The media of manipulation: Patriotism and propaganda - Mainstream news in the United States in the weeks following September 11

Critical Quarterly

Volumn 45, Issue 1-2, 2003, Pages 55-72

  Eisman, April ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745669373     PISSN: 00111562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-8705.00472     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Associated Press, 'Poll: 9 in 10 rate news media coverage good or excellent after attacks'. See Freedom Forum, 24 September 2001, 〈http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14967〉
2. A survey of 1,200 adults conducted from 13-17 September by the Pew Research Center. There is an error margin of 3.5%; 56% said the coverage was excellent. See Associated Press, 'Poll'
3. Bernard Goldberg, Bias, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002), 196. Goldberg argues that the broadcast networks' regular news coverage reflects an unconscious leftist bias inherent in those who work for the American news media. Ironically, he does not seem to notice that post-9/11 coverage swings completely to the right, and therefore better reflects his own inclination rather than being 'fair and accurate'
4. From an email by Peter Snyder, 'Your thoughts on Sept. 11 news coverage', Freedom Forum, 24 September 2001, 〈http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/ document.asp?documentID=14955〉
5. Of the cable networks, CNN had the highest viewership with regard to the attacks, with an average cable household rating on 11 September 2001 of 5.5 versus 2.9 for Fox News and 2.1 for MSNBC. See 'Made-for-TV Terrorism', Broadcasting and Cable, 17 September 2001
6. Minutes of coverage on ABC, NBC, and CBS between 13 August and 10 September 2001: wild fires (40), missing intern (35), Sharks (20), Israeli-Palestinian conflict (18), Little League (16). See The Tyndall Report, 〈http://www.tyndallreport.com〉
7. Richard Sambrook. 'International News and the Media: The Impact of September 11', Conference Keynote Address, 11 June 2001, 〈http://www. pewfellowships.org/conferences/impact911/sambrook.html〉
8. In Covering Catastrophe, there are numerous examples of journalists risking their lives to get a good story at the WTC, of the chaos in the news rooms as rumours flew, and of keeping one's composure while on air. See Allison Gilbert, Phil Hirschkorn et al. (eds), Covering Catastrophe, Broadcast Journalists Report September 11 (Chicago: Bonus Books, 2002)
9. According to a survey by the ad agency Euro RSCG Worldwide, television was the primary source of news about the attacks for 74% of those aged 18-34, and 81% of those aged 35-54. See Associated Press, 'September 11 attacks spawn new news junkies', New York Times, 11 September 2001, 〈http://www. freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15337〉
10. Italics throughout this paper are my own emphasis unless otherwise noted. All references to ABC, CBS, and NBC broadcast contents come from the broadcasts as found at The Television Archive, 〈http://tvnews1.televisionarchive.org/ prog〉. Although the news ran non-stop for four days following the attacks, I focus on the 6.30 nightly news as a point of comparison. Each channel normally has its nation-wide news at that time
11. Jill Geisler, 'Minute by Minute with the Broadcast News', The Poynter Institute, 11 September 2001, 〈http://www.poynter.org/Terrorism/Jill1. htm〉. ABC used their standard crisis rubric, 'ABC News Special Report'
12. This turn to sensationalism began about two decades ago as a result, at least in part, of the proliferation of television channels. The resulting competition created the need to capture an audience's attention. See Sambrook, 'International News and the Media'
13. The term 'war' in the sense of 'a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism' accurately reflects the attacks of 9/11. Nonetheless, the term has additional connotations that cannot be separated from it in this context: in particular, the definitions of war as 'a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations' and 'a struggle or competition between opposing forces'. Not only were the terrorists not representing states or nations, nor any other body that could be seen as even remotely 'competitive' to the US, but also the term subtly supports the idea of a military response since war is not one-sided. The word 'attack' therefore is a much more neutral explanation of the events of 9/11. See Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, 30 July 2002, 〈http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary〉
14. Whether widespread means that many people felt this way, or that one can find people across the United States who felt this way is unclear, although the implication is the former. In the weeks following the attacks of 9/11, UK and US polling companies were guilty of misrepresenting their own data to overemphasise the support for the war and military retaliation. David Miller, 'World Opinion Opposes the Attack on Afghanistan', Znet, 21 November 2001, 〈www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/media/1121opinion.htm〉
15. Following the Oklahoma City bombing, the news media were quick to blame Islamic fundamentalists, only to find out later it was the work of disgruntled American militia members. Ironically, it is currently believed that Osama bin Laden did not actually plan the terrorist attacks himself. According to a video, he did not know when the attacks would take place until Thursday, 6 September 2001. 'Presumably ... the leader of Al Qaeda set the ball rolling, but had nothing more to do with the actual planning' (Der Spiegel Magazine (ed.), Inside 9/11: What Really Happened (New York: St Martin's Press, 2002), 202)
16. (See Frankfurter Societaets-Druckerei GmbH, 'Print Media in Germany', 〈http://www.publikation-deutschland.de/content/archiv/archiv-eng/99-02/ art4.html〉.) It is important to acknowledge that while Der Spiegel and Time are both the top-selling news magazines in their respective countries, they are not parallel in terms of content. Der Spiegel addresses a more educated audience than Time. Nonetheless, I believe this discrepancy reflects a fundamental difference between the two cultures and therefore stands as a more valid comparison than one between Time and a more American-style German newsmagazine like Focus or Bild. It should also be noted that Der Spiegel has traditionally held a critical view of the US
17. Margaret Carlson, 'Letter from Washington: When He Ignored PR, the President Began to Discover his Best', Time, 24 September 2001, 50
18. Eric Pooley and Karen Lumulty, 'Bush in the Crucible, Is the Crisis Changing Bush from a Detached Chief Exec to an Inspiring Leader?', Time, 24 September 2001, 48-9
19. Matthias Matussek, 'Stimmung gegen den Cowboy', Der Spiegel, 15 September 2001, 166
20. Lisa Beyer. 'Osama bin Laden: the Face of Lerror, a Portrait of the Saudi Renegade and his International Network', also called, The Most Wanted Man in the World, He Lives a Life Fired by Fury and Faith: Why Terror's $250m Man Loathes the U.S', Time, 24 September 2001, 54-9
21. Time, 24 September 2001, 54-9. Seemingly without noticing the contradiction, Beyer then mentions that bin Laden's father had become rich through the many important commissions he had been given by the royal family in Saudi Arabia
22. 'Der Prinz und die Terror - GmbH', Der Spiegel, 15 September 2001, 132-43
23. Time, 24 September 2001, 54-9
24. Erich Wiedemann. 'Interview mit dem Politikwissenschaftler Chalmers Johnson über Washingtons Hegemonialpolitik', Der Spiegel. 15 September 2001, 164
25. Presidential News and Speeches, September 2001, 〈http://www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/〉
26. George W. Bush's Address to Congress, 20 September 2001, ibid
27. Pointing out such inflammation of language following 9/11 also invited harsh criticism. Susan Sontag retells her experience: 'I am astonished at the rhetorical overkill used to attack a short piece I published in The New Yorker, written while I was in Berlin (in a brief residency at the American Academy there) on Thursday, September 13th, after spending 48 hours watching CNN. I addressed the government and media rhetoric that quickly surrounded the event, deploring the self-congratulatory identification of the United States with "the world" and with "humanity" and with "civilization." I said: this is a political event, a response to the status of and alliances contracted by the United States, not only a monstrous crime - which it certainly was. I suggested that not every negative adjective applied to the perpetrators of the attack. (Maybe "cowardly," I said, didn't apply.) I urged - this was the principal idea of the piece - deliberation in forming an appropriate and effective response. These rather banal observations won me responses that, in a lifetime of taking public positions, I've never experienced. They included death threats, calls for my being stripped of my citizenship and deported, indignation that I was not "censored. " In newspapers and magazines I was labeled a "traitor." A columnist in the New York Post declared that I should be "drawn and quartered." One article had the headline "Osama bin Sontag." An article in The New Republic started with the sentence: "What do Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Susan Sontag have in common?" No, the answer is not that we all, presumably, have brown eyes. The answer was that we all wish the destruction of the United States.' See Defending and Strengthening Open Society After the Attacks, panel discussion at the Open Society Institute in New York, 8 November 2001, 〈http://www.soros.org/911/911-forum-transcript. htm〉
28. Norman Solomon, 'When Journalists Report for Duty', Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, 21 September 2001, 〈http://www.fair.org/media-beat/010920. html〉
29. Bryce Zabel. 'Television and the War on Terrorism', Electronic Media, 19 November 2001
30. See Alicia Mundy, 'In Dan We Trust', Media Weekly, 29 October 2001, 21
31. Tom Brokaw was a notable exception, refusing to wear an American flag pin on air. See Michael Littlejohns, 'The P-words: Patriotism, Press, and Propaganda', Earth Times Service, 6 December 2001
32. Wayne Friedman, 'Commercial-free TV: Cost $400 million', Advertising Age, 17 September 2001
33. 'Politically Incorrect comments cost show two sponsors', Associated Press, 20 September 2001
34. Kenneth A. Paulson. 'Politically Correct Speech', Freedom Forum, 7 October 2001, 〈http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp? documentID=15083〉
35. Although Maher has since been awarded a First Amendment Award, the show has been cancelled. See Marc Gunther, 'Is Free Speech a Laughing Matter?', Fortune, 145:7 (1 April 2002), 36
36. A particularly egregious example of this public airing of personal views occurred on Larry King Live on October 18 when Dan Rather responded to King's question of why so many people in Arab countries hate the US with, 'They hate us because they're losers. They see us as winners'. And losers hate winners. See Alicia Mundy, 'In Dan We Trust', Mediaweek, 29 October 2001