(A).
Mainstream
Media
Home Page