Media Coverage of 9/11 and the War on Terrorism

Media Coverage of September 11^th and the War on Terror (Excerpted from Justice Blind? Ideals and Realities of American Criminal Justice, 3^rd Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, by Matthew Robinson, in press).

By Matthew Robinson, PhD
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice
Appalachian State University

On September 11^th, 2001, the United States was attacked by terrorists like it had never been attacked before. Even the attacks of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese on December 7^th, 1941, were not as deadly.

And of course, clearly there were differences. Pearl Harbor was a military base, and civilians were not the intended targets. Additionally, military planes and weapons were used in the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The attacks in New York City were intended to kill and injure civilians, and our own civilian airliners were used as weapons. Only the Pentagon was the targeted military facility, and one of the four doomed planes crashed into it. People have speculated that the fourth plane was intended for a government target in Washington, D.C., such as the White House or the U.S. Capitol building; that plane crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania. But of course, you know all this.

What I have done in briefly describing the September 11^th, 2001 attacks to set the stage for this discussion of media coverage of them and America’s subsequent “war on terror,” is what mainstream media outlets did for months every time these issues were discussed. Think about it: how many times did you see the planes fly into the World Trade Center buildings? How many total horrific images from that day –– people running for cover, dead bodies and injured people, crushed police cars and fire engines, photos of missing persons posted on walls and fences –– have you seen?

The media coverage of these attacks has been very similar to their typical coverage of crime and criminal justice discussed in Chapter 5: disproportionately focused on violence; creative of misperceptions of one’s true risk of becoming a victim of such terrorism; ignorant of some key facts and issues about the causes and effects of terrorism; neglectful because of failing to provide context for the attacks; and creative of much fear and anxiety.

Coverage of the US response through its “war on terror” has been plagued by similar problems and distortions of its own. As you must know, the United States has responded to these attacks by launching two separate “wars” –– one on the Taliban government in Afghanistan and one on the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq.

According to polls, most Americans cannot even identify these countries on a map, much less discuss the relationships that our government has had with these countries. Perhaps this is why some claim that the problem with the media coverage of the terrorist attacks began before the attacks even came. For example, Nisbet (2001) points out how American media essentially ignore world affairs, especially those that are complex and cannot be summarized in sound bites and short stories.

According to Altheide (2006: 166), the media “chose not to present important contextual and background information about the Middle East and especially Iraq because it was not consistent with other news themes, nor was it as entertaining. The dominant ‘story’ since the attacks of 9/11 was the ‘war on terrorism.’ This broad story included U.S. retaliation, the hunt for al Qaeda leaders … and plans to attack countries and ‘outlaw regimes’ that supported or harbored terrorists … invading Afghanistan and expanding the U.S. military presence throughout the world … adjustments were made in foreign policy, military budgets, domestic surveillance, and attacks on civil liberties. Threats to invade other countries (the ‘axis of evil’) that included Iraq were part of an effort to ‘defend’ the United States from future attacks.”

More than this, media coverage of the terrorist attacks and the looming wars was prophetic. In essence, the media beat the drums of war with unique pro-war headlines and theme songs, making war seem inevitable, even before the U.S. launched any attacks. Americans just had to prepare for what was coming.

Early reports, beginning immediately after the attacks and continuing for months, focused almost exclusively on the human elements of the attacks. What was left out was any type of context for how rare these attacks were, where they came from, why they were initiated, the role the United States itself play in the motivations, international reactions, appropriate or inappropriate responses from Congress and the President of the United States, or any information on what normal, everyday Americans should do in the wake of such events.

Lule (2002) focused on editorials in the New York Times, a member of the inner-ring of the media, and found that their writers focused on four myths to portray the events of September 11^th, 2001: the end of innocence; the victims; the heroes; and the foreboding future. In essence, even editorials in top newspapers were simplifying the attacks and not providing any critical coverage of where the attacks emerged or why. Why did the attackers choose us? Why did they hate us so much that they were willing to give their own lives to kill innocent civilians? Since the New York Times is a member of the inner-ring of the media, its coverage affects most other media outlets in America.

Questions like those above were not answered because they were not asked by inner-ring media. This is one reason why major media organization such as the New York Times ultimately apologized for its coverage –– for not being critical enough, for not questioning evidence about Iraq presented to them from White House insiders. For those reporters and commentators who asked such questions, they received predictable answers given whom was being asked –– disproportionately those appearing on news broadcasts and talk shows were government and military spokespersons who simplified the motives for the attacks as jealousy of the United States and pure evil.

Altheide (2006: 117-118) asserts that “government and military officials … dominated news reports about terrorism and fear … Newspapers as well as television network news relied heavily on administration sources that directed the focus and language of news coverage.” One study of a 6 month period found that 92% of the stories about Iraq broadcast on NBC, ABC, and CBS originated at the White House, Pentagon, and State Department (Tyndall, 2005). Another study of the time immediately following the speech to the United Nations by Secretary of State Collin Powell (which justified an invasion of Iraq) found that “two-thirds of the guests were from the United States, with 75 percent of these being current or former government or military officials, while only one … expressed skepticism or opposition to the impending war with Iraq” (Altheide, 2006: 118).

By relying almost exclusively on government insiders, the dominant ideology underlying the US “war on terror” was served. According to Altheide (2006: 18), an important part of ideology “is the promotion of a mythology, a set of ideas or ‘stories’ that explains things, organizes our view of the world, and puts people, places, and events in convenient categories … One of the most important myths that has been promoted by politicians is that of ‘good’ versus ‘evil,’ with ‘your side’ being good and the ‘other side’ being evil.” In the case of 9/11 and terrorism, the US is the good side, and thus the message by politicians was that terrorism “was cast as something that was done to the United States as barbaric, as unfair. A number of officials stated or implied that the United States … did not engage in terrorist activities – ever” (Althedie, 2006: 24). While the veracity of the statement that the US has never engaged in terrorism is beyond the scope of this book, I hope you’ll investigate alleged claims that our country has done this very thing (because the media do not).

Not surprisingly, one study found that pro-war voices in America dominated news coverage, outnumbering anti-war voices by a margin of about 25 to 1 (Rendell and Broughel 2003). Zerbisias (2003) summarizes this study, conducted by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR):

“FAIR found a mere 3 per cent of U.S. sources represented or expressed opposition to the war, and that includes senators and members of Congress. With more than 1 in 4 U.S. citizens opposing the war and much higher rates of opposition in most countries where opinion was polled, none of the networks offered anything resembling proportionate coverage of anti-war voices … The anti-war percentages ranged from 4 per cent at NBC, 3 per cent at CNN, ABC, PBS and FOX, and less than 1 per cent — 1 out of 205 U.S. sources — at CBS … Anti-war voices were almost universally blown off in one-sentence sound bites while 42 per cent of them were never identified by name, labeled instead as ‘protester'’ or ‘anti-war activist.’”

Some outer-ring and middle-ring media agencies investigated the motivations for the war on Iraq and reported it for about a year before the war started; yet, it was not until after the war began that any inner-ring media outlets even mentioned the Project for a New American Century, or the American Enterprise Institute, two neo-conservative think tanks which had called for an invasion of Iraq. Shockingly, the founders and other key members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) ended up in the White House, and at least one key writer for the American Enterprise Institute was given significant access to President Bush on foreign policy matters. These groups called and planned for the Iraqi war for more than 10 years!

Altheide (2006) shows that of 18 media reports regarding PNAC after the 9/11 attacks, five were on National Public Radio, seven were in major newspapers like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, and only four were on major television networks such as NBC, ABC, or CBS. This matters because evidence suggests that the “general public derives most of its understanding of international affairs and foreign policy from news and particularly television news” (p. 165). Amazingly, members of PNAC regularly appeared in numerous mainstream media outlets, yet they were not identified as members of PNAC. Instead, they were identified by their position title within government. Of course, it is not surprising that such individuals were allowed to speak in favor of the “war on terror” and US intervention in Iraq, given that so many members of PNAC were actually employed within the White House and/or other major government agencies.

Importantly, PNAC sources were used 85% more frequently after 9/11 than before it in the New York Times. This suggests they had an even greater ability to push forward on their goals to invade Iraq through media coverage favorable to their claims. This is one reason Altheide (2006: 174) concludes that “the media are indirectly responsible for encouraging the public’s support of the war against Iraq through their acts of omission and/or compliance.”

As the nation prepared for military action against Afghanistan and ultimately Iraq, mainstream media outlets provided little in the way of information about these countries, their cultures, and previous interactions between these countries and the United States. For example, the U.S. government recently viewed the Taliban government as an ally in the war on drugs for destroying massive amounts of Opium poppies. Since the Taliban government in Afghanistan had no air force and virtually no defenses, the U.S. military could easily move into and around Afghanistan, running nearly flawless air strikes against whatever military targets they located.

The Afghanistan “war” quickly was replaced by much bigger news, especially the large corporate crime stories of Enron, World Com, etc. (see Chapter 4). This was the focus of the news for an unprecedented few weeks, until President Bush signed a new law toughening sanctions for corporate crime and began openly discussing the possible invasion of Iraq, which then became the lead story. Coverage of the continuing “war” on Afghanistan –– including the fact that Americans were still dying over there and that the Taliban was regrouping –– was not widespread.

Almost nightly, the television news reported that the U.S. was already striking targets in Iraq, as they had been doing since the end of the first Gulf War with Iraq (for about 12 years). Yet, rarely did we hear more than one sentence about the attacks, what their intended targets were, or how many civilians were killed in these bombings. As military actions against Iraq seemed imminent, despite overwhelming worldwide opinion against it, the media again began preparing the American people for the inevitable. Broadcasters on each of the major networks and writers for each of the major newspapers began predicting when the war would start and asked top officials in the U.S. government when they would launch the war. Much coverage was given to the US plan to launch its “shock and awe” campaign against Iraq featuring military tactics never before seen in wartime.

Absent were questions pertaining to the just or unjust nature of the war (Cohen, 2003). Altheide (2006: 166) contends: “It is hard to believe that the American people would not have been interested in carefully presented reports about systematic efforts [by the Bush Administration] to undermine international treaties, destroy the United Nations, expand the military, and engage in more military attacks, including preemptive first strikes.” Yet, these issues were not covered in the mainstream press.

Once it finally began, television news stations provided around the clock coverage initially, and major newspapers carried in-depth coverage and analysis of the war, including targets, weaponry, military personnel on both sides, and similar issues. Media coverage of Iraq fit certain themes, including victims, suffering, heroism, compensation, retaliation, the ‘war on terror,” fear, homeland security, surveillance, and preparing for the wars (Altheide, 2004). Stories related to these themes were part of the “visual reality” of the war being created by the mainstream media.

With all the focus on US weaponry, very few citizens probably had any reason to suspect that the US would become entrenched in a long, drawn out invasion. The mainstream media had some responsibility for this. For example, Cunningham (2003) found that there were 574 stories about Iraq on ABC, CBS, and NBC evening broadcasts between September 12, 2002 and March 7, 2003, and only 12 reports dealt with the potential aftermath of the US invasion! While Administration officials were publicly stating that US forces would be greeted as liberators, Middle Eastern experts were predicting exactly what has happened in Iraq –– a very prolonged and difficult occupation followed by a likely civil war. That the media did not give these experts voice and did not even ask critical questions about post-war Iraq serves as evidence that media institutions are part of the problem.

Mainstream media developed special graphics with American flags, to be continuously broadcast on their television screens, which waved in the background or foreground as people were interviewed about the war. In a sense, the media were helping to create a sense that the war was not only inevitable but also necessary and right. Numerous scholars make the claim that the media have historically capitulated to the government during war (Altheide, 2006; Der Derian, 2002; Ellenius and Foundation, 1998; Gerth, 1992; Herman and Chomsky, 2002; Jackall, 1999; Kellner, 2003; Shapiro, 1992).

Rutenberg and Carter (2001: C8) describe the media following the 9/11 attacks as “an arm of the government, as opposed to an independent, objective purveyor of information.” Altheide (2006: 178) explains: “Major network television journalists, wearing American flag pins on their lapels, occasionally crying on camera, and offering constant moral support to an expanding network audience, offered very little perspective and understanding of the 9/11 events, seldom asking the most basic questions of administration officials who were pushing draconian legislation to limit civil rights through Congress while military appropriations were increasing drastically in pursuit of an emerging ambiguous war plan to attack Iraq. Clearly the pressure was on journalists to conform and not rock the boat, to not challenge those who were protecting us against evil and terror … The coverage of the war was clearly influenced by such pressure, along with the availability of ‘visuals’ that permitted ‘live’ shots of advancing tanks, Marines, gunfire, and explosions. Other journalists covering the Iraq War reported censorship and intimidation.” On top of this, the military only permitted members of the press to be “embedded” with certain military units. Reporters only then reported on what was happening at the time (e.g., live battles).

When President Bush declared end to major combat operations only a few weeks into the military actions, the media began returning to normal, everyday stories, such as coverage of celebrity and random, violent crimes. Prior to the war, the leading story was the disappearance of a young woman who had some kind of relationship with a Congressman from California. Although no evidence ever surfaced to suggest the Congressman was involved in her disappearance or death (she was found dead in a public park long after she disappeared), intense media coverage followed the every move of the Congressman. The attacks of September 11^th, 2001 were supposedly a wake-up call to mainstream media: many reporters even said this directly on the air, how they felt so badly for wasting so much time discussing the disappearance of one young woman and missed other, far more important stories. September 11^th was going to teach us what was really important. Yet, for the first several years after the attacks, the lead stories in the news dealt with things like the disappearance of a collegiate basketball player, the alleged sexual assault committed by a professional basketball player, acts of personal deviance committed by politicians, and a major corruption scandal in Congress centering around lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Two years after that, even as Iraq disintegrated into full fledged civil war, as more than 3,000 US service personnel had died and as many as 655,000 Iraqis were killed, the lead story in the press for weeks became the death of Anna Nicole Smith (an actress who was not particularly well-respected). Other stories covered widely in the media were the killing of a little girl in Florida, the sporadic beatings of homeless people across the country by teenagers, and celebrity gossip (including a brief stay in jail by celebrity Paris Hilton).

Even before the highest ranking officials of the Taliban government and the Hussein regime had been captured or killed, mainstream media began asking who the United States would attack next in the war on terror. Top military officials appeared on television making their own predictions about countries like Iran, Syria, Lybia, and North Korea.

Before the “war” on Iraq, mainstream media institutions failed to provide coverage of the initial anti-war rallies in the United States, even though they were the largest ever rallies against a war that were launched before the war started. When the media began covering these events as they grew still larger (the largest since the 1970s), in an effort to be fair, they gave equal time to the counter-protesters even though the counter-protesters were vastly outnumbered. Most media outlets did not investigate the claims of those against the war, such as that the evidence against Iraq had been manipulated, misrepresented, exaggerated, and even fabricated and that the war was actually against the law.

Claims such as these were finally investigated and more critical stories became more routine, questioning the intelligence which implicated the Hussein regime in attempting to obtain weapons of mass destruction. What was never asked, however, is whether it mattered that Hussein possessed or was attempting to possess these weapons. Could he reach us with them? Did he have good reason to? Would we be able to stop him without initiating a war? What would be the implications for the law, which explicitly forbids launching preemptive wars, and for our allies, who uniformly stood against the invasion? Such questions need answers.

Other efforts by the US as part of its “war on terror” included new laws passed by Congress and executive orders of the President justifying major curtailments to civil liberties (see the Issue in Depth at the end of Chapter 3). Yet, media reports contained “little criticisms and dissent about administration incursions into civil liberties and violations of due process” (Altheide, 2006: 103) and “journalists referred to people concerned about civil liberties, especially government surveillance, as ‘privacy advocates’” (p. 4). Once the media started to question whether the government had gone too far in its domestic efforts to prevent terrorism, reform of the law was unlikely due to the entrenchment of the new approaches.

As you saw in this chapter, media inaccuracies such as these stem, first and foremost, from the organization nature of the media. Mainstream media are owned by corporations and will inevitably cover stories in a way that serves their own interests (including ignoring stories that call their interests into question). The media also attempt to give us what they think will help us sell the products that they advertise on their stations and in their newspapers. Since violence is so important and even celebrated in America, wars fit our preoccupation with violence nicely. Altheide (2006: 18-19) says much “misinformation is quite intentional. This does not mean that everyone in the mass media lies … Rather … it is the emphasis on entertainment and making profits that leads to the major distortions.”

Additionally, the effects of the peer culture help explain the immense focus on the terrorist attacks and the war on terror. Once inner-ring media begin reporting on such stories, other media agencies follow so as not be left out. Furthermore, as the lack of criminal justice education partly explains the inaccurate media coverage of crime and criminal justice, so too does the lack of political science education partly explain the incomplete media coverage of the terrorist attacks on this country and the war on terror. Finally, as politics plays a role in “framing” crime, the war on terror has also been framed for a significant political reason –– it reinforces patriotism and an unquestioning allegiance to government leaders who promote war rather than peace –– even when the facts do not justify war (Nacos, 2002; Norris, Korn, and Just, 2003).

According to Jeff Cohen, founder of FAIR, the news media promote ignorance about important issues such as the war on Iraq. He writes:

“That half or more Americans [thought] Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack -- perhaps the most media-covered event in our history -- stands as a horrific indictment of U.S. media today. Such levels of ignorance can't be found in other countries … The run-up to the Iraq war offers a case study in news bias: how mainstream media, especially television, were incapable of getting the truth out in the face of administration lies and innuendo about Iraq's 9/11 role and weapons of mass destruction.”

The “truth” includes the following facts: 1) Iraq did not attack the United States on September 11^th, 2001; 2) Iraq was not linked meaningfully with al-Qaeda; and 3) the majority of people in the world opposed the war (even among the countries that participated in it, aside from in the United States).

A study by the Program on International Policy at the University of Maryland reports that a majority of Americans had significant misperceptions and these were highly related to support for the war with Iraq (Kull, Ramsay, Subias, Lewis, and Warf 2003). The study found that 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. More than half (60%) had at least one of these three misperceptions.

The misperceptions were also found to be related to support for the war on Iraq. For example:

· Among those with none of the misperceptions, only 23% reported supporting the war;

· Among those with one of the misperceptions, 53% reported supporting the war;

· Among those with two of the misperceptions, 78% reported supporting the war;

· Among those with all three misperceptions, 86% reported supporting the war.

The frequency of Americans' misperceptions varied depending on their primary source of news. Viewers of Fox were most likely to have at least one misperception (80%), followed by CBS (71%), ABC (61%), and NBC and CNN (55%). Only about half (47%) of people who reported relying on print sources had at least one misperception, followed by only 23% of listeners of National Public Radio (NPR) and viewers of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS).

When Americans misperceive the facts after watching news coverage, it is clear that the media are failing to do their job. Because the free flow of information is at the heart of democracy, there is no greater threat to democracy than a media who fail to do their job.