War on terror as a media war - Essay Example

? War on Terror as a Media War War on Terror as a Media War Introduction In the past, the roleof Media was defined and static as media was decisively used as a source to portray knowledge and information. In the contemporary period, media’s roles and functions are diverse, as now media has been used to create propagandas, spread political agendas and channelize a desired set of opinion to the public and to their mindset. Actually, media has come out with a role to change the perception of the mass populace. It has come out to dominate the perception of the larger population (Barker, 1997). According to many scholars, War on Terror was a war that got initiated and established on media. It was media that compelled the reasons of war on terror and it was media that actually followed through the September 11 incident, which became the reason for originating the so-called war on terrorism. This study is investigating the US declared War on Terror as a Media War. The study stands on the argument that war on terror is in fact a war of media, which is only a broadcasting instrument in any democratic society like US, UK, and Europe. Is media a propagator, a manipulator or a spreader of the right set of information? is a question, which this study will try to investigate and answer. The September 11 incident and the Media Projection When the September 11 attacks hit America, it was the highest media coverage that the incident received at that time. The coverage was so well directed and well projected that it got viewed at the mass global level. Televisions, radios, Internet news portals, and websites all got switched up to broadcast this disastrous happening (Baudrillard, 2002). It was actually an outburst of information that incurred during this catastrophic event. What was it? People called it a balloon of information that got blown up at the time of September 11 incident. Information covered the world, covered the mass global audience, its large perception and opinion. These were the strongest implications, which media brought on the September 11 incident. It was projected that Osama Bin Laden with his intentions to attack America was behind this terrorism activity. Similarly, the later projections of media were that Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussain designed this mass terror act. This is how time after time, media projected of what it was told to project and demonstrated of what it was instructed to demonstrate (Barker, 1997). This is the argument, which several journalists and anchorpersons put onto the media coverage of the September 11 incident. The media coverage was transcending and out of the limits to broadcast the 9/11 incident. This is what most of the critics argument that media projection and demonstration of the September 11 incident was not in accordance to media obligations and standards. A 10-hour transmission each day on all international broadcasting forums was how media demonstrated the 9/11 incident. It was beyond the media laws, beyond the media jurisdiction, code and obligation as suggested by Dowmunt (1993) in his book about the role of media as a propagator. It was seen after September 11 that media got used as a planning instrument. The critics argument that media was not media as it was before the time of September 11 incident. It was something like a propagating machine after the September 11 incident as media role discussed by Wasko & Mosco (1992). Spreading information consistently and precisely to the mass global audience became the primary function of media at the time of September 11 incident occurred. Why was it so? The critics respond to it in a way that that media became a vibrant channel to spread a desired point of opinion and a desired perception to the public after the incident took over (Mirzoeff, 2005). Delivering a desired perception to public for changing the public opinion was something, which was something thought and prospered on media sources. The critics assert that media was used as a tracker of information and a tracker of the public opinion when the incident of September 11 took over. These were some implications of media, which built the ground for the so-called war on terror. Media’s role was decisive, distinctive and partial in initiating this worldly war against terror, which was the war left on media to fight with its resourceful and powerful means (Mirzoeff, 2005). War on Terror as a Media War After September 11 incident it was noted that propaganda of some nature and of some type was floating all over the media. A mainstream channel Skynews showed something similar on October 9 2001, which another source Channel 4 news broadcasted on the last day i.e. October 8 2001. What was it? People call it an activated and stimulated propaganda that was being made on different media sources after 9/11 (Kuypers, 2006). The entire media especially the western media was channelizing something determined and special on the broad casting machinery. It was actually the plan of the US led war on terror, which was being demonstrated on the mainstream media after the incident took over. The plot of the war was constantly projected on media and which was to engage the public opinion that was in a different direction of the War on Terror (Baudrillard, 2002). Media constantly built the ground of the War on Terror - the war, which was opposed on public poles and opinions. Still media kept on showing of what could inevitably change the perception and mindset of the large population (Mirzoeff, 2005). A specific definition of the word “Terror” was being described on different media sources and similarly of why the War on Terror was necessary and important for US was being demonstrated on mainstream media channels. It was all actually to catch the public opinion, to justify the cause of the war on terror on public and to justify of what George Bush’s administration is doing is right and mandatory (Kuypers, 2006). The public came out opposing the plans of the Bush’s Administration. The public did not wanted the bombs to be on the Afghans’ surface nor it wanted the innocent killings that incurred in Iraq after the Bush’s Administration took over (Ahmed & Donnan, 2003). Actually, it was media that resisted the entire public pressure by constantly showing that everything is going right and in favor of US and the American people. The media projected that America is in threat and needs to take revenge in the form of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq, which were considered as the responsible countries of the 9/11 incident. Media started defining terrorism and started victimizing one side of the world, which was the Muslim world and belonged to Islam. A perception was created that a person with the beard is a terrorist and can harm America and its constitution, which was actually a flawed perception that prevailed all over the media after 9/11. A contagion was spread all over in the media affecting the mindsets of the people and their opinions towards the Muslim and the Islamic distinction. From this view, a thought extends that media eventually guides the public perception. It leads and directs the public opinion of the way it likes and the way it wanted the opinion to be (Downing, 1987). According to the contemporary literature, media has been altering the perceptions of the people after 9/11. The media has kept a specific tone and a specific language to change or alter the perception of the large major populace (Reese & Lewis, 2009). Adding to this, it was media that justified the policies of Bush’s administration in response to the September 11 attack. It was media that justified the military actions inside and outside US that took after the incident happened. Fortunately or unfortunately, it was media that started defining the word “terrorist and terrorism” after the incident incurred. This projected that media was more than a broadcasting machine. It was more than an information spreader as after 9/11 it came with roles of information propagation and manipulation (Reese & Lewis, 2009). Another perspective on War against Terror as a Media War is that US media propaganda was to resist the enemy’s propaganda, which eventually was distorting and restricting the agenda of the US politics. To fight the enemy’s propaganda, the US media came out as machinery with an organized warfare tactics (Downing, 1987). The US media tested this warfare tactics by deploying information and technology as core weapons. The scholars of the contemporary period describe these weapons as weapons of mass destruction because they can hit and target the mass global population and can significantly influence such global audience (Burke, 2004). John Tierney in his New York times article elaborates how war on terror became a media war after when Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden started adopting the same war tactics as America did (war by means of media and war through public relations). Tierney asserts that in the contemporary era, war zones are changed and so as the war strategies. The war is now shifted on media, which plans the use of words and information as strategic war weapons (Tierney, 2006). The author describes that in the modern age, words are more prominent than bullets. They are more contagious and dangerous than bullets used in the earlier warfare or battles (Burke, 2004). Media at the Centre of Influence Settling up the position that US is under attack and we have to fight back to kill this terror phenomenon, the Bush’s administration declared war on terror on September 20 2001. The declaration of the war produced shock waves on the world as now the world’s super power is invading world’s eastern corners (Mirzoeff, 2005). The Bush’s administration decided and planned for invasion to Afghanistan and invasion to Iraq, which significantly got opposed in the public section. To back the war on terror agenda and make it a notion in the public, Media came out as an assisting tool- a guiding tool for the US war administrators (the defense policy makers). The war on terror needed a purpose, a cause to get initiated and for that media was used to demonstrate this cause and purpose of the declared war on terror (Iqbal, 2012). The basic purpose described by media sources (the mainstream media) was that war on terror is a war that will eliminate terror from the world. It will be a war that will establish peace and prosperity not only in the US, but also outside US that are terrorism-affected parts of the world. Actually, media demonstrated that wherever US military will step forward will make that place peaceful and in harmony (Downing, 1987). War has never been a solution to the world’s conflicts, then how can this war do anything good, which involved billions of dollars of expenditure and has a super power’s involvement in it. As the War on Terror forwarded, the consequences and implications were not as media described in the earlier periods. It was something different of what the media demonstrated before and after 9/11. It seemed like media settled the cause of the billion-dollar war (war on terror) and then it started supporting the agenda of that war to make possible the achievement of that war’s objectives and aims. US invaded Iraq, it invaded Afghanistan and indirectly it invaded the lives of the people living in the Muslim World. This achieved the objectives of the declared war on terror, which was declared on Media and administered secretly behind the walls of the great White House (Baudrillard, 2002). Media and the Rest of the World on War against Terror After the implications of the war on terror appeared on the world, the world acknowledged media as a more powerful running institution. The mass global population of the world recognized media as a governing and dominating body (Dowmunt, 1993). It was recognized as an institution that not only throws information but also propagates it to make it a culture or highly acceptable notion. Media was recognized with this distinctive role after when the war on terror was lifted on the world’s poor nations. It was not only the direct victim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) that got affected but also there were other indirect victim countries such as Pakistan or Lebanon that got influenced by this declared war on terror (Barker, 1997). Media and Pakistan on War Against Terror During the period of President Pervaiz Musharraf, Pakistan was asked to give access to the US military function. It was the Afghan invasion that US planned through Pakistani base ways. Again the media brought positive comments for General Pervaiz Musharraf, who came out as a coalition partner with US in the declared War against Terror. It was not neutral media that supported President Musharraf’s cause but a media that had judgments to pass on to support the cause and action of the Army Chief. In this way, media came out with one-sided opinion to make Pakistan’s President get involve in the uplifted war against terror (Kuypers, 2006). The war agenda was lifted up by means of Pakistani media as the country was asked to support US on this planned military action- attack on Mujahidins and the invasion of Afghanistan. President Musharraf allowed drone strikes to US and allowed breaches of Afghanistan by means of utilizing Pakistani territory. It was something that was highly acknowledged and admired in the western media, showing the partial role of media at the time of warfare (Burke, 2004). The popularity of President Pervaiz Musharraf increased day by day in the west and it was only because of the mainstream media was backing the President’s plan of action (Mirzoeff, 2005). Again media appeared with a strong and governing role in Pakistan when the country became a co-partner in the US war against terror. The war, which got highly opposed by the Pakistani public, was backed and uplifted on the Pakistani media. This further depicted that how significantly media influenced the perception of the people who did not wanted the bloodshed to happen in their part of the continent. With this outrageous role of media, Pakistan became the victim of the US declared war on terror (Ahmed & Donnan, 2003). Becoming the strategic partner, the country paid a major price as it lost the life of 40,000 soldiers who were involved in the military operation. The country lost its infrastructure, its economic peace and stability. The scholars give direct responsibility to media, which backed and supported the planned devastation of the war on terror on this side of the world -Pakistan (Ahmed & Donnan, 2003). Conclusion Today, America is going with its severe backdrop situation. The employment opportunities are downed, the businesses are dropped and the economy is collapsing. The major reason behind all these consequences is the War against Terror, which brought nothing to the world or to America and the American people. Media, which entirely supported the agenda of this war, is also now facing the backdrop. People’s confidence and trust on media is lost and disappeared. Media can change its position, its perception in the people by adopting the same role, which it had in the past, when journalism was neutral and has nothing to concern about world politics. List of References Ahmed, A.S. & Donnan, H., 2003. Islam, Globalization and Postmodernity. London: Routledge. Barker, C., 1997. Global Television: An Introduction. New York: Wiley. Baudrillard, J., 2002. The Spirit of Terrorism. London: Verso Books. Burke, J., 2004. Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam. New York: I.B.Tauris. Dowmunt, T., 1993. Channels of resistance: global television and local empowerment. London: British Film Institute. Downing, J., 1987. Film & Politics in the Third World. Autonomedia. Iqbal, Z., 2012. Media And Musharraf: A Marriage of Convenience. European Scientific Journal, 8(3), pp.1857-7881. Kuypers, J.A., 2006. Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher. Mirzoeff, N., 2005. Watching Babylon: The War in Iraq and Global Visual Culture. New York: Psychology Press. Reese, S.D. & Lewis, S.C., 2009. Framing the War on Terror: The internalization of policy in the US press. Journalism, 10(6), pp.777-97. Tierney, J., 2006. Osama’s Spin Lessons. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 24 December 2013]. Wasko, J. & Mosco, V., 1992. Democratic communications in the information age. New York: Garamond Press. Read More