War on Terror Mainstream Media and Propaganda

All Sides can have Propaganda

In the Elements of Propaganda¹ section on this web site, it was noted how as well as enemies having propaganda mechanisms, we also have our own propaganda mechanisms. This is an important point to bear in mind. This is in some ways an obvious enough point and it is partially realized by the mainstream media. Yet, perhaps not completely.

For example, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in USA, September 11, 2001, as the U.S.-led retaliation was building up, various news media were reporting the propaganda battle, on both sides, even using those words. (For example, in UK, there was the Channel 4 news that mentioned it at least once on October 8, 2001 in their 7pm broadcast, while Sky News said similar things on October 9, 2001 in their 10:30pm broadcast.)

Yet, I say partially, because the effect was to suggest that the while Bin Laden's propaganda was to incite hatred, convince the Muslim world of his views and give his perspectives to the West, the western propaganda was to retaliate and correct those misleading aspects. Sure enough, Bin Laden's views were misleading, inciting hatred etc, but the assumption that the west's propaganda was in response only and in a way honest is misleading to the public in general. Throughout history all sides have used propaganda to gain support from the masses. Even if the west is right to address the acts of terrorism, the propaganda that is also used by the west should remain in one's mind so as to be aware of whether or not appropriate policies are being carried out.

Many journalists in the mainstream would not admit or claim to practise self-censorship and may insist that the coverage is broad. However, one of the most famous media personalities in American news, Dan Rather of CBS has admitted that there has been a lot of self-censorship and that the U.S. media in general has been cowed by patriotic fever².

Some examples of propaganda used resulting from the September 11 atrocity include the following:

Back to top

International Crime or Act of War?

Immediately after the ghastly attacks, the act of terrorism was declared by George Bush and others as war as opposed to a mass crime against humanity. While emotionally one can describe it as being under attack and use the analogy of an act of war, politically, this has significant ramifications because this allows one to change the possible means of retaliation. It also allows claims to be made that because this is war then Article 51 of the United Nations Charter of the right to self-defence can be invoked. From there an entire military build up and action has resulted. The media in general didn't really question the semantics or the point that Article 51 doesn't allow for indeterminate amount of time to ellapse to carry out self defence. For more on this, also see the following:

• International Crime, Not War³, by Tom Barry and Martha Honey, Foreign Policy In Focus, Progressive Response, Volume 5, Number 30, September 12, 2001
• The Empire wants war, not justice⁴ by Sean Healy, ZNet, October 28, 2001
• A UN mandate does not make war on Iraq right!⁵ by Jorgen Johansen and Jan Oberg, Press Info #168, Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research (TFF), December 28, 2002. While mostly commenting on the build up to possible war against Iraq at the end of 2002, they comment on the use of international law, and not criminal law as the basis for the reaction to the terrorist attacks:

  When the UN accepted to use International Law and not Criminal Law for the reaction to September 11, it opened doors that will be (mis)used by many actors in the future. Up until then, political and violent crimes had been handled by the police and not by the military. This shift is very dangerous. Then the U.S. decided, and the UN accepted, to use the principle of self defence, but with a delay of almost a month (September 11 to October 7). In the field of Criminal Law, this would resemble that the attacked escapes from the attacker, locate him a month later and (with a bunch of friends) exercise his self-defence out of proportion to the first crime committed.

Back to top

Rise of terrorism in the Middle East, beyond they hate our freedoms

There has been little mention of a significant fact that the CIA had trained the mujahadin and even Osama Bin Laden to fight against the Soviets ⁷. Through the Pakistan's secret service, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency or ISI, the Mujahadin and Bin Laden and even the Talibam were supported. As MSNBC noted (in the previous link, as far back as August 24, 1998) the consequences of this blowback have been disastrous.

There has been very little attempt by the mainstream to seriously and thoroughly understand why such terrorists could commit immense vile acts and what gives rise to terrorists in the first place.

• For a long time, George Bush's claim that they did this because they don't like the freedoms in the West was taken without any serious discussion.
• The history of the Middle East, and the West's involvement, as well as the larger historic struggle for the control of resources⁸, our support of dictatorships and other non-democratic regimes in the region etc, has been conveniently ignored as a possible reason terrorism might unfortunately rise.
• Instead, the theme has been limited to the fact that that what those terrorist did was wrong (which is true) and must be brought to justice (also true). But this is an example of what has been described as a narrow range of discourse.
  • Within this narrower range of discourse and not understanding or looking at the wider history, the public at large form a narrow range of opinions as to what should be done, why people did these things, and so on.
  • As another result, by gaining support of the public on this premise, the legitimacy of the actions of the leaders of Western nations become somewhat unquestioned and unaccountable as well.
• Indeed, with the use of the sophisiticated Public Relations firms⁹, to present a positive perception of the U.S. in the eyes of others, it appears as though there is a desire to avoid looking at the deeper issues and instead just present a preferred perception.¹⁰

In December 2002, the National Security Archive project at George Washington University, Washington D.C, published onto the Web declassified U.S. documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, concerned with an early Cold War campaign to win hearts and minds in the Middle East, launched 50 years before current efforts to achieve United States public diplomacy goals in the region to meet geopolitical interests. A detailed essay which introduced and cited the various documents drew parallels and some differences to today's war on terror with propaganda attempts through the Cold War. The terrorist attacks on America highlighted how many in the Middle East viewed U.S. policies, and so one of the efforts has been a propaganda battle:

In addition, the essay details the various propaganda techniques and avenues that were employed to project a friendly and supportive U.S. attitude and a hostility towards the Soviet Union and communism. For example, techniques included the use of:

• Foreign Aid
• Posters and Brochures
• Newspapers, Magazines, Newsreels
• Cultural Influences
• Exchange Programs and Associations
• Semiotics (using signs and symbols)
• Inter government collaboration
• U.S. collaboration with
  • U.S. media
  • Academia
  • Private Associations
  • Publishing Industry

The types of themes promoted included projection of:

• Freeedom, emphasizing to the world America's role as a beacon of freedom for the world.
• Prowess, demonstrating the overwhelming and increasing industrial and military strength of the United States
• Peace-loving, by also being admired as a peace-loving nation, differentiating itself from a violent and disruptive Soviet Union
• Promoting nuclear and other scientific advances
• Religion as a propaganda asset, as for decades, religious tradition was viewed as a valuable asset that could be exploited to achieve American ends. This included Saudi Arabia's conservative interpretation of Islam, as an important asset in promoting Western objectives, including anticommunism, in the Middle East.

Yet, of course it was not easy, as today's often militant and anti-American feelings testify. Some of the problems included:

• The Palestine issue -- the priorities and concerns of many people of the Middle East (such as Palestinian refugees early on) and U.S. priorities were seen as being at odds with each other.
• Competing national interests also complicated U.S. plans for anticommunist propaganda directed at the Kurds.
• Anticolonialism feeling was high and the U.S. was seen as a close ally with British and French.
• Anti-western nationalism was viewed as one of the principal threats to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Efforts to impress Middle East audiences with U.S. popular culture and display of material success, were not always going as smoothly as hoped.
• Demands for change -- many were unhappy with the U.S. support for a repressive status quo.
• Disillusionment with U.S. policies

In drawing parallels to the current war on terror, the Archives concludes:

And, as N. Janardhan highlights in an Inter Press Service news report, (January 2, 2003¹³) As anti-American sentiments rise in the Middle East, Washington is stepping up its propaganda battle through new radio stations that are airing restyled programs designed to woo the hearts and minds of the region's youth.

Back to top

Subtle Propaganda

As a small set of examples of perhaps very subtle propaganda, consider the following.

Back to top

The Guantanamo Prisoners

The controversy over the Al-Qaida, Taliban and other prisoners in Cuba is interesting for it raises some serious issues:

• On the one hand there is just criticism from the likes of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Red Cross etc, that these are prisoners of war and that outdoor cages etc are outrageous. Furthermore, because people like U.S. President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair went to enormous lengths to explain that their reactions and retaliations were in the name of defending civilization, then how we as civilized peoples and societies treat the captives is of course of moral importance, as Bush and Blair themselves raised the moral stake, and retaliated on a moral high ground.
• Furthermore, with the U.S. having claimed that the terrorist attack was an act of war, and having retaliated by invoking the U.N's Article 51 on the right to self defence, then surely according to international law these prisoners are prisoners of war, as Amnesty International asserts²¹? If so, like it or not, we are duty bound to treat them with dignity, no matter how despicable we might find them to be. Else talk about us being civilized can be pointed out as being hollow. (Side NoteIn addition, British media reported October 2002 that at least one prisoner was released and returned to Afghanistan because he was wrongly rounded up. In fact, he wasn't even a Taliban supporter. On November 27, 2002, the BBC also reports that some workers from Arab charities are also detained in Cuba, caught by bounty hunters and handed over to the Americans for cash. In addition, the above also highlights the possibility that other innocent people may have also been rounded up. The LA Times adds to this concern, reporting on December 22, 2002 that many held at Guantanamo Bay are not likely to be terrorists ²².)
• A BBC television report (27 November 2002) also highlights how U.S. officials such as Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld have often claimed the detainees to be unlawful combatants, which, as the International Red Cross points out, is just a U.S. concept, not something established in international law. Using the U.N. Charter and Article 51 to justify attacks on Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attacks implies attempting to go the route of international law (though this has also be questioned, but that is a different issue). Yet, here, the U.S. could be accused of double standards.
• Human Rights Watch also highlighted a similar point. In a forum hosted by the BBC, the following, amongst other points were raised, where questions were fielded by the host, Paul Reynolds, and answered by Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch:

  Isn't the declaration that the prisoners at the US base in Cuba are illegal combatants a violation of the Geneva Convention?

  Kenneth Roth:
  The method that the United States has used to call these people illegal combatants is a violation of the Geneva Convention, in that the Geneva Convention require the establishment of a combatant tribunal to make that determination.

  President Bush has decided to dispense with the tribunal and simply to declare on his own that everyone there is an illegal combatant. In fact, we suspect that if a tribunal were established - let's say the Taleban detainees at least would probably be found to prisoners of war. Many of the al-Qaeda detainees might well be found to be illegal combatants but you'd need a tribunal to make that determination, it's not up to President Bush.

  would our human rights be protected ... if we were their prisoners?

  Kenneth Roth:
  Probably not but that's looking at the issue too narrowly because to defeat al-Qaeda, it's not a enough simply to use security measures targeted at them, one also needs to address the culture that gives rise to terrorism. One needs to persuade people who live in countries where the terrorists reside to cooperate with the fight against terrorism. And if the United States is flouting human rights standards - if it's supporting abusive governments around the world - that's hardly going to convince people to cooperate in combating terrorism.

  What other examples do you have then of other governments abusing human rights?

  Kenneth Roth:
  Well, for example, in the war against terrorism we have the Musharraf government in Pakistan that in the last year, President Musharraf has given himself an extra five years as president, unelected. He has reinforced military control over civilian institutions. This is a government that the US is actively backing. President Bush, when asked about these disturbing trends, said of Musharraf - he's tight with us in the war against terrorism, that's what matters to me.

  Similarly the US is backing an abusive military in Indonesia. It's getting very cosy with the Karimov government is Uzbekistan. It's working with the warlords in Afghanistan. These are all disturbing trends that we've identified in our recent annual report.

• But, as David Edwards above perhaps also rightly observes, while this is an issue in itself, are not issues such as the suffering of the Afghan people still important after the bombing has died down? Where has the intense media coverage gone? Bombing removed the Taliban, but the Afghani people are still suffering. Is that not still news? As the Los Angeles Times reports (December 25, 2002), many Afghans fault the U.S. for the poor condition that the country is still in ²⁴, almost a year later.
• And not caring about the well-being of the captives, which some people can understandably feel, raises questions about the hype used to justify retaliation. For example,
  • Even high officials such as U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have explicitly expressed little concern about their well-being.
  • But, at the same time, whenever he has mentioned being civilized and right to respond militarily, etc, those same high standards of being civil in even the most uncomfortable situation have not been upheld.
  • Could that not imply that his claims amount to propaganda in order to get public support?
  • What message does that also send to other states on how they can treat others that they will claim as being terrorists, for example?

Back to top

Creation of an Official Propaganda Office

In February 2002, there appeared to be a Pentagon attempt to create a propaganda dissemination system²⁶ that met a lot of resistance even in the mainstream media. This was the Office of Strategic Information which was, as put by the New York Times (February 19, 2002), developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations. However, because top officials themselves decided to abandon this led some commentators to think that by succumbing to the public uproar, it also appears to increase credibility of the officials and perhaps lead to less questioning next time:

And sure enough, in November 2002, it appears that the ideas behind the OSI continue²⁸, even though the OSI itself has gone, as detailed by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.

Back to top

Range of Discourse is Narrow

There are many more, as the various articles in the war on terror³¹ section on the whole describe, but the effects lead to the influence of public opinion and accepting the various policies in the name of the war on terror, whether they are appropriate or not. That is not to say that there should be absolutely nothing done about the terrorist acts, but that the discussion involving appropriate response, based on enough information has been lacking. A narrow range of discourse may produce heated debates within that range, but would lack a wider range of discussion and possibilities of both understanding causes and the consequences of carrying out certain actions, as John Pilger highlights:

Back to top

Media articles

The articles in this section of the site look at the war on terror and the media. In particular, how the mainstream media has reacted to the war on terror, and a look at the media coverage of the various issues.

Back to top