|
Synopsis:
The media is often known as the ‘watchdog’ of the country; one
which will ensure that the democratic society is always alert and
knows all the inside activities of the Government. This role of
the media is banked upon by the people so that all the faith that
they place in their Heads of State and State representatives is
well accounted for. Keeping the faith of the people is one of the
most primary functions but apart from that the people of the
country are the ones who pay taxes, vote for their representatives
through a democratic process and have demands which they expect
their representatives to fulfill for them- and therefore, in
regard to this the Heads of State and States representatives are
duty-bound to the citizens of the country for all actions which
could affect them. Inside activity within the four walls of the
Government offices many a times is not brought out in the open.
The role of the Media is to expose all that affects the people and
can break the faith that the people place in their democratically
elected Government.
The Media must
always give a true picture of the happenings so that the people
can make their decision based upon the findings of the Media. The
Media is only a medium through which the news reaches the people
but the Media is not suppose to impose its views on the citizens
of the Country. A ‘non-judgmental judgement’ is supposed to be
laid out by the Media. Such a judgment is where the media does not
try to influence the minds of the viewers or readers, rather it
tries to only put forth the plain bare facts before the citizens,
so as to simply inform them about the happenings which they are
entitled to know.
This role of
the media requires it to be independent and away from all the
pressures from parties who are likely to benefit from such
reporting. A responsible media would not succumb to any pressures
and would print the truth. If the people are given fake assurances
and false reports, the country is being fooled into believing that
which is not true, which could lead to chaos and disruption in the
normal working of the society.
Media malpractice is often seen when certain media in print and
electronic
publish and air reports favouring a certain party, only because of
certain
benefits which they get due to the publication of the report. This
not only shakes the foundation on which the Media is built i.e the base of
truth and
integrity. Honesty and precision in reporting are pre-requisites
that any mode
of media must ensure while placing facts and figures before the
people.
While placing facts about the working of the Government the Media
must ensure
that information it places should not mislead the people. This is
difficult
because it is not possible to control and govern the actions of
all the Media
people but this is an important action. People of all age groups,
from all
walks of life and from different societies are informed about
happenings
around the world via the Media and this therefore increases the
burden of the
Media. The Burden comes with a responsibility of true factual
information.
People mould their opinions based on information that they gather
from the Media and on the basis of this information are their
steps further decided
upon. The mindset of the people is dependent on the Media for
details. If
these details are twisted and the correct version is not forth
before the
people, the result of the same could be very chaotic. Not only
this the people
will not be able to decide. There is only a small section of the
mass which
are able to apply their experience, various reports and dig out
the truth.
This is the intelligent, sound and alert crowd of the country. But
a large
group of people base their decisions without questioning the
reports laid out
by the Media and in such circumstances if a certain section of the
Media fools
the people for their personal gains, then a lot of harm can be
suffered by the
people because the decisions that they make hereafter will be
based solely on
lies.
This paper looks at the scenario in the United States after the
September 11,
2001 attack on the World Trade Centre. It looks at the role played
by the
Media in shaping the views and opinions of the people- at times,
with false
reports, which brought a great change in the political scene and
which were
clearly seen in the 2004 Presidential elections.
The author of the paper reflects upon this very idea that the
Press is the
‘orchestra of emotions’ and can mould the political scene in a
country through
its reporting. The irony of the situation is that in a democratic
country, the
Press is a free body with very few regulations and hence along
with accurate,
correct and true reports; the false and incorrect facts also flow
into the
public, which brings about strong misconceptions. In this very
democratic
country, these reports cannot be stopped and therefore the public
grows more
perplexed and confused, enough to make wrong decisions.
The paper notices how after the WTC attacks, George W. Bush (Jr.)
was
criticized and Michael Moore’s documentary on 9/11 clearly shows
the
disinterest that the President of the United States had in matters
of grave
importance. In spite of that he won the 2004 re-elections for the
post of
President. The question arises as to how was this possible and
what led to
this? The author of the paper has tried to look at it through the
media’s
influence on the political culture of the US at that time, which
finally led to this outcome. Was it correct or was the public
fooled into re-electing
George W. Bush as the President of the United States of America?
An attempt
has been made to answer all these questions through Michael
Moore’s documentary - Farenheit 9/11
Farenheit
9/11:
Never before in history has journalism so blatantly abandoned its
traditional
role as the watchdog of government. Never before has a spirited
film maker so
brilliantly stepped in to fill the abhorrent vacuum created by the
corporate
media.[1]
The movie clearly puts forth the flaw of the traditional sources
of Media when
faced with the 9/11 crisis. Michael Moore through his documentary
has clearly
shown that the Media, which is considered to be the voice of the
Government,
not only covered up most of the happenings but also did not look
deeply into a
matter which required utmost concern. The WTC attack was not just
a terrorist
attack but hit at the sovereignty of a country and at such times,
it was the
job of the media to uphold this sovereignty and take the guilty to
task. This
would also include any officials of the US government who were
remotely
involved in causing or due to their negligence allowing such an
incident from
happening in spite of several. However, the guilty not only went
scot free but
also were benefited at the end. The media which had criticized
Bush (Jr.) for
several reasons which will be put forth and also turned the tide
against him,
that very media pushed him ahead to win the presidential elections
in 2004.
How did this happen? The political scenario in the US which
completely went
against the Republican president, for the reason that he was
incompetent to
prevent the WTC attack in spite of warnings and who during the
time of the
9/11 attacks allowed ONLY Bin Laden family members to leave the
country at a
time when all other flights were cancelled, came back to power in
the 2004
elections. Why did this happen? Did the media forget 9/11 and buy
promises
again ? Why did it fail to go deep into the reasons Bush went into
war with
Iraq? Why did the media’s response change during the 2004
elections? Why did
the media not go into the workings of the White House at that
time?
Pollsters, and the director of polling for ABC News[2] according
to a recent
report were against the re-election of Bush in 2004, mainly
because he won
making 9/11 a major issue and women voted him in more. [3]The fact
that
another 9/11 had not taken place since the invasion made people
believe that the
War on Terror
was a
Mission Accomplished. They failed to
realize that
despite his re-election the war in Iraq was on and American
soldiers were
under complete pressure. Most of these questions raised earlier by
Michael
Moore make all the efforts into bringing the truth to the public.
In spite of
this, Bush got re-elected. Again , the traditional media i.e.
electronic and
print media bought false promises. The people got fooled again.
During the movie, at many times it was felt by many people that
the War on
Iraq was totally uncalled for because all signs pointed towards
Osama Bin
Laden being behind the attack, but George W. Bush, with the same
beliefs as
his father wanted more gains and what better than Oil and
Petroleum. It was
this need to gain more and more wealth that got them associated
with the
Saudis and Bin Laden’s family. This very association worked in
favour of the
Saudis and helped the terrorists responsible for the same to
escape. And after
a minimum stint in Afghanistan, home to the Al Qaeda, where the
Americans
managed to place their own man in power, Hamid Karzai, former
senior Advisor
to the Carlyle Group where George Bush (Jr.) for sometime and also
his father
had seats.
They then shifted their focus on scaring people about threats of
attack, of a
degree greater than that of 9/11. In the movie, Congressman Jim
Dermott [4]
clearly stated that it was this fear that made people look towards
their
President, the Commander in Chief of the country, to have a strong
hand in
evoking emotions towards his beliefs of waging war on a country to
possibly
remove all threats of aggression that could take place in the near
future.
After all, he claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,
what the
media failed to question was that after the war, where were they
able to find
the weapons of mass destruction? Why did the media not look into
the
activities of American soldiers inside of Iraq? Why did they not
question the
connection that Bin Laden had with the Bush family? Why did they
not oppose
the war on Iraq when all fingers and a security briefing report
laid before the President in August, 2001 titled
Bin Laden likely to attack
inside the
United States read and taken seriously? The fact that while all
flights were
cancelled because of the 9/11 attack but only Bin Laden family
members allowed
to leave quietly not questioned by the Media? Why? Why did the
media allow the
political scenario to worsen without taking responsibility and go
into the
depths of the matter?
The media was the main reason the people did not know the truth.
Together with
that
‘yellow journalism’
had made things worse in the country and
in the
process forced many families to suffer and lose loved ones for a
gain and not
a cause.
It is a belief that the media must never indulge in yellow
journalism because
it can affect the political culture of a country. The 2001
Presidential
elections which were tilting mainly because of the Florida poll
was called an
‘Al Gore’ win and celebrations were in full swing but one news
channel i.e.
the Fox News made George Bush the winner by 51%. The Court did not
allow a
recount of votes which if it had been allowed would have clarified
everything.
Coincidentally the night this decision was let out, it was by the
man
in-charge and this happened to be Bush’s first cousin, John Ellis.
The
Governor of the State in question also happened to be related to
him.
The Court’s judgment according to the author here is flawed and a
recount
should have been allowed. When it comes to Fox News Channel,
conservatives
don't feel the need to "work the ref." [5] It must be kept in mind
that for a
nation to b strong, it is very essential that it has the full
support and
co-operation of its people, and even those who are not In power
and the
exploited. If the media gives a false report, that leads to a lot
of problems.
This main distortion by the Fox News changed the political
scenario in the US
and brought about total confusion. This is clearly seen in the
movie where
Michael Moore has shown that this win of Bush which is said to be
planned out,
did not get him any supporters because of his attitude towards the
WTC attacks
and his invasion of Iraq where young soldiers who were recruited
due to fake
promises did not see reason as to why Iraq? why Saddam? Why not
Bin Laden who
was the main accused?
No president of the United States had faced so much humiliation on
the day of
oath taking. People then saw the flaw in this leader. But the
damage was
already done. Eight months after he took up office his job
approval fell from
53% to 45% and when work could not be done Bush went for a
vacation. At that
time the Washington Post stated that 42% of his time in office,
Bush was on
vacation and during such times, if he had paid attention to the
Security
briefing reports then maybe, the WTC attacks could have been
prevented.
The media was flawed in its approach when it did not question why
Bush went
into war with Iraq? Why George H.W. Bush (Senior) was in a
conference on the
morning of the September 11th attacks while he was in a meeting
with Schafi
Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden’s cousin and James Baker and John Mayor
as part of
the Carlyle Group business.
The media did not also question as to why James R. Bath’s name was
struck off
George W. Bush’s military records. The reason was that James R.
Bath was made
the Texas money manager of the Bin Laden’s and if this connection
was
established then George W. Bush would have been eyed suspiciously.
These flaws changed the political culture and scenario in the
United States
and brought the Republican back to power again. If these things
were brought
out and the grief and anger of the people who were deployed to
Iraq was seen
then Bush could not have been re-elected.
Did the press at that point reveal that the Carlyle Group which
had a huge
investment in the United Defense Industries, earned $ 237 when it
sold shares
on one single day of a month around six weeks after 9/11? Did the
Americans
get to know that America got $ 1.4 billion from Saudis and people
connected to
a terrorist called Osama Bin Laden? What made the media so blind
that they
could not understand the ploy of the Republicans? Their negligence
led to the
‘War President’ pushing troops into Iraq where there was more
bloodshed and
atrocities, for no proper reasons.
The media are the eyes of the mass. They are supposed to follow
the code of
ethics and truth. For the truth to prevail, they must know that
honesty is by
far the best policy to adopt. Then how come they missed so many
crucial
details? The negligence of the media led to the political scenario
changing
completely but this could have been for the better if the Media
had been
alert.
A responsible media would have taken all initiative to look into
the
benefactors of the Iraq war who were cashing in on the war and the
casualities
being faced there by the American soldiers and Iraqi people. This
irresponsibility has left a ‘damning strain on American news
reporting’.[6] It
was very easy for Bush to say ‘bring ‘em on’ but he did not
realize and the
media on its part faile din making the media realize that Iraq was
on the
verge of becoming another Vietnam. In a letter by Michael
Lipscomb, a soldier
who died fighting in Iraq, to his mother he does address Bush as a
‘fool’
saying that the war is in vain and that the soldiers there wanted
to come back
as fast as possible because they did not know their true purpose
there. They
were trying to bring Democracy where the people were not ready to
accept
intrusion into their family itself. This therefore, led to further
to increase
in casualties. In the first 13 months into the War, nearly 5000
American
soldiers were killed in combat. Throughout these times, the media
was not
allowed to show any footage of the coffins being brought back
home.[7] Neither
were they allowed to show any footage of atrocities done to the
Iraqis. It is
only later that such videos which were then made just for fun, was
broadcasted
to show the torture that people actually suffered.
Why did the media not conduct a thorough investigation and its
because of this
lack of integrity that the American media was not able to prevent
the
re-election of the ‘War President’ who sent many fathers, mothers,
brothers,
sisters and uncles to the war who never came back. The 9/11
attacks was about
injustice. Injustice was done not only on the American people but
also the
people of Iraq and the late Saddam Hussein against whom the
allegation of
possessing Weapons of mass destruction is yet to be proved. The
man was hunted
down, tried and then killed. Was this for the people of America?
Or was it for
the gains of the Bush family? Why did the corporate media look
into this?
‘It was the corporate media that turned its back and cowered in
deference to
the Bush regime. It was the corporate media that withheld,
distorted,
manipulated and lied outright. It was the corporate media that
cheered the
push to war as they completed for its coverage and higher ratings.
And it was
the corporate media, tragically, to which most of the nation
turned for its
nightly news.’[8]
The answer to why Saddam and why not Bin Laden is very clear. Did
the media
know that at a time when the world had started recognizing Osama
Bin Laden as
a terrorist, one family was establishing links with the Bin Laden
family? Did
they know that the Bin Laden’s at the time of the 9/11 were
allowed to leave
the country without any interrogation, which is a protocol
followed in most
situations? This family was none other than the Bush family.
George Bush, Senior and his son have always looked at striking
lucrative deal
with companies like the Halliburton Drilling Company and even
Carlyle group
where Bush family members and associates were always striking
deals with them.
The situation became such that when US was in war, the ones to
benefit the
most were the Saudis. In Carlyle group, George H.W. Bush (senior)
was Senior
advisor and even on the morning of September 11th attacks, they
were in a
meeting. However, by then George H. W. Bush had left the meeting.
Why did the
media not look into these aspects and question it? Why did they
not try to
find out whether the $1.4 billion which was pouring in from the
Saudis into
America, whether or not it was in anyway causing harm to the
people of
America?
Craig Unger, author of the book House of Bush, House of Saudis,
has clearly
stated in his book that “Never before has an American president
been so
closely tied to a foreign power that harbors and supports our
country's mortal
enemies."
Even in the 2004 elections, stringent steps could have been taken
but the
media failed in recognizing and taking quick action into
rectifying the
mistakes made during the last term of Bush.
US Senator Jim Talent at that point did say that "This (George W.
Bush) is a
man who has restored peace to the American homeland, after we
suffered the
worst attack we have suffered here since Pearl Harbor". Is this
true? Would
this still have been the opinion of the people if they knew about
the
atrocities that American soldiers were doing in Iraq? Would this
also have
been the condition if they had been told clearly by influential TV
channels
like Fox News about the Saudi and US connection? But how could
they have
known? The
‘yellow journalism’ practiced by the corporate and
print media is
now, beyond repair.
The author of this paper will clearly lay down an example of what
the media
did not notice. When nearly around 500 relatives and family
members of 9/11
victims filed a suit against the Saudi royals and others, a man by
the name
James A. Baker took was the advocate from their side.
This very individual was the Secretary of State during the tine of
George
H.W. Bush and became involved first with George W. Bush in
2000,during Bush’s
elections and later got involved with him in the Iraq War. Why
would James A.
Baker assist the Saudis? Maybe a reason could be a well-known fact
that the
Saudis funded the Al Qaeda- a dangerous terrorist group. But who
could blame
the Bush Administration; after all, the Saudis were pouring nearly
% 1.4
billion into the US compared to the $400,000 that the Americans
were giving
their President. So, James A. Baker’s need to support the Saudis
more than his
fellow Americans should be justifiable. Is any other reason
required?!
The media failed to notice this.
Another example where the selfishness of the Republicans and Bush
Administration seen was when Michael Moore went around asking
senators if they
would enlist their children to fight in Iraq. Senators walked away
on hearing
this. Of all the 535 members of the Congress only one had his
children in the
army. Why? They were all ready to see a just cause being fought
for and
sympathized with those who lost a son or a daughter but did not
want to be
that someone who loses a lost one.
The Media:
Throughout this entire paper, the author have posed questions.
Questions for
which, the author have very few answers. There are a few more
question that
the author needs to ask: Who is the Media accountable to? Does the
media have
the right to play with the emotions of people? What does it take
to have the
truth printed out and not have yellow journalism? And finally does
the Media
have answers for all the questions posed in this paper?
The media is supposed to be the backbone of a democratic country.
A country
where people have the right to ask the questions and the media has
the
responsibility to bring them the answers. The only problem with
the media of a
democratic country is that everyone has a right to print what they
want and
along with the truth a few lies are told too. This is what
happened with the
American public as is done in many countries. Ideally, the media
cannot afford
to lie. It cannot afford to hamper the political process, as was
done in this
case. This is one of greatest setbacks of media in a democratic
country even though the positive points outweigh the flaws, they must be
rectified.
The political process and culture of America got stalled only
because of the
shallow reporting done by the media. If a precise account of the
activities of
the Bush administration had been given to the people and if the
media had
taken a lot more care while dealing with people, the balance would
have
definitely tilted in favour of the Democrats in the 2004
elections.
The flaw of the media cannot be rectified now but it has to be
ensured that
the same does not take place in the future because shallow and
‘yellow
journalism’
hits at the foundation of the nation.-
----------------------
[1] Media Malpractice 9/11-The Abysmal Vacuum filled by the Mighty
Michael
Moore;
http://www.tvnewslies.org/news/
[2] Langer was one of a host of leading media pollsters, top
campaign planners
and academic
experts who gathered on campus Nov. 9 to offer their take on the
presidential race & explain
why and how voters handed Bush a second term in office.
[3] Trei, Lisa; Pollsters dissect Bush election win;
http://www.news-service.stanford.edu
[4] Psychiatrist and Member of the Congress (Washington)
[5] Ackerman, Seth; The most biased news in News, 2001;
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
[6] Supra. Note 1
[7] Statistic was given in the documentary by Moore
[8] Supra. Note 1
|
Media
And Political Culture: A Look at the scenario in the United
States on the basis of Michael Moore’s documentary- ‘Farenheit
9/11’
More
Articles:
The
author can be reached at: nair.ila@legalserviceindia.com /
/
