Global Policy Forum

Archived Articles

Militainment Gone Amok (December 3, 2004)
What do you get when you combine US military psychological operations and media? Cable television's latest offering, the new Military Channel. According to this article, the channel will combine "accurate information to the media and public" with "misleading information and propaganda to influence the outcome of a campaign or battle." (Mediachannel.org)

Military's Media Manipulation Demands More Investigation (December 3, 2004)
This article discusses the US government's relationship with the media for its psychological warfare operations. Particularly since the government began its "war on terrorism," the government has extensively used the media in disinformation campaigns, in "the most information-intensive war you can imagine." (FAIR)

News Media in the 60th Year of the Nuclear Age (November 29, 2004)
President Truman "rationalized" the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by calling the city a "military base." This article claims in a similar fashion that the US media rationalizes a possible preemptive strike on Tehran by the presence of nuclear weapons in the country. This article questions the right of the US to decide which countries are entitled to possess nuclear weapons and whether the possession of nuclear weapons justifies making countries into military targets. (Truthout)

Which War Is This Anyway? (November 29, 2004)
This TomDispatch article highlights recurring similarities in US media language since the 1980s. The author points out that the dichotomy between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" changes once the US becomes a country's prime enemy and target. The government's position in a given conflict, the article claims, has generally directed reportage.

Our Not-So-Free Press (November 10, 2004)
The US is a self-proclaimed watchdog of freedom throughout the world. However, increasing cases of US journalists incarcerated for their refusal to reveal confidential information to the government begs the question: Is there freedom of press in the US? (New York Times)

Global Agreements Threaten Media, Privacy (October 19, 2004)
Following the seizure of Indymedia servers, civil liberties advocates criticize international treaties made in the name of the "war on terrorism." As a result of these treaties, government agencies can gain access to information that has previously been protected through privacy laws. (Inter Press Service)

Is Al-Jazeera the New Symbol of Arab Nationalism? (October 12, 2004)
Considered by many as a central aspect of pan-Arabism, the outspoken television network Al-Jazeera represents the main source of information for the entire Arab world. Washington has repeatedly denounced the network, calling it a "mouthpiece" for Iraqi insurgents and Al-Qaeda, reflecting its disapproval with media not in line with mainstream US media. (Inter Press Service)

Indymedia's Internet Servers Confiscated (October 11, 2004)
The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seized Indymedia's servers with no explanation. Allegedly, government agencies of Switzerland and Italy were behind the confiscations. Many consider the events a grave attack on free press. (Inter Press Service)

Government Approved – Journalism in the Age of Terror (September 27, 2004)
The Department of Homeland Security has begun to organize nationwide "counterterrorism workshops" to instruct journalists how to operate during a "mass casualty event." The program provides detailed guidelines about how to report in the event of a "terrorist scenario," and encourages journalists to disclose their articles in advance to government officials. (In These Times)

Big Media the Real Elephant in the Garden (August 27, 2004)
The article discusses the problematic of corporate ownership of media. Can the media report objectively if they are not genuinely independent? (MediaChannel.org)

Media Falls Short on Iraq, Venezuela (June 1, 2004)
According to Mark Weisbrot, "the Bush administration has been pushing for ‘regime change' in Venezuela for years now, painting a false and exaggerated picture of the reality there." He contends that US news and editorials about Venezuela contain bias and inaccuracies that parallel the coverage of Iraq. (Center for Economic and Policy Research)

The Torture System (May 9, 2004)
US media has repeatedly shied away from putting the US government under scrutiny in reports of torture carried out by US military interrogators in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. But, following the public outrage over the photos of torture in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the US media has began to criticize the government and give full attention to the torture scandal. (Tom Dispatch)

War Games (March 12, 2004)
The author argues that the US media is the "primary facilitator of aggression in the world today," and that its role in foreign hostilities is "just as indispensable as the extraordinary weaponry that is designed to grind enemies into dust." (ProgressiveTrail.Org)

Al Hurra-Al Who?: Haven't Heard? We're Free, They're Not! (March 9, 2004)
The US government sponsored Al Hurra news station was set up to combat local "hateful [anti-US] propaganda" by replacing it with some of its own. Despite US$62 million in US funding, however, the global media reaction has been poor, with one Arab daily reporting its viewers found the network "short on credibility and long on arrogance." (O'Dwyer's PR Daily)

A Lesson in "Disappearing the Dead" (February 27, 2004)
This article unveils the 'secret magic' of "spin" used by the US and UK governments in manipulating public opinion on international law, "new warfare" and "precision warfare." (Asia Times)

Al Hurra Joins Battle for News, Hearts, and Minds (February 24, 2004)
The US government-sponsored satellite channel Al Hurra ("the free one") broadcasts pro-US news coverage and features designed to shape Middle Eastern attitudes to US policy in the region. The channel's strategy is simple: first you "get their respect, then you can go on toward changing attitudes." (Christian Science Monitor)

The Five Sisters (February 16, 2004)
This article considers the "danger of headlong concentration of media power in America," and the failure of a "supine Congress and a feckless majority of the Federal Communications Commission" to protect US access to diverse news and media sources. (New York Times)

Power, Propaganda and Conscience in the War on Terror (January 26, 2004)
John Pilger argues US and Australian media organizations obey government and corporate interests, publish propaganda as news and help "normalize the unthinkable." (ZNet)

Iraq Blotted Out Rest of the World in 2003 TV News (January 6, 2004)
Whilst Iraq commanded 4,047 minutes of US television coverage in 2003, AIDS warranted just 39. The article examines the breakdown of foreign news reporting in the US and the consequences for viewers' perceptions of the US in international affairs. (Inter Press Service)

Information Dominance: The Philosophy of Total Propaganda Control? (December 29, 2003)
This article explores how "information dominance" – a central component of the US "full spectrum dominance" policy – redefines notions of spin and propaganda and the role of the media in capitalist society. (Scoop)

Pentagon Keeps Dead Out of Sight (November 2, 2003)
The US administration attempts to limit the potential for negative media coverage of wounded and dead soldiers. The administration uses "information control" to "sell an increasingly unpopular Iraqi invasion", argues this article in the (Toronto Star).

Why Are We Back in Vietnam? (October 26, 2003)
Members of the Bush administration avoid appearing on news shows that might ask tough questions about Iraq and the "war on terrorism." (New York Times)

The Secrets Clark Kept (September 29, 2003)
This 2003 analysis discusses General Wesley Clark's stint as a CNN commentator and the Pentagon's hidden military plans made as part of the "war on terror." General Clark viewed US President George Bush's plan to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan as "a flawed strategy," but did not voice these concerns publicly. Not voicing these concerns allowed the US government to "take the country recklessly into war."(Village Voice)

The Political Capital of 9/11 (September 7, 2003)
9/11 did not change "everything" as many media outlets claim. In fact, the attacks did not transform the daily lives of most US citizens. Still, by exploiting the general public's anxieties, the Bush government and the US media rally support for military interventions. (ZNet)

Never Too Soon to Say Goodbye to Hi (September 2003)
As part of an effort to improve the international image of the United States by linking its foreign policy to cultural values, the State Department has launched Hi, a glossy Arabic-language "lifestyle magazine." Ostensibly non-political, the magazine is part of a public relations campaign intended "to divert attention away from the conflicts exacerbated, if not fostered, by US policies in the Middle East." (MERIP)

Boot Camp — Or: The Ideology of Russian-Americans (August 7, 2003)
Alexei Bayer details the life and beliefs of neo-conservative and pro-US Empire author Max Boot. He argues that Boot's neo-conservatism aimed at preserving and strengthening the US Empire resembles a form of Stalinism. (Globalist)

Imperial News and the New Imperialism (June 2003)
This article critically examines media coverage of the US invasions of Iraq. It identifies US methods to co-opt corporate media for propaganda purposes, and the evidence of their impact on mainstream news reporting. (Third World Resurgence)

US Curtails Iraq's Newfound Media Freedoms (June 27, 2003)
The number of newspapers in Iraq exploded from five to 150 after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. However, the US-led administration has begun to curb this enthusiasm by threatening to close down anti-American or pro-Baath publications. (Village Voice)

American Journalism: Objectivity and Reverence (June 26, 2003)
"Default setting" constitutes the current mentality of US journalism. This "default setting" represents the moral and philosophical foundations on which a society bases its "truths" and "objectivity." Democracy and capitalism make up the bedrock of this, explaining the lack of criticism about issues pertaining to Iraq in US journalism. (Yellow Times)

Press the Press (March, 2003)
The global peace movement faces the challenge of confronting "imperial policy or imperial institutions that will surely bring more wars." Lydia Sargent makes the case for the importance of winning media support through a "Press the Press" campaign. (ZNet)

The Palace of the End (March 4, 2003)
This Guardian article maintains that September 11 was an attack on morality. Who, on September 10 would have thought that Western media would soon talk about the pros and cons of using torture on captured "enemy combatants"?

Muted Response to Ashcroft's Sneak Attack on Liberties (February 12, 2003)
The Department of Justice has secretly prepared legislation to expand the USA Patriot Act. Despite the fact that the "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003" poses a serious threat to US civil liberties, mainstream US media have responded with only a handful of news stories. (FAIR)

US Ads Miss Mark, Muslims Say (January 7, 2003)
The US' public-relations campaign to improve its image in Muslim nations is not succeeding. It is not impressions of how Muslims are treated inside the US, but Washington's policies towards Iraq and Israel that undermine support of the US. (Christian Science Monitor)

Mainstream Journalism: Shredding the First Amendment (November 7, 2002)
Online Journal says the US media has not critically assessed the policies of the Bush administration but instead helped the administration "to shape and spin national debate." According to a poll on terrorism, misinformation on Iraq correlates with support for a US war.

Asians Feel the Sting of US Suspicion (November 1, 2002)
Since the 9/11 events, many Muslims have worried about the way the US media is portraying them. In the sniper case, the media called attention to the fact that he was Muslim, even though police reports indicated that the case was not related to Islam or Muslims. (Asia Times)

Protesters Get Short Shrift in Post-9/11 America (September 19, 2002)
Can we blame the media for the lack of protests against the impending war on Iraq? This author argues that the media's failure to report fairly on protests gives the mistaken impression that protesters died out with the end of the Vietnam War. (Toronto Star)

It's A Connected World, So Watch Your Language (September 11, 2002)
American media misuse the words "jihad" and "fundamentalism". Together with extremists who distort the word jihad for their own political purposes, this creates misunderstandings of Islam and America's war against terrorism. (International Herald Tribune)

Newsmagazines Downplayed Opposition Voices After Sept. 11, Researchers Find (August, 2002)
Findings presented at a Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference show how the media cover of the September 11 attacks and their aftermath echoed nationalist sentiments. The media seem strongly influenced by political bi-partisanship and industry economic pressures.

Wasted Freedom (July 12, 2002)
The New Statesman believes that under the guise of "Freedom of the press," a fundamental tenet of the US Constitution, "freedom is not meant to be that free." It argues that, "since 11 September, the freest media has put its collective hand over its heart, ending news bulletins with "God bless America" ad nauseam."

MEDIA: Post-Sep. 11 Reportage Adds to Divisions, Stereotypes (July 1, 2002)
"Senior journalists, policymakers, academics and government advisors" meeting in Australia argue that the media's failure to provide varying perspectives of September 11 and the subsequent war have fostered "a culture of fear and blame around the world." (OneWorld)

US Messages to Arab Youth, Wrapped in Song (June 17, 2002)
The US Government has decided to replace Voice of America, a strictly news oriented radio station, with Radio Sawa in the Arab-speaking world. With "85 percent pop music, 15 percent government-generated news," Radio Sawa aims to sell a product—"in this case, American news and American values."

Journalists Fight 'Hidden War' in Afghanistan (April 26, 2002)
A top freelance photographer claims the US military and the Northern Alliance colluded to keep journalists out of areas in Afghanistan where special forces were operating. The lack of access was one in a series of problems that made Afghanistan a "hidden war" for broadcast journalists. (Guardian)

Six Months Later, The Basic Tool Is Language (March 22, 2002)
In the perpetual "war against terror," we face a parallel media war without end. "It's a propaganda siege that must be resisted -- because truly open debate is essential to democracy." (ZMag)

US Starts a New War, for World's Hearts and Minds (February 20, 2002)
The Pentagon has set up an Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) to manufacture propaganda and win public opinion. Since the invention of modern mass communication, superpowers have used such tactics to further their aims, in peace as in war. (Independent)

Pentagon Propaganda Plan Is Undemocratic, Possibly Illegal (February 20, 2002)
FAIR criticizes the Pentagon's plans to "provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations." The policies of the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) may compromise the free flow of information that democracy relies on. (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting)

Fit to Print or Omit (February 11, 2002)
A critique of a New York Times article describing the alleged difficulties in counting the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. (Working For Change)

Media's Dilemma of Propaganda vs News (December 12, 2001)
The media act as gatekeepers, deciding what news the public will receive. If media, often controlled by the government, don't represent both sides, how can people get a fair and just perception of what is going on? (Dawn)

At least 3,500 Civilians Killed in Afghanistan by US Bombs (December 10, 2001)
University of New Hampshire Economics Professor Marc Herold has assembled data on civilian casualties in Afghanistan since October 7. His study, based on information from news agencies, gives a striking account of the consequences of the US-led bombings. (Center for Research on Globalisation)

Truth Behind Afghan Fortress Massacre Gets Edited Out (December 7, 2001)
The US media has adopted a 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' approach to the horrible slaughter of Taliban prisoners near Mazar-i-Sharif. (Middle East Times)

The P-words: Patriotism, Press and Propaganda (December 6, 2001)
This article discusses the increasing US patriotism, perceived by some as an "unattractive jingoism with overtones of propaganda." It also analyzes the role of media in this extreme time, as well as the neutrality of the UN. (Earth Times News Service)

The "Turbanators" and The Terrorists: War Crimes and Media Omissions (December 5, 2001)
This article criticizes the media's reluctance to report on war crimes in Afghanistan. The US media's failure to fully investigate the war crimes makes them complicit in a cover-up. (MediaChannel)

Where No News Is Good News (December 5, 2001)
The US media's censorship and partisan coverage of events in Afghanistan are not causing concern to a US public used to uncomplicated "cowboys and Indians" stories as depicted by the media. The Guardian analyzes the results of a US poll indicating that 80% of people find the censorship of news from Afghanistan a "good idea."

Are You a Terrorist? (November/December 2001)
This FAIR article scrutinizes the US mainstream media's reporting of the USA Patriot Act of October 2001. Most mainstream news outlets did cover the progress of the anti-terror bill, but provided little, if any, information about its impact on civil liberties.

World Opinion Opposes The Attack on Afghanistan (November 21, 2001)
A study on US and British media coverage of the war against Afghanistan notes the widespread misinformation and propaganda campaign on both sides of the Atlantic. (ZNet)

Are Americans Getting the Full Picture? (November 18, 2001)
The American media receives criticism for being uncritical, superficial and keen on adjusting to the public mood. The US coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan differs remarkably from European news. In the US, patriotism seems to get priority over informative news. (Sydney Morning Herald)

Torture Seeps Into Discussion by News Media (November 5, 2001)
Advocates for torture say that desperate times call for desperate means to make silent suspects talk. Meanwhile, critics fear US human rights violations and loss of moral leverage in pressuring other governments on their violations. (New York Times)

War Needs Good Public Relations (October 26, 2001)
For some people, war means terror, disaster and death. For others, it's a PR problem. (Common Dreams)

Times' Paints Rosy Picture of Afghani Refugees' Situation While Aid Agencies Predict Mass Starvation (October 23)
Andrew Pollack reveals the differing views the New York Times and aid agencies have regarding the plight of Afghani refugees.

News of Civilian Death Tolls Is Being Under-Reported (October 22, 2001)
Major US news networks do not report instances of civilian deaths resulting from US bombings in Afghanistan. This article provides detailed reports of civilian fatalities caused by the two-week-old military campaign. (Working For Change)

Nets, Studios Answer Call to Arms in Fight Against Terrorism (October 17, 2001)
The White House has taken initial steps to create an "arts and entertainment task force" to enhance the perception of America in the world and to gain support for the fight against terrorism. (Variety)

Propaganda War Joined On Arab TV (October 17, 2001)
America vs Terrorism, or CNN vs al-Jazeera? The US bombing of Afghanistan is only a sideshow in the war against terrorist. "The real battle is taking place on the airwaves." (International Relations and Security Network)

Networks Accept Government "Guidance" (October 17, 2001)
Noam Chomsky once described the mainstream media as just an other organ of government. National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice recently "suggested" to network executives from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN that any future statements from the al Qaeda group be "abridged". (FAIR)

Starvation and Dollar Bills For Afghan Kids (October 12, 2001)
The media has played an integral role in manufacturing support for the dual US strategy of attacking Afghanistan while providing "humanitarian assistance" for the refugees. (FAIR)

Censorship in Pashto and Arabic (October 10, 2001)
Although the Voice of America (VOA) is an independent radio station, the US government provides the main source of funding which explains how the State Department and Congress manipulate radio programs to bolster their pro-war propaganda campaign. (New York Times)

Media Spin Revolves Around the Word "Terrorist" (October 5, 2001)
Should the media be allowed to put their own label on terrorism? As long as the media do not want to be consistent in their use of the "terrorist" label, maybe they should be very restrictive in their use of the word. (Media Beat )

Move Over "Heartland," Here Comes "Homeland" (October 1, 2001)
This Orwellian term has had currency in the shadowy world of military intelligence and security for the past few years. Salon.com provides a useful history.

Nightly News Glosses Over Anti-Terrorism Act (September 27, 2001)
FAIR addresses the media's disturbing silence on issues of civil liberties following the terrorist attack on the US.

Biased Media Back Bush's War Drive (September 26, 2001)
Is President Bush or the US media calling for war? Heather Cottin denounces the media for its insatiable appetite for war and its campaign to restrict civil liberties. (IAC)

Chomsky Interview 5 (September 25, 2001)
Noam Chomsky discusses the difference between terrorist acts and acts of resistance as well as the role of the US media in covering the aftermath of the attacks. (ZNET)

Media Pundits Advocate Civilian Targets (September 24, 2001)
The US news media wants war and Afghanistan reduced to "rubble". Prominent journalists accuse ordinary Afghans to be directly responsible for the Taliban just as "the Germans were responsible for Hitler." (FAIR)

Zmag Composite Interview With Noam Chomsky (September 20, 2001)
Chomsky discusses the causes and consequences of the terrorist attacks on the US. He argues that the media coverage is structured to "manufacture consent" for US military reprisal. (Zmag)

Why The Bush Administration Wants War (September 14, 2001)
Every war requires a pretext, a casus belli, that can be sold to the public as a sufficient justification for inflicting violence. An objective historical analysis does show, however, that the casus belli, often propelled by the media, is never the real cause of the war that follows. (WSWS Editorial Board)

Terrorism, Television and the Rage for Vengeance (September 13, 2001)
"The greatest triumphs of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing," Aldous Huxley observed long ago. This article criticizes the US media for its aggressively biased silence in its coverage of the World Trade Center crisis. (FAIR)

Dumbing Down, American-Style (August 1999)
Herbert Schiller explains how the instruments of social control –the US media– is just another organ of government. Schiller takes the example of terrorism in outlining US media bias. (Monde Diplomatique)