| Number 197 | March 21, 2003 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, The use of official propaganda to build public support for the wars of any government most likely goes back to the beginning of time. The current U.S. invasion of a small, weak nation (I will not call it a “war”) is no exception, and this week I spend a little time illustrating the types of dangers to watch out for. For much more on the subject, readers may benefit from going back and looking at my short series on the history of wartime propaganda, which ran in Nygaard Notes issues number 183 and 184, with a little post-script in number 186. As everyone knows by now, all back issues of the Notes can be found at www.nygaardnotes.org. The site is very searchable, too, y’know. For those who feel the need to keep up with the details of what is going on in and around Iraq as “Operation Iraqi Freedom” proceeds, you can find a list of all sorts of online newspapers around the world at www.gt.kth.se/publishing/news.html#C. I recommend two United Kingdom papers, The Guardian and The Independent. Look for Robert Fisk’s byline in The Independent. Not necessarily radical, but you’ll find stuff you’d never see in this country’s daily media. And, as always, visit ZNet regularly at www.zmag.org/. I’m outta room, gotta go. Peace and solidarity, Nygaard |
|
Both of this week’s “Quotes” are taken from the March 21st Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!): “Quote” #1:
“Quote” #2:
|
|
Minnesotans would do well to visit the website of the Anti-War Committee at http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/. Right on the front page is a listing of the many, many local actions that are planned to protest the invasion. I counted seven in the next four days alone, from several protests and marches to a student walkout on Monday to a vigil at the office of Senator Norm Coleman. The AWC also has good links and stuff. Their phone number is 612-379-3899. For those who do not live in Minnesota (and for those who do, actually), once again I recommend going to the United For Peace site at http://www.unitedforpeace.org/ or 646-473-8935. As I write this they have anti-war events posted for 10 different towns and cities in Minnesota alone. Check out events in your state. |
|
I have been publishing and will publish pieces that sound a note of hope in these difficult times. I am publishing these things for a reason, and it’s not simply that I am some sort of Pollyanna who has a deep-seated psychological need to find a silver lining in every cloud. I think it is our duty to remain hopeful. If we think war is an appalling tragedy, then we must want to alter the conditions that lead to war. In order to do anything to make such change, we must be hopeful. Without hope, after all, there is no point in trying. To allow ourselves to give in to defeatism or a depressed state of inactivity seems to me to be nothing more than the indulgence of the privileged. This is not to deny that there are some people who are genuinely depressed or otherwise experiencing legitimate limitations. These are, after all, tough times. But, for most of us, I don’t think it’s OK to say “This is too hard. I don’t like to be on the losing side, so I am going to give up on the big struggles and just try to take care of myself.” Many of my friends understand—and the less privileged they are, the better they seem to understand—that it doesn’t even work to narrow your efforts like this. True, those with great wealth and power can, to some extent, insulate themselves from the things that they fear. But those of us who reside in lower spots in the social hierarchy—poor people, people of color, immigrants, people with disabilities, you-name-it—to a much larger extent have our life choices imposed upon us by the larger economic and political culture. And we know it. But, is it reasonable to be hopeful in these days of war and fear? It has nothing to do with reason. None of us can really know what the future will bring so, in the end, the personal choice to be hopeful or to be despairing is a matter of belief, and not of reason. Those who choose to believe that they are powerless have no reason to continue to struggle, since it is pointless. Those who choose to remain hopeful are choosing to believe that their actions may make a difference. The first choice guarantees failure. The second choice has at least the possibility of success. The darker the days, the more reason there is to increase our efforts to build alternatives. And, for those of us who have the time and ability to make a difference, we have a moral obligation to make an effort. My experience has been that there is no greater reward than knowing I have tried my best to make a difference. So, for me, there is a reason, a duty, and a great reward for remaining hopeful. That’s my case for hope in dark times. |
|
As the San Francisco Chronicle reported on March 19, “Expecting an opportunity to broadcast the most visual war in a decade, television networks and cable channels have their people in place and have, in the last 48 hours, peppered the airwaves with live shots and videophone reports from far-flung reporters.” I pointed out in my recent series on the history of wartime propaganda that the formal use of trained “public relations” professionals to “market” the official propaganda line goes back to World War I and the Committee on Public Information. As the latest imperial projection (I will not call it a “war”) by the United States proceeds, everyone would do well to bear in mind that this has been, is, and is likely to continue to be one of the most stage-managed, “ready-for-prime-time” conflicts yet. This article will give a few hints as to the nature of this “perception management,” and how the structure of the media feeds off of it. The first days are critical, as the following essay will, I hope, make clear. The “Big Game” Effect During the first few days of a crisis, many normally-oblivious United Statesians “tune in” to the daily news. I like to call it the “Big Game” effect, since it resembles the phenomenon in which people turn on the TV or the radio because they know that the “Big Game” is underway and they want to know who’s “winning.” Sporting events typically don’t take very long, so the media extend their coverage by asking a variety of standard questions and filling many pages with the responses. The standard fare includes questions about who’s winning, who’s got the best players, what do the players think of their opponent, who do the “experts” think is going to win, who’s the next opponent likely to be, etc. If you look closely, you’ll notice that these “sports habits” carry over into coverage of real news events; to the for-profit media, war is the biggest “game” of all. As with a sporting event, strong impressions are formed in the first images and memorable pictures beamed around the world. These dramatic and powerful images form the basis of the “knowledge” of the event that then becomes the received version of history, for better or worse. (For a discussion of this crucial dynamic, go to the Nygaard Notes website and read “America’s Official Historian” from NN #131.) The First Image of This War The importance of the initial image is well-understood by the powers-that-be, as illustrated by this comment from Major Chris Hughes, Marine Corps spokesman, speaking to the New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”) this past Monday: “The first image of this war will define the conflict,” said the Major. He was speaking of the U.S. military’s attempts to control the initial images from the invasion of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, planned as one of the first areas slated for “liberation.” According to Times reporter Patrick Tyler, “Officials say they are aiming for a rapid and ‘benign’ occupation of Basra that results in flag-waving crowds hugging British and American soldiers—all of which would create an immediate positive image of American and British war aims while undermining Iraqi resistance elsewhere in the country.” This would have been the moment to remind Times readers of a story that appeared in the Times on February 19th, 2002, which pointed out that the Pentagon had hired the Rendon Group, a Washington-based international consulting (i.e. public relations) firm run by John W. Rendon Jr., a former campaign aide to President Jimmy Carter. Rendon was hired shortly after 9/11/01 by the Pentagon at a rate of about $100,000 a month. To do what? Rendon won’t say, but for a hint as to the answer here’s a little story, told by John Rendon himself a few years ago when speaking to an audience of cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy... When victorious U.S. troops rolled into Kuwait City [in 1991], Rendon told the cadets, they were greeted by hundreds of Kuwaitis waving American flags. The scene, flashed around the world again and again on CNN, left little doubt that the U.S. Marines were welcome in Kuwait. “Did you ever stop to wonder,” Rendon asked the cadets, “how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American, and for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries? Well you now know the answer: That was one of my jobs then.” “A Pretty Serious Fib” Some of us are capable of remembering other relevant stories from the last U.S. attack on Iraq that serve to keep us skeptical of the reporting on the current conflict. For example, here is the lead from a September 6th, 2002 story in the Christian Science Monitor, written by staff writer Scott Peterson:
History is filled with the tragic stories of false propaganda shaping the public’s perception of reality, with those false perceptions then forming the basis for tragic policy decisions. U.S. involvement in the Korean War, with its 4 million dead, was based on a “partly confirmed” story of unprovoked North Korean “aggression.” The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution—which was to the so-called Vietnam War what last October’s Congressional “resolution to authorize use of military force” is to the so-called war against Iraq—was based on similarly trumped-up propaganda about an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. ship. This particular list could go on and on, but the point at the current moment is simple: much of what we will see and hear from the media about “the most visual war in a decade” will be stage-managed, at best, and purposeful, conscious lies, at worst. That’s how it works in wartime, and it’s not unique to the United States. Part of the work for all of us who seek peace and justice is to counter these crazy and wrong images that will make—indeed, that are intended to make—the lies to come more believable. If we want future decisions to be based on the true history of our times, then we have to focus a lot of attention on the work of the media; the task has never been more urgent. |