| |
Media Frenzy Feeds US Delusions Over Attack
|
|
|
Media
Frenzy Feeds US Delusions Over Attack
|
|
by
Linda McQuaig
|
| |
|
WITH PUBLIC support for war against Iraq flagging in the U.S. in recent weeks,
the Bush administration was clearly hoping the 9/11 anniversary would be just
the thing to get war fever back on track.
Certainly, the media could be counted on to do its part to whip the citizenry
into a frenzy of grief and rage, thereby rousing the American people to wage war
on a country that apparently had nothing to do with 9/11, but at least offers
a target that can be located.
The manipulation of grief to stoke enthusiasm for battle is, of course, nothing
new. It was used in Iran in the '70s by fundamentalist Muslim clerics to drum
up support for their fledgling movement. Whenever dissidents were killed by the
Shah's brutal forces, the clerics held elaborate funeral ceremonies to further
stir emotions and enlist recruits to fight the Shah and his backers in Washington.
The clerics' strategy was highly effective — and they didn't even have CNN at
their disposal.
This is worth remembering as we contemplate the media frenzy of the past week
that has helped turn the bloodbath of 9/11 into a staging ground for endless war.
Certainly, the U.S. media have greatly helped the White House make its case. When
tracking down Osama bin Laden proved too difficult, the Bush administration switched
its focus to "regime change" in Iraq. The media have followed this turn in the
plot without question, highlighting Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his
own Kurdish population — an atrocity that receives far more media attention now
than when Saddam was still a U.S. ally.
The U.S. media also acts as a filter, preventing incorrect ideas from slipping
through.
As Antonia Zerbisias noted
in The Star last week, CNN and MSNBC hosts have smeared Scott Ritter, former
head of the U.N. weapons inspection mission in Iraq, who blames Washington for
the mission's breakdown. TV hosts have openly questioned Ritter's loyalty as an
American, indicating the media have taken on the function once performed by the
McCarthy Committee on Un-American Activities.
Certainly, criticizing Washington these days leaves one vulnerable to the charge
of anti-Americanism. With its demands for blind, unquestioning loyalty, and talk
of good and evil, the world's only superpower seems to be increasingly taking
on the characteristics of a cult.
Above all, the U.S. media have filtered out anything that could lead viewers to
question why so many people around the world feel such bitterness toward Washington.
When George Bush, soon after 9/11, provocatively raised the question: "Why do
they hate us so?" it seemed inevitable the media would start examining some possible
reasons, such as the long history of U.S. interventions in the Middle East, Southeast
Asia and elsewhere.
Instead, the media pretty much accepted Bush's explanation that those who hate
the U.S. are simply jealous of its freedoms — an explanation that might be satisfying
but delusional, like a girl convincing herself other girls hate her because she's
pretty, when it might be because they think she's a jerk.
Even after a full year of media "analysis" of 9/11, Americans still have little
knowledge of brutal U.S. foreign interventions — amply documented by Noam Chomsky
and other scholars — or the enormous power and wealth imbalances in the world
that Jean Chrétien usefully observed last week.
How could Americans have such knowledge, when their media, following the White
House script, consistently present U.S. actions abroad as well-meaning efforts
to bring democracy to other parts of the world, rather than aggressive attempts
to advance U.S. economic and political power.
So nobody thinks part of the story is missing when Bush vows to finish "what our
enemies have begun." As far as the public knows, everything started with 9/11.
Out of the blue, people came to hate the U.S. for its freedoms. No one else ever
experienced the kind of pain and suffering Americans did on 9/11.
Back in 1991, when the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers was
captured on video, some commentators objected that the video didn't tell the whole
story, didn't capture King being abusive to the police beforehand, provoking their
fury. But was that the whole story either? If King was abusive, what abuses had
he been subjected to over the years as a black man in America? Where does the
story begin? Where does the rage start?
Crimes, of course, should be punished, no matter what their causes; the perpetrators
of 9/11 must be hunted down and brought to justice.
But if we really want to understand why such things happen — and how to protect
ourselves in the future — it seems counterproductive to block out all information
that might be helpful. It's unproductive, that is, unless the goal is to make
sure nothing changes.
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and political commentator.
Copyright 1996-2002. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
###
|
 Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
|
|
|
| |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
