Further, since the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Anti-Communist ideology has lost relevance and is substituted by the threat of Islamic terrorism. A key strategy of the Iraq war propaganda campaign is to ramp up perceived dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, especially that present in the Middle East and to project American intervention in the region as a ‘counter-terror’ operation. Although such an attitude is revealed to be hypocritical to the scrupulous observer, a majority of the population, due to lack of alternative sources of information, is brainwashed with such false claims. In the context of media propaganda to link Iraq and Islamic radicalism, one is reminded of the concept of Orientalism coined by Edward Said. Said noted that the Orient (which includes the Middle East and Asia) is used as a perpetual ‘other’ by the Occident, for purposes that are seldom noble. The Orient is portrayed as a timeless, unchanging, exotic and backward place full of mystery and chaos. Such as conception perfectly suits American political agenda in the region, as these adjectives could be propagated with negative political connotations. This is especially true with regard to American invasion of Iraq and also America’s continued support to Israel despite overwhelming international opposition. (Veer & Munshi, 2004, p.55)
One of the key instights that Chomsky and Herman provide pertain to the conceptualization of the media product. It is easy and intuitive for people to assume that news-content is the product that is being sold to a readership. But in reality, the product being sold is a community of captive audience; and this product is purchased by advertisers. In this scenario, one can understand why media-content turns out to be what it is – namely, a compilation of reports, editorials and analyses that benefits the advertisers and their intended audience (elites with power to consume high-end products). Another related media theory that explains how the general public was so easily manipulated by the government is the Framing theory. The Framing theory can exaplin how readers think about certain common issues such as public support for war. For instance, journalists can decide the frame in which the war gets covered. During this stage, reporters and correspondents can give attention to some stories and issues more than others. They can also deliberately downplay counter perspectives. While it would be far-fetched to claim that journalists deliberately chose frameworks that were favorable to the American government, evidence gathered from major newspapers in the country do point to some sort of association. It is also likely that during the Iraq war, the imperative to attract and retain readership played a role in keeping certain frames while eliminating others. (Schwalbe, 2008, p.448) The following scholarly analysis reveals how choice of frames in Iraq war coverage aided propaganda and misinformation efforts on part of the government and at a high cost to Iraqi civilian and American military personnel:
“Dimitrova and Stromback’s content analysis of the official war/invasion period (March 20, 2003-May 1, 2003) revealed that the New York Times was more likely to use the military conflict frame, while a Swedish newspaper was more likely to use the antiwar protest frame. Dimitrova found that the violence of war and military conflict frames dominated early coverage on the home pages of the New York Times. They also found that the U.S. news media used the military conflict (99%) and human interest (82%) frames often, while neglecting the responsibility frame (15%). Research conducted on coverage before the war concluded that journalists framed individuals opposing the war as deviants, while those involved in pro-war demonstrations were framed as representing the norm.” (Carpenter, 2007, p.761)
The Chomsky-Herman thesis as well as Bagdikian’s Media Monopoly thesis are largely confined to political-economic aspects of the war. And they both find ample application in the case of the Iraq war. But they do not account properly for the sociological basis for the war. For this, we need to turn to such theories as ‘Orientalism’ by Edward Said and ‘Clash of Civilizations’ by Samuel Huntington. While is former deals with age-old conceptions (and misconceptions) of the Orient by the Occident, the latter narrows its scope to specific cultural differences between the two regions and how it causes geo-political conflicts. Samuel Huntington’s much reviewed work of the same name is often quoted in reference to the justifications for the Iraq invasion. While this tendency was muted in the lead-up to the war, it was hyped up as credibility of WMD threats started crumbling. When presence of WMD became no longer a plausible claim, government agencies rode on the cultural/religious differences between America and Iraq as a way of propping up public support. For example, militant groups within Iraq were portrayed as Islamic fundamentalist groups and were thoroughly demonized in American media. That they were also waging a political battle to uphold their nation’s sovereignty is a point often ignored my media commentators. (Weiss, et. al., 2004, p.221)