webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2010
All rights reserved
From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Mon Jan 25 2010 - 23:52:50 EST
consortiumnews.com
Hiding War Horrors from Americans
By Sherwood Associates
January 21, 2010
Editor’s Note: Propaganda is not just about lying, indeed outright
falsehoods are a minor part. Effective propaganda is about highlighting
favorable information and hiding the negative. And it’s especially
effective if the work is done by a supposedly “free” media.
Legendary psy-warrior Edward Lansdale once said the trick of great
propaganda was not to plant your information in what the public knew to be
a controlled media – since their defenses would be up – but to use
media that was perceived to be unbiased, so people’s skepticism would be
low.
Never was that truer than when the United States went to war in Iraq in
2003 and the supposedly “objective” U.S. news media joined with the
military in shielding the American people from the horrors of war, as this
article notes:
U.S. television networks have given the public a sanitized, largely
bloodless view of the war in Iraq, an academic authority on communications
writes.
"The contrast between what Americans saw on the news and what European and
pan-Arab audiences saw is striking. Foreign news bureaus showed far more
blood and gore than American stations showed. The foreign media were
delivering audiences the true face of the war," writes Michelle Pulaski, an
assistant professor at Pace University, New York.
"BBC Television (British Broadcasting Co.) and American stations often
covered the same stories but with stark contrasts," Pulaski wrote, using
the example of a "friendly fire" episode on an Iraq battlefield.
"Immediately following the event, BBC television broadcast live from the
scene with a detailed report of the horror including the blood-stained
road, mangled vehicles, and the number of casualties.
Several hours later CNN had very little to report on the event and only
mentioned that a friendly fire incident had occurred, and there was no word
on U.S. casualties. This example represents a trend of sanitized,
relatively gore-free broadcasting that was seen throughout U.S. war
coverage."
"The American people did not see the bodies of dead American soldiers, and
few Iraqi casualties were aired," Pulaski added.
In an article in "The Long Term View," a publication of the Massachusetts
School of Law at Andover, Pulaski said that CNN dominated broadcast TV
coverage of the First Persian Gulf War, and that the current war coverage
has been led by FOX News.
FOX News was the top-rated news network prior to the war and maintained
lead as its viewership rose by 239 percent to 3.3 million viewers, Pulaski
wrote.
Pulaski wrote the networks engaged in frequent "personalization and
individualization" "to gain a wide audience" during their Operation Iraqi
Freedom coverage. "Similar to guests on a talk show, biographies of
soldiers were detailed along with shots of family farewells and reunions
all in an effort to identify with the audience and of course in turn boost
ratings."
What Pulaski refers to as the networks' "infotainment style of coverage" is
characterized by "lack of anti-war commentary, sanitization of news and
lack of reporter objectivity." She points out that Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting (FAIR), a media watchdog organization, reported that in the
critical three weeks following March 20th, 2003, opponents of the Iraq War
were greatly underrepresented on TV.
After monitoring ABC World News Tonight, Fox's Special Report with Brit
Hume, and PBS's News Hour With Jim Lehrer, among others, FAIR found that
only 10 percent of news sources interviewed were opposed to the war and
that criticism of military planning was rare, Pulaski wrote.
Pulaski goes on to note the U.S. government "heavily censored" some 600
"embedded" reporters traveling with the military and that the reporters
"were not allowed to go far from their units, thus possibly missing out on
many noteworthy causes."
She noted that Norman Solomon, director of the Institute for Public
Accuracy, has said embedded reporters "may as well be getting a P.R.
retainer from the Pentagon."
Loss of objectivity could also be seen in the wave of patriotism that swept
through media coverage, Pulaski wrote, including reporters with flags on
their lapels and stars and stripes waving in the background.
MSNBC, she noted, displayed a wall of heroes entitled "America's Bravest"
which contained photos of loved ones overseas sent by viewers. "This wave
of patriotism, apparent after the September 11th attacks, led to a
sanitized and biased version of the war coverage."
Pulaski warned, "It is up to the individual media consumer to be critical
in gathering news information on the war from a variety of sources –
ideally entertainment free sources."
She concluded, "After Operation Iraqi Freedom, there will be no going back
to the days of war correspondence without the embedded reporter and the
subsequent movie deals conflicts bring. TV viewers should have no worries;
we will continue to be entertained."
The Massachusetts School of Law at Andover is a non-profit law school
purposefully dedicated to the education of students from minority,
immigrant and low-income households who would otherwise not have the
opportunity to obtain a legal education.
For further information, contact Sherwood Ross, media consultant to
Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. Sherwoodross10@gmail.com;
305-205-8281