21 - 27 March 2002
Issue No.578
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 21 - 27 March 2002 Issue No.578 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Manufacturing consent
Manar El-Shorbagy* asks whether Americans' support for the 'war on terrorism' is really so surprising
The latest US opinion polls show not only that Americans continue to support the current war, but that they would also accept its expansion beyond Afghanistan.
How can Americans be so disconnected from world opinion? Wasn't 11 September a wake-up call for Americans to pay attention to the world's concerns?
Answers to these questions have less to do with what is happening in the world and more to do with what is going on inside the US itself. It is impossible to read the results of such polls without taking into account the kind of media coverage Americans have been exposed to since 11 September.
At the very same time that US officials and pundits were attacking the Arab media in general, and Al-Jezeera, in particular, for being "inflammatory and biased," the US media was providing a remarkably limited range of viewpoints and even fewer facts.
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a research institute affiliated with Columbia University, and the Pew Charitable Trusts, reported a clear trend a way from fact-based reporting in favour of speculation, opinion and analysis.
The study, which examined coverage of 11 September and its aftermath by networks, cable and public television, The New York Times, The Washington Post, as well as a number of television talk shows, also found that less than 10 per cent of the coverage evaluating the administration's policies offered dissenting views. In fact, most of the coverage presented included no dissenting views whatsoever.
This kind of coverage is the result of the linkage of two factors: self-censorship by the US media and a highly secretive US administration.
Since 11 September, the US media has imposed a self-censorship that is clearly discernible in its coverage. Added to which, administrative actions by CNN to ensure such censorship have been made public. In early November 2001, we learned that CNN Chairman Walter Isaacson sent a memo to foreign correspondents warning them not to focus too much on civilian casualties in Afghanistan. In a follow-up memo, the CNN head of standards and practices directed anchors how to respond when such reports were broadcast. The memo recommended that they should say something that would remind viewers of the American casualties on 11 September or make the point that "the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to minimise civilian casualties in Afghanistan, even as the Taliban regime continues to harbour terrorists... connected to the 11 September attacks that claimed thousands of civilian lives in the US."
The media has also had to contend with the secretive tendency ofthe Bush administration. Although this tendency had been evident since the president assumed office in January 2001, it found justification and, in some US circles, acceptance, since 11 September.
This tendency towards secrecy has put severe restrictions on the dissemination of information. The Pentagon -- sometimes even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld himself -- has been the main source of information and considerable effort has been made to control the type of information made available.
For example, in mid-October 2001, the Pentagon concluded an agreement, worth millions of dollars, with the company that runs Ikonos, an advanced civilian satellite that could have provided the international media with extraordinarily detailed photographs of the effects of the US bombing in Afghanistan. Such material would have enhanced media coverage of the campaign particularly in light of the fact that reporters in war zones are rarely allowed to see for themselves what is actually going on.
In a situation where media self-censorship is combined with major restrictions on the availability of information, broadcasts and publications tend to be filled with speculation and one set of opinions. The public is effectively prevented from obtaining a meaningful sense of what is actually happening.
Not only the media, but Congress, too, has suffered from the Bush administration's failure to be forthcoming with information. Congressional leaders repeatedly have been left in the dark, only to learn about the administration's plans from the media's already limited coverage. The military tribunals, the shadow government and even the deployment of military personnel overseas were all matters that members of Congress learned of from the media.
With the high approval ratings in the poll, officials have not shied away from telling Congress that questioning war policies helps the enemy and key officials have repeatedly resisted calls for testifying before Congressional committees.
It is only in this domestic context that we can start reading the results of the recent opinion polls. What should we expect from a public that is bombarded with a single message and the same images, all wrapped up in red, white and blue?
While such factors help us to understand why the US public opinion is so disconnected, they make the question of where America is heading more worrisome.
Two developments give a sense of just how far such an unchecked administration might go. Immediately after 11 September, the Pentagon established the Office for Strategic Influence, which -- as it was revealed -- had plans to launch a systematic disinformation campaign aimed at the foreign media. At about the same time, we learned of the Pentagon's proposal to lower the threshold on the use of nuclear weapons.
With no public check, and the least Congressional oversight, it is hard to know whether we should really believe that the lies planned by what was called the Office for Strategic Influence will never materialise. It is harder to see who will pull the plug and make sure that the Pentagon's proposal that lowers the threshold of using the US nuclear weapons will never find its way into action, as the US officials want us to believe.
* The writer is an assistant professor of political science at the American University in Cairo.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page