Media coverage of September 11th and the war on terror


COPYRIGHT MAINTAINED, DO NOT DUPLICATE WITHOUT PERMISSION!

To appear in:
Robinson, Matthew B. (2005).  Justice Blind? Ideals and Realities of American Criminal Justice (2nd Edition).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 On September 11th, 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 7th, 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 11th, 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 “war on terror” has been plague 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.

 Many have characterized media coverage of the terrorist attacks and the looming wars as prophetic (Schecter, 2003). 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, every day 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 11th, 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. 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.  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 are now in the White House, and at least one key writer for the American Enterprise Institute has unfettered access to President Bush on foreign policy matters. These groups have planned the Iraqi war for more than 10 years!

 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 are still dying over there and that the Taliban are regrouping – is 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 (Schecter, 2003). 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.” Absent were questions pertaining to the just or unjust nature of the war (Cohen, 2003).

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. 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. Some claim the media thus were involved in selling the war rather than reporting it (Schecter, 2003).  When President Bush declared end to major combat operations only a few weeks into the military actions, the media began returning to normal, every day 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 11th, 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 11th was going to teach us what was really important. Yet, here we are two years later and the lead stories in the news deal with the disappearance of a collegiate basketball player and the alleged sexual assault committed by a professional basketball player.

  There has been almost no discussion of civilian deaths in Iraq despite clear evidence that deaths are in the thousands, like in Afghanistan (Schecter, 2003). Only occasionally do the media mention the continuing deaths and injuries of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and even Afghanistan. There has been very little in-depth analysis or investigative reporting about the conditions of Iraq, except by international news institutions such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and a few public media institutions such as the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). The media have completely ignored the deterioration of Afghanistan and the efforts to return to power by the Taliban government.

 Even though at the time of this writing, the highest ranking officials of the Taliban government and the Hussein regime have not yet been captured or killed, mainstream media are already asking who the United States will next attack the war on terror. Top military officials have 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 (Schecter, 2003). 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 (Schecter, 2003).

At the time of this writing, these claims are finally being investigated. Stories of this nature are becoming more routine, questioning the intelligence which implicated the Hussein regime in attempting to obtain weapons of mass destruction. What is still not being asked, however, is whether it matters 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.

 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. 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 (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 think 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: Iraq did not attack the United States on September 11th, 2001; Iraq was not linked meaningfully with al-Qaeda; and the majority of people in the world opposed the war (even among the countries that participated in it, aside from in the United States).

So perhaps it is not surprising that a study by the Program on International Policy at the University of Maryland reports that a majority of Americans have significant misperceptions and these are 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:

 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.