The invasion and occupation of Iraq since 2003 is a classic example of the power and effectiveness of propaganda campaigns. For some people, subsequent revelations about the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) might have come as a surprise. But even before the invasion took place, many people across the world (including Americans) took part in mass protestations against what they sensed to be an illegitimate war carried out for unjust reasons. This is a reflection of the general public disillusionment with the functioning of government institutions. More importantly, it is an indication of the distrust of mainstream media sources and the information (misinformation) being generated by them. This viewpoint is reflected in other contemporary scholarship on the subject. Prominent among them is Nicholas O’Shaughnessy’s work, which has spawned a new discipline in social sciences – that of Political Marketing. In his book titled Politics and Propaganda: Weapons of Mass Seduction, the author deciphers the real meaning and agenda behind political rhetoric and posturing. By studying extensively the media coverage of Iraq war and drawing suitable examples from it to support his claims, Shaughnessy illustrates how obfuscation of fact and propagation of myth are essential techniques of political marketers. And through this technique, propagandists are able to maintain the appeal of disinformation even when genuine sources of information are available in the digital medium. (Shaughnessy, 2005)
Despite awareness created by scholars such as Shaughnessy, public expressions of disagreement and distrust only account for a politically aware minority while the large majority of the population is subject to government propaganda, orchestrated and implemented by major media institutions. Indeed, the ruthlessness and brazenness with which the Bush Administration went about achieving its strategic goals can be learnt from the following quote:
“The issue of whether the Pentagon was waging an orchestrated domestic propaganda campaign was first openly acknowledged in the fall of 2002. Donald Rumsfeld was asked whether the Pentagon was engaged in propagandizing through the Defense Department’s Office of Strategic Influence (strategic influence is military jargon for propaganda). Military officials said they might release false news stories to the foreign press, but they had to retract that when news organizations expressed concern that the bogus stories could be picked up in the domestic press. Mocking concerns about propaganda blowback, Rumsfeld informed the media on November 18, 2002, that he would eliminate the program in name only. (Goodman & Goodman, 2004, p.253)
One might wonder why such a nexus between apparently two different kinds of institutions should exist and what benefits would its leaders attain in the process. There are a handful of sociological and political economic theories of news production that attempt to answer this most pressing question of modern democratic societies. One of the major contributions to the subject of government-media propaganda is made by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. Their seminal work titled Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media is perhaps the most illuminating work on this subject, alongside Ben H. Bagdikian’s another path-breaking work ‘Media Monopoly’. In Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky and Herman layout a template for how propaganda works. This they called the Propaganda Model. In it they identify a set of five key factors that contribute to the functioning of propaganda machinery. These are: 1. Ownership of the medium 2. Medium’s funding sources 3. Sourcing 4. Flak and 5. Anti-Communist Ideology. (Mcchesney, 1989, p.36) It should be remembered that during the time of the book’s publication, Soviet Union was still in existence and Anti-Communist ideology comprised the dominant American foreign policy paradigm. In the context of the ongoing occupation of Iraq, one could replace it with such contrived fears as Terrorism and Islamophobia. (Edgley, 2000) We also see in the media coverage of the ongoing Iraq operations how each of these five filters exert their influence in shaping the media product.
First, mainstream media outlets in the United States (a fact that is equally applicable to most capitalist countries) are largely privately owned. Let us take the case of Television news. The facade of diversity created by hundreds of news channels breaks down with the realization that most channels are owned by a few major media houses such as CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox. These television networks are in turn owned by bigger business corporations such as General Electric, Time Warner, AOL, etc. Some of these major business corporations also have sister concerns that serve directly or indirectly as military contractors to the American government. The massive deployment of military weaponry and equipment had undoubtedly resulted in windfall profits for these companies (even as the economy was reeling under an acute recession). In the case of the Bush presidency, his Administration had several former energy company employees such as Dick Cheney and Condaleeza Rice, whose loyalties were stronger with former employers than with majority of American citizens. Also, for media conglomerates such as NBC, CBS, etc, bolstering their bottom lines is of primary importance, for after-all they are privately owned and are driven by the profit motive. In this framework, it is easy to see why their editorial policies and news selection guidelines would reflect these imperatives and preoccupations. This analytic framework makes it easy to see how major media companies in the country implicitly aided (if not prompted) the government to invade Iraq and take control of its energy resources. As a result of this inherent advantage, a list of misconceptions was perpetrated by the Bush Administration during the war. (Johansen & Joslyn, 2008, p.591)
Coming to media’s funding sources, we see that major advertisers are themselves business corporations whose profit-motive makes little allowance for issues of propriety and justice. This is why the business community largely remained silent in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Sourcing of news content is another key filter that aids propaganda efforts. Since the misinformation campaign about the presence of WMD in Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq was hosted by Bush Administration officials, the permanent presence of correspondents and reports in government offices like the White House, Capitol Hill and the Pentagon made it difficult for alternative views to be presented to the citizenry. (Kampfner, 2003, p.12) For example, while all major news media outlets gave extensive coverage to the utterances of Bush Administration members such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, etc, none of them gave an iota of news time to dissident views such as those offered by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, Amy Goodman, etc. From news production point of view, it is cost-efficient and less cumbersome to station correspondents in major government centers as opposed to places like academic departments and public squares. More importantly, getting information from such obscure places is not going to serve the interests of the government or media corporations; and hence editors reflexively avoid alternative or dissident points of view. (Edgley, 2000, p.78)
This brings us to the manifestation of the concept of ‘flak’ in the build up to the Iraq War. Those criticizing the government initiative were either branded as unpatriotic or treacherous or siding with the evil. This includes dissident intellectuals mentioned above. But prominent popular cultural icons are not pardoned either, as the case of the shunning of Dixie Chicks clearly shows. Immediately after their open criticism of Bush Administration’s imperialist policy, Dixie Chicks band was ostracized and outcast in most of the radio and television stations; so much so that their music careers have been derailed in the process with little scope for a comeback. By making such outspoken icons into scapegoats, the government-media nexus deters such tendencies among prominent celebrities and intellectuals. So flak had proved to be a major disincentive for those who disapproved of the Iraq war. Consequently, the government was able to proceed with its plan to secure oil resources in Iraq at the cost of tax-payer funding and the cost of innocent civilian lives in Iraq. (Casey, 2010, p.565)
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)
Even erstwhile secular public intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens joined the propaganda bandwagon in portraying Islamic terrorism as the instigating factor in America’s continued occupation of Iraq. Only a handful of radical commentators (who are hardly given any attention in mainstream media outlets) correctly pointed out that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq and other sections of the Arab world is a ‘consequence’ and not the ’cause’ of American involvement in the region. So by hyping up socio-cultural differences between the West and the Arab world, American media was able to maintain reasonable support for its continued military aggression in the region. It should also be noted that since the flowering of the Internet, alternative voices, views and opinions have found a stage and an audience. As a result of this news stations and websites with alternative editorial guidelines to that of mainstream media have cropped up. Largely listener-supported and not-for-profit organizations, these fledgling media houses were able to create an awareness among the general population that is consistent with ground realities of the situation. Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now station is a prime example of this movement. Here, the attempt is to take media ethics back to its founding principles, namely those rooted on the notion of its function as the Fourth Estate. Objectivity, neutrality and justice being its keywords, alternative and online news media sources have been able to mitigate the propaganda aims of governments across the world. (Eaton, 2004, p.190)
The positive effects of alternative media sources were seen during the Iraq war as well. For example, the popularity of President Bush at the time of his leaving office was at an all-time low, hovering around the 30 percent mark. American government’s plans to bring about political transformation in Iraq’s neighbor Iran was also stifled because of growing public unrest. (Ricchiardi, 2008, p.34) Also, there have been significant cut backs in the military expenditure and personnel deployment in Iraq because of backlash from citizens. This trend gives hope to the people, in that there are ways in which entrenched propaganda channels can be circumvented and marginalized with concerted effort on part of news consumers. It is a highly challenging proposition to bring about such a change in a short span of time. But with the help of Internet activism and grass-roots organization, the mainstream media’s monopoly on information (as well as misinformation) can be dismantled and the public can then have access to objective truth. This in turn will help them make informed choices about electing, ratifying or petitioning public officials; which in turn will bring international politics under the purview of fairness and justice.
References:
Casey, S. (2010). Why America Fights: Patriotism and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(3), 560+.
Eaton, J. S. (2004). Using Comparative Online Media to Study the Iraq War. Social Education, 68(3), 190+.
Edgley, A. (2000). The Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky. London: Routledge.
Goodman, A., & Goodman, D. (2004). The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing America’s War Profiteers, the Media That Love Them and the Crackdown on Our Rights. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.
Johansen, M. S., & Joslyn, M. R. (2008). Political Persuasion during Times of Crisis: the Effects of Education and News Media on Citizens’ Factual Information about Iraq. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3), 591+.
Kampfner, J. (2003, March 31). Anatomy of a Propaganda War. New Statesman, 132, 12+.
Mcchesney, R. W. (1989, January). The Political Economy of the Mass Media: An Interview with Edward S. Herman. Monthly Review, 40, 35+.
O’Shaughnessy, Nicholas J. Politics and Propaganda, Weapons of Mass Seduction, published in 2005 by Manchester University Press, ISBN-10: 0719068533
Ricchiardi, S. (2008, February/March). Second Time Around: After Their Credulous Performance in the Run-Up to the War in Iraq, How Are the News Media Handling the Bush Administration’s Allegations against Iran?. American Journalism Review, 30, 34+.
Veer, P. V. & Munshi, S. (Eds.). (2004). Media, War, and Terrorism: Responses from the Middle East and Asia. London: Routledge.