The current media blitz is the greatest display of the mass media spinning the news since the "War on Drugs" was used as a pretext for the invasion of Panama in 1989. Now, the "War on Terrorism" is being similarly exploited to prepare the public for a war that has very little to do with terrorism. It is worthwhile to note here that Saddam was a strong ally of the US throughout the late '70s and '80s during which his human rights record was just as egregious as it is today. Neither the government nor the media admonished or recognized this or his use of chemical weapons against the Iranians.
Not only does the mass media use these types of catchphrases, whose meanings are left deliberately ambiguous in order to grab people's attention, but these phrases are also used to set up a scenario of fear. The mass media plays to the fears of the public in order to create dependency. If people are constantly inundated with images that make them fearful (not just terrorism, but murders, rapes etc.), they will be drawn back to watch for the latest update or warning. Furthermore, a heightened level of fear also makes the public more inclined to support use of force as our natural reaction to these fears.
The way in which the media constantly reinforces the supposed evil nature of the "latest" target also empowers our own government to further justify the use of force. The type of sensationalist "news" that accompanies this type of theme, such as NBC's recent special entitled "Sleeping with Saddam," all too often overshadows information that should be far more pertinent to the public at large, such as budget cuts in social services and exacerbation of economic difficulties. Moreover, news with real information that succeeds in motivating people to participate in public life as opposed to passively objecting would detract from the enormous profits that the corporate-run media receives from perpetuating this system of fear.
In light of 9/11, unbiased news should seem to be more important now than at any other time in our recent history. Nevertheless, the post-Sept. 11th feelings of insecurity have allowed many Americans to be influenced by their prejudices. Therefore, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated in 1927, it is important to realize that "fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears."
On Oct. 7 on CNN, Connie Chung interviewed Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA), who has sat through all the classified briefings on the Armed Services Committee. He stated that having heard all the evidence, he does not believe that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the United States or its allies. In response to his statement, Chung aired a clip where President Bush purports a significant connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Thompson asserted that he hasn't heard proof of any such connection. Chung then went on to say that by making statements contrary to Bush, Rep. Thompson was in effect, "asking the American public" to "believe Saddam Hussein, don't believe President Bush." It is reprehensible for a news anchor for the largest cable news network drawing such a simplistic and incorrect conclusion.
With respect to weapons of mass destruction, the CIA has released two reports on this matter. First, the CIA has indicated that the likelihood of an unprovoked attack is low and that an American invasion is what would more likely precipitate Iraqi use of chemical weapons. Secondly, the CIA has stated that Iraq would only be able to produce nuclear weapons within a year if it were able to acquire the appropriate weapons-grade missile material, which remains unlikely.
These "facts" are presumably based on the CIA's obligation to produce information in a completely impartial and unpoliticized manner. However, an Oct. 11 article in the Los Angeles Times described the "unrelenting" pressure the CIA has been under from the likes of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield and his top deputy Paul D. Wolfowitz to produce evidence of a greater threat posed by Iraq.
The mass media has taken what is currently quite an unlikely threat and turned it into a clear and present danger. By acutely selecting which information to emphasize, the media is tacitly supporting the policies of the Bush administration. Public consent, inasmuch as it exists, is achieved as much by the absence of information as by its presence.
When the vast majority of information that reaches the public through the mass media fails to make the government accountable, then this type of self-censorship does not differentiate our society from a country in which the state censors the media. In the words of Norm Solomon, "These days, in theory, just about everyone in the country has freedom to speak. But freedom to be heard is another matter."
It is clear that the mass media is and will continue to be a strong supporter of this push to war. One must recognize that the mass media is in many ways manufacturing consent while maintaining legitimacy through its inconspicuous corporate ownership and its much-trumpeted objectivity (or alleged "liberal" bias). This is not to say that the mass media is in some way a pawn or co-conspirator of the government; rather, that the corporate media has many incentives-namely maximizing profits that coincide with government agendas.
Perhaps this explains why the U.S. was recently ranked 17th in the annual World Press Freedom rankings done by Reporters without Borders, in which Costa Rica was ranked 15th. Importantly, however, Costa Rica does not have the most proficient lethal army in human history, poised to engage in a conflict of potentially genocidal proportions. This fact raises the level of responsibility of our citizens and, by extension, our media. For our sake, and the rest of the world's, we should be "number one" as often as we claim to be.
As the administration gears up for war, the public has been conditioned and is ready to be taken along for the ride.