“In times of war, the truth is so priceless that in order to preserve it, a guard of lies is needed” (Winston Churchill).
Provide illustrations. I will provide for the war”(words attributed to William Randolph Hirst).
Introduction
War propaganda is almost as old as war itself. To mobilize the rear and demoralize the enemy, the idea of war as “our” noble cause against the depraved and deadly “them” has long been a norm or part of human existence.
But with the advent of modern communications, especially in the digital age, war propaganda has reached unprecedented levels of sophistication and influence, especially in US behavior in the world. The official end of the American-Soviet Cold War in 1991 did not leave the United States with a single serious military or geopolitical adversary, just at a time when the role of global media was undergoing significant changes. Earlier in the year, during the First Gulf War, CNN covered the fighting for the first time in real time, 24 hours a day. Also in the same year, the Internet went public.
In the decades after 1991, there has been a qualitative evolution in the role of the media from an event reporter to an active participant. It is no longer just an accessory to conflict - the art of media manipulation is becoming the core of modern warfare. It could even be argued that the psychological aspect of war was its most important outcome, overshadowing traditional goals such as territory, natural resources, or money. (Analogies can be drawn to the 17th century religious wars in Europe or the ideological conflicts of the mid 20th century, but the technological aspects of the production and dissemination of information in those days were not perfect enough to produce what we see today.)
Below we look at the unique - and unambiguously dangerous - role of the warring media, especially the American one, in modern warfare; study the scale, origins and evolution of the state apparatus underlying this phenomenon; and suggest possible corrective actions.
Promotional video:
Post-Cold War American media militancy
The first Gulf War of 1991 was a watershed moment in US propensity for military action and for media involvement. Almost no one challenged the legality and fairness of the decision of the George W. Bush administration to expel Saddam Hussein's Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Similar cries of approval, if not outright encouragement, are heard in the media in support of the Bill Clinton government's invasions of Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999), and George W. Bush, Jr. in Afghanistan (2001). and Iraq (2003) after the 9/11 attacks. Even President Barack Obama's operation to change the regime in Libya (2011) followed the same scenario. Obama's planned attack on Syria in September 2013 for alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government illustrates the fusion of media propaganda for "humanitarian" and necessary US military force.
In each of these cases, media coverage of the state's position became a key factor in determining the stage of the war. Given that none of these events was at stake in the territorial integrity or independence of the United States, and did not touch upon issues of American national defense, these campaigns can be considered "wars of choice" - wars that could be avoided. In this context, it is important to pay attention to the presence of some common features that characterize the media as a government tool for introducing pro-war ideas into the public consciousness.
Lack of knowledge as the American norm
Whenever there is a reason to interfere with a country, the government and the media must argue so that no one doubts that America is doing everything right. Americans know little and do not care about the rest of the world. (To justify them, note that although they are weak in geography, the rest of the world has little better knowledge in this area. However, the ignorance of Americans is more dangerous because the United States is more likely than other countries to initiate military actions.) Perhaps the most striking example of how lack of knowledge correlates with militancy, according to a recent poll in April 2014 at the height of the Ukrainian crisis, when only one-sixth of the Americans surveyed were able to find Ukraine on the map, but the less they knew about where the conflict was, the more they supported American force action.
This knowledge gap is fueled by a lack of international coverage by the American media. Despite the rise in online sources, much of the American public still receives news from television, especially from ABC, CBS, NBC, FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC and their local affiliates. Moreover, they are considered the most reliable sources of news, unlike the Internet and social networks. (True, the millennial generation is less dependent on TV news. They prefer social media and interactive media like Facebook and YouTube. However, this basically means that millennials simply do not read things that are not of personal interest to them. They are rather superficial. in relation to news and in fact even dumber than the older generation).
News programs on American television, unlike other countries, are characterized by the absence of major world news (for example, BBC1, TF1, ARD, ZDF, RaiUno, NHK, etc.) and their international counterparts BBC, Deutsche Welle, France 24, NHK World, etc.). There is no mention of events outside the United States during the half-hour evening news release. A typical program begins with a report of inclement weather in a state, a traffic accident, or a high-profile crime (preferably with some scandalous connotation, such as a minor victim or racial aspect, or a mass shooting that has sparked the age-old American discussions about gun control) … A significant part will be devoted to celebrity gossip, consumer advice (for example, advice on howhow to save on utility bills or interest on a credit card, or how to make money selling unnecessary things), health problems (about new research in the field of weight loss, recovery from cancer, etc.). In the pre-election season, which, due to the length of American campaigns, stretches for about six months, this may be political news, but most of it will relish the details of scandals and all kinds of oversights, with little attention paid to questions of war and peace or foreign topics.but most of them will relish the details of scandals and all kinds of oversights, with little attention to questions of war and peace or foreign topics.but most of them will relish the details of scandals and all kinds of oversights, with little attention to questions of war and peace or foreign topics.
Reliance on government sources, "puppetry" and informational incest
Any news report from, say, Ukraine or Syria-Iraq mainly consists of reports from "journalists" dictated by government puppeteers. Both parties understand that the non-critical broadcast of these instructions is the main condition for their work. It is not surprising that the main emphasis in such reports is placed on sanctions, military action, totalitarianism of the ruling regime and other painfully familiar scenarios. Difficult questions about purpose, cost, and legitimacy are rarely covered. This means that when an atmosphere of “crisis” is necessary for US military involvement, the only point of view that is presented to the public is that of officials or government-friendly think tanks and non-governmental organizations.
Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, quoted Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, in a candid interview with an example of how government influence takes the form of a kind of "puppetry" and young, ill-informed Washington journalists acting as puppets. Cynically and clearly proud of his success, Rhodes told David Samuels of The New York Times Magazine how journalists were used as conveyors to improve combat effectiveness. According to Samuels, Rhodes showed "the dirty underside of the world of journalism." Here's what he writes:
Support for state / media puppetry, information used in the development of American global politics, is disseminated by hundreds of experts who share this position regardless of party affiliation.
These experts, who live in a closed circle of ministries and departments, Congress, the media, think tanks and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are not responsible for the development of policy initiatives and their implementation. It should also be noted that many of the more prominent NGOs themselves receive significant funding from government agencies or clients, and it would be more correct to call them quasi-government or quasi-NGOs. In addition, as in the case of private business, especially in the military and financial spheres, there is a brisk turnover of personnel between the state and think tanks and other non-profit organizations - what is called “staff turnover”. The presence of former, future and current employees of Goldman Sachs (which is considered a giant octopus that has entwined humanity with its tentacles,mercilessly sucking everything that smells like money into a bloody funnel”) in the state bodies charged with regulating the financial sector is especially sad.
In short, the people who play key roles in government and nongovernmental structures not only think the same, in many cases they are the same individuals who have simply changed places and are one hybrid public-private entity. They also define news content (for example, act as talking heads or post commentary) by ensuring that what the public sees, hears and reads is consistent with think tank papers, congressional reports, and official press releases. The result is a vicious circle that is almost completely impenetrable to opinions that run counter to those in that circle.
Centralized corporate ownership
The sneakiness with which the private American media is broadcasting government opinion may seem counterintuitive. Compared to the vast majority of other countries, the most prominent and accessible media in the United States is not public. If outside the US, the main media giants are wholly or predominantly owned by government organizations (BBC in the United Kingdom, CBC in Canada, RAI in Italy, ABC in Australia, ARD and ZDF in Germany, Channel One in Russia, NHK in Japan, CCTV in China, RTS in Serbia, etc.), then the American public broadcasters PBS and NPR are simply dwarfs compared to their private competitors. Now news and information is no longer a matter of independent journalism, but a vehicle for financial gain, and this fact can affect media coverage.
Whereas earlier the variety of forms of private property was a condition for the use of public television (a condition that never applies to the print media, although some restrictions remain on the combined broadcasting and print media belonging to one company), the trend towards consolidation has intensified in recent decades.
As of 2015, the vast majority of American media were owned by six corporations: Comcast, News Corporation, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. This is compared to 50 companies that controlled the same share as recently as 1983. This also applies to online media: “80% of the top 20 news sites are owned by the 100 largest media companies. Time Warner owns two of the most visited sites, CNN.com and AOL News, and Gannett, the twelfth largest media company, owns USAToday.com along with many local online newspapers. The average viewer spends about 10 hours a day watching TV. Although they appear to be produced by different companies, they are actually owned by the same corporations.
"Parajournalism", "infotainment" and "hard pornography" as a pretext for war
News has always been unprofitable for private American broadcasters. Until the 1970s, networks were required to allocate funds for unprofitable news programs, which were supposed to make up a certain percentage of airtime, effectively subsidizing news from entertainment programs that generate the main income. But in recent decades, news programs have been forced to create their own ratings, thus justifying their existence. In essence, they become entertainment programs, “… Low-grade shows that can be called 'parajournalism'. The "tabloid" format appears. These are not news programs with features of entertainment television, but rather entertainment programs with features of news. They look like news in design: opening credits, a newsroom-like studio with monitors in the background. However, the content has nothing to do with journalism."
The tabloid format does not imply broad coverage of world issues. This is great for viewers raised on Sesame Street who are focused on entertainment, not information. The result is a genre of "infotainment," which critics say is based on what will interest the audience, not what the audience needs to know.
Former FCC chairman Newton Minow says many of today's news programs are "almost tabloid." Former PBS presenter Robert McNeill says "scandalous news has supplanted serious news." Sensationally entertaining content that terrifies the viewer and incites hatred of alleged perpetrators is called "hardcore pornography" (as described by William Norman Grigg):
Hardcore pornography has become an important element in the sale of warfare: incubators with newborn babies in Kuwait and Iraq; the massacre in Racak (Kosovo); the explosions at the Markale market, the Omarska concentration camp and the massacre in Srebrenica (Bosnia); rape as a tool of war (Bosnia, Libya); and poison gas in Ghouta (Syria). In addition, as noted by blogger Julia Gorin, horrific events are becoming Internet memes, even supported by the government:
Gorin's insightful observation of politicians using media coverage to "justify" an already planned attack was later confirmed in Kosovo. As the analyst notes, NATO's impending attack on Serbia in March 1999 was known back in 1998 from a report by the US Senate. The Clinton administration was on the alert: give just a pretext, and we will ensure the war.
Later, 17 years later, the reason for the massacre in Racak in January 1999 was discovered, the details of which were not properly disclosed. It's hard not to notice that politicians and the media have merged into a kind of reality show (from the same report):
James George Jatras is a former American diplomat, Senate staffer and specialist in international relations and legislative policy.
