A03572
Articles : MediaNational Pentagon Radio?
While the Iraqi government continued its large-scale military assault in Basra, the NPR reporter’s voice from Iraq was unequivocal on the morning of March 27: “There is no doubt that this operation needed to happen.”
Such flat-out statements, uttered with journalistic tones and without attribution, are routine for the U.S. media establishment. In the War Made Easy documentary film, I put it this way: “If you’re pro-war, you’re objective. But if you’re anti-war, you’re biased. And often, a news anchor will get no flak at all for making statements that are supportive of a war and wouldn’t dream of making a statement that’s against a war.”
So it goes at NPR News, where — on Morning Edition as well as the evening program All Things Considered — the sense and sensibilities tend to be neatly aligned with the outlooks of official Washington. The critical aspects of reporting largely amount to complaints about policy shortcomings that are tactical; the underlying and shared assumptions are imperial. Washington’s prerogatives are evident when the media window on the world is tinted red-white-and-blue.
Earlier in the week — a few days into the sixth year of the Iraq war — All Things Considered aired a discussion with a familiar guest.
“To talk about the state of the war and how the U.S. military changes tactics to deal with it,” said longtime anchor Robert Siegel, “we turn now to retired Gen. Robert Scales, who’s talked with us many times over the course of the conflict.”
This is the sort of introduction that elevates a guest to truly expert status — conveying to the listeners that expertise and wisdom, not just opinions, are being sought.
Siegel asked about the progression of assaults on U.S. troops over the years: “How have the attacks and the countermeasures to them evolved?”
Naturally, Gen. Scales responded with the language of a military man. “The enemy has built ever-larger explosives,” he said. “They’ve found clever ways to hide their IEDs, their roadside bombs, and even more diabolical means for detonating these devices.”
We’d expect a retired American general to speak in such categorical terms — referring to “the enemy” and declaring in a matter-of-fact tone that attacks on U.S. troops became even more “diabolical.” But what about an American journalist?
Well, if the American journalist is careful to function with independence instead of deference to the Pentagon, then the journalist’s assumptions will sound different than the outlooks of a high-ranking U.S. military officer.
In this case, an independent reporter might even be willing to ask a pointed question along these lines: You just used the word “diabolical” to describe attacks on the U.S. military by Iraqis, but would that ever be an appropriate adjective to use to describe attacks on Iraqis by the U.S. military?
In sharp contrast, what happened during the All Things Considered discussion on March 24 was a conversation of shared sensibilities. The retired U.S. Army general discussed the war effort in terms notably similar to those of the ostensibly independent journalist — who, along the way, made the phrase “the enemy” his own in a followup question.
It wouldn’t be fair to judge an entire news program on the basis of a couple of segments. But I’m a frequent listener of All Things Considered and Morning Edition. Such cozy proximity of world views, blanketing the war maker and the war reporter, is symptomatic of what ails NPR’s war coverage — especially from Washington.
Of course there are exceptions. Occasional news reports stray from the narrow baseline. But the essence of the propaganda function is repetition, and the exceptional does not undermine that function.
To add insult to injury, NPR calls itself public radio. It’s supposed to be willing to go where commercial networks fear to tread. But overall, when it comes to politics and war, the range of perspectives on National Public Radio isn’t any wider than what we encounter on the avowedly commercial networks.
Norman Solomon’s latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.
Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...
Follow the money.
NPR requires funding and must meet the expectations of those who provide it while maintaining its base of listeners.
NPR is somewhat left of the mainstream media which is decidedly biased towards the “war.”
Even Mr. Soloman, the writer of this article, injects some of this same pro “war” bias by referring to the occupation of Iraq by what is isn’t.
A war.
The Iraqi people aren’t the “enemy,” nor a threat to the United States.
The “conflict” in Iraq is an occupation by a foreign power(s) which is propping up a puppet regime, who’s actual power is derived from the occupiers and is solidly based in the American “Green Zone.”
While the insurgents certainly view the Americans and their Iraqi subordinates that pose as the Iraqi central government as the enemy, it is an ongoing struggle for political power within Iraq that is fueling the violence from both sides.
Only in the absence of American military power and the current heavy handed political and business influence on Iraq will any “democratic” balance of power be achieved between Iraqis.
Until the Iraqis reach this point of balance in political power, the bloodshed is certain to continue.
Peace,
I always thought their reporters were way too polite when the interviewee provided an obviously bullshit answer.
Having listened to the same broadcast as discussed by this article, I’ve gotta say that wasn’t the impression I got out of it. Some of the supposition of this article is clearly flavored more paranoid than necessary. For instance, the interviewer using the same terminology as the interviewed is more for clarity’s sake than anything else, not necessarily the evidence of a consensus. True, the term “the enemy” can be construed rather broadly in this conflict, but how much does one really expect in a radio broadcast interview most likely edited down to fill a five- to seven-minute slot?
It’s interesting that you say these shared sensibilities are harming the objectivity and value of NPR’s coverage, and yet everything I’ve heard on NPR in recent months over Iraq has only seemed to point out how deep a quagmire the United States is in.
Beats listening to FOX.
shogo…i agree about the timidity of the NPR interviewers, and have noticed that since i was a child listening to NPR at home
You just used the word “diabolical” to describe attacks on the U.S. military by Iraqis, but would that ever be an appropriate adjective to use to describe attacks on Iraqis by the U.S. military?
What would you expect that question to produce? Rigging the body of an enemy with explosives, so when his friends come to collect him, it explodes, could be described as “diabolical”.
Shock and awe, depleted uranium, phosphorus, these are all terrible means of death and destruction. To me, they don’t make wiring up mentally ill people to explode in public markets any more honorable.
“Diabolical” is also a fitting description for the unannounced arrival of a AGM-114 Hellfire missile launched by an operator half a world away from a MQ-1 Predator circling high above, unseen and unheard, to the wedding party of innocent Muslim families.
Whoops! doesn’t quite cover that one.
Sometimes no Peace
NPR actually did a little piece on Winter Soldier unlike all of the other MSM. They tend to look at both sides of the story for the most part.
I know I’m arguing semantics here, but no it’s not. That sounds more tragic than diabolical, unless the operator expressly planned for that missile to take out those Muslim families.
So Normon Solomon wants us to know that NPR supports the status quo in all things war… well, what’s the big surprise there? If Fox belongs, in large measure, to the neo-Cons, then NPR belongs to the neo-Libs. And the difference between a neo-con and a neo-lib is as plain and simple as Hillary Clinton’s voting record.
NPR’s myopic view of the China/U.S. military relationship—
China’s Military Growth Creates Uncertainty for U.S., by Mike Shuster, All Things Considered, April 6, 2008