Global Policy Forum

By Heather Cottin

The U.S. government is conducting a patriotic pep rally.

Its cheerleaders are the media--which are attempting to whip the populace into a mood of ultra-nationalism to prepare for a military buildup and war while they conceal the many voices for peace.

With the World Trade Center smoldering and the New York City air still filled with smoke, thousands began gathering in Union Square Park, in a vigil for the dead and to promote "Peace Not War." The cameras rolled, TV crews recorded the spontaneous demonstration. But a peculiar thing happened.

CBS, NBC and ABC-TV newscasts showed the signs, reading "Peace, not Vengeance," "War is not the Answer." The microphones picked up the anthem of a thousand voices, "All we are saying is give peace a chance." Yet announcers declared that the vigil supported the U.S. government, and interpreted the mood as vengeful, favoring war as a response to terrorism.

Television provided non-stop coverage of the events of Sept. 11 and the aftermath. Viewers were glued to their screens. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, and all the tabloids filled their pages with news of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

Across the United States, special newspaper editions recited details of the devastation and calls for action, day after day. In a scene from a Hollywood movie, the members of the Senate of the United States stood up and sang "God Bless America."

U.S. flags materialized everywhere. Sept. 17 was unofficially proclaimed "red, white and blue" day in schools and some work places. Not wearing the colors isolated students and teachers alike.

Fairness and Accuracy in Media studied the coverage. FAIR analysts wrote, "In the wake of the devastating attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many media pundits focused on one theme: retaliation." They pointed to the rapid and virulent response by media pundits.

CNN asked former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger on Sept. 11 about those who carried out the attacks. "With people like this," he said, "you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately, directly involved in this thing."

On Sept. 12, Steve Dunleavy wrote in the New York Post, "As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts."

The Washington Post interviewed Rich Lowry, National Review editor, and asked him about Osama Bin Ladin. His response: "People like him need to feel pain. If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, that is part of the solution."

But FAIR noted that it was not just conservatives who were promoting racism and war. David Broder of the Washington Post emerged with a political view he called "new realism"-- in America's national security policy: "For far too long, we have been queasy about responding to terrorism."

The Sept. 13 Wall Street Journal urged the United States to "get serious" about terrorism.

The truth is that since the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima the U.S. armed forces have been responsible for the deaths of 10 million people in 20 countries. Yet a myth sprang up. The United States has been too "soft," too peaceful and unprepared for war, the Chicago Tribune's John Kass declared on Sept. 13.

RESTRICTING CIVIL LIBERTIES

The media also began discussing the possibility of restricting civil liberties.

Long Island Newsday reported a purportedly "scientific" poll from the Siena College Research Institute, alleging, "One- third of New Yorkers favor establishing internment camps for individuals who authorities identify as being sympathetic to terrorist causes."

Meanwhile, with almost no questioning from reporters, President George W. Bush created a powerful new cabinet- level police agency called the "Office of Homeland Security."

Increasing the viciousness of the rhetoric, CNN reported that British Prime Minister Tony Blair forecast a titanic struggle "between the civilized world and fanaticism."

The Washington Post described Sunday morning TV interviews of the Bush team. Cheney spoke about "broader surveillance and wiretapping powers." The Post continued without criticism, "administration officials reflected some of this in television appearances, urging that law enforcement and intelligence tactics designed for a more fastidious age need to be loosened." No one from the media objected.

Lest working people remember their antagonism to war, the media silenced even musical appeals for peace. Clear Channel Communications, the Texas-based company that owns about 1,170 radio stations nationwide, circulated a list of 150 songs it asked its stations to avoid playing.

Among these are "Imagine" by John Lennon, "Peace Train" by Cat Stevens, and "all Rage Against the Machine songs."

As the economy contracted and hundreds of thousands of workers faced layoffs, the New York Times reported on its business pages that the prospects for U.S. military industries were showing definite signs of improvement.

On Sept. 23, after Bush asked the people of the United States for their "continued participation and confidence in the American economy," the Washington Post wrote, "Call it market patriotism."

Presumably if workers don't rush right out and shop till they drop, they don't "Stand up for America"--a song on the approved list that radio stations play ad nauseam to build up patriotic fervor.

A peace movement has emerged overnight, marching on Washington even as the military prepares for war in Afghanistan. Only because this movement has an organizational form has it forced the media to begin to pay attention, reporting about the thousands of people in Washington, D.C., New York, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., and the Canadian city of Vancouver, British Columbia--all of whom are saying, "War is not the answer."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.