"Objectivity" and War: Dissecting Media Bias

Over the past hundred years America has seen the rise of what is inaccurately referred to in mainstream discourse as the "objective", "professional" mainstream media. "Objective" media reporting is said to exist when reporters divorce the issues in which they are covering from their personal convictions and values, regurgitating only the basic facts so that citizens may make their own decisions concerning the validity of specific social issues. Under this philosophy, it is considered unprofessional and undesirable to become an active agent in critically analyzing and evaluating the stories in which one is reporting.

Unfortunately, what is almost never discussed by those supporting the fallacy of an "objective" media is the fact that there is almost nothing "objective", "professional", or "neutral" about any of the reporting in the corporate media. Flagrant corporate media bias is a reality that has been well documented in dissident intellectual circles for years. This bias has become much more obvious over the last year, specifically with the corporate media's refusal to criticize the Bush Administration and its war on Iraq.

Radical critiques of the corporate media focus upon an institutional analysis of American society, specifically questioning the legitimacy of media control by a few wealthy owners and investors. Much of the criticism of corporate media consolidation (fewer and fewer companies owning a majority of media outlets) stems from a genuine disagreement over the priorities, motives, and values promoted by a media system that allocates profits to the American political and economic elite at the expense of the majority of the population.

Media bias operates on many different levels, most well hidden from the eyes of the majority of Americans. However, an in depth analysis of current media coverage will give us a better picture of the existence of corporate media bias.

One prominent form of media bias is framing-when reporters and journalists place ideas, issues, and events within specific contexts that restrict Americans ability to develop an informed, accurate view of the world. Certain beliefs under this form of bias are taken as facts that cannot be contradicted. For example, the media has constantly referred to the Bush Administration's military interventions over the last year and half as the "War on Terror." What is omitted from mainstream discussion though is that there is no consensus among Americans over whether this is a "War on Terror."

A significant number of Americans view the Bush Administration's foreign policies as neo-imperialist in nature, designed to ensure American dominance and control of the world. At the very least, there is no consensus over whether this is truly a "War on Terror." What is evident, though, is that the corporate media's references to the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq as a "War on Terror" are a clear sign of their tendency to frame issues according to whatever standards those in power deem appropriate.

Another example of framing concerns civilian casualties in Iraq. As a direct result of American bombing, hundreds of thousands of Kurds have fled major cities in order to avoid annihilation (it is expected that they will run out of food sometime this month). There was only a casual reaction to this in the corporate media. The New York Times ran a headline, "Kurdish Refugees Make Do, Not for the First Time." The New York Times commented on how this phenomenon is nothing new, and in fact implied that it was nothing to really get worked up about. It is amazing that the New York Times can take something as serious as U.S. imposed mass starvation of hundreds of thousands of Kurds, and turn it into a matter of inconvenience ("Not for the First Time"). Starvation and death are taken as something Iraqis should already be used to, while Americans are justified in expecting up-to-the-hour reports on the exact number of Americans missing and killed in action. The fact that those running the media can get away with this devaluation of human life and still call themselves "objective" is a sign of the control the American corporate and political elite exercise over a substantial number of Americans.

Any coherent, systematic criticism of the U.S. economic and political systems is vehemently suppressed in the mainstream media, further showing corporate news bias. Ask yourself when the last time was you saw anyone on a major network, or in a major paper charging the U.S. with international terrorism, violation of international law, or selfish, ulterior motives in the war on Iraq. In reality, those even mildly critical of the war are viewed with utter contempt in the mainstream. For example, Iraqi correspondent for NBC Peter Arnett was immediately fired, then forced to apologize for his statement on Iraqi television, in which he claimed the initial U.S. war plans had failed due to Iraqi military resistance. Consider that Arnett was not even presenting an institutional critique of U.S. foreign policy, but rather a very mild criticism relating more to the means of conducting the war than the legitimacy of that war. This shows an extreme bias and complacence in the corporate media in favor of those running Washington.

An even more extreme case of the control of dissident views through omission is shown in the corporate media's failure to report any declassified government documents revealing the true motivations of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq. National Security Directive 26, signed by George H.W. Bush on October 2, 1989, was totally ignored in the mainstream. The Directive discussed the secret intent of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, stating honestly, "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security. The United States remains committed to defend its vital interests in the region, if necessary and appropriate through the use of military force." Furthermore, "We should pursue, and seek to facilitate, opportunities for U.S. firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy particularly in the energy area." These statements were totally ignored by mainstream media outlets. Those running the corporate media again proved their bias towards power after refusing to question the motives of the war (it should not have been that hard for them considering even the Bush I Administration admitted that the goal was to steal a sovereign nation's oil). But this is not seen as a relevant question for "responsible" reporters and journalists.

Equally damning of both Bush Administrations is a set of declassified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reports, again ignored by the media, which state clearly that a major goal in the original Gulf War was the destruction of Iraq's urban water systems. A series of five reports, specifically two titled, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" (1991) and "Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad" (1991) discuss this issue in detail. The documents explain that a failure "to secure supplies (for Iraqis) will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."

One of the documents predicted, "Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics, will become probable unless the population were careful to boil water." One of the documents concludes stating, "Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have similar problems."

Contrary to mainstream perceptions, a media that refuses to cover intentional U.S. terrorism against defenseless Iraqis does not deserve to be called "professional." They do, however, deserve to be described as the unofficial propaganda arm of the U.S. government, acting whenever necessary to indoctrinate Americans, ensuring their continued ignorance to a system that benefits the powerful at the expense of the innocent.

This factor is very much related to omission and censorship. Dissident critiques of U.S. national and foreign policy are completely ignored in the mainstream media, in favor of an over-reliance on official propaganda. For example, Americans are constantly updated on the latest statements of the Bush Administration concerning the war, while protestors of the war are dealt with either on the back pages of papers like the Chicago Tribune and New York Times, or ignored altogether. When Kofi Annan speaks about the fact that the U.S. war on Iraq is an obvious violation of the United Nations Charter, he is relegated to page A-15 of the New York Times, while the Bush Administration is guaranteed front page coverage every time they claim that the U.N. Charter and international law, while applying to defenseless third-world countries like Iraq, do not apply to those countries powerful enough to bypass them.

Another way the corporate media ignores criticisms of American political and economic policies is through a focus on garbage news. Events and people with little or no significance are allotted a substantial amount of attention in the media, usually at the expense of hard-hitting investigative journalism. Project Censored, run out of Sonoma University in California, released its 2000 list of the Top Ten Junk Foods News stories in the mainstream media. The top stories the media disproportionately focused on included (in order from highest to lowest): 1) Survivor, 2) Elian Gonzalez, 3) The millionaire bride (Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire?), 4) Britney Spears, 5) Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, 6) Whitewater and the Private Lies of the Clintons, 7) Napster, 8) A tie between Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche's break up and Jon Benet Ramsey, 9) Ricky Martin's Sexuality, and 10) A tie between Brad Pitt's Wedding and Dot Coms/IPOs. For some of the top stories of 2000, these are hardly the most relevant, hard-hitting scoops in which Americans should focus.

One of the most flagrant cases of media bias may be seen in the straight lies sometimes employed to cover up any criticisms of those in power. One example of a straight corporate lie concerns the media's claim that the Bush Administration is concerned with minimizing "collateral damage" in Iraq. The evidence that is available in the mainstream and the independent press completely disproves this assertion. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about the effects of the U.S. cutting off food to millions of Afghans over a year ago, he coldly answered, "It is quite true that hundreds of thousands of packages of food do not feed millions of starving Afghans, on the other hand, if you got one, you'd be appreciative" (in other words, I don't care if I intentionally starve millions of people, get out of my face). When Secretary of State Colin Powell was questioned about Iraq casualties in the Gulf War, he answered, "It's not a number I'm terribly interested in." Head U.S. commander in Iraq Tommy Franks even went on the record stating, "We don't do body counts." In fact, the Bush Administration has refused to do any studies of the effects of U.S. bombing on civilians in Iraq, fearing that findings showing massive casualties would discredit the war for oil. It is a sign of outright lying when the media uncritically reports official claims of minimizing civilian casualties, especially when the Bush Administration even admits that it has no concern for those casualties. The media is supposed to operate as a watchdog for the public, exposing lies and reporting accurate, factual information. Their coverage of the war on Iraq, and their subservience to the Bush Administration's lies do not even come close to a minimal level of respectable journalism.

The media has shown yet another form of bias in labeling. Those protesting the war are labeled Un-American and are charged with refusing to support the troops. Conversely, those supporting war are inaccurately labeled patriotic, troop-lovers. What never comes up though is that it is possible, and even necessary to both support the troops and oppose a war. Indeed, it would be impossible to support the troops any more than by bringing them home and saving them from fighting a war for oil and empire.

Corporate Ownership of the media in general makes it impossible to achieve journalistic "objectivity." When media corporations are reliant on advertising dollars, it is only natural that these outlets will refrain from criticizing the business elite they so desperately rely on to exist.

The corporate media is in the business of selling consumers to advertisers. The government is instrumental in making this possible. The government provides the licenses necessary for nine corporate conglomerates (Sony, AOL-Time Warner, Bertellsman, News Corp., Disney/Cap Cities, Viacom, Seagram (Universal), General Electric, and AT&T (Liberty)) to dominate the vast majority of the American media. In a political economy like that of the US, these communist corporations controlling the media will be subservient to the same government allowing them to exist and profit so tremendously. American corporations are overwhelmingly the beneficiaries of the American empire. It would be illogical for media corporations to criticize a government that so thoroughly guarantees its property rights at home and abroad.

The major weakness of "objective" media theory relates to the fact that objectivity, even theoretically, never has, and never will exist. According to Historian Howard Zinn, "It is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It seems both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts."

In a world of winners and losers, where the corporate and political elite use laws to create policies and dogmas that benefit the affluent often at the expense of the majority of the population, a media reporting on these events can in no way achieve "objectivity." What is not reported determines a reporter's or paper's bias. What is focused upon, the way it is written, how much time is given to each issue all play a part in ensuring each reporter's subjectivity.

Reporters and journalists have not made a convincing case for the existence, importance, or desirability of an objective media. And an important question still remains - if Americans expect their reporters to be well informed enough to report the issues, should not those Americans also expect those same reporters to have an opinion on the events they are covering? Can we really trust people who do not have enough confidence to make a moral judgment on something so elementary as the fact that it is immoral and unconscionable to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis for oil? Equally important, can we trust someone to inform us that cannot even figure out the imperial motives of an Administration that has been open about it?

Edward Wyllis Scripps, founder of the first modern newspaper chain stated, "The press in this country is now and has always been so thoroughly dominated by the wealthy few of the country that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people the correct information concerning political, economical, and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people shall have in order that they shall vote in and all ways act in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes." Scripp's analysis holds true today. The radically unequal distribution of wealth, persistence of imperial wars, and the widespread erosion of American democracy are issues the media has completely ignored. It is now obvious that the corporate media cannot be trusted to adequately inform Americans or provide them with the information needed to make vital decisions regarding issues like the war on Iraq.

Americans must demand the restructuring of the American media system. As long as the media is dominated by a few multi-national conglomerates operating with minimal public accountability, it is unlikely the problem of media bias will ever be addressed. Americans may begin checking the corporate media by reading independent media sources and supporting independent ownership of media outlets whenever possible. The broad monopoly licenses awarded to the corporate socialists running the American media should be revoked, in favor of a large, publicly owned and controlled media system in which Americans play a more active part in the flow of crucial information.

For a good place to start educating yourself, check the web for these publications: Z-Magazine (zmag.org); In These Times (inthesetimes.com); The Nation (thenation.com) ; The Progressive (progressive.org); Multinational Monitor; Monthly Review; Covert Action Quarterly; Christian Science Monitor; Mother Jones (motherjones.com); AK Press; Common Courage Press; South End Press; Seven Stories Press; Iraqbodycount.org; Commondreams.org; Alternet.org; Indy.pabn.org; Indymedia.org; Publiccitizen.org.