WASHINGTON, 15 December — The first few days after Sept. 11, the news coverage in the US was broad-based, in-depth and informative.
Broadcasts covered various viewpoints on multifarious issues with historical, national and international perspectives. Within a week broad-based coverage shifted toward a predominately US patriotic/nationalistic perspective.
This shift coincided with White House restrictions on Congress and the media due to the intelligence leak that there is a “one hundred percent probability that there will be future terrorist attacks,” and the panic such a leak could potentially cause. While public opinion and media coverage presupposed future attacks before this intelligence leak, questions regarding censorship have not been seriously addressed.
The first theme to fill the information vacuum that resulted from these White House restrictions was patriotic nationalism as rendered by heartbreaking stories on the heroes, victims, and survivors of the Sept. 11 tragedies. These reports, which were augmented by news stories concerning national security issues, overshadowed every other news story for weeks.
During this time the US Government discouraged the media from playing Osama Bin Laden video releases out of concern that messages concealed in the releases could activate Al-Qaeda cells. Since these governmental concerns were voiced, in- depth reports and documentaries on Bin Laden’s war against “American tyranny and injustice” have ceased. US foreign policy in the Middle East has scarcely been alluded to since a week or so after Sept. 11.
Bin Laden came to be portrayed by media groups as self-aggrandizing evil, supported by fanatical followers who are motivated by jealousy of American freedom and prosperity. Though the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center symbolically draw attention to the connection between US military might and financial interests, the “American war machine,” the press did not publicly make this connection. In October, reports on anthrax dwarfed every other news story for nearly a month. Unlike the Congress-media news leak, there were no governmental restrictions regarding the media’s stories on anthrax and the panic such incessant reporting caused.
The media informs Americans that the US is the only nation strong and moral enough to defend freedom, justice and international law against unjustifiable aggression. This viewpoint is not balanced by reports on US military and economic policies as reflected by a long record of US vetoes against United Nations mandates for non-aggression and diplomacy.
Diplomatic efforts to get the Taleban to turn over Bin Laden and Al-Quada leaders was never pursued by the US. The Taleban offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden should proof be provided of his involvement was flatly rejected when Bush stated that “there would be no negotiation with terrorists or those who harbor them,” which was backed by US media approval.
US officials cited that it would be a security risk to turn over such proof, though this proof was reportedly provided to Pakistan, Britian, and other nations. The Taleban repeated their offer in late October, but was once again ignored by both the US government and the media.
Current events are reminiscent of Bush senior’s declaration in 1990 that there would be no negotiation with Saddam Hussein, although diplomatic solutions were offered by Iraq, the PLO, and France. Iraq’s border and oil disputes with Kuwait were not legitimized by diplomacy or media coverage. Government officials and the media also failed to emphasize that the US encouraged Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Before the invasion, the US Ambassador to Iraq told the Iraqi government that if they invaded Saudi Arabia there would be US intervention, but that the US had “no formal opinion” about Kuwait, in effect giving Iraq the go ahead to invade Kuwait.
Reports on Iraqi casualties of the ensuing war were stopped when Bush senior admonished the press for reporting such “morbid news,” and before this type of coverage was stopped, US news agencies had reported over a million Iraqi deaths including hundreds of thousands civilian casualties. Lack of diplomacy before and after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, as well as reports that the Gulf War resulted in a dramatic increase in US control over Kuwaiti oil, suggest that Iraqi casualties were sacrificed for US oil interests.
Interestingly, a week or so after Sept. 11, US oil interests in Central Asia were announced, and a month later Exxon announced drilling rights in Russia. On Oct. 29, ITN News reported that Unical and other oil companies had been exploring for years the possibility of using Afghanistan as a trade route for oil in the region. The compromising of diplomacy by US oil interests has not been broached by the US media, though the outright rejection of diplomacy in Iraq and Afghanistan combined with the Bush family’s ties to the oil industry warrant skepticism. Economic considerations have, after all, played a pre-eminent and often brutal role in past US military actions in the Middle East, the Caribbean, Central America, South America, and Asia.
Americans are taught by the media that foreign policy is determined by humanitarian concerns and that the US altruistically gives more foreign aid than any other country in an effort toward alleviating starvation, disease, and economic hardship in less fortunate nations. Americans are as a whole unaware that the agency responsible for distributing US foreign aid, USAID, is designed in large measure to protect US business interests abroad.
US media groups have also disregarded the ramifications on US foreign policy of military arms being a leading US export.
Death and suffering of innocent Afghan victims of US bombs are equally scarce, and when aired are portrayed without the humanistic sensitivity that is afforded American victims and casualties. Military officials explain that casualties are unavoidable in war, and that it was not the US that started this war.
Popular support generated by the media ignoring, rationalizing, and justifying military and economic underpinnings of US foreign policy allows the government to continue to commit, aid and cater to nations with atrocious human rights violations, including Israel and a host of other nations.
There are many reasons why the US media fail to inform the American public. Ron Reagan (President Ronald Reagan’s son) pointed out during his short lived talk show that the major media companies in the US are owned by a handful of megacorporations which are instructed by the US government regarding which news stories should be released.
Internet news sites, though often free of corporate and political influences, suffer from financial and staff limitations resulting in poor breadth of coverage and lack of updating, which hampers mainstream appeal.
Independently owned media groups, which account for a dwindling 20 percent of the US media, are far smaller and reach far fewer people than their corporate counterparts. Independent news agencies that become popular due to quality reporting are acquired by these corporate giants and assimilated into the status quo of ethereal mass media broadcasting.
As the US is the last remaining superpower it is questionable whether a humanistic transformation of US foreign policy can be achieved without challenging the sovereignty of the predominant US media groups. International supplication and acts of terror have repeatedly failed. Meanwhile President Bush warns that “this is just the beginning of the war on terrorism,” and the media continue to portray a one-sided perspective on current affairs.
In the final analysis, changes in US foreign policy may be dependent upon foreign investment toward the creation of a news organization capable of disseminating multifaceted perspectives in the US.
One-dimensional characterizations inhibit in-depth understanding of complex issues. For example, while far from innocent, the US is neither devoid of humanistic qualities, nor does the US monopolize greed, corruption, insensitivity, or inhumanity. Similarly, even if Osama Bin Laden proves not to be responsible for the events of Sept. 11, he has promoted and exploited death and destruction at the expense of pursuing peaceful alternatives, though his cause is not without merit. Likewise, neither Palestinians nor Israelis are without blame for their realities. Truth is multifaceted.