During the Iraq War, the Pentagon and the Bush White House controlled what went out to the world about what was happening through media centers such as CNN, BBC and Fox News. They did so by providing vague information about the location of the American troops and also by emphasizing the glory and might of the American army in Iraq.
Al Jazeera, a famous Doha-based news channel tried to provide a balance of stories by presenting the war from the perspective of a civilian in Iraq to tell the world that the Iraq war was not a clean one by any means but was rather messy and bloody. Pentagon officials called Al Jazeera the 'mouthpiece of Bin Laden'. For example, the story of Jessica Lynch was so dramatized and the Pentagon was giving out false information of what had happened when Lynch was rescued. They told the media that Lynch had sustained stab and bullet wounds and had been slapped but it was later found out that Lynch only suffered injuries from the accident in which her team was caught. Also the Pentagon claimed that the US troops came under fire during the 'rescue' operation but the doctors at the hospital said that the Iraqi troops had fled the area two days prior to the arrival of the American special troops. So who fired at the American troops?
Personally, I believe that it is not acceptable for a government to try and shape public opinion through information campaigns. It is inevitable to some extent to glorify the American army based on patriotism of the people in power and of the people and reputation of America as the most powerful nation in the world but that is still not a good enough reason to provide biased information campaigns that can shape the public opinion to a massive extent. I was personally appalled by what the Pentagon did and i believe that this is why I disagree with this statement but yet I don't strongly disagree because it is tolerable to some extent.
You have some good points, have you considered any other reasons why Al Jazeera was called the mouthpiece of Osama Bin Laden?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you to some extent but then again you said it is tolerable to some extent. What would be the defining point that would cross this line?
ReplyDeleteWell done fam! I do understand your viewpoint on the situation. The truth should always be the first resort. However, do consider that the way media is twisted does depend on the audience. For example, Fox News would be broadcasting to the American audience, and they're priority would be t shine a positive light on the deeds of the American troops in Iraq. Although this may not entirely be the truth, it shouldn't be written off as unacceptable, as it can be seen as a way to lift American spirits and instil confidence and patriotism that may otherwise be lacking. This was mentioned in the documentary by John Rushing. But I still like your blog post. Yeah. It's nice.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree that it is tolerable to an extent, rather it seems to me to be more an immoral necessity. And I firmly believe that the difference between tolerable and necessary is important to keep ourselves in check, especially with regards to something as "messy" as war. Further it should be mentioned that all war is bloody and messy, not just the Iraqi war.
ReplyDelete