Question 2 Flashcards
2.Identify some of the journalistic, editorial, and corporate factors mentioned by media critics—such as Edward Herman—that have led to the growth of systematic bias in US media coverage of wars and regional conflicts.
Corporate Ownership and Profit Motives:
Many media outlets are owned by large corporations with vested interests in maintaining the status quo or supporting government policies that align with their business goals. This ownership structure often leads to self-censorship and a reluctance to challenge official narratives that could jeopardize corporate interests.
Political and Government Influence:
Government agencies and political elites exert significant influence over media coverage through various means, including press briefings, leaks, and access to sources. Journalists may face pressure to toe the official line or risk losing access to crucial information or interviews.
Structural aspects of the media also make them sensitive to the demands of the government. Contrary to neo-conservative analyses, the controlling media elites are the owners, not the reporters and anchors. The owners are extremely wealthy individuals or large corporations, such as Westinghouse and General Electric Company, with a major stake in the status quo and extensive social and business connections to other business and government leaders. They also depend on the government for television licenses, contracts to provide goods and services and support in overseas activities.(14) Furthermore, the media must sell their programs to advertisers, who are not likely to look favorably on “adversarial” messages.(15)
Embedding Journalists:
During conflicts, media outlets often embed journalists with military units, which can lead to a narrow and biased perspective of the conflict. Embedded reporters may develop close relationships with military personnel, leading to a sense of camaraderie and bias in their reporting.
Manufacturing Consent:
Drawing from Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s propaganda model, media outlets often serve to manufacture consent for government policies, including military interventions. This involves framing conflicts in a way that justifies military action and demonizes the enemy, thus garnering public support for war efforts.
To dehumanize and depersonalize the enemy in US mass media, various methods are employed:
Liberal Spies Sighed Violently.
Language and Framing: Media outlets often use derogatory language and negative framing to describe the enemy, portraying them as irrational, barbaric, or evil. This framing serves to justify military action and vilify the opposing side.
2.
3.
Selective Reporting: Media coverage tends to focus on atrocities committed by the enemy while downplaying or ignoring similar actions by US allies or forces. This selective reporting reinforces stereotypes and biases against the enemy while whitewashing the actions of US military personnel.
4.
5.
Stereotyping and Othering: The enemy is often portrayed as a monolithic entity, devoid of individuality or complexity. This simplification allows for easy vilification and justifies the dehumanization of the opposing side.
6.
7.
Visual Imagery: Images and videos depicting the enemy are often chosen to evoke fear and disgust, further reinforcing negative stereotypes and biases. These visuals contribute to the dehumanization of the enemy and serve to rally public support for military action.
Sweet Lacy Dung.
Examples of bias and double standards in media coverage of foreign policy conflicts include:
Selective Reporting on Atrocities: Media outlets may extensively cover human rights abuses committed by enemy forces while ignoring similar or worse abuses by US allies. For example, the extensive coverage of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq while downplaying abuses by US-supported regimes in the region.
2.
3.
Language and Framing: The use of loaded language and framing can shape public perceptions of conflicts. For instance, referring to US military interventions as “liberation” or “peacekeeping” efforts while labeling resistance movements as “insurgencies” or “terrorist groups” frames the narrative in favor of US interests.
4.
5.
Demonization of Leaders: Media coverage often demonizes foreign leaders, portraying them as tyrants or dictators while downplaying the role of US foreign policy in contributing to instability or conflict. This one-sided portrayal reinforces the narrative of US moral superiority and justifies interventionist policies.
An example of apparent bias and double standards in media coverage of foreign policy conflicts can be observed in the coverage of the Iraq War in 2003.
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, media coverage often framed the conflict as a necessary response to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime and its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The narrative portrayed the invasion as a mission to promote democracy and liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny. Terms like “Operation Iraqi Freedom” were used, emphasizing the goal of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.
However, this framing ignored the complexities of the situation, including the lack of conclusive evidence of WMDs in Iraq and the controversial justifications for military intervention. Additionally, civilian casualties resulting from the invasion and subsequent insurgency were often downplayed or overlooked in media coverage.
De-contextualization and de-historicization:
edia coverage often focuses solely on immediate events like atrocities, battles, casualties, and refugees without providing a broader political or historical analysis. This narrow focus can lead to a shallow understanding of the underlying causes and dynamics of conflicts.
Demonization of political opponents
Regimes perceived as hostile to US interests are often portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative light. Media accounts emphasize the negative aspects of these regimes while downplaying or ignoring any positive aspects, contributing to a one-sided portrayal of the situation.
Militarization of the news:
overage of US military actions tends to emphasize the technological sophistication of military hardware while overlooking the human cost of war, such as death, injury, and destruction. This can create a sanitized view of warfare that downplays its grim realities.
Social control of reporters:
Journalists and war correspondents face increasing restrictions on their ability to cover conflicts independently. Military restrictions, such as denying access to certain areas or embedding reporters with specific military units, can limit the scope and depth of reporting, potentially skewing the narrative.
Centralization and concentration of media ownership:
The consolidation of media ownership into fewer corporate entities has led to the rise of media empires with significant influence over public discourse. This concentration of power can align media interests with those of corporate, political, and military elites, shaping coverage to serve their agendas.
