03-18-2005, 12:54 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom Sprouts: An American soap opera
By S Nihal Singh
If war is the conduct of diplomacy by other means, spin has come into its own in the Information Age as the mother of all battles. Since the United States controls so much of information material in todayâs world, its media empire has been pressed into service to fight the new war. The subject is Iraq and the new offensive is to sell the Iraq invasion and all the deaths and tragedies it has spawned as a salvation for the Greater Middle East of President George W Bushâs description.
The American media are relatively free. By the same token, the US administration in Washington sets their agenda by winks and nudges and through more direct means. As any professional knows, contradictions never carry the same weight as the original false story. Americans are not alone in realising the value of spin. Decades ago, as a foreign correspondent in Moscow, I discovered how successfully the Soviets used to plant stories by exploiting international news agenciesâ hunger to be first with the news. In the beginning of the 21st century, however, the scales are heavily tilted in favour of America.
The new spin being put on events in West Asia is that President Bush might after all be right in illegally invading Iraq because âfreedomâ is sprouting in the unlikeliest places. And the sprouts are being showcased for the world to see: limited male-only municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi elections held under American and Iraqi guns, Egyptâs President Hosni Mubarakâs decision to grant a multi-candidate contest for the presidency and the massive anti-Syrian demonstrations in Beirut. Unfortunately, the last were aced by an even more massive pro-Syrian and anti-American demonstration.
Some American media have forsworn objectivity, the Fox television channel being the supreme example of partisanship. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and occupation, anchors of most US news channels sported the representation of the American flag as lapel pins and often spoke about American âliberatorsâ. The Stars and Stripes became the rallying cry of all, and most newspapermen and television men and women were swept up in the tempest to prove their patriotism.
In view of President Bushâs travails in Iraq, the extreme reluctance of Americaâs traditional allies to help in the US adventure and the growing number of American war casualties â the vastly greater Iraqi casualties donât count â reviving the national mood became urgent. Freedom and liberty had, indeed, become the leitmotif of President Bushâs declarations at home and abroad. But they sounded hollow and needed sustenance. And for the first time, there were the photo opportunities presented by well-heeled Lebanese demonstrators demanding the very things America wanted: the departure of Syrian troops from Lebanon â until the counter-demonstrations stole their thunder. The Iraqi election had earlier been painted as brave Iraqis exercising their democratic right for the first time, thanks to American benevolence.
There was enough material for the US administration to suggest that, guided by President Bushâs unpopular decision to invade Iraq, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes were inching towards the American paradise, however slowly and reluctantly. At home, the President was basking in the glow of approbation from a wider constituency than neoconservatives, and the media, ranging from such heavies as the New York Times to the flagship Time magazine, were spreading the good word around. The much-maligned âWâ was right, after all.
America is by no means the first country to master the art of propaganda. Nazi Germany was no mean performer and the Soviet Union, as I have suggested, had found the advantages of spin. The difference is that the power and reach of American propaganda is unmatched, given US dominance of the Information Age. The Internet opens up avenues for dissenters and other nations but is no match for the reach of what has been described as Americaâs âsoft powerâ, the mix of world publications, Holly-wood, popular music and lifestyle.
More and more, the world will hear of the âsuccessesâ of President Bushâs selfless dedication in taking the world to the bliss of American freedom and liberty; some neoconservative neophytes are already comparing W to President Woodrow Wilson. It is perhaps too early to deify him but one can discern the beginnings of a cult movement rather in the manner of what Chairman Mao was at one time. The American problem is the built-in set of contradictions.
The freedom crusade is selective in nature and the hard cynical nature of the exercise often shows up in Wâs strategic doctrine of world dominance and the appointment of a UN-hater as the countryâs ambassador to the world organisation. Besides, the US has met its match in the Arabic Al-Jazeera satellite channel, which is giving the Arab world an alternative view on Americaâs main battleground. No wonder, the channel provokes American ire and attempts have been made at suppressing and destroying it. Somewhat like Chairman Maoâs experiment of âlet a hundred flowers bloomâ, there are limits to Americaâs tolerance of freedom exercised by others, if US interests are affected.
Most Arab rulers have gauged the American plan for what it is: a lever to bend them to Washingtonâs interests. They also realise that W is cynical enough to instigate turmoil through local movements to bring them into line. Many of them know how to exploit Americaâs chinks, having worked with the American political system for decades, and can exploit the great fear: a more democratic West Asia would be far more anti-American than the authoritarian rulers it would replace.
The only answer the world can give to the supremacy of American propaganda is to fight it on its own ground. Al-Jazeeraâs success is prompting others, particularly France, to launch English-language satellite channels to present their views. Al-Jazeera itself is planning an English-language channel, in addition to its existing website, to reach a wider audience. But the secret of success of any popular international channel is its ability to present both sides of a story, in addition to voicing its editorial opinions. It speaks of the nature of American society today that Fox, a channel that flaunts its partisanship, can prosper.
Meanwhile, we must tighten our belts for many more episodes of the American soap opera: how W, against all odds, conquered West Asia to bring the benefits of American freedom and liberty. It is the new White Manâs burden. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By S Nihal Singh
If war is the conduct of diplomacy by other means, spin has come into its own in the Information Age as the mother of all battles. Since the United States controls so much of information material in todayâs world, its media empire has been pressed into service to fight the new war. The subject is Iraq and the new offensive is to sell the Iraq invasion and all the deaths and tragedies it has spawned as a salvation for the Greater Middle East of President George W Bushâs description.
The American media are relatively free. By the same token, the US administration in Washington sets their agenda by winks and nudges and through more direct means. As any professional knows, contradictions never carry the same weight as the original false story. Americans are not alone in realising the value of spin. Decades ago, as a foreign correspondent in Moscow, I discovered how successfully the Soviets used to plant stories by exploiting international news agenciesâ hunger to be first with the news. In the beginning of the 21st century, however, the scales are heavily tilted in favour of America.
The new spin being put on events in West Asia is that President Bush might after all be right in illegally invading Iraq because âfreedomâ is sprouting in the unlikeliest places. And the sprouts are being showcased for the world to see: limited male-only municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi elections held under American and Iraqi guns, Egyptâs President Hosni Mubarakâs decision to grant a multi-candidate contest for the presidency and the massive anti-Syrian demonstrations in Beirut. Unfortunately, the last were aced by an even more massive pro-Syrian and anti-American demonstration.
Some American media have forsworn objectivity, the Fox television channel being the supreme example of partisanship. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and occupation, anchors of most US news channels sported the representation of the American flag as lapel pins and often spoke about American âliberatorsâ. The Stars and Stripes became the rallying cry of all, and most newspapermen and television men and women were swept up in the tempest to prove their patriotism.
In view of President Bushâs travails in Iraq, the extreme reluctance of Americaâs traditional allies to help in the US adventure and the growing number of American war casualties â the vastly greater Iraqi casualties donât count â reviving the national mood became urgent. Freedom and liberty had, indeed, become the leitmotif of President Bushâs declarations at home and abroad. But they sounded hollow and needed sustenance. And for the first time, there were the photo opportunities presented by well-heeled Lebanese demonstrators demanding the very things America wanted: the departure of Syrian troops from Lebanon â until the counter-demonstrations stole their thunder. The Iraqi election had earlier been painted as brave Iraqis exercising their democratic right for the first time, thanks to American benevolence.
There was enough material for the US administration to suggest that, guided by President Bushâs unpopular decision to invade Iraq, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes were inching towards the American paradise, however slowly and reluctantly. At home, the President was basking in the glow of approbation from a wider constituency than neoconservatives, and the media, ranging from such heavies as the New York Times to the flagship Time magazine, were spreading the good word around. The much-maligned âWâ was right, after all.
America is by no means the first country to master the art of propaganda. Nazi Germany was no mean performer and the Soviet Union, as I have suggested, had found the advantages of spin. The difference is that the power and reach of American propaganda is unmatched, given US dominance of the Information Age. The Internet opens up avenues for dissenters and other nations but is no match for the reach of what has been described as Americaâs âsoft powerâ, the mix of world publications, Holly-wood, popular music and lifestyle.
More and more, the world will hear of the âsuccessesâ of President Bushâs selfless dedication in taking the world to the bliss of American freedom and liberty; some neoconservative neophytes are already comparing W to President Woodrow Wilson. It is perhaps too early to deify him but one can discern the beginnings of a cult movement rather in the manner of what Chairman Mao was at one time. The American problem is the built-in set of contradictions.
The freedom crusade is selective in nature and the hard cynical nature of the exercise often shows up in Wâs strategic doctrine of world dominance and the appointment of a UN-hater as the countryâs ambassador to the world organisation. Besides, the US has met its match in the Arabic Al-Jazeera satellite channel, which is giving the Arab world an alternative view on Americaâs main battleground. No wonder, the channel provokes American ire and attempts have been made at suppressing and destroying it. Somewhat like Chairman Maoâs experiment of âlet a hundred flowers bloomâ, there are limits to Americaâs tolerance of freedom exercised by others, if US interests are affected.
Most Arab rulers have gauged the American plan for what it is: a lever to bend them to Washingtonâs interests. They also realise that W is cynical enough to instigate turmoil through local movements to bring them into line. Many of them know how to exploit Americaâs chinks, having worked with the American political system for decades, and can exploit the great fear: a more democratic West Asia would be far more anti-American than the authoritarian rulers it would replace.
The only answer the world can give to the supremacy of American propaganda is to fight it on its own ground. Al-Jazeeraâs success is prompting others, particularly France, to launch English-language satellite channels to present their views. Al-Jazeera itself is planning an English-language channel, in addition to its existing website, to reach a wider audience. But the secret of success of any popular international channel is its ability to present both sides of a story, in addition to voicing its editorial opinions. It speaks of the nature of American society today that Fox, a channel that flaunts its partisanship, can prosper.
Meanwhile, we must tighten our belts for many more episodes of the American soap opera: how W, against all odds, conquered West Asia to bring the benefits of American freedom and liberty. It is the new White Manâs burden. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->