Insurgentjg

“Media provides a pre-packaged hysteria that has dominated both U.S rhetoric and mainstream media, who, at times, are joining forces to create cynicism about the global war on terror. In short, it is a business, a product. If people are scared, they are going to want to know what is going on, driving both the medium and the message; even if it is, at times, difficult to tell exactly who is wagging the dog.”[i]

It is in the nature of masses, as well as individuals, to escalate between the extremes and while doing that they miss the part that is the truth. The notion of something ‘extraordinary’ sounds so attractive that we almost become victims of our own instincts. How many of us thought, as our first reaction to Benazir’s murder, that our own ‘existence’ is endangered?”Americans Are Coming”, “Civil war Ensues” and “Pakistan People Party Is Over” are few of the reactions that I noticed.

Role of media is to feed on these instincts that already exist in masses. It builds on those instincts, enhances them but it does not create them altogether. Once the stage is set, its easier to add or subtract the desired ingredients. Everybody wants to hear what their hearts are saying. Something unusual happens in a normal day and you get the feeling that it has larger repercussions. You log on to BBC Website and somewhere some sage is telling you about the exact fears that were latent in your heart. You realize your sense of ‘happenings’ of current affairs is enhanced and that u can brag about it among your peers, and then you move on with your routine life. There is a way to bypass these inherent inclinations by adopting more rational approach. Anybody heard of Aristotle’s “Golden Mean”? But let me not get into that.

Perhaps there is only one question, in question here. Why the phrase “War on Terror’?

At first the U.S. used the word “crusade” but it was quickly pointed out that if they hope to enlist their allies in the Islamic world, it would be a serious mistake, for obvious reasons.  The rhetoric therefore shifted to “war.”The proper term would be “crime”-perhaps “crime against humanity,” as Robert Fisk (British journalist and is currently a Middle East correspondent for British news paper, The Independent) has stressed. But that does not sound so appealing now does it? also it requires solid evidence and it opens doors to dangerous questions: to mention only the most obvious one, who were the perpetrators of the crime of international terrorism condemned by the World Court 21 years ago (in 1986 the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for “unlawful use of force” (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to adhere to international law)?

For such reasons, it is better to use a vague term, like “war.”  To call it a “war against terrorism,” however, is simply more propaganda, unless the “war” really does target terrorism. Now the ‘War on Terror” is still raw because Western powers can never abide by their own official definitions of the term, as in the U.S. Code* or Army manuals.  To do so would at once reveal that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients.

Perhaps I may quote political scientist Michael Stohl in support of my point: “We must recognize that by convention- and it must be emphasized only by convention-great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism…..”

Therefore it was essential for the United States Government to gather support among the masses to continue her acts of terrorism in a legal fashion and thus the need of media-help. The immediate reaction of the public after 9/11 was shock, horror, anger, fear, a desire for revenge. Media loves such short and catchy terms. Stage was set and yes super-hot topics like it sell so fast! I’m surprised that the obvious contradictions in the phrase did not go through the eyes of so many Western Newspapers, journalists, political pundits etc with a few exceptions of scholars like Noam Chomsky.

It is entirely typical for the major media and the intellectual classes generally, to line up in support of power at a time of crisis and try to mobilize the population for the same cause.

Speaking of Chomsky, he is the first modern political philosopher to identify role of the media as an instrument of state control. He believes that the media always supports the current state policies whether they are right or wrong. Only times of clashes are when the Government is in direct conflict with the ‘men of power’ within the official network i.e. Men of power vs. Men of power. He gives the example of WaterGate scandal where Nixon lost the battle only because he made the choice of making wrong enemies and not because he was corrupt. He points out that there were other bigger issues of corruption at the time that the media could have brought to the fore. All this he explains, in detail, in his book “On Language” published in 1977.

Back to the original question, its answer and the conclusion; the phrase “War on Terror” is ‘good business’, it’s got ‘Government support’ and it feeds on the latent weakness of the masses i.e. fear, and hence it’s got a lot of potential for manipulation. Seen in this context the role of media becomes very clear. Bombardments, repeated publication, Omni-presence of ‘War on Terror’ even if it will answer the most fervent prayers of bin Laden and his network. Bin Laden’s network draws from a reservoir of anger, fear, and desperation, which is why they are praying for a violent U.S. reaction, which will mobilize others to their horrendous cause. Not to mention, means justify the ends. And it’s all good business in the end.  No?

* “[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that sis a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984]).

[i] Excerpt from a thesis on Role of Media, University of the Sindh.  

Bibliography 

This essay is based on the group discussions and readings by Sana Naveed