There was a time you could safely assume that anyone calling skeptical coverage of the war in Iraq “un-American” was probably also speed-dialing Rush Limbaugh. Now it seems that calling skeptical coverage of the war “un- American” is probably correct, if only in the most literal sense. With the American press largely distracted or enraptured with the spectacle of combat,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (20)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe Amerian media coverage of this war is beginning to look much like the “Saigon Follies” during Viet Nam, when defeat was victory and black was white.
As a 77 year old combat veteran of World War 2, I have seen, in a number of wars, just how the goverment manipulates the media. The big difference with Iraq, however, is the complicity of the media.
During World War 2, we had Edward R. Murrow, Andy Rooney and Erne Pyle.
During Viet Nam, the lying and deceipt began early and they were whoppers.
Today, however, as you point out, we must turn to the internet to find some semblance of truth.
With 4 grandsons, I don’t want them to go through what I went through, and World War 2 was a just war!
Posted by Bob Raisor on Mar 29, 2003 at 7:45 AM Commenting briefly on Bob’s comments, how odd it is that so many of the negative and skeptical comments that fueled the media’s coverage in Vietnam came from the military. It is easy to point to the media for “lying and deceit,” yet ignore the degree to which the media were relying on the military for information. See Peter Braestrup’s Big Story, as well as Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent
It is also convenient to ignore the nearly continuous “light at the end of the tunnel” line of commentary that emanated from the military, which was increasingly juxtaposed with images of widespread and often popular uprisings in South Vietnam. These comments inflated people’s expectations and obfuscated the lack of popular support and credibility that all regimes in South Vietnam had, having been built and propped up by the United States against the 1954 treaty that called for popular elections in 1956.
It’s funny to call the current coverage similar to “Saigon Follies” while ignoring the prevalence of the military’s role in media coverage, and complaining that any questioning of the official line which we’re being forcefed somehow turns defeat into victory.
Let’s start asking why it is that the Bush administration hoped that its relatively open PSYOPS campaign would work to force the Iraqis to fold, yet instead it seemed to work to some degree on the American public that expected, based on very limited information, a quick war.
Posted by Jason K. on Mar 29, 2003 at 4:18 PM It’s actually true what the article says, I’ve given up on CNN since there is nothing sadder then a newsnetwork that has become an unpaid PR agent for the US government…
Posted by Stefan Cilia on Mar 30, 2003 at 5:35 PM First, a salute to Bob Raisor of Indiana. American owes folks like Bob and for that matter that generation for fighting for us and sacrificing so much during that time. It seems like the recent administrations have forgotten about these people. Bob, be assured that many of us have not forgotten at all. Unlike many of the so called
“patriots” in the government, I beleive that folks like Bob and the vets of all of our wars shoud be taken care of and honored before we send another red cent to a foreign country or funds another illegal immigrant from another country. It is shameful how this generation treats our war vets, especially those of the WW2 era.
I ask why is ther no outrage when 1in 7 dollars in Bushs budget goes to Israel ( 7 plus billion dollars) and another goes to Turkey, when our American troops families are needing support and our vets programs are cut or restricted. Again, as an American, I am outraged that we fund foreigners before our own vets and fighting men and womens families..That said, I agree with Bob as I too, also search the internet to gather a semblence of truth or at least, other perspectives. It is sometimes unnerving and shocking to read what our traditional and long-standing allies have to say ( and which we never read about) when it comes to our sometimes unwise and unjust foreign policies in the middle east and elsewhere. To not be cognizant of these views and perspectives, IMO, puts this country and our young at risk. This is unwise and perplexing as obviously, the current generations are well educated, but seem easily lead and seeming often times take reported supposition or “reported” for fact. This does nothing for our country or childrens future. I urge all to read as much as they can regarding issues of national security and policy and to voive their opinions and petition their elected officials with their views.. no matter what they are. This is the most American thing you can do not only for yourself but for your childrens future as well.
Posted by chester polwin on Mar 30, 2003 at 7:46 PM I wonder how many people realize that the manque grassroots uprising against the DixieChicks was, in fact, orchestrated by Clear Channel through its vast radio network. A pure, transparent, unadultered, but very effective fraud upon the American public
Posted by Frank DeVito on Apr 3, 2003 at 10:12 AM I wonder how many people realize that the manque grassroots uprising against the DixieChicks was, in fact, orchestrated by Clear Channel through its vast radio network. A pure, transparent, unadultered, but very effective fraud upon the American public
Posted by Frank DeVito on Apr 3, 2003 at 10:16 AM There isn’t ten cents difference between Indymedia, Democratic Underground, and In These Times. I am invited from time to time to savor the subtle differences of the various self defined flavors of left. It’s a wine tasting between Thunderbird and Sterno.
Posted by OToole on Apr 4, 2003 at 7:15 PM I am in general agreement with the views expressed in this story, but I really must object to the math in the following excerpt:
“Radio has the most concentrated ownership of all broadcast media: Just four companies take in 90 percent of all ad revenue. The largest company, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,000 stations, takes in 20 percent of all radio advertising dollars, and every day reaches 54 percent of all people in the United States ages 18 to 49. “
How can the “largest company, Clear Channel” take in “20 percent of all radio advertising” when “just four companies take in 90 percent of all ad revenue”? That is a numerical impossibility, assuming that “largest” is as measured by gross revenues as is normal is US financial reporting. Ninety divided by four is twenty two and a half, so the “largest” company would have to exceed that by some amount, depending on the difference in size between it and the other three.
This is the sort of transparently dumb thing that we on the left are too often prone to: grab an impressive number that “feels right” and trumpet it for the “shock and awe” it evokes. Please people, we don’t need to look like Wall Street scam artists to make our point. Get the math right along with the morality.
Posted by Richard Lee on Apr 7, 2003 at 1:39 PM Those, like me, who read the foreign press will always be an a very small minority. The comments of people like “O’Toole” is more tyipical of the mind set of the majority. O’Toole, like my brother-in-law, cannot handle complexity. They pronounce truths without questioning. Their statements are short and abusive--this thrills them just like it thrills them to watch Bruce Willis or American bombs explode spectacularly. I think the left has difficultry understanding that most white men are like O’Toole. The media caters to an audience and gives them what they want--the fault is not in the media but in the culture we have all created in the U.S.
Posted by Chris on Apr 8, 2003 at 3:23 PM Every media outlet sells its brand of news.Foreign and American news is both liberal and conservative.To say only foreign news is accurate about the war is a joke.They just agree with your view about the war.
Posted by Rob on Apr 9, 2003 at 4:00 PM War is always inevitable when so many young people are willing to give their lives in conflicts for vague and incompetent reasons given by vague and incompetent political and military leaders. In the two hundred twenty seven years since our Independence how many of our political leaders have sacrificed themselves in our few Just Wars and our many unjust ones.
From an angry Vietnam Veteran who was drafted and fought and bled in one of our Unjust Wars.
Peter Hinds
VIETNAM COMBAT VETERAN
B Co. 2/1 196 lib Americal Div.
Drafted Feb.2, 1969
WOUNDED IN ACTION SUNDAY AUGUST 24,1969
Posted by Peter Hinds on Apr 10, 2003 at 1:24 AM Has anyone else noticed that everything the Pentagon, Bush/Cheney and the media report supports their “case” against Saddam and Iraq, when the media from other countries are telling a different story entirely?
Posted by Stanley L. Stoner on Apr 12, 2003 at 6:59 AM I’m sickened and disheartened by the U.S. governement, American executives, and the American media. They have become one conglomerate of evil, lies, deceit, corruption, but most of all, FEAR.
Posted by William on Apr 14, 2003 at 12:48 AM O’Toole,
Much like the Knox Jellow-flavored conservative talk radio. EXACTLY the same cookie-cutter format.There is one difference between IndyMedia, Inthesetimes and numerous others anti-war (which everyone automatically labels left) and the conservative right--we’re correct.
Posted by neil on Apr 17, 2003 at 3:42 AM Chris,
You make a good point. News is a business that makes a lot of money; otherwise we wouldn’t have so many news channels and producers wouldn’t be so eager to bury stories that offend advertisers.While I disagree with O’Toole, I don’t find his comments abusive--not to me, anyway.
Posted by neil on Apr 17, 2003 at 3:50 AM I have finally figured out how to discern the truth from the lies in the media. Apparently, the trick is to notice whether the reporting is critical of the US. If it is, then it is true. If it doesn’t specifically refer to “so-called President” Bush and his “imperialist” or “war-mongering” administration, then it is biased and untrue.
It’s easy once you stop thinking.
Posted by Nus on Apr 23, 2003 at 1:10 PM Yeah, right. Almost as easy as beeing an american patriot - never question the administration, and call those who do it “unamerican”. That’s even better - you don’t have to start thinking in the first place, which is important if you want the average redneck to utter an oppinion.
Posted by ProudEuropean on Apr 27, 2003 at 4:28 PM I find it interesting the so called boycott of the Dixie Chicks. The lack of forgiveness for one comment when Enron executives have destroyed lives. Has there been media follow up to see if those execs are receiving the same amount of death threats as the Chicks?
Posted by yoganana on Apr 27, 2003 at 11:18 PM I don’t have any fancy statistical numbers or really big syallable words to try and word this with, but the only 2 things I really have to say about this are. 1. I believe that if you have and open enough mind to research and study for yourself, you can make an un-biased decision, and not depend on having one made for you. True you are limited to the amount of information you can be given but I believe that I have found that if it concerns you enough you will look until you find what you seek. Don’t depend on someone else’s words to make your decisions for you.
2. Sorry, but I really gotta say this and get it off my chest. Everyone has different opinions and is entitled to them. I don’t voice mine that much because I don’t need followers of my opionions to back me up or leaders to make my decisions for me in my life. I served my country in the Marine Corps during the gulf war and that taught me to rely on my own opinion, information, and most of all, my own intelligence. One thing in these comments did bother me though. I read the phrase that included the words “Average Redneck” in it and I really gotta say. That pi$$es me off. As a southern man, I hear that term quite a bit when on the internet when people hear I’m from the south and it’s as inflammatory to me as certain racial terms are to other minorities. I could have gotten on here and thrown around slurs about everyone in Europe having f**ked up teeth but I didn’t.(well not ‘til now anyway.) I assure you that if you used that term anywhere in the south, you would have had your teeth probably knocked out.(If anyone could find them.) Thank you for bringing that anger out of me Proud European.
Posted by Tre' on Sep 12, 2003 at 5:19 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ana Marie Cox
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
