The State Power and the Journalism

CYBEREmpathy ISSUE 6/2013 The Code Iuri Melnyk, The State Power and the Journalism

Iuri Melnyk

The State Power and the Journalism Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.

Source: http://www2.palomar.edu/users/scrouthamel/ams100/IIAMERIDENT.htm

Abstract: The article shows the peculiarities of the state propaganda in a democratic society on the example of informational campaigns in the United States media, dedicated to the war in Iraq and Syria. It is also made a comparison between the propaganda techniques in democratic and totalitarian societies.

Iuri Melnyk In March 2013 it was 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by American troops and their allies. They successfully fulfilled the task of the Hussein government overthrow, but the protracted warfare has plunged the country in chaos, which Iraq will not easily overcome. Certainly we can hardly talk about democracy on the ruins of Hussein’s regime. Being aware of victims (over a hundred thousand) among Iraqui population and of thousands of American soldiers who returned home in zinc coffins, the US media are looking back on the beginning of the Iraq invasion from the ten-year

www.CyberEmpathy.com

Graduated from the Faculty of Journalism of the Ivan Franko National University of Lviv in 2010. An assistant at the Foreign Press and Information department.

Works on the dissertation dedicated to the opposition journalism under a totalitarian state system. The author of 10 scientific articles and theses of conferences published in scientific magazines of Lviv, Zaporizhia, St. Petersburg.

CYBEREmpathy ISSUE 6/2013 The Code Iuri Melnyk, The State Power and the Journalism perspective. A certain part of the journalists condemns the Iraq invasion, as James Fallows does in The Atlantic: “This month marks ten years since the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq. In my view this was the biggest strategic error by the United States since at least the end of World War II and perhaps over a much longer period. Vietnam was costlier and more damaging, but also more understandable.” 1 Analyzing the consequences of the American intervention for Iraq and the Iraqis, somebody is trying (though with numerous reservations) to justify it. For example, The New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman writes: “Despite our costly mistakes,” “we eventually helped Iraqis write their own democratic Constitution to resolve their differences politically, if they want to.” The author alludes to the words of student Alia, who says “young people are enjoying access to the Internet, to the dozens of satellite channels” and lays the blame for the sad state of the country at the predecessors, quoting Professor Joseph Sassoon: “Iraqi society under Saddam has been traumatized, and the impact of 35 years of authoritarian rule will not dissipate quickly.” 2 As we see, the US media skillfully keep the balance between two aspirations: to please the public by condemning the hateful war in Iraq on one side and to justify the US aggression of ten years ago on the other. That is if we talk about present days.

As to the time before the intervention in Iraq of March 2003, the mainstream US media launched a propaganda campaign, the scope of which was to justify the aggression in the eyes of society. There were widely propagandized myths (then disproved) about Hussein’s complicity in September 11, about collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, about a weapon of mass destruction found in this country etc. In particular, purposely in order to heat up the emotions of American viewers and readers, Osama Bin Laden appealed to Iraqi people and, as San Francisco Chronicle reports, adviced “that Muslim Iraqis emulate al Qaeda fighters by digging trenches to survive bombardment, and then use suicide attacks and urban warfare against American forces.” 3 Let us illustrate this informational campaign with a few headlines from The New York Times in January-February 2003: “Why We Know Iraq Is Lying,” “Disarming Iraq”, “Give Us a Chance to Build a Democratic Iraq”, “The Case Against Iraq” etc.

Even the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice adopted a role of journalist: “…It is appropriate to ask, ‘Has Saddam Hussein finally decided to voluntarily disarm?’ Unfortunately, the answer is a clear and resounding 1 2 3

James Fallows, “As We Near the 10th Anniversary of the Iraq War,” The Atlantic, March 1, 2013.

Thomas L. Friedman, “Democrats, Dragons or Drones?”, New York Times, 20 March, 2013.

“Return of bin Laden,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 12, 2003.

www.CyberEmpathy.com

CYBEREmpathy ISSUE 6/2013 The Code Iuri Melnyk, The State Power and the Journalism no.” 4 As for the role of the television in this campaign, Josyp Los was right saying about CNN, which “became an actor in modern military conflicts, capable to unleash a war.”

Gary Kamiya in a thorough article, dedicated to the state of US media before and during the war in Iraq, wrote on this subject: “It’s no secret that the period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media. Every branch of the media failed, from daily newspapers, magazines and Web sites to television networks, cable channels and radio… Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged, or were actively promoted.

Fundamental and problematic assumptions about terrorism and the “war on terror” were rarely debated or even discussed. Vital historical context was almost never provided. And it wasn’t just a failure of analysis. With some honorable exceptions, good old-fashioned reporting was also absent.” 5 Today in the USA there is a debate between the supporters of intervention into the Syrian civil war and those who express a disinclination to direct interference in the conflict, proposing alternatives, as for example the arms delivery to the rebels. The possibility to intervene in the Syrian civil war is lost according to Charles Krauthammer, who claims in the Washington Post: “Early in the war, before the rise of the jihadists to dominance within the Syrian opposition, intervention might have brought down Assad and produced a decent successor government friendly to America and nonbelligerent to its neighbors.” As an alternative to direct intervention, the author proposes to arm the rebels: “Today our only hope seems to be supporting and arming Salim Idriss, the one rebel commander who speaks in moderate, tolerant tones.” 6 “At this stage, arming the opposition would not serve U.S. interests,” Zalmay Khalilzad supposes in the Washington Post. “The most immediate U.S. interest is disarming Syria of its weapons of mass destruction.” 7 In order to restore the balance, some part of American media expresses diametrically opposite point of view, criticizing the Obama administration for excessive pacifism. For example, the New York Times in September

4 5 6 7

Condoleezza Rice, “Why We Know Iraq Is Lying,” New York Times, January 23, 2003.

Gary Kamiya, “Iraq: Why the media faild,” Salon, April 10, 2007.

Charles Krauthammer, “Pink line over Damascus,” Washington Post, May 9, 2013.

Zalmay Khalilzad, “Take away Syria’s chemical weapons,” Washington Post, May 9, 2013.

www.CyberEmpathy.com

CYBEREmpathy ISSUE 6/2013 The Code Iuri Melnyk, The State Power and the Journalism 2012 argued the necessity of participation in war by the “ 8 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now” (to diminish Iran’s influence, to keep the conflict from spreading, to create a bulwark against extremist groups like Al Qaeda, to improve relations with Turkey and Qatar and, finally, to end a terrible human-rights disaster within Syria 9) and now blames the United States for “reluctance to arm the rebels or defend the civilians being slaughtered in their homes.” Furthermore, the author of the article Bill Keller argues, that the situation is more favorable for intervention in Syria than it was for Iraq since “in Iraq we had to cajole and bamboozle the world into joining our cause. This time we have allies waiting for us to step up and lead.” 10 The two above indicated positions regarding Syria (to fight by themselves and to fight indirectly) are so far dominant in the American media.

Formally it seems to be a discussion around the role of the USA in the Syrian civil war, but the framework of this discussion is strictly indicated.

The thoughts, which don't fit into this determined diapason, are disregarded or marginalized. The most immanent for a human being positions are moved far away to the background, such as, for example, that one expressed in the Houston Chronicle: “War is a terrible thing, even if undertaken in a just cause, and we should embark upon it without comforting illusions. Good intentions have never yet resurrected a dead child.” 11 On the examples of informational threatment of Iraqi and Syrian wars in the US media, we see how flexible the propaganda machine in the USA can be. Italian scholar Fabrizio Tonello has analyzed American and British media policy during the World War I and II, the war in Vietnam, the Falklands and Lebanon wars, the US intervention in Grenada, the Gulf War and the Yugoslav conflict. The author has shown the way in which it is possible to control the public opinion, formally not infringing upon the freedom of speech. It is enough just to skillfully manipulate information streams, to change the type of propaganda techniques according to new conditions, to speculate on human emotions, on naïve patriotism etc. 12 The pluralism of thoughts, measured criticism of government from different sides are very important here, because they create an effect of 8

Йосип Лось, Публіцистика і тенденції розвитку світу (Львів: Видавничий центр Львівського національного університету ім. І. Франка, 2007), 28. Josyp Los, Publicistics and the Tendencies of World Development (Lviv: Publishing center of Franko Lviv National University, 2007), 28.

9

Michael Doran, Max Boot, “5 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now,” New York Times, September 27, 2012.

10 11 12

Bill Keller, “Syria Is Not Iraq,” New York Times, May 6, 2013.

Joe Barnes, “The illusion of immaculate intervention,” Houston Chronicle, May 7, 2013.

Fabrizio Tonello, La Nuova Macchina dell’informazione (Milano: Feltrinelli, 1999), 225-244.

www.CyberEmpathy.com

CYBEREmpathy ISSUE 6/2013 The Code Iuri Melnyk, The State Power and the Journalism democratic diversity of opinions, the scope of which is to give credibility to the media system. The readers and the viewers must believe that the media, which deliver the information to them, are independent. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, in the book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media explained why “media policy itself may allow some measure of dissent and reporting that calls into question the accepted viewpoint”. According to them, “the beauty of the system, however, is that such dissent and inconvenient information are kept within bounds and at the margins,so that while their presence shows that the system is not monolithic,they are not large enough to interfere unduly with the domination of the official agenda.” 13 For a superstate power which claims to be democratic, it is extremely important to be criticized by a small part of the media. It is well understood in Russian Federation where there is quite strict control of presidential power over the media sphere, and in the United States where 90% of all media production is controlled by six corporations 14 and where the myth about independent media is actively prompted Despite this, the USA aims to spread its understanding of liberty all over the world. President Barack Obama, in his speech dedicated to the NATO aggression against Libya, has said: “…wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States.” 15 It is interesting that the totalitarian regimes of XX century also tried to create an illusion of freedom of speech (of course, giving the word “freedom” a different meaning). Joseph Stalin in 1951 writed about freedom of press in USSR: “In no country exists such freedom of speech, press, individuality, organisation for workers and peasants, for the intelligentsia, as in the Soviet Union.” When George W. Bush declares, that “we must not let foreign enemies use the forums of liberty to destroy liberty itself,” 16 Stalin from his side applies the same logic: “In the USSR there is no freedom of speech, press, organisation for the enemies of the people, for the landowners and the capitalists overthrown by the revolution. There is no freedom for the incorrigible thieves, for the subversives infiltrated by foreign services, for terrorists, killers...” 17 13 14

Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media (N. Y.: Pantheon Books, 2002), xii.

“Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read.” October 4, 2010. http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read

15 16

quoted from: “The birth of an Obama doctrine,” The Economist, March 28, 2011. quoted from: François Furstenberg, “Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons,” New York Times, October 28, 2007.

17

Иосиф Сталин, “По поводу заявления господина Моррисона,” Правда, 1 августа, 1951. Iosif Stalin, “Apropos of the Statement of Mr. Morrison,” Pravda, August 1, 1951.

www.CyberEmpathy.com

CYBEREmpathy ISSUE 6/2013 The Code Iuri Melnyk, The State Power and the Journalism

Benito Mussolini also considered Fascist Italy to be perfect country for the free press's existence: “The freest press in the world is the Italian press…

Italian journalism is free since it serves the only cause and the only regime; it is free since, in the range of law, it can perform (and it does) the duties of control, criticism and incitement.” 18 The US president Barack Obama composes panegyrics to his aggressive army which, in his opinion, brings the freedom to enslaved nations: “They have served tour after tour of duty in distant, different and difficult places.

They have stood watch in blinding deserts and on snowy mountains. They have extended the opportunity of self-government to peoples that have suffered tyranny and war. They are man and woman; white, black, and brown; of all faiths and stations – all Americans, serving together to protect our people, while giving others half a world away the chance to lead a better life.” 19 The Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany Joseph Goebbels, speaking on the radio on the 19th April 1945, in a similar way praised the army of the Third Reich: “Our enemies claim that the Führer’s soldiers marched as conquerors through the lands of Europe – but wherever they came, they brought prosperity and happiness, peace, order, reliable conditions, a plenitude of work, and therefore a decent life.” 20 Drawing these parallels, we don’t have any intention to identify the US policy with Nazism, Stalinism or Fascim (this is worn out and primitive method of demonisation, often used by the US media). Despite some similarities, the propaganda machine, which is at the disposal of the United States, can operate more efficiently comparing to the primitive drumming into people's heads in totalitarian media systems. The contemporary propaganda is very perceptive to the fluctuation of public opinion, it is able to think several moves ahead, to conduct large-scale information operations, which Joseph Goebbels had no idea about. The high level of propaganda technologies in the USA (and in some countries of Western Europe) is simply the consequence of their higher demand in the countries with firm democratic traditions. As Noam Chomsky neatly said, “propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian

18 19 20

Benito Mussolini, “Il Giornalismo come missione,” Opera omnia, vol.23 (Firenze: La Fenice, 1957), 231. quoted from: Mark Ambinder, “The Best Speech of Obama’s Given Since… Maybe Ever”, The Atlantic, November 10, 2009. quoted from: Steve Yoder, “The vocabulary of fascism,” The Guardian, November 15, 2006.

www.CyberEmpathy.com

CYBEREmpathy ISSUE 6/2013 The Code Iuri Melnyk, The State Power and the Journalism state.�

21

One of the main missions of a journalist is, for sure, to consolidate people around a common purpose (a national idea). But this mission of a journalist has to be distinguished from the role of an instrument of state for the public opinion manipulation. The difference between those two seems to be quite ephemeral, but in fact it is easily determinable: a journalist, who operates for the consolidation of society and stands for patriotism, can fulfill his mission saying the truth (patriotism built on lie is counterproductive); but a journalist, who serves the state representing an instrument of public opinion manipulation, inevitably resorts to lies and misrepresentations.

21

Noam Chomsky, Media Control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda (New York: Seven Stories Press, 1997), 16.

www.CyberEmpathy.com