FEAR FACTOR:

 Terrorism,

Bush,

The Media

Post-9/11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Selena E. Harper

EDGE

Prof. Bruce Lusignan

06/06/03

 
          September 11th changed the lives of many Americans, irrevocably.  The horrendous attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon altered the way American’s viewed their positions within the world, not to mention their lives and their safety.  The attacks brought terrorism to the forefront of national attention, in every aspect.  The government became immediately immersed in an effort to understand and defeat terrorism, and simultaneously, the media, with its perverse fascination with violence and profit-driven espousal to round-the-clock, up-to-the-minute coverage, demonstrated an obsession with the attacks, by broadcasting almost nothing but the latest developments in the search and rescue efforts and investigations surrounding the them.  Meanwhile, the public, having been inculcated via the media with a sense of danger and immediate threat to their lives and well-being, continued to watch and wait, intently.  Still in shock from the realization that the U.S. was vulnerable to such infiltration and aggression, American society began to transform itself into a culture of fear and docility.  Lingering on the words of each “expert” or government official to make a public statement, American society became accepting of any suggestions, orders or directives that were promoted by such individuals.  The resulting propagation of conservative ideals and agendas within the aforementioned culture of fear has lead to the almost totally unchallenged consummation of the Bush Administration’s agenda, thus far.

We begin by explicating on this culture of fear. One intrinsic quality of a culture of fear is intolerance. For its part, the media has contributed to this atmosphere of intolerance by over-reporting the September 11th attacks and presenting depictions of Arab/Muslim-Americans as “evildoers” and terrorists; consistently associating the terms “Muslim” or “Islamic” and the words “terrorist,” “fundamentalist,” “extremist,” etc, at a rate disproportionately high, in comparison to its association of other religious groups, with acts of barbarism (Soharwardy). Yes, the events of September 11th, 2001 were carried out by followers of Islam, and yes the events were horrific, but that is no reason to aid in the perpetuation of such stereotypes, especially when equally terrifying things have been committed by Christians and Jews (Chomsky 26-28).

Syed Soharwardy asserts that “Media always tried to portray Islam as a religion of terror and all the Muslims as terrorists. The way the talk-show programs and news are produced and presented, it seems that the media has already decided the guilty verdict, regardless what would be the outcome of an investigation” (Soharwardy).  So too do members of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee recognize the media’s predisposition toward bias, as is pointed out in this statement, found on their website:  “Key industries of American mass culture, Holllywood and television, for decades have been bastions of anti-Arab stereotyping, and have consistently resisted positive or realistic representations of Arabs and Arab Americans. (Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee).”

Some argue, as Jonathan Rauch does in his article, “Islam Has Been Hijacked…,” that since religion was brought to the forefront, in the September 11th attacks, that this practice of associating Islam with fundamentalism is justified.  Rauch suggests that Muslims must save an Islam that is currently being taken over by rogue militants, and that since these militants are using Islam as a guise under which to carry out their own sadistic plans, the term “Muslim Terrorists” is politically correct (Rauch).  Why then aren’t Christians thought of as terrorists, since both Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph touted this religion’s fundamentalist teachings in connection with their sadistic acts of violence? Comparably, why aren’t Jews portrayed as terrorists since the Zionists themselves professed to belonging in this category?  The evidence is clear.  In a drastic demonstration of cultural ethnocentrism, the media is using a double standard with which to determine which groups to label “terrorist” and which groups to designate as anomalies within larger categories of people that do not constitute terrorists.

The media has not only given rise to the concept of Muslims as terrorists, but it has, as far as the mainstream sources are concerned, all but ignored the reasons behind the terrorist acts of 9/11. Sure, brief statements are given about al Qaeda’s wishes for the end to U.S. occupation in the Mid-East, but details of this occupation and its effect on the indigenous populations of the affected areas are purposely left out. Dismissing these crucial reasons circumvents the so-called fundamentalists’ cause, thereby dehumanizing the perpetrators and fueling the vitriolic feelings of resentment towards them and people “like” them, in American mass perception.  Michael Sellson expounds on the media’s omission of the terrorists’ motives, in his essay, “The Interlinked Factors of a Tragedy.”  Sellson explains that “whatever one’s political views, whether one wants reconciliation or war…ignorance of the motives of the other side is self-defeating” (Sellson).  Sellson continues in his explication with his remark that “explanation is not justification.”

NPR, in conjunction with the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government Civil Liberties, has compiled statistics regarding American public opinion of Arab-Americans post-9/11. Of those polled nearly one-third felt that Arab-Americans, in general, are not loyal to the United States.  Fifty-one percent of those polled believed that the government should be able to detain suspects of Arab descent for a week, without charge.  Moreover, fifty-five percent felt that the government should be able to censor reports that give the names of those arrested for suspected terrorism, and fifty-nine percent favored the implementation of a strategy to make it a requirement for each individual to carry around a national id card.  One could contend that these statistical findings, which arguably illustrate the existence of a culture of fear in America, have come about due in-part to the media’s role in forming public opinion.         

As stated above, the press has been integral in the maintenance of the culture of fear that pervades American society, by breeding misunderstanding through biased reporting, but it has also been pivotal in the projection and advancement of the Bush Administration’s agenda. A free press is essential for the maintenance of a healthy liberal democratic society (Chalk 35) and the United States claims to be just this, but a free press doesn’t necessarily mean an un-biased press, if one considers the media in America.  The success of the Bush Administration’s thrusts is exemplary of how biased media operates in the U.S.

There are allegedly five filters, according to theorists Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman (“Anyone for Brainwash?”), which information must pass through before it reaches the public.  Filters include “ownership profile, advertising, news experts, balance and overriding concerns,” the first of which deals with the media’s propensity towards suiting the demands of the owner of a media conglomerate (i.e. Rupert Murdock and Reuters), the second with the media’s interest in keeping its sponsors happy with the coverage they produce, the third with the fact that the news experts featured in the media generally tend either to come from within the establishment or from the ranks of government press agents, the fourth with the media’s seeming obligation to ensure that the government’s interests are met and the fifth with cultural trends such as the communist scare (or the war on terrorism) that work to chill media representatives into forms of self-censorship. The information that eventually passes through these five filters is inevitably partial to the viewpoints of certain elites in society. In this way, the media is said to “manufacture consent” or to “shape and manage the news about the world in a definite and particular way (“Anyone..?”).”

Through the passage of time, then, the agglomeration of media reports, tailored as they have been, to meet the agendas of certain affluent or high-ranking individuals, provide the public with a warped view of reality, and thus affect the way citizens view their positions within the world around them.  This is critical not only to their own well-being, but also to democracy because, as Peter Chalk puts it, the media is, “a conduit and a forum for critical public debate (Chalk 35).” Brigitte Nacos goes further, to say, “public deliberation ‘is essential to democracy in order to ensure that the public’s policy preferences – upon which democratic decisions are based – are informed, enlightened, and authentic… (Nacos 156).”

But what of public opinion of terrorism and the masses’ decisions regarding the handling of counterterrorist policy? With regard to the phenomenon of “terrorism,” the media have been especially discriminatory in their presentations, as has been established.  In their choices of which organizations and which actions to deem “terrorist,” the media have shown great partiality, deferring, oftentimes, to government stances on the issues.  Furthermore, the media allegedly have been remiss in their duties of covering counterterrorist policy (Nacos 160), rendering citizens uninformed on the crucial issues that arise from the implementation of such policies.

The mere notion of terrorism and counterterrorist policy brings up the issue of exactly what terrorism is.  According to terrorism analyst Bruce Hoffman in “Defining Terrorism”, “On one point, at least, everyone agrees:  terrorism is a pejorative term.  It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one’s enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore (Hoffman 15).”  Over the course of time, the Nazis have labeled insurgent groups terrorists, Americans have labeled communists terrorists, Israelis have labeled Palestinians terrorists, and so on.  As Hoffman notes, “Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization ‘terrorist’ becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned.  If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism.  If however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive light; and it is not terrorism (Hoffman 15).” After all, terrorism is about power, and power is about politics, and politics are about position and identity.

 Eqbal Ahmad poses a concurrent statement, “We are to denounce the terror of those groups which are officially disapproved.  But we are to applaud the terror of those groups of whom officials do approve (Ahmad 49).” When considering the media’s reports, then, which have tended to portray things with a slant that favors the dominant view, it is unsurprising that the media have tended not to call clandestine CIA or US-lead proxy operations in Latin America “terrorist,” but have consistently branded groups like the PLO and PKK “terrorist” and condemned their actions.  Whatever violence is perpetrated by the US or its allies is tolerated, widely accepted and even vindicated.  Justifications are made for the utilization of abhorrent tactics and the concealing of information under these circumstances, because certainly the US only acts toward noble causes.

Noam Chomsky speaks of two ways understanding terrorism, the “literal approach” and the “propagandistic approach”, in his article, “International Terrorism:  Image and Reality.”  Of the propagandistic approach, Chomsky explains, “We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy.  We then designate terrorist acts as ‘terrorist’ just in the cases where they can be attributed to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed or termed ‘retaliation’ or ‘self-defense (Chomsky 12).’” The Bush Administration has faithfully promoted just such a propagandistic approach via the media and has used it in justifying the “War on Terror” that ensued shortly after the September 11th attacks, by playing upon the media’s thirst for ratings in order to wage a propaganda war against terrorism.

Neil Livingstone explains how such a war is waged:  “…propaganda should be used to wean the public away from terrorists… (Livingstone 165).”  He goes on to describe that “In most conflicts, the goals professed by the terrorists will be appealing politically and phrased in such a manner that strikes a responsive chord in a large segment of the population, whether or not the terrorists intend ever to implement the goals. Thus, the government will have greater success in convincing the populace to repudiate the methods of the terrorists rather than their goals. This can be done through graphic depictions of the victims of terrorism and by giving wide dissemination to terrorist attacks on values and institutions that the society at large holds dear.  The government should aim, whenever possible, to convey an unflattering picture of the personal lives and habits of the terrorists, portraying them as cruel, atheistic, sexually deviant, or hypocritical people who do not practice the values they espouse (Livingstone 166).”

 In fact, this has been done repeatedly since September 11th.  The public has heard over and over again of the detestability of the use of suicide as a means of attacking one’s enemies, not to mention the abhorrent nature of taking the lives of innocent non-combatants.  Similarly, the public has heard incessant accounts of the horror of the attacks, as well as speculation on the terrorists’ intentions to destroy democracy and freedom, values that each U.S. citizen holds dear.  Moreover, the masses have listened to numerous commentaries on how hypocritical those individuals are who act under the guise of freedom fighting, but practice strict gender discrimination (i.e.:  the Taliban, etc.).

Aside from using propaganda to attack its foes, the Bush administration has shrewdly made the media instrumental in promoting public approval of its actions concerning counterterrorism.  Such actions are described by Nacos: “In short, under these circumstances, those who respond to a terrorist event have the opportunity to manage information and influence the public in what they believe is the best solution for resolving an emergency situation of this kind and/or dealing with the aftermath of such an incident (Nacos 167).” Through president Bush’s many ingeniously designed speeches and public appearances, he has been able to gain the trust and approval of the American public. Nacos describes Bush’s actions:  “Starting the day after the terror attack, the President made public appearances on a daily basis.  Even when his approval rating hit and all-time record of 90% to 91%, [the president] did not cut back his addresses to the public (Nacos 148).” The thrust toward patriotism, the building of confidence, slogan’s like “God Bless America,” and “protecting the American people,” within these addressed, have all been integral to his virtually unchallenged success in promoting his Administration’s strategies. 

Examples of the measures passed under the Bush Administration run the gamut of possible government initiatives (Homefront). The strikes on Afghanistan directly subsequent to the September 11th attacks were demonstrative of the militaristic approach to counterterrorism that would be exercised by the administration.  The USA PATRIOT Act, which passed in just six weeks following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, provides government agents with easy access to warrants for wiretaps and searches and seizures through the strengthened FISA courts. The creation of the Department Homeland Security represented the rearrangement of governmental bureaucracy, henceforth, and the Homeland Security Act which prohibits the disclosure of information deemed vital to homeland security, the violation of which incurs strict penalties, is thickening the shroud that cloaks current governmental operations.  Further, Attorney General Ashcroft’s revision of the Freedom of Information Act and Bush’s executive order circumventing the Presidential Records Act, which restrict access to government and executive documents, cloud whatever remnant of transparency the government had previously, and most recently the war in Iraq, despite UN disapproval and widespread international opposition was a show of the belligerent wartime posture of the U.S. and its selfish disregard of the global community in its choice to engage in unilateralism. In addition, one must consider the decision to allow coalition forces to occupy Iraq for at least one year, and use profits from the export of its oil resources to fund the country’s democratic re-establishment and reconstruction and pay off its “debt,” as well as the recently publicized “Roadmap to Mid-East Peace” and possible new policy for dealings North Korea, which has been systematically demonized over the past few months, all of which are pursuant to and in alignment with the strategies prompted by Paul Wolfowitz in “Defense Planning Guidance (“Bush Doctrine, Preemption Strategy”).”  Obviously, this administration has wasted no time (and spared no expense, judging from the national budget crisis) in making sure its goals are met.

As has been explored, September 11th, 2001 was a turning point, after which a culture of fear became prevalent in the United States. The mass media has been one influence in creating this culture of fear by promoting an atmosphere of ignorance, through biased reporting methods.  President Bush and his administration have taken great care to manipulate the current situation (Gedmin), such that it favors all projects initiated in their ranks, and because of this, numerous counterterrorist and foreign policy measures have been adopted that have somewhat infringed upon the civil liberties of everyday American citizens.  Although introduced under the guise of promoting freedom and democracy, many of these measures in fact curtail it and play into the interests of corporate tycoons.  The question remains:  where will we go from here? 

In his essay, “The Axis of Anarchy,” Andrew Tyrie contends that what the modern world is headed towards is instability.  With the Bush administration’s precedent-setting application of the doctrine of preemption, Tyrie posits the potential for continual use and abuse of this doctrine, not only by the U.S., but by other nations seeking to obtain strategic political or economic gains, stirring up a great whirlwind of unilateral attacks and resulting in an unfathomable conundrum of inexplicable proportions (Tyrie).  Let us only hope that this will not be the case.

 

 

Appendices

*Here are a few graphs borrowed from the NPR/Kaiser website that might prove to be of valuable consideration.

 

Appendix 1:  Government and the Press/Press Censorship

44. Now that the president has declared war on international terrorism, should the government be able to review and censor news stories that (INSERT), or shouldn't the government be able to review and censor these news stories?

 

Should be able to censor

Should not be able to censor

Don't know

a. Discuss troop deployments or military plans

71

26

3

b. Criticize how the President is conducting military actions

36

61

3

c. Report on anti-war protests

40

56

4

g. Report the names of people arrested for terrorist actions

55

43

3

45. Should the government stop the U.S. media from broadcasting interviews or statements by Osama Bin Laden or his lieutenants, or shouldn't the government be able to stop these broadcasts?

 

Should be able to stop them

Should not be able to stop them

Don't know

11/12/01

52

45

4

 

Appendix 2:  Has life changed post 9/11?  Post 9/11 fears and worries

50/51a. Combo Table

 

11/12/01

Terrorist attacks have changed the way that you live your life day in and day out

34

Permanent

21

Not permanent

12

Terrorist attacks have not changed the way that you live your life day in and day out

66

Don't know

*

 

Appendix 3:  Views of Muslims, Arabs and Arab Americans

56. Do you agree or disagree that most Arab-Americans and immigrants from the Middle East are loyal to the United States?

 

Agree

Disagree

Don't know

11/12/01

62

27

11

(Asked of one half of total respondents; n = 602)

57a1. How do you think most Arab-Americans and immigrants from the Middle East feel about the terrorists' cause? Do you think they are more sympathetic to the terrorists' cause than other Americans, or about the same as other Americans on this?

 

More sympathetic to terrorists' cause

About the same as other Americans

Don't know

11/12/01

20

73

7

(Asked of one half of total respondents; n = 602)

57a2. How do you think most Arab-Americans and immigrants from the Middle East feel about the terrorists' acts? Do you think they are more sympathetic to the terrorists' ACTS than other Americans, or about the same as other Americans on this?

 

More sympathetic to terrorists' acts

About the same as other Americans

Don't know

11/12/01

18

77

5

(Asked of one half of total respondents; n = 606)

57b1. How do you think most Muslim Americans feel about the terrorists' cause? Do you think they are more sympathetic to the terrorists' cause than other Americans, or about the same as other Americans on this?

 

More sympathetic to terrorists' cause

About the same as other Americans

Don't know

11/12/01

20

73

7

(Asked of one half of total respondents; n = 606)

57b2. How do you think most Muslim Americans feel about the terrorists' acts? Do you think they are more sympathetic to the terrorists' ACTS than other Americans, or about the same as other Americans on this?

 

More sympathetic to terrorists' acts

About the same as other Americans

Don't know

11/12/01

12

81

 

 

Works Cited

 

 

Ahmad, Eqbal. “Terrorism:  Theirs & Ours.” Terrorism and Counterterrorism:

  Understanding the New Security Environment.  Ed. Russell D. Howard

 and Reid L. Sawyer. Guilford, Connecticut:  McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2003.

 pp. 46-53.

 

Chalk, Peter. “The Liberal Democratic Response to Terrorism.” Terrorism and

 Political Violence. Vol. 7, Number 4.  London:  Frank Cass, Winter 1995.

 pp. 10-44.

 

Chomsky, Noam. “International Terrorism:  Image and Reality.” Western State

 Terrorism. Ed. Alexander George. New York:  Routeledge, 1991. pp.

12-38.

 

Gedmin, Jeffrey. “Collecting the Anti-Terror Coalition.” Policy Review.

Online:  http://www.policyreview.org/OCT01/gedmin.html.

 

Hoffman, Bruce. “Defining Terrorism.” Terrorism and Counterterrorism:

  Understanding the New Security Environment.  Ed. Russell D. Howard

 and Reid L. Sawyer. Guilford, Connecticut:  McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2003.

pp. 3-24.

 

Nacos, Brigitte. Mass Mediated Terrorism. New York:  Rowman & Littlefield,

 2002.

 

Rauch, Johnathan. “Islam has been Hijacked and Only Muslims Can Save It.”

The Days After: Essays- Reflections byour authors in the aftermath,

 University of Chicago Press.   Essays.  

ONLINE: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911rauch.html

 

Sellson, Michael. “The Interlinked Factors of a Tragedy.” The Days After:

  Essays-Reflections by our authors in the aftermath, University of Chicago

 Press. Essays.

   Online:  http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911sellson.html.

 

Soharwardy, Syed. “Please Stop Yellow Journalism.” Online:

      http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.com/mat1.htm.

 

Tyrie, Andrew. “Axis of Anarchy:  Britain, America and the New World Order After

 Iraq.” The Bow Group. Reports. Online:  http://fpc.org.uk/reports.

 

Other Online Sources

 

“AnyoneforBrainwash?”Online:  http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws98/ws54_media.html

 

Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Website:

http://www.adc.org/action/2001/14june200.html

 

Dartmouth College Library:  U.S. Government Documents:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~govdocs/iraq.htm