US information war against Americans to start wars

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

“In times of war, the truth is so priceless that in order to preserve it, a guard of lies is needed” (Winston Churchill).

“Provide illustrations. I will provide war”(words attributed to William Randolph Hirst).

Introduction

War propaganda is almost as old as war itself. To mobilize the rear and demoralize the enemy, the idea of war as "our" noble cause against the depraved and deadly "them" has long been the norm or part of human existence.

But with the advent of modern communications, especially in the digital age, war propaganda has reached an unprecedented level of sophistication and influence, especially in the behavior of the United States in the world. The official end of the American-Soviet Cold War in 1991 did not leave the United States a single serious military or geopolitical adversary, just at a time when the role of global media was undergoing significant changes. Earlier in the year, during the First Gulf War, CNN covered the war for the first time in real time, 24 hours a day. Also in the same year, the Internet went public.

In the decades after 1991, there has been a qualitative evolution in the role of the media from an event reporter to an active participant. It is no longer just an accessory to conflict - the art of media manipulation is becoming the core of modern warfare. It could even be argued that the psychological aspect of war was its most important outcome, overshadowing traditional goals such as territory, natural resources, or money. (Analogies can be drawn to the 17th century religious wars in Europe or the ideological conflicts of the mid 20th century, but the technological aspects of the production and dissemination of information in those days were not perfect enough to produce what we see today.)

Below we look at the unique - and unequivocally dangerous - role of the belligerent media, especially the American one, in modern warfare; we will study the scale, origins and evolution of the state apparatus that underlies this phenomenon; and suggest possible corrective actions.

Post-Cold War American media militancy

The first Gulf War of 1991 marked a watershed in US propensity for military action and for media involvement. Almost no one challenged the legality and fairness of the decision of the administration of President George W. Bush to expel Saddam Hussein's Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Similar exclamations of approval, if not outright encouragement, are heard in the media in support of the Bill Clinton government's invasions of Somalia (1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999), and George W. Bush in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) after the 9/11 attacks. Even President Barack Obama's operation to change the regime in Libya (2011) followed the same scenario. Obama's planned attack on Syria in September 2013 for the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government illustrates the fusion of media propaganda for "humanitarian" and necessary use of US military force.

In each of these cases, media coverage of the state's position became a key factor in determining the stage of the war. Given that none of these events was at stake in the territorial integrity or independence of the United States, and did not touch upon issues of American national defense, these campaigns can be considered "wars of choice" - wars that could be avoided. In this context, it is important to pay attention to the presence of some common features that characterize the media as a government tool for introducing pro-war ideas into the public consciousness.

Lack of knowledge as the American norm

Americans are poorly informed about the events in the world around them, and young Americans are even more ignorant than the older generation. Thus, when politicians talk about the need to interfere in the affairs of a country, the news is presented as a solution to the "crisis", and a very small part of the audience understands what is really happening

Whenever there is a reason to interfere in a country, the government and the media must argue in such a way that no one doubts that America is doing everything right. Americans know little and do not care about the rest of the world. (To justify them, note that although they are weak in geography, the rest of the world has little better knowledge in this area. However, the ignorance of Americans is more dangerous because the United States is more likely than other countries to initiate military actions.) Perhaps the most striking example of how Lack of knowledge correlates with militancy, according to a recent poll in April 2014 at the height of the Ukrainian crisis, when only one-sixth of the Americans surveyed were able to find Ukraine on the map, but the less they knew about where the conflict was, the more they supported US military action.

This lack of knowledge is fueled by a lack of international coverage by the US media. Despite the rise of internet sources, much of the American public still receives news from television, especially from ABC, CBS, NBC, FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC and their local affiliates. Moreover, they are considered the most reliable sources of news, unlike the Internet and social networks. (True, the millennial generation is less dependent on TV news. They prefer social media and interactive media like Facebook and YouTube. However, this basically means that millennials simply do not read things that are not of personal interest to them. They are rather superficial. in terms of news and in fact even dumber than the older generation).

News programs on American television, unlike other countries, are characterized by the absence of major world news (for example, BBC1, TF1, ARD, ZDF, RaiUno, NHK, etc.) and their international counterparts BBC, Deutsche Welle, France 24, NHK World, etc.). There is no mention of events outside of the United States during the half-hour evening news release. A typical program begins with a report of inclement weather in a state, a traffic accident, or a high-profile crime (preferably with some scandalous connotation, such as a minor victim or racial aspect, or a mass shooting that has sparked the age-old American discussion of gun control) … Much of it will be devoted to celebrity gossip, consumer advice (for example, tips on how to save on utilities or credit card interest, or how to make money selling unwanted items), health issues (on new research on weight loss, recovery from cancer, etc.). In the pre-election season, which, due to the length of American campaigns, stretches for about six months, this may be political news, but most of it will relish the details of scandals and all kinds of oversights, with little attention to war and peace or foreign topics.

Reliance on government sources, "puppetry" and informational incest

The official media are not controlled by the state, but are part of this system, the mouthpiece of state propaganda

Any news report from, say, Ukraine or Syria-Iraq mainly consists of reports from "journalists" dictated by government puppeteers. Both parties understand that the non-critical broadcast of these instructions is the main condition for their work. It is not surprising that the main emphasis in such reports is placed on sanctions, military action, the totalitarianism of the ruling regime and other painfully familiar scenarios. Difficult questions about purpose, cost and legitimacy are rarely covered. This means that when an atmosphere of “crisis” is necessary for US military involvement, the only point of view that is presented to the public is that of officials or government-friendly think tanks and non-governmental organizations.

Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, quoted Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, in a candid interview with an example of how government influence takes the form of a kind of "puppetry" and young, ill-informed Washington journalists acting as puppets. Cynically and clearly proud of his success, Rhodes told David Samuels of New York Times Magazine how journalists were used as conveyors to improve combat effectiveness. According to Samuels, Rhodes showed "the dirty underside of the world of journalism." Here's what he writes:

“For many it is difficult to grasp the true scale of the change in the news business. 40 percent of the professionals in the newspaper industry have lost their jobs in the last ten years, in part because readers can get all the news from social networks like Facebook, which are valued at tens and hundreds of billions of dollars and pay nothing for the content they provide to their readers … Rhodes once gave an important example, accompanied by a harsh remark: “All of these newspapers had foreign offices. Now they are gone. They ask us to explain what is happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most offices report world events from Washington. On average, reporters are 27 years old and their only experience is in political campaigns. There have been dramatic changes. These people literally don't know anything. "… Rhodes became the puppeteer of such a theater. Ned Price, Rhodes' assistant, explained to me how this is done. press corps Then the so-called "combat effectiveness enhancers" come into play. These people are well known in the blogosphere, they have a lot of Twitter followers, and bloggers can promote any message to them. The most effective weapon today is a 140-character quote."

Support for state / media puppetry, information used in the development of American global politics, is disseminated by hundreds of experts who share this position regardless of party affiliation.

These experts, who live in a closed circle of ministries and departments, Congress, the media, think tanks and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are not responsible for developing policy initiatives and their implementation. It should also be noted that many of the more prominent NGOs themselves receive significant funding from government agencies or clients, and it would be more correct to call them quasi-government or quasi-NGOs. In addition, as in the case of private business, especially in the military and financial spheres, there is a brisk turnover of personnel between the state and think tanks and other non-profit organizations - what is called “staff turnover”. The presence of former, future and current employees of Goldman Sachs (which is considered “a giant octopus that has entwined humanity with its tentacles, mercilessly sucking everything that smells of money into a blood funnel”) in government agencies tasked with regulating the financial sector is especially sad.

In short, the people who play key roles in government and nongovernmental structures not only think the same, in many cases they are the same individuals who have simply changed places and are one hybrid public-private entity. They also define news content (for example, act as "talking heads" or post commentary) by ensuring that what the public sees, hears and reads is consistent with think tank papers, congressional reports and official press releases. The result is a vicious circle that is almost completely impenetrable to opinions that run counter to those in that circle.

Centralized corporate ownership

Corporations are chasing ratings, not content of public interest

The sneakiness with which the private American media broadcasts the government's opinion may seem counterintuitive. Compared to the vast majority of other countries, the most famous and accessible media in the United States is not public. If outside the US, the main media giants are wholly or predominantly owned by government agencies (BBC in the United Kingdom, CBC in Canada, RAI in Italy, ABC in Australia, ARD and ZDF in Germany, Channel One in Russia, NHK in Japan, CCTV in China, RTS in Serbia, etc.), then the American public broadcasters PBS and NPR are dwarfs compared to their private competitors. Now news and information is no longer a matter of independent journalism, but a vehicle for financial gain, and this fact can affect media coverage.

Whereas earlier the variety of forms of private property was a condition for the use of public television (a condition that never applies to print media, although some restrictions remain on the combined broadcasting and print media belonging to one company), the trend towards consolidation has been increasing in recent decades.

As of 2015, the vast majority of American media were owned by six corporations: Comcast, News Corporation, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS. This is compared to 50 companies that controlled the same share as recently as 1983. This also applies to online media: “80% of the top 20 news sites are owned by the 100 largest media companies. Time Warner owns two of the most visited sites, CNN.com and AOL News, and Gannett, the twelfth largest media company, owns USAToday.com along with many local online newspapers. The average viewer spends about 10 hours a day watching TV. Although they appear to be produced by different companies, they are actually owned by the same corporations.

"Parajournalism", "infotainment" and "hard pornography" as a pretext for war

The main function of the media as a conductor of state ideas corresponds to their interests in receiving advertising royalties. These media entertain the viewer rather than inform

News has always been unprofitable for private American broadcasters. Until the 1970s, networks were required to allocate funds for unprofitable news programs, which were supposed to account for a certain percentage of airtime, effectively subsidizing news from entertainment programs that generate the main income. But in recent decades, news programs have been forced to create their own ratings, thus justifying their existence. In essence, they become entertainment programs, “… Low-grade shows that can be called 'parajournalism'. The 'tabloid' format appears. These are not news programs with features of entertainment television, but rather entertainment programs with features of news. They look like news in design: opening credits, a newsroom-like studio with monitors in the background. However, the content has nothing to do with journalism."

The tabloid format does not imply broad coverage of world issues. This is great for viewers who grew up on Sesame Street who are focused on entertainment, not information. The result is a genre of "infotainment," which critics say is based on what the audience will be interested in, not what the audience needs to know.

Former FCC chairman Newton Minow says many of today's news programs are "almost tabloid." Former PBS anchor Robert McNeill says "scandalous news has supplanted serious news." Sensationally entertaining content that terrifies the viewer and incites hatred of alleged perpetrators is called "hardcore pornography" (as described by William Norman Grigg):

"Hard pornography" plays an important role in the process of mobilizing mass hatred. Hard pornography, as its sexual equivalent (especially in the case of stories of rape and other forms of sexual violence), forces base interests to manipulate human desires. Hardcore pornographers cynically use the predictable reactions that such messages will elicit in decent people."

Hard pornography has become an important element in the sale of hostilities: incubators for newborn babies in Kuwait and Iraq; the massacre in Racak (Kosovo); explosions in the Markale market, the Omarska concentration camp and the massacre in Srebrenica (Bosnia); rape as a tool of war (Bosnia, Libya); and poison gas in Ghouta (Syria). In addition, as noted by blogger Julia Gorin, horrific events are becoming Internet memes, even supported by the government:

“The Asia Times published an article“To be kind is to be cruel, to be cruel is to be kind”by columnist David P. Goldman (aka Spengler), in which he refers to a recent incident with migrants in Europe:

(The quoted text was published in the British Daily Mail)

"The Monica was spotted in international waters at night. When an Italian border boat appeared nearby, the crew were shocked to see the men and women on board throwing children into the water. The refugees are mostly Kurds, many of whom are heading for the UK. - calmed down only when they made sure that they would not be expelled from Italy … When, in world history, one party to the negotiations threatened to kill their people in order to gain an advantage?"

Here I started to get nervous, shouting at the computer screen. When in world history? When? Yes, take at least the 90s, when the President of Bosnia, Alia Izetbegovic, agreed to Bill Clinton's proposal to sacrifice at least 5,000 lives so that NATO would side with him in the war against the Serbs."

Gorin's insightful observation of politicians using media coverage to "justify" an already planned attack was later confirmed in Kosovo. As the analyst notes, the impending NATO attack on Serbia in March 1999 was known back in 1998 from the report of the US Senate. The Clinton administration was on the alert: give just a pretext, and we will provide for the war.

“Regarding this article, while the plans for the US-led NATO intervention in Kosovo remained unchanged, the Clinton administration was constantly changing its decision. The only missing piece was an event - with enough media coverage - that would make the intervention politically justified, even necessary. In the same way that the Administration finally dared to intervene in Bosnia in 1995 after a series of "Serb mortar attacks" that took the lives of dozens of civilians - attacks that, upon closer inspection, actually turned out to be the work of the Muslim regime in Sarajevo, the main beneficiary Intervention It is becoming increasingly clear that the administration is waiting for a similar occasion in Kosovo: “A senior US Department of Defense official who told reporters that on July 15 he noted that“we are not even considering the likelihood of an invasion of Kosovo yet.”He named only one reason that could lead to a change in policy: "If some levels of violence have been achieved, then this is likely to be the reason." The recent controversial reports of an alleged mass grave, in which (depending on the report) hundreds of civilian Albanians killed or dozens of KLA fighters killed in action, must be viewed in this context.”

Later, 17 years later, the reason for the massacre in Racak in January 1999 was discovered, the details of which were not properly disclosed. It is hard not to notice that politicians and the media have united in a kind of reality show (from the same report):

“The above review of the Clinton administration’s omissions about Kosovo would be incomplete without a brief overview of another possible factor.

Consider the following fictional situation: A president is embroiled in a sex scandal that threatens to ruin his administration's reputation. He sees the only way out in turning the people's attention to a foreign military adventure. So, he orders his media advisors to start working on it. They are considering different options, "pushing a few buttons", and here is the finished version: Albania.

All of the above is reminiscent of the film "Cheating", which once seemed pretentious. But it is hardly a coincidence that on the same day, August 17 [1998], when President Bill Clinton had to testify before the Federal jury to explain his, possibly criminal behavior, Supreme Commander Bill Clinton ordered US Marines and aircrews to begin ground and air drills within days, and where do you think? Yes, in Albania, as a warning against possible NATO intervention in neighboring Kosovo., life imitates art, but this coincidence is too surreal There is of course a difference between the film and the crisis in Kosovo: in the film it was only a mock war, while in reality a real war was unfolding in Kosovo.

Not so long ago, even the worst cynics would not have thought to suggest that any American president, regardless of his political difficulties, would endanger his army for his own interests. But in an era when pundits are openly debating that President Clinton will (or should) speak the truth under oath, not because he is simply obliged to do so, but because of the possible impact on his political image - it is obvious that such military solutions will bring the desired result. In the circumstances, it would be fair to ask why the Clinton administration did not justify his actions with the benefit of the doubt.”

James George Jatras is a former American diplomat, Senate staffer and specialist in international relations and legislative policy.