Contrary to the American press' reputation for giving voice to the voiceless, the largest voice is given to the most powerful monopolies, whose fallacies, lies, and assumed righteousness are amplified and multiplied with precious little skepticism.
Perhaps you have seen the following justification for the U.S. military occupation of Iraq; a version has appeared for years in news reports and official releases.
"The persistent violence also has raised concerns about the readiness of Iraq’s government to take over responsibility for security as the U.S. prepares to withdraw its forces by the end of next year." ["Al-Qaida in Iraq adopting Taliban tactics," AP, 6/17/10]
While that may seem logical at first glance, one eventually wonders whether the editor is counting on a reader's ignorance of the obvious: U.S. forces were in Iraq at the time. Apparently, the U.S. military occupation — which is obviously not achieving its goals of peace and stability — must continue anyway.
You also may have read that U.S. and NATO forces only "accidentally" kill civilians in an effort to "gain the trust of the Afghan people," and that it's all part of a "counterinsurgency strategy" — which was "used successfully against both Sunni and Shiite insurgents in Iraq" — aimed at "securing the Afghan population"; while, when "insurgents" kill civilians, they are "seeking to sow fear and undermine confidence in . . . government." ["NATO accepts blame for killing 6 Afghan civilians," AP, 7/9/10]
Another way the popular press influences public opinion in favor of empire is by presenting only one side's war-making as violent and extreme, and therefore contemptible: "Army offensives and U.S. missile strikes are believed to have decreased militant attacks in Pakistan, but the violence is far from ended." ["Major militant attacks in Pakistan in 2010," AP, 7/9/10] "But the violence ..." means more war is necessary.
That report goes on to list only those attacks reported to have been perpetrated by the "militants," who — perhaps due to their lack of a standing army, drones, and F-18s — are not capable of such noble actions as "offensives" and "strikes."
Government officials speak through the editor, and vice versa. The NYT and the AP are quite at ease with preaching American exceptionalism, using the U.S. government's own terminology and apologies for various aggression:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton faced sharp rebukes from Pakistani audiences Friday, including one woman who accused the U.S. of conducting "executions without trial" [scare quotes] in aerial drone strikes. Slapping back, Clinton questioned Pakistan's commitment to fighting terrorists [no scare quotes]. . . .
As she sparred with Pakistani citizens and journalists, Clinton faced sharp questions about the secret U.S. program that uses unmanned aircraft to launch missiles to kill terrorists along the porous, ungoverned border with Afghanistan [excuse for drone strikes].
But she refused to go into detail about the classified strikes that have killed both key terror leaders and bystanders [unlike bystanders, innocent civilians wouldn't just stand by as those terrorists do their terrorism], long a source of outrage among Pakistan's population despite an equally deadly campaign of militant-spawned bombings. ["Pakistanis confront Clinton over drone attacks" AP, 10/31/9]
"Despite an equally deadly campaign of militant-spawned bombings" means those Pakistanis have contempt only for Americans.
Similarly, in federal affairs, readers are led to perceive that most "lawmakers" opposed to "economic stimulus," "defense appropriations," or "health care reform" are driven merely by ideology or the threat of being unseated in the election. While that may be true in many cases, it is no reason to ignore those who defy the stereotype.
If anyone should have their voices amplified, it would be the empire's victims and opposition. Instead, those who oppose an aggressive foreign policy, or immoral and unconstitutional legislation, are made to look as though their opposition is purely political or dishonest; an all-powerful and ever-expanding central authority is tacitly accepted as a divine inevitability.
With a press like that, who needs a Ministry?
No comments:
Post a Comment