Activism Change

Media Marketing Mass-Murder: Selling The Gulf War

Question:

[Quoting FAIR's Norman Solomon:] ]     As soon as the war began, Time magazine defined "collateral ]damage" this way — "a term meaning dead or wounded civilians who ]should have picked a safer neighborhood." [..] ]     In U.S. news media, the rare mention of civilian casualties ]is routinely followed by immediate denial of responsibility.

A point Mr. Moore missed or chose to ignore, judging from later NC: comments.  - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – ]     "We must point out again and again that it is Saddam Hussein ]who put these innocents in harm’s way," Tom Brokaw declared on ]NBC, a network owned by one of the nation’s largest military ]contractors, General Electric. And, coincidentally, telling the truth!

No, not telling the truth, but telling us it’s ok to continue to wave our flagz as we watch the video-game slaughter. Bush’s rejection of the dimplomatic track was fully documented, for example, in "part (III)" of the Chomsky article from Z magazine I posted. The notion that "Saddam made me do it" may be comforting for Bush and those who would rather wave flags than criticize mass-murder when it’s by their own government (in the lingo, when "we" [sic] do it), but it’s on the same moral level as Saddam saying "Kuwait [its actions prior to August] made me do it" No, no mater what Kuwait was doing economically to Iraq, no matter the possible merits of the assertions about the Rumalah oil field and Kuwait stealing oil, that will never excuse the babarity unleashed by Saddam, who cannot say Kuwait "made him do it," and the blame for this lies on Saddam’s shoulders, to use Chomksy’s phrase in the article judged but unread by most. The same logic holds for George Bush, who on judgement day cannot explain away the 1-200,000 Iraqi’s slaughtered by saying Saddam "made me do it" …Back to the Newscast quote, we see, as below, the media playing their role as flag-wavers during war with more fervor than at peacetime, when they allow themselves to stray a bit farther… ]     The MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour — one of TV’s leading war ]boosters — aired a few moments of civilian casualty footage from ]Iraq, only to debunk it as "heavy-handed manipulation." ]     On CBS, reporter Ron Allen said that "Iraq is trying to gain ]sympathy" by showing grisly film of bombed civilian sites. Connie ]Chung chimed in that Saddam is "trying to break the resolve of ]the United States and its allies." [These guys are correct,] Do you disagree?

Against missing the point, this is not an independent and free media, but a propagandist, whose practice is ]     In U.S. news media, the rare mention of civilian casualties ]is routinely followed by immediate denial of responsibility.

During a recent lecture here, someone in the audience tried to defend "our" actions during the Gulf War, which reminded me of the deeply-rooted problem dissidents have always faced, and which plagues even such small attempts to communicate as this article, making it’s comprehension difficult for the intelligent, so long as people continue to insist on thinking in terms of "we." You cannot approach a subject rationally and without bias with a "we" mentality which equate the actions, and the choices and decisions, of the Bush White House in this case, with me, Mr. Moore, or others on the net. No wonder the defensive reactions, no wonder the condemnation of the dissidents and critics as "America haters," no wonder the constant seeking of rationalization for U.S. actions when it is "our" actionws. After all, "we" aren’t heartless about human carnage, and "we" are not bloodthirsty, and "we" mean and meant well… Things unravel and start making sense when we [sic] dispense with the "we"-syndrome. A good excersice is to pretend another government had done the same thing. During the Panama invasion I inquired how many of the rationalizations would have been accepted as valid had another country done the same thing (let’s say to the same country, Panama, under Noriega; say Noriega having long been a USSR-backed dictator, with the KGB knowing about it, and turing against him in mock horror at the discovery of his involvement in drugs, brutality, etc, to invade the country and put in power someone sympathetic to the SU, who would loose rights to the Canal or military bases. Thousands of civilians slaughtered, "colateral damage" ensue, etc. We would have to add to this example other features, namely Noriega souring on the Soviet Union largely due to his refusal to further cooperate with the KGB in its "covert" war against country X, letting the canal zone be used for training the KGB’s "freedom fighters" as they terrorize a country the Soviet Union wants to "cry uncle) The same reasoning applies when another country’s media constantly give its citizens apologetics and rationalizations: "We must point out again and again that it is [Today's villain, yesterday's ally]]who put these innocents in harm’s way," or "[nation whose population is being slaughtered by the country in which this media report is from] is trying to gain sympathy"  - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – ]     With the United States at war, the U.S. mass media’s ]inversion is automatic. Inversion? Is this some "PC" term I am unaware of? ]     Despite the savage and continuous bombings of populated ]areas in Iraq, it is the U.S. that must be portrayed as the ]mistreated party. Thus the swollen face of a captured American ]pilot on the cover of Newsweek. He was dropping bombs, but he is ]the victim. He was victimized by the Iraqi’s. He also killed Iraqi’s. So what?

The media’s treatment. Think about another country’s pilot, slaughtering counless people with his bombs, then being abused and shown as "the" victim on TV. Oh, I forgot, the "we" [what Washington like us to refer to them as] are always virtuous, so the analogy, deliberately nonspecific, is unfair. ]     Denial is key to the psychological and political structures ]that support this war. The very magnitude of its brutality — ]gratuitous and unmerciful — requires heightened care to turn the ]meaning of events upside down. Those who massacre are the ]aggrieved; those being slaughtered with high-tech cruelty are ]depicted as subhumans, or "civilians who should have picked a ]safer neighborhood." Hey, folks, war IS unmerciful, and cruel, and just plain nasty.

Again avoiding comment on the article’s valid point about media coverage, the "life is tough" comment being completely irrelevant to the point about the consistent pattern of apologetics and rationalization and flag waving by the Free Press. Maybe the point will be clearer when expresssed in the Free Press’s own words; the following brief excepts is from FAIR’s report, "The Media Goes to War: How Television Sold the Panama Invasion:"      |                Reporters Rallying Round The Flag                 |      |                                                                  |      |    Journalists justified their role as distributors of           |      |  government handouts in different ways.  Asked on Day 1 why US   |      |  opponents of the invasion were virtually invisible on-the-air,  |      |  a "CBS" producer (who declined to give her name) told           |      |  "Extra!":  "When American troops are involved and taking        |      |  losses, this is not the time to be running critical             |      |  commentary.  The American public will be rallying around the    |      |  flag."                                                          | [Use GET command with PANAMA INVASION (see bottom)] Most frightening is that the collapse of the facades used to justify the Panama invasion, and now the war on Iraq, seems to have gone unnoticed, as called for by the script. Critics of the murder of Libyans were "friends of Kadafi"; critics of slaughter and canal-control imperialism in Panama were natually friends of former CIA-asset Noriega, and critics of the mass-murder on the 6-digit scale committed by Bush in Iraq, were at the time dismissed as frieds of Saddam. That the slaughter of over 100,000 Iraqis was acceptable, but not a nonviolent resolution, and that Saddam can stay in power so long as he now knows his place, just as the Butcher of Bagdad was tolerated and indeed rewarede by the Butcher of Washington before August 2nd, the pattern continues now after the war. So Saddam has gone from acceptable/friend, to Hitler, and back again, with straight-faced indignation during the middle-phase at how the critics — how had long opposed the coziness with Saddam which Bush enjoyed, just as he had with Noriega, Marcos, the Shah, Somoza, Mott, etc — were so "soft" on Saddam, when they pointed out that the mass slaughter was not only being commited under false "Noble" pretexts, but entirely unnecessary. In an interview in In These Times before Bush started joined Saddam in subjecting Arabs to slaughter, Chomsky noted his "frustration" (*) at the current demonization of Saddam in the media *for the purpoes of justifying the untirely unjustified and unnecessary slaughter which would follow* [and in the context of "Saddam-lover"ing the critics, when he had been one of the few, or only, one writing, at the time of the invasion of Panama, with the rhetoric about human rights and democracy and Our Noble Goals in the brutal invasion, that that same [week, I think the time period he mentions is] Washington, he pointed out at the time, was cozying up to Saddam, a man next to whom Noriega is "A boyscout" (*) His rather mild term for the sort of hypocricy to the Nth degree which would drive a Saint to screaming.  - – - – - – - – - – - – -

… read more »

Response:

]     As soon as the war began, Time magazine defined "collateral ]damage" this way — "a term meaning dead or wounded civilians who ]should have picked a safer neighborhood." Not true – at least not in MY Time magazine. ]     In U.S. news media, the rare mention of civilian casualties ]is routinely followed by immediate denial of responsibility. How about the attention given to the "civilian bunker" bombing in Baghdad? How about the contual airing on CNN of Iraqi censor-cleared films showing nothing BUT civilian casualties? ]     "We must point out again and again that it is Saddam Hussein ]who put these innocents in harm’s way," Tom Brokaw declared on ]NBC, a network owned by one of the nation’s largest military ]contractors, General Electric. And, coincidentally, telling the truth! [note the "guilt by association" try] ]     The MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour — one of TV’s leading war ]boosters — aired a few moments of civilian casualty footage from ]Iraq, only to debunk it as "heavy-handed manipulation." Which it was. Yes, civilians were killed, but the reports from Iraq constituted heavy-handed manipulation. ]     On CBS, reporter Ron Allen said that "Iraq is trying to gain ]sympathy" by showing grisly film of bombed civilian sites. Connie Ron Allen was correct. Do you disagree? ]Chung chimed in that Saddam is "trying to break the resolve of ]the United States and its allies." Connie Chung was correct. Do you disagree? ]     News accounts routinely refer to "the enemy" without a hint ]of human identity. One TV network newscast has described Iraqi ]soldiers as resembling "cockroaches" from the air. This is an amazing mischaracterization. While it is true that frequently the word "enemy" was used without associated human characterizations, this was for reasons of brevity, not propaganda. Most people exposed to that media were aware that the war was with human beings, not space aliens! ]     At the start of February, the New York Times published an ]unusually large cartoon across the top of the op-ed page. Titled ]"The Descent of Man," it showed a man in suit-and-tie, a gorilla, ]a monkey, a snake, and finally Saddam Hussein. I saw it. I thought it was pretty funny, but insulting to snakes. ]     With the United States at war, the U.S. mass media’s ]inversion is automatic. Inversion? Is this some "PC" term I am unaware of? ]     Despite the savage and continuous bombings of populated ]areas in Iraq, it is the U.S. that must be portrayed as the ]mistreated party. Thus the swollen face of a captured American ]pilot on the cover of Newsweek. He was dropping bombs, but he is ]the victim. He was victimized by the Iraqi’s. He also killed Iraqi’s. So what? ]     Denial is key to the psychological and political structures ]that support this war. The very magnitude of its brutality — ]gratuitous and unmerciful — requires heightened care to turn the ]meaning of events upside down. Those who massacre are the ]aggrieved; those being slaughtered with high-tech cruelty are ]depicted as subhumans, or "civilians who should have picked a ]safer neighborhood." Hey, folks, war IS unmerciful, and cruel, and just plain nasty. ]     The fault for the carnage must always be pegged away from ]home. "There is in Baghdad the feeling of a huge new Jonestown, ]with another demented preacher leading his flock to death," Time ]magazine reported at the start of the war. On a day when Well put! Collective suicide was close to what the Iraqi’s were attempting. ]called Saddam Hussein "psychologically deformed." But U.S. ]mainstream media cast no aspersions on the mental health of the ]man who ordered the carpet bombing. Gee.. could it be that there was reason to consider Saddam Hussein to be psychologically deformed – sociopathic, perhaps? ]     Since last summer we have heard endless insistence that ]Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government must be stopped, for the ]sake of world peace and human security. But by now, a few weeks ]into the war, there is ample evidence that this timeworn ]propaganda line has masked a starkly different truth: George Bush ]and the U.S. government must be stopped, for the sake of world ]peace and human security. Right. Let’s keep the world safe for Saddam Hussein and protect it from the U.S. government. The only inversion I see here is that of the poster’s source, who seems to suffer from considerable moral and logical confusion. I can’t continue to pick at this posting. It is so absurd as to be laughable. Do people take this sort of dreck seriously? — John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john Voice: (602) 951-9326        Wishful Thinking: Long palladium, Short Petroleum Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are all my fault, and no one elses.

Response:

                       INVERTED MEDIA & THE WAR                           By Norman Solomon  - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –    –  [Send the 1-line message GET GULF-WAR ORWELL ACTIV-L to  ]    –  [Send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to above address for a ]         [listing with brief descriptions of other files available]  - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –      As soon as the war began, Time magazine defined "collateral damage" this way — "a term meaning dead or wounded civilians who should have picked a safer neighborhood."      In U.S. news media, the rare mention of civilian casualties is routinely followed by immediate denial of responsibility.      "We must point out again and again that it is Saddam Hussein who put these innocents in harm’s way," Tom Brokaw declared on NBC, a network owned by one of the nation’s largest military contractors, General Electric.      The MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour — one of TV’s leading war boosters — aired a few moments of civilian casualty footage from Iraq, only to debunk it as "heavy-handed manipulation."      On CBS, reporter Ron Allen said that "Iraq is trying to gain sympathy" by showing grisly film of bombed civilian sites. Connie Chung chimed in that Saddam is "trying to break the resolve of the United States and its allies."      And what a resolve it is.      News accounts routinely refer to "the enemy" without a hint of human identity. One TV network newscast has described Iraqi soldiers as resembling "cockroaches" from the air.      At the start of February, the New York Times published an unusually large cartoon across the top of the op-ed page. Titled "The Descent of Man," it showed a man in suit-and-tie, a gorilla, a monkey, a snake, and finally Saddam Hussein.      Avuncular CBS journalist Charles Osgood called the bombing of Iraq "a marvel." His colleague Jim Stewart extolled "two days of almost picture-perfect assaults."      On ABC, Peter Jennings exulted in the "brilliance of laser- guided bombs" set off by the U.S. military. But the next day he labeled an Iraqi missile "a horrifying killer."      With the United States at war, the U.S. mass media’s inversion is automatic.      Despite the savage and continuous bombings of populated areas in Iraq, it is the U.S. that must be portrayed as the mistreated party. Thus the swollen face of a captured American pilot on the cover of Newsweek. He was dropping bombs, but he is the victim.      Denial is key to the psychological and political structures that support this war. The very magnitude of its brutality — gratuitous and unmerciful — requires heightened care to turn the meaning of events upside down. Those who massacre are the aggrieved; those being slaughtered with high-tech cruelty are depicted as subhumans, or "civilians who should have picked a safer neighborhood."      The fault for the carnage must always be pegged away from home. "There is in Baghdad the feeling of a huge new Jonestown, with another demented preacher leading his flock to death," Time magazine reported at the start of the war. On a day when thousands of bombs struck Iraq, CBS correspondent Allen Pizzey called Saddam Hussein "psychologically deformed." But U.S. mainstream media cast no aspersions on the mental health of the man who ordered the carpet bombing.      As with the brutality of warfare, so too the geopolitical analysis. Inversion is to denial what jet fuel is to an air war.      Since last summer we have heard endless insistence that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government must be stopped, for the sake of world peace and human security. But by now, a few weeks into the war, there is ample evidence that this timeworn propaganda line has masked a starkly different truth: George Bush and the U.S. government must be stopped, for the sake of world peace and human security.      Mass media, functioning as key mechanisms of denial, keep distorting lurid events. The "terrorism" most massively unleashed in the Middle East is being inflicted by the USA. This truth is so overwhelming that it must be denied at every turn.      Wide areas of Iraq and Kuwait are incessantly shattered by bombs that destroy life with the same terroristic finality — and with no more justification — than the occasional Scud missiles landing in Israel.      The few Israeli victims of Iraq’s attacks have gotten extensive and empathetic news coverage in the United States; the many Iraqi victims of U.S. attacks get only avoidance. In Israel, a few innocents have been harmed. In Iraq, a huge number have already been massacred.      The anguish of Jewish Americans, about the random missiles falling on Israel, has been a hot topic in U.S. mass media. The anguish of Iraqi-Americans and others of Arab descent has gotten little attention. Yet Iraqis, not Israelis, are being slaughtered en masse.      In the inverted world of newspeak, the double standards and duplicities must be enormous and never-ending. Moral outrage is carefully aimed away from home.      So it was natural, in a sick kind of way, for New York Times columnist A.M. Rosenthal to demand that Saddam Hussein be held responsible for "war crimes against Kuwait, Israel and coalition prisoners" — while editors never allow the suggestion that George Bush and other U.S. government officials should be held responsible for their war crimes. All the while, "sorties" continue to "pound" areas where millions of Iraqi civilians live.      Prevailing media biases include the insistence on draining life from discussions of life-and-death subjects. What those who dominate the airwaves and print media keep conveying, with their flat tones and euphemistic language, is that the Pentagon’s wholesale destruction of human life should be discussed without emotion; they want to anesthetize us to the horrors that this war entails at every moment.      To resist this media anesthesia, we need to be able to feel our sadness and anger. And we need to track the techniques of unidentified flying propaganda, so that we can develop effective countermeasures.      Among the pro-war biases that must be fought are the numerous ways that news media seek to objectify "the enemy," and justify the air war that continues — mass murder, by any other name. Norman Solomon is co-author of "Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media." From PeaceNet article: ** Topic: Media inversion & the war ** ** Written 11:07 am  Feb  4, 1991 by fair in cdp:udc.media ** Phone: (408) 338-4341 PeaceNet address: fair         UUCP:      uunet!pyramid!cdp!fair FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) 130 W. 25th Street New York, NY 10001 (212)633-6700 Norman Solomon is an author, investigative journalist, board member (and former D.C. coordinator) of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), one of this country’s most successful and articulate, media-bias watchdog groups.  He has visited Moscow eight times in the Gorbachev era, written articles that have appeared in numerous publications both in this country and abroad (including: "The Nation," "Newsday," and "The Progressive").  He has appeared on national media such as: "ABC’s Good Morning America," "CNN’s Crossfire" program.  He is co-author of "Killing Our Own: The disaster of America’s experience with Atomic Radiation." For FAIR’s report, "The Media Goes to War: How Television Sold the Panama Invasion," use the GET command with PANAMA INVASION To get a file named FILE NAME from the archiver (files are two words  separa- ted by a space), send the 1-line message GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L   #       Harel Barzilai for Activists Mailing List (AML)       #      { For more info about ACTIV-L or PeaceNet’s brochure send   } To join AML, just send the 1-line message "SUB ACTIV-L <your 1st&last

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

Related Posts

• fair and legal treatment protecting human rights
• Christians opposing gay marriage to rally
• America got what it deserved?? How dare you!
• U.S. and the U.N. Human Right Committee
• Destruction of Free Speech by Jews
• France Invades U.S.
• CCHR - "removing planetary suppression"
• Handy Guide: Terrorists and US Govt Compared
• 30 MORE TORTURE SCANDALS PROBED
• Modern pacifism defined