Home | About | Donate

Why I Fight: To Push the Media to Cover War in All Its Complexity


#1

Why I Fight: To Push the Media to Cover War in All Its Complexity

Kate Siegfried

When I was 10 years old, I saw my dad on TV. On the nightly news, to be exact.

I was sitting in the living room of my great-aunt’s house in Southern Indiana reading a book when I heard an unmistakable voice shouting over a crowd. I looked up and saw Dad, fully clad in Army gear, standing on the hood of a jeep as he passed out food to Iraqi civilians. I felt my breath leave my chest at the sound of a voice I hadn’t heard in months.


#2

"My junior year of college, I was lucky enough to attend Free Press’ National Conference on Media Reform in Denver. In her keynote speech, Amy Goodman said, “This is no longer a mainstream media. This is an extreme media beating the drums for war.” And she’s right — between network investment in weapon production and the exploitative narratives that made me feel disconnected from everyone but my immediate family, mainstream media outlets generally fail to present narratives that run counter to their interests."

When media relentlessly DOES pound the drums for war, and:

  1. Major sporting events feature impassioned deference to soldiers and the military (shown by flyovers and such)
  2. Hollywood "sexes up" the role of the soldier-conqueror or policeman equipped with naked firepower
  3. Any open question of the make-war narrative is bashed as a sign of giving comfort to the enemy, supporting terrorists, or showing a dearth of patriotism
  4. Message repetition works the magic Goebbels taught as per the power of "the lie told often"

This type of propagandized media ambiance can reliably program LOTS of people. That's what corporate capture of media is all about!

If message was not a component of war, there'd be no history of war propagandists.

Therefore, to those apologists for the empire, and/or Mars-ruled state who insist that a majority were in support of the war... as I've stated MANY times in the past, such support is artificially manufactured. It's the product of false narratives, respected individuals repeating talking points cum lies redundantly, and a media chorus all marching in lockstep to insist on the same messaging.

Social ostracism is painful. That compels most people to conform or go along with things (in order) to get along. And this aspect of human nature is well-understood by those who design the frames and talking points used to (as Noam Chomsky aptly put it): manufacture consent.

What kind of poll numbers would emerge if U.S. citizens heard from peace activists, the few individuals within the MIC who perhaps realize the moral and financial and geopolitical folly of these wars? The professors who can point out the historical parallels and journalists who can expose the lies told often?

We see this manufacture of consent IN progress in how the media kept repeating that Syria's Assad was bombing his own people. Also in the way that Putin is endlessly depicted as The Aggressor in Ukraine. These narratives are just as false as the "evidence" used to make the case (fixed) for war against Iraq.

When a corrupt media services the state that's become beholden to both the corporations/bankers who profit from war and the massive martial machinery of the MIC (that's populated by lots of big boys with lots of war toys and an adolescent "itch" to explode all that ordnance) it enables a monster... unleashed.

It takes constant programming and indoctrinating to whitewash what this military monster is doing. Part of the formula is to embed journalists who get to see war in the same way that regulators walk into prisons and only get to see the veneer of things on a "good day."

Maybe Ms. Siegfried will prove more enlightened than her father who evidently signed up to participate in "military adventures"?


#3

Thanks for your input, Kate Siegfried. Indeed, most mainstream, corporate owned news platforms and their hired journalists are pro-war. They are also supportive in other anti-society and anti-nature issues. There was a survey concluding that people in the UK do not trust BBC on the issue of GMO (genetically modified organism). Have a look:

  • 65% of respondents felt there is a general pro-GM bias in the British media;
  • 72% of all respondents felt the BBC represents a pro-GM stance;
  • 66% of all respondents did not trust experts featured on BBC programmes;
  • 87% of all respondents felt that people the BBC interview as “independent experts in science and technology” should reveal their sources of funding, corporate affiliations and if they hold patents;
  • 70% of all respondents did not believe that the BBC adequately or respectfully reflects the public’s concerns about GMOs.

Here is the link:

Relating to GMO, the corporate, main stream news commonly support the pro-GMO stance of the political and economic elites. Their aim is clear: this highly sophisticated scientific technology gives good profit. Hence, they want to overlook the possible negative consequences of their artificially engineered chemical food on society and nature. Thus, also in this lucrative profit-making area, the media manipulate, obscure facts, and if that is not enough to persuade people, one can always lie and deny.

I suppose one may conclude that the owners of media platforms determine what is news and what is right. Wealth can buy the truth.

Living in Africa with few choices, I have for some years now, as the best possible alternative, watched Aljazeera. It is reasonable. But also they are molding reality somewhat. One problem is that they limit the scope of discussion making it reductionist. For example, they would analyze if one should use this war strategy or that war strategy to eliminate the enemy (whoever that may be). Discussing the option of peace seems not to be sufficiently exciting to include. Besides, the choice of invited, so called, experts (whatever that concept may mean) are commonly manifested as white males, in between white females. Since there is nothing called neutrality, and objectivity is a town in Russia, the public get the subjective opinions of the white Patriarchy. That is not a worthy analysis. Patriarchal experts base their point of view on reductionist science, the priority of which is quantities of profit-making, while overlooking a holistic view that can embrace a quality of life for society and nature.

Conclusively, watching the news has for me become an exercise in observe the patriarchal activity of lying and denying and from that I may better comprehend their weaknesses. smile


#4

The media should cover war in all its complexity. No wars after the Civil War were fought on US soil. The media justify wars and occasionally talk about PTSD. They spend even less time talking about how the people in countries in which war is waged are suffering. They also spend little time discussing the aftermath of war in those same countries.