The Dictators of the World Would Not Admire or Envy the Claimed Uniformity of the US Media

A debate has been ranging on for as long as the United States has been in existence, of whether the media is truly free, and what its influence is on public opinion. All sides sell their view on the issue, and the debate continues. An angle that is often considered, is whether the dictators of the world would or are envious of the uniformity of the US media. One can merely pick up the latest issue of any newspaper and find an example of uniformity, but would also have no trouble in finding a critical piece. The US media has seen its failures to report the facts, but have also failed in keeping a balance between accuracy, fairness, and representing different views. It has also seen its successes, in compromise for the sake of national security, decency, and focus. This paper's aim is to observes the inconsistency of the US media in its support and opposition of US foreign policy, and seeks to argue that dictators would much rather have a consistent media in lockstep, rather than one that is only in lockstep a quarter to half the time.

During Vietnam, the media brought war to the average American home. America, after seeing the real horrors of war, turned against the effort in Vietnam. But this wasn't the first time media took an active role in communicating policy to the people, nor the first time shaping public opinion. There was the Civil War, WWII, and most recently, the Iraq War in 2003. The media, while it may try, more often than not, fails in shaping the opinion of a people they hope to sway.

Most historians consider the American Civil War to be the first modern war. Most notably, for the wars wide use of mechanized and electrified devices such as railroads, aerial observation, telegraph, photography, and torpedoes, mines, ironclad ships, and rifles. The war brought an end to the Confederate states, but brought on a new advent in media coverage and its impact on domestic and foreign policy. A famous photographer, Mathew Brady invested $100,000# in camera equipment for his 20 assistants so he could capture all the events of the Civil War. The photos had and has a major impact on the publics perception of the brutality of the war.# Pictures aside, the major new technology that played its role during the Civil War, was the telegraph. Invented by Samuel F.B. Morse, the technology was already available over most of the Eastern United States, but by the end of the war, 15,000 miles had been created. Wherever the army was, telegraph lines were constructed, and were used only for military use. Secret messages were sent over these lines, occasionally intercepted by both sides, and were a source of news on current war events. The telegraph system proved so efficient and quick, that it soon put the Pony Express services out of business after a mere 2 years in operation. Needing information quick, President Abraham Lincoln visited the War Departments own telegraph office. This availability of information were crucial in many of the wars battles, and gave the Union forces an upper hand in battles such as the operation at Fort Sanders. # (Aeragon)

With the telegraph system in place, the media was now able to play a more major role in the war. The sheer size of the news media at the time forced the military to, for the first time, deal with a media corp. With the rapid availability of new, up-to-date information on war events, the many news media outlets vied for the information. The military had to manage the media exposure, and inevitably creating problems between officials and media. General Ulysses S. Grant was one of the few Generals who felt and understood the importance of having a good relationship with the media. Despite the problems and new lessons that were to be learned by both ends of that relationship, the press continued to play a key role in maintaining public support and was the primary source of information for the troops in the field. (Aeragon)

During World War II, a new medium of communication made its first major impact in connection to public opinion and understanding of an ongoing military effort, film. Americans for the first time could go to their local theatre and watch a war film, and learn about what was going on, beyond reading the printed word in newspapers. One such film, The Battle of Midway, is a golden example of the aim and impact these films had on peoples minds. The Battle of Midway is a 1942 American documentary film short directed by John Ford, and narrated by Donald Crisp, Henry Fonda, and Jane Darwell, among many others. The film runs for about 18 minutes and was one of four winners of the 1942 Academy Award for Best Documentary. Beginning with a male narrator explaining where Midway Island is and its strategic importance to the US effort, the films format alters with more leisure pictures of the Gis at work on the island. A female voice over assumes the personality of a middle aged woman from Springfield, Ohio, and in a mother-like manner, points out how she recognizes such and such boy from her home town. Stock footage of the boy's mothers and sisters back home are introduced, but then is abruptly interrupted by a narrative over five minutes of battle on the island, and its aftermath. At the end of the film, upon the showing of the various known Japanese losses.# This film and many others shown during the span of the war had a major influence on the publics perception and feelings of the war. The images of American troops were depicted in very patriotic styles, and the overall tone gave the viewer the impression the US Government desired.# (IMDb)

The Iraq War in 2003-present, has seen a metamorphous change from steadfast support from the media for the Presidents agenda, to a fierce critic in the end. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Americans tuned in to their televisions in part for news updates, but also for a sense of a collective community sharing in a tragedy. The public saw a continuous back and forth between images of the devastated World Trade Center complex, the smoking Pentagon building, and the face of the culprit, Osama bin Laden. A message was clear for anyone watching, America must strike back, and take this 'Osama' down. Just days after the attack, reporters in the media began asking about possible sponsors of terrorism, and they landed on none other than, Iraq. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other high ranking White House officials, steadfastly sold the connection of Iraq to the terrorist attacks. The fact that Osama bin Laden was banned from the country by the very request of the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the media followed the White House's lead, and made a connection to 9/11 and Hussein. In his State of the Nation speech in 2002, President Bush included Iraq in the 3 axis of evil# and made it clear that war was unavoidable. At this point the US media followed in lock step, failing to report any alternative view, and sold the Presidents agenda. (The New York Times)

When the US coalition forces were moving in on Baghdad in 2003, there were about 600 imbedded journalists reporting on the sidelines.# The reports were one sided, to say the least, and portrayed a very patriotic picture of the events taking place. Journalists with cameras rode on tanks as they reported what was going on, to give a dramatic, powerful impression of American might, and also of media freeness. Print media journalists wrote of troop homesickness, and troop determination to get the enemy and take control of the situation. One such article for the New York Times wrote in an April 2nd piece, quote ' With the new American push toward Baghdad, however, the pendulum has swung decisively in the favor of the United States. After an unexpectedly difficult start, in which allied forces were slowed and harassed by paramilitary forces, the coalition now has the momentum. They certainly have more firepower.' end quote. The same article uses such language as 'slugging', 'bulls-eye', and 'American ground forces began in earnest'. Finishing off the three page article, the author throws in a comment made by a senior American officer, which reads, ' It appears they have some recognition that we are at the doorstep of Baghdad, that his (Saddam Hussein) front line did not stop us". The overall tone of the piece is only focused on the US side, and misses entirely the events and casualties sustained by Iraqi citizens during active combat. (The New York Times)

The new advent of imbedding journalists with military personnel brings up many questions about the freedoms the news media enjoy during a time of war. Noting the management of the media by top political and military officials during the Iraq War, hearken back to the days of the Civil War when the media was first being limited and managed. Today, with the new technologies widely and readily available to the media, there arises certain situations and instances when keeping sensitive information out of the publics knowledge, such as troop levels, location, and strategic planning in battle. While the media has largely complied to high officials request to keep such information unknown, there have been times where such information was inadvertently, and even purposefully leaked, such as the frequent incidents during the first Gulf War in 1991. The uniformity and compliance of the media have been impressive, by and large, but it is not consistent, nor controllable by those who would wish to control it. During World War II, the media's compliance and uniformity was lockstep, and consistent. America as a whole was supportive of the war effort, supportive of the troops, and even supportive of The Marshal Plan of 1947 once the war was over. However, the American people were not entirely supportive nor non critical of the effort in the Korean peninsula in the 1950's. The trend towards criticism and skepticism reached a peak with the Vietnam War during the Johnson and Nixon Administration's, when the public saw a stark contrast between what the White House was saying, and what the new age of reporting was revealing-through on ground reporting, video, and the publication of the 'Pentagon Papers'. The country grew strongly opposed to the effort, and the war eventually ended for the US before the conflict was resolved. (American Foreign Policy)

Which brings us back to the whole concept and practice of journalist embedment. A 2005 cross-cultural study of numerous network and cable television news programs found that 9% of the embedded reporters adopted a supportive tone in their pieces. In contrast, the same study showed that only 5.6% of "unilateral" reporters adopted a similar supportive tone. In 2006 and since, numerous studies were done that showed embedded journalists wrote articles significantly more supportive of the US effort, than the unilateral journalists who were free to roam to get a fuller picture of events. Here, again, on a micro level, a consistency is lacking in uniformity. Among the journalists embedded, the level of safety top officials felt were high in their ability to control what the public was learning. However, they were not able to control or hamper many of the free roaming journalists who managed to squeeze an alternative view for the public. Since Torah Bora in Afghanistan, Iraqi elections, and the seemingly never ending US involvement in a now Civil conflict between the Shiia and Sunni factions in the country, the American public has decisively turned against the war effort. The 2006 mid-term elections is a case in point of this backlash. Beginning in 2005, after President Bush won his second term in office, the news media increasingly grew weary of what it was being told by the White House. As new questions were not being answered by high ranking officials, the news corps became hostile and incredulous. More journalists became more skeptical of the embedment process and its requirements of the military to control what the media published. Politicians who supported and continued to advocate the US involvement in Iraq lost their seats in congress, and in the 2008 general election, the candidate who supported a new strategy in Iraq won the White House, and the candidate who supported a continuing of the existing strategy, lost decisively. The media has been working hard to reclaim its independence, and part of that is reporting the bad news on the ground. The American people are now more aware of the tragedies experienced by innocent Iraqi citizens who are being caught in the middle between insurgence, US forces, and Al Qaeda. The war now has a human face, and the public doesn't like what it see's. (Context Magazine)

Such inconsistency in media support for agendas set by top political and military officials would engulf and bring down almost any dictator. When the media is in lockstep, one can argue, it is most uniform and powerful. The impact of this argument is the obvious influence the media has on public opinion, however, it over looks the truth that, even during such conformity, there remains a sizable faction of media who report against the tide. This would be detrimental to most dictators in power today. The admiration of those dictators should perhaps be more directed towards the US governments ability to withstand such inconsistency, and still manage to, in large part, limit and moderate the media output presented to the larger public.

Gordan, Michael R. 2003. A Nation at War Strategy Goal of U.S. : Avoid a Siege. The New York Times
(3 April) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E3D91F39F930A35757C0
A9659C8B63

Linder, Andrew M. 2008. Controlling the Media in Iraq. Context Magazine.
http://contexts.org/articles/spring-2008/controlling-the-media-in-iraq/

Boehlert, Eric. 2008. 'Civil war' and the Real Press Scandal. Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200612040004
Aeragon, 2009. The U.S. Civil War, the First Modern War. http://www.aeragon.com/03/
IMDb, 2009. The Battle of Midway (1942). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034498

Google Video, 2009. The Battle of Midway (1942). http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=

254996800597949827&hl=en

Jentleson, Bruce W., 2007. 'The Marshall Plan 1947'The Strategic Context: Foreign Policy Strategy and t
he Essence of Choice. American Foreign Policy : The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century. (pg
8)

Jentleson, Bruce W., 2007. 'The Impact of the News Media'. American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of
Choice in the 21st Century (pg 49-53)