Making Informed Decisions on Whether to Trust the News Media

One of the most defining aspects of the September 11th attacks and the weeks and months following it was the accompanying storm of media coverage and its effects on the American populous, both readily apparent and otherwise. Since the dominant, corporate-owned media is the sole outlet of information for the average American citizen, the nation's perception of the attacks, their cause, and the resultant government and military actions taken in retaliation is based fundamentally on the way in which the media portrayed them. In the so-called Information Age, knowledge and more importantly, the control and dissemination of knowledge is power. However, who has most direct control over that power is not always evident, nor are the goals of those wielding it. The ways and degree to which the government, the dominant media, and the military shape society's conception of reality in the post-9/11 world are ever-changing; they demand our vigilance and awareness if we wish to obtain the truth about the United States' actions around the world in an unbiased light.

The news media has, in past years, been regarded by many as a largely trustworthy system of information delivery; in 1989, about the time of the fall of communism in Russia, 54% of citizens polled believed in the media to "get the facts straight" (Gallup). However, in the minds of many there lie seeds of doubt as to the virtual omniscience of the media, as well the verity of its information.

There is an increasing trend of distrust in the media's reliability to report the news accurately and in an unbiased nature; Gallup polls taken in 1999, before the September 11th attacks and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, report a 77% confidence level that the mass media kept them "well-informed" on military actions. As of an September 2005 Gallup poll, only 13% place a "great deal" of "trust and confidence" in the mass media "when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly," while 37% invest a "fair amount" of trust - that makes a total of just half of Americans polled that trust the mass media as an accurate source of information. Also according to an August, 2005 Gallup poll, Americans are more interested in issues of national security than in past years, but 60% of Americans feel that they do not get enough information on military matters to make educated decisions.

With such a large degree of general public interest in military affairs in the Middle East, it is incongruous that the media supplies the American people with so little actual information about the ongoing conflict. The reasons for this phenomenon vary in complexity. One reason is, quite simply, that the media, specifically televisions news networks, follow much the same set of rules as other television programs. Like any other TV show, news programs need to garner sufficient ratings. Also, as illustrated by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman in their book Manufacturing Consent - A Propaganda Model, this difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that all modern mainstream news networks are owned by corporations, NBC by General Electric Power Systems, ABC by Disney, MSNBC by GE and Microsoft, FOX by News Corp., CNN by Time Warner, and CBS by Viacom. Because these mainstream news networks are corporate owned and funded, they must, to an extent, represent the best interests of their corporate owners. Also, mainstream news shows, like any other show, rely on funding from advertisers to retain their airtime. Herman and Chomsky also assert that the mainstream news media may be little more than a medium for attracting the attention of the educated (and economically strong) decision-makers in society to see advertisements and feed the funding from advertisers. After all, news networks are businesses; they demand profit to remain operational. Therefore, Propaganda Model theorizes, the news may face a bias in that it reports some stories as entertainment value to keep viewers interested, rather than focusing on relevant issues that need their unbiased attention and vigilance. For instance, an arguably disproportionate amount of airtime is devoted to stories which are sensationalist in nature. The recent media stir over the abduction and murder of Natalie Holloway is one such story; the story was granted, particularly by the FOX news network, an extreme amount of airtime. The coverage of the investigation, lasting for months, explored the abduction and murder, even mere rumors, in incredible detail and length. The reason for this gross misappropriation of the news media's focus is simple: ratings. As Bill O'Reilly stated in response to a written request that he poll the audience and gauge its interest in his extensive coverage of the Holloway case, "Our ratings are huge. That's the poll." Thus, objectivity in the mainstream media faces a double threat: the risk of running counter to the corporate owners' financial interests on the one hand, and those of the advertisers on the other.

Another example of the potential for ramifications on the objectivity of the mainstream media can be found upon examination of the MSNBC and NBC news networks. As stated above, these networks are owned, at least in part, by General Electric, a corporation that has historically been active in reconstruction efforts in war torn nations involved in military conflicts with the United States. However, it is less widely known that General Electric has contracts in Afghanistan, and even less so that it is active in Iraq as well. In fact, GE's reconstruction activities in Iraq were not disclosed in documents the Defense Department provided to the Center for Public Integrity in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. While information on the corporation's activities in Iraq did not find official disclosure, in April 2003, media sources did report that GE Energy rentals, a subsidiary of GE Power Systems, provided electrical generators and light poles to the U.S. military in Iraq. While it was unwilling to divulge the value of that contract, it is evident that GE's investment in the reconstruction process in the Middle East is significant; the contract in Afghanistan for gas services, awarded by the US Army Engineer District, was worth $6,801,493 as of March 31st, 2003, having increased from an initial value of $5,927,870 due to the continued necessity for reconstruction and expansion (Center for Public Intergrity website).

It is clear that GE Power Systems has a substantial interest in and profits significantly from the Iraqi and Afghani wars, specifically in the reconstruction of the damaged infrastructures of those countries. It is plausible to hypothesize, then, that MSNBC and NBC, owing their continued existence to GE, might face a degree of subjectivity in their reporting, particularly on matters concerning the Iraqi and Afghani wars.

Yet another limitation placed on the potential for fair, unbiased reporting in the mainstream media is imposed by the very sources of the information it reports. Due to the extensive, industrialized nature the United States' society, it has a need for continuous media coverage of manifold events occurring simultaneously around the globe. Logically, and according to Herman and Chomsky, the necessary information for such an extensive array of foreign events can only be collected and delivered by large businesses and government organizations with the necessary monetary and material means to do so. Thus, the bulk of information supplied to the mainstream media originates from the Pentagon and other government branches, disseminated by means of readily-reportable press releases and conferences. A "symbiotic relationship" is formed between the government and the media, with government officials supplying material to the mainstream media, and the latter supplying its interest and relatively uncritical reporting of government and military action.
However, the media is by no means entirely unquestioning in its acceptance of news; in an effort to curb the influence of the government's monopoly over information, particularly that which concerns military conflict, the media employs embedded reporters. These journalists, in an attempt to circumvent government regulation of the news they report, are actually stationed in the field of combat. Through these means, news networks hope to gain an unbiased, first-hand account of military actions, diminishing the Fog of War effect.

In theory, this practice is a great advantage in the media's ability to report freely and accurately on what is actually occurring in Iraq, often in near real-time. However, due to the obviously volatile and dangerous nature of a battleground, the reporters are forced to remain with coalition forces for their own safety. If the journalists were to report unfavorably on the actions of the forces they were accompanying, it is likely that they would receive minimal cooperation from them. Also, much of the information received by embedded journalists comes from press briefings at central command in Baghdad. While these briefings are obviously closer in proximity to the actual military operations than domestic ones, they are still coordinated and monitored by the Pentagon.

Also, independent journalists in Iraq have received very little support, and even outright hostility from the U.S. military. According to a report by Veteran BBC reporter, Kate Adie, a senior Pentagon official informed her that U.S. forces intended to target the site any of any broadcast from Baghdad, regardless of whether the broadcasters were reporters, saying, "Who cares? They've been warned." An April 8th, 2003 report states that a U.S. tank fired a shell at the Palestine Hotel, the site of operations for most non-embedded reporters in Baghdad, killing two: Taras Protsyuk of the British news agency Reuters, and Jose Couso of the Spanish network Telecino. The tank reportedly took careful aim for over two minutes before firing. The Pentagon claimed that the tank had been fired upon from the hotel, but eyewitness reports consistently confirm that no prior shot had been fired. This lack of cooperation with embedded reporters, and outright hostility towards independent journalists is indicative of the military's strategy of tight information control concerning the war in Iraq.

According to an August 2005 poll, Over three quarters of Americans also believe that the military occasionally provides the media with false information (Washington Post website). With the very basis of information delivery concerning the events that are shaping our nation's future in question, national approval for the Bush administration at an all-time low of 36% (Gallup, Jan 15-18th, 2007), and support for the war in Iraq waning, it is logical that many have begun to question the initial cause of the war on terror: the September 11th, 2001 attacks.

Examples of this are to be found online on such websites as freedomunderground.org, in which a flash video details the discrepancies between the official press releases on the Pentagon attack and the evidence found on-site. Using evidence and photos taken of the crash site, many just minutes after the impact, the video summarizes the slew of evidence found to render the media's (via our government's) explanation of the attack on the Pentagon questionable: It cites the utter lack of any airplane parts found in any of the five concentric rings that compose the walls of the Pentagon (though the Boeing 747, a 60 ton plane, punched neatly through all five), the entirely intact state of the lawn, the intact windows just feet above the impact point, and the immediate confiscation and failure to ever release all surveillance videos, even from private businesses, in the area surrounding the Pentagon. That is not to say that all such sources as freedomunderground.org are to be believed, if any, or that none of these websites or articles are sensationalist in nature, but it does indicate a doubt in the reliability of not only the media, but also of the honesty of our government itself, which is an even more disturbing concept. When the US government has the ability to potentially deceive all those it governs through the institution of the mass media, and to have much, if not the majority of US citizens believe in the message, it is indicative of an enormous and somewhat frightening degree of power.

The degree to which the Bush administration controls the flow of information to the people, and the degree of truth in the information released concerning its war on terror has fallen under significant scrutiny over the years since the September 11th attacks. When a War on Terror is being waged that only 38% of those it purportedly protects still feel to be "worthwhile," (CNN.com) by an administration approved of by a mere 36%, what power serves to prolong said conflict? In a democratic system, supposedly by its very doctrine in existence to represent and uphold the desire of the people as a majority, why does a war favored by so few, waged on such an increasingly cloudy basis persist, and why did it begin?

The US government, by its very nature as the nation's ruling body, holds the keys to the flow of information to those under it. In any foreign engagement, such as the conflict in Iraq, the conflict takes place on two fronts: the physical conflict of the battlefield, and the war of information, waged both against the combatants' enemies and their own societies. In the US, the method of information delivery, and hence, the manufacture of consent for military actions is through the mainstream media. The media's core source of information on events overseas is through the outlet of the central government and military, be it through organized press releases, media sessions, and being allowed managed access to war zones to embedded reporters.

For the success of military operations, the importance of controlling the citizenry's conception of a war cannot be overstated; during the Vietnam War, President and Commander in Chief Lyndon B. Johnson focused heavily upon the mantra of winning the American people's "hearts and minds," in order to encourage support for the United States' military action in Vietnam. In a tack not unfamiliar in today's political climate, Johnson proclaimed, in an address at a dinner meeting with Texas Electric Cooperatives, that "ultimate victory will depend upon the hearts and the minds of the people who actually live out there [Vietnam]. By helping to bring them hope and electricity you are also striking a very important blow for the cause of freedom throughout the world." This statement resounds in its similarity to one of the central justifications used by the Bush administration for the war in Iraq. The administration proclaims that by invading Iraq, it will not only be striking a blow for the power of freedom and against terror, but also that that "a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions." By imbuing this conflict with an aura of altruism, the Bush administration sought, with much success, to bolster initial support for an invasion of Iraq; in March, 2003, 73% of respondents to a Gallup poll agreed that war with Iraq was "morally justifiable."

The reasons for this overwhelming initial support are many and diverse. Most apparently, the invasion occurred in the wake of fear resulting from the September 11th attacks. Approximately 3,000 U.S. citizens were killed, and widespread fear and panic followed. However, the global and domestic response was overwhelmingly positive, leading to a period of renewed patriotism and inspiring the international aphorism, "We are all Americans." Through the urgings of the Bush administration, the American people found a cohesiveness and concentration of support for government and military action not seen since the onset of the invasion of Iraq. In Bush's rousing State of the Union address in January, 2002, he said the following: "Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them. We've come to know truths that we will never question: evil is real, and it must be opposed. Beyond all differences of race or creed, we are one country, mourning together and facing danger together. Deep in the American character, there is honor, and it is stronger than cynicism. And many have discovered again that even in tragedy - especially in tragedy - God is near."

By emphasizing the polar differences between the American people - a free, strong, unified, and Godly people - and its enemies, the "evil" that "must be opposed," the administration dehumanized the people of the countries it was to invade, and bolstered the overriding sense of patriotism and faith in the government that prevailed at the time. Through the bond formed between American citizens, and the sense of a widening divide between the "good" and "evil" people of the world, the government essentially prepped the nation for war.

Rune Ottosen, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Journalism and Library Studies at Oslo College, has described four stages that seem to have recurred in most military conflicts, historically, through which a government prepares a nation for war. The first stage, he refers to as "The Preliminary Stage." In this stage, the administration reports of an imminent, potentially unavoidable crisis, usually a nation that is cause for mounting concern. The second stage, or "Justification Stage," occurs when a major event occurs that lends "urgency to the case for armed intervention to bring about a rapid restitution of normality.'" This stage was triggered by the sudden and seemingly unexpected September 11th attacks. The media reported, as predicted by Ottosen, that the nation stood on the brink of war. A sudden and tangible threat to national security was posed, and military retaliation by the U.S. was imminent and deemed appropriate.

The third stage consists of "Demonization of the Enemy's Leader." The Bush administration denounced Al-Qua'ida and Osama Bin Laden as evil and deranged, guilty not only of murdering thousands of innocent Americans, but also of perverting the tenets of the Islamic faith. Prior to the invasion of the 2003 invasion, Bush (and/or his speech-writers) even went so far as to label Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, an "Axis of Evil," a term not used in serious political terminology since Roosevelt's "date which will live in infamy" speech in War World II. While Bush's rhetoric did create some criticism in the international political climate (largely because an "axis" implies a relationship between the three countries that does not exist), it served to further the American peoples' conception of the Hussein regime in Iraq as an evil empire to be resisted at all costs.

Through its official press releases and color-coded levels of danger to the homeland, the Bush administration is capable of instilling fear in the minds of U.S. citizens. Critics of the five-level color-coded system have even suggested that it was raised to orange, or general terrorism warnings issued in the months leading up to the 2004 presidential election in an attempt to bolster support for the Bush administration, and that is simply a mechanism used to aid in the continued, fear-induced manufacture of consent to the government's aims, regardless of the means.

The actions taken by the Bush administration and the U.S. military following the September 11th attacks, and the public's initial overwhelming support for them are evidence of the supreme power held by those who control the dissemination and nature of information in today's global climate. By instilling in the American people a sense of cohesiveness, patriotism, and fear of an "evil" enemy of freedom, and by maintaining meticulous yet subtle regulation of the information supplied to the mainstream media, the government ensured cooperation from its people and support for a war that it would later come to regret. That is the reason for which the actions of our ruling body, and those of its enforcer, the military, demand the constant criticism and vigilance of the people and the mass media, lest it be further stripped of its democratic rights in years ahead.

Works Cited:

Herman, Edward S., Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing Consent; The Political Economy of the Mass Media. (Pantheon Books, New York, 1988).

Shah, Anup. Global Issues Home. Thursday, March 31, 2005.

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Milita ry.asp#MilitaryControlo
fInformation

FAIR - Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. April 10, 2003

Wikipedia - Manufacturing Consent - A Propaganda Model. 20 April 2006.

White, Josh. Washington Post - Confidence In Military News Wanes.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005.
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301290.html>

McCall, Jeff. Depauw University News - "Incessant" Coverage of Natalee Holloway Case. July 8, 2005.

Gordon, Neil. The Center for Public Integrity- General Electric Company. Mar 31, 2004.

Johnson, Peter. USA Today - Trust in media keeps on slipping. 5/27/2003.

CNN - Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low. November 14, 2005.