Reuters is one of the more independent wire services. So, a recent
news story from Reuters -- flatly describing American military
activities in Iraq as part of “the broader U.S. war on terrorism” -- is
a barometer of how powerfully the pressure systems of rhetoric from top
U.S. officials have swayed mainstream news coverage.
Such reporting, with the matter-of-fact message that the Pentagon
is fighting a “war on terrorism” in Iraq, amounts to a big journalistic
gift for the Bush administration, which is determined to spin its way
past the obvious downsides of the occupation.
Here are the concluding words from Bush’s point man in Iraq, Paul
Bremer, during a Nov. 17 interview on NPR’s “Morning Edition” program:
“The president was absolutely firm both in private and in public that
he is not going to let any other issues distract us from achieving our
goals here in Iraq, that we will stay here until the job is done and
that the force levels will be determined by the conditions on the
ground and the war on terrorism.”
Within hours, many of Bremer’s supervisors were singing from the
same political hymnal:
* On a visit to Europe, Colin Powell told a French newspaper that
“Afghanistan and Iraq are two theaters in the global war on terrorism.”
* In Washington, President Bush said: “We fully recognize that
Iraq has become a new front on the war on terror.”
* Speaking to campaign contributors in Buffalo, the vice
president pushed the envelope of deception. “Iraq is now the central
front in the war on terror,” Dick Cheney declared.
Whether you’re selling food from McDonald’s or cars from General
Motors or a war from the U.S. government, repetition is crucial for
making propaganda stick. Bush’s promoters will never tire of depicting
the war on Iraq as a war on terrorism. And they certainly appreciate
the ongoing assists from news media.
For the U.S. public, the mythological link between the occupation
of Iraq and the “war on terrorism” is in play. This fall, repeated
polling has found a consistent breakout of opinion. In mid-November,
according to a CBS News poll, 46 percent of respondents said that the
war in Iraq is a major part of the “war on terrorism,” while 14 percent
called it a minor part and 35 percent saw them as two separate matters.
A shift in such perceptions, one way or another, could be crucial
for Bush’s election hopes. In large measure -- particularly at
psychological levels -- Bush sold the invasion of Iraq as a move
against “terrorism.” If he succeeds at framing the occupation as such,
he’ll get a big boost toward a second term.
Despite the Bush administration’s countless efforts to imply or
directly assert otherwise, no credible evidence has ever emerged to
link 9/11 or Al Qaeda with the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Now, if “terrorism” is going to be used as an umbrella term so
large that it covers attacks on military troops occupying a country,
then the word becomes nothing more than an instrument of propaganda.
Often the coverage in U.S. news media sanitizes the human
consequences -- and yes, the terror -- of routine actions by the
occupiers. On Nov. 19, the U.S. military announced that it had dropped
a pair of 2,000-pound bombs 30 miles northeast of Baghdad. Meanwhile,
to the north, near the city of Kirkuk, the U.S. Air Force used
1,000-pound bombs -- against “terrorist targets,” an American officer
told reporters.
Clearly, the vast majority of the people dying in these attacks
are Iraqis who are no more “terrorists” than many Americans would be if
foreign troops were occupying the United States. But U.S. news outlets
sometimes go into raptures of praise as they describe the high-tech
arsenal of the occupiers.
On Nov. 17, at the top of the front page of the New York Times, a
color photo showed a gunner aiming his formidable weapon downward from
a Black Hawk helicopter, airborne over Baghdad. Underneath the picture
was an article lamenting the recent setbacks in Iraq for such U.S.
military aircraft. “In two weeks,” the article said, “the Black Hawks
and Chinooks and Apaches that once zoomed overhead with such grace and
panache have suddenly become vulnerable.”
“Grace” and “panache.” Attributed to no one, the words appeared in
a prominent mash note about machinery of death from the New York Times,
a newspaper that’s supposed to epitomize the highest journalistic
standards. But don’t hold your breath for a correction to appear in the
nation’s paper of record.
___________________________________
Norman Solomon is co-author of “Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t
Tell You.” For an excerpt and other information, go to:
www.contextbooks.com/new.html#target
