Propaganda With My Morning Coffee
By Randall Nunn (01/23/06)
As I sat down to breakfast and opened the local paper, I was greeted by an Associated Press lead story with the headline “Sympathy for al-Qaida surges in Pakistan region.” The article was flogging the tired story of Pakistan villagers protesting the U.S. attack on an al-Qaida group in a village in Pakistan that resulted in the deaths of “13 civilians, including women and children.” Little play was given to the 4 top al-Qaida operatives who were killed or why they happened to be there having a strategy dinner. Surely the Associated Press is aware that an anti-American rally in an al-Qaida haven is not so much an indication of surging “sympathy for al-Qaida” as it is an indication of al-Qaida’s ability to turn out protesters so that the press can dutifully report on the outrage of the innocent villagers in this “mountain hamlet.” If it had been a demonstration by a conservative group in the U.S. or on the floor of the Republican National Convention, the media would be explaining to us that these are not really spontaneous outpourings but carefully choreographed events. But nowhere in the AP article does the writer question the “spontaneous” nature of the Pakistan “rally” by the al-Qaida supporters and Muslim fanatics.
I understand that the story about the Pakistani demonstrators is largely propaganda—a re-hash of old news in a light sympathetic to the idyllic Pakistani villagers that is designed to show the ruthlessness of U.S. military power and the Bush administration. What is sad is that the writer of the article and the headline writer are Americans like me who sit down to their coffee each morning in relative peace and safety because of the diligence and courage of those Americans who are hunting down the al-Qaida terrorists. One would hope to find a “tone” to such articles that is more balanced and fair.
There is certainly nothing wrong with journalists expressing their view that the U.S. strike in Pakistan may inflame some al-Qaida sympathizers and America-haters when those views are expressed as the author’s opinion and commentary. But when reading the front page news one is entitled to a little objectivity and factual reporting, without bias and partisan slant. If I was a totally objective person who had just come out of hibernation and read this article with no background understanding, I would have thought (1) the attack was unwise, (2) the attack killed “innocent” women and children, (3) the Pakistani villagers were understandably and justifiably outraged at the United States, and (4) the Bush administration was leading the country into a dangerous quagmire. Now I am sure the writer and the editors intended that result with the article. Accuracy in reporting the news and care in placing the facts in some objective context simply do not exist in this article.
Should I be upset when I read an article that is slanted, when I know the particular newspaper’s “leanings” or those of the Associated Press? After all, they are Americans and have the right to speak their mind and express their opinions. Yes, they do, but they should openly and honestly make those biases known to the reader if they are going to slant the article to support their underlying thesis. There may be readers who don’t appreciate that what they are reading is written not so much to report the events as it is to mold the readers’ mind subtly and deceitfully in a direction the writers and editors would like.
What is troubling about this state of affairs with the mainstream press in the United States is that study after study had shown that this bias exists and is pervasive, yet nothing is done by the offending newspapers to correct the situation. For example, a recent UCLA-led study found that “there is a quantifiable and significant bias” in the major media outlets “in that nearly all of them lean to the left.” The mainstream press demands accountability from every segment of our society, but believe that they should not be taken to task for misrepresentation, distortion and lack of journalistic standards.
Study after study and scandal after scandal (particularly at The New York Times) have shown the pervasive bias in the mainstream media. One would think that some in the media would examine their audiences (mostly conservative) and realize that continuing the stream of slanted articles would, in time, result in dwindling numbers of readers and viewers. In fact, most of the liberal newspapers and networks are suffering declines in their audiences. Rather than correcting the bias and reserving it for the editorial pages and commentary pieces, the media seem bent on continuing their propaganda campaign in the hope that it will shift the balance to the left. But as talk radio, the Internet, and outlets like FOX News give other views, the audience of the left-leaning media shrinks.
Most Americans don’t want to be told what to think about current issues. When they realize that the mainstream media has been doing just that, by means of skillful propaganda disguised as reporting, the decline in the mainstream media’s audiences will accelerate. Mark Twain once said, in explaining why he became a newspaperman, “I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” There must be others just like him driven to The New York Times and the Associated Press. Let’s hope the economy picks up more steam soon and these people find employment more suited to their talents.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
