Thought Control and Media

¶ … Control and the Media The media is an incredibly powerful force which has the ability to manipulate the minds and hearts of the American people. This type of "mind control" which is employed by news organizations in the United States is nothing less than propaganda. Noam Chomsky writes that, "propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship." Indeed, nowhere is this more clear than in recent debates over the impending war with Iraq.

On one side of the fence, the conservative Right argues that war is essential and that Iraq is in league with Al Qaeda. They argue that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction which he would like to unleash on the free world. On the other side of the fence, the liberal Left argues that such a preemptive war is "unjust," and that there is no definitive proof that Hussein was ever in league with Osama Bin Laden or that he has developed weapons of mass destruction.

They worry that a unilateral strike on Iraq sets a disturbing precedent, that it presents the United States as unreasonable and willing to employ force to protect any interest it so desires. Media's primary role is to mobilize public support for the special interests that dominate the government and private sector of our Nation," Chomsky writes. "History is what appears in the New York Times archives." Perhaps Chomsky is right. It is well documented that George W. Bush came from a background in oil.

It is also well-known that Iraq is a major producer of oil. One could easily make the case that the primary reason that this conflict is developing is due to the interests of the oil companies in the United States and their influence over the current president. The media is heavily influenced by both the right and the left. Headlines are an excellent resource wherein the interests of a given news organization might be expressed.

The content of the article which follows the headline will crystallize the organization's opinions and loyalties even more. Recently, USA Today and the Washington Post, both regarded as mainstream press, documented the discovery of a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. This particular weapon was a flying drone which some believe is capable of delivering chemical or biological weapons to enemy targets. It turns out that this particular item was a large scale model airplane and it's effectiveness as a weapon is under scrutiny.

USA Today's headline read, "Powell decries new Iraq weapon discovery." The word "decries" is intended to make it sound as if this is a major development in the case against Iraq for war. For Colin Powell and George Bush to make their case to the world, they must have evidence of wrongdoing in Iraq. As new evidence to condemn Saddam Hussein as a deceptive cheat, Secretary of State Colin Powell and his spokesman cited the development of drone airplanes and cluster bombs, both capable of spreading chemicals.

Powell said the world should be concerned. (USA Today, 3/10/03) The preceding paragraph is not written objectively. The paragraph starts by calling Hussein a "deceptive cheat." It attempts to remain objective by following this statement with information about the Secretary of State. However, it does not say that this is what Powell believes or what arms inspectors believe, but instead through the structure of the paragraph identifies this as something the newspaper believes. The Washington Post has a similar headline. "Iraqi Officials Proudly Exhibit a Disputed, Dinged-Up Drone," the headline reads.

The use of the word "proudly" indicates that there is some level of disbelief concerning the drone by the author of the article. The article in the Post is far less biased. It appears to give a report which shows both sides of the dispute. However, statements made by Colin Powell again dominate the article, giving an advantage to his argument. Alternative newspapers look upon the issue of war from a left wing perspective and their arguments are clearly seen within their coverage of the potential war.

The Village Voice and the Nation both present their stories from a liberal viewpoint. The Village Voice covered the drone incident as well. It's headline read, "Iraqis Reject Deadly Drone Claim by U.S.," which appears to be a somewhat balanced headline. However, within the story the journalist makes it look as if Bush and Powell are grasping at whatever straws they might find in order to make their case for war.

The story does this by focusing on the fact that the drone was made of balsa wood and duct tape and that the wing span of the drone was being heavily disputed. Though the Nation did not cover the drone incident, they dealt heavily with George Bush and his push for war.

Interestingly enough, the article concerning this is written from the perspective that perhaps there is a cause for war, but then it points out the inconsistencies within the Bush administration concerning both the Security Council and the United Nations. The article attacks the administration by saying that Bush has made the Security Council and the United Nations irrelevant because he's going to do whatever he wants.

This administration would have no interest in sacrificing American lives and assuming political risks if the goal were primarily to help out people ruled by a brute. If war does occur, lets hope a free and democratic Iraq is an outcome. But it's hard not to wonder what the Bush administration will do if an Iranian-backed demagogue who wants to nationalize the oil industry and supports the Palestinian uprising is freely and fairly elected in the "new" Iraq.

(The Nation, 3/7/03) Certainly the preceding paragraph is not an example of unbiased reporting. Indeed the paragraph would fit nicely on an op-ed page, but this is.