Chicago Media Watch 2002 Conference
Propaganda: War, Terror and the U.S. Empire

BY LYNN COOLING

On November 2, 2002, Chicago Media Watch hosted a conference to examine how the history, media, and the law can perpetuate propaganda. Experts in these fields came from around the country to lecture on the propaganda machine operating in the U.S. today.

Setting the tone for the day, University of Illinois (Chicago) Distinguished Professor of Education Bill Ayers spoke of the educational process in the U.S., and how our students are rarely exposed to independent thought or critical thinking. Rather, students are programmed for uniformity and group think. In dummying down the American mind, American graduates become the easy prey for propaganda techniques. They do not ask questions; they accept the buzz words, slogans and cliches, and are easily manipulated by the constant threats of the next terror attack.

Leon Stein, professor of history at Roosevelt University in Chicago, discussed historical uses of propaganda. He illustrated how the Nazi’s used propaganda to gain and then maintain their power. He compared their tactics to the George W. Bush administration and found similarities in propaganda techniques.

Jennifer Van Bergen, attorney and editor of Truthout.org, examined how propaganda has affected the laws passed in the U.S. since September 11. The Patriot Act is a perfect example of how propaganda from the September 11 attacks has laid the path for civil rights infringements, Van Bergen said. The fear of another attack has allowed the government to create this piece of legislation.

"Fear puts you in a highly suggestive state; [you] accept things that are non-sensical and irrational," Van Bergen explained. The Patriot Act, however, does nothing but distill the fears of the American people, she said. The "court system before the Patriot Act had a 100 percent conviction rate for terrorists." All the Patriot Act does is change the legal rights of terrorist it does not prevent the U.S. from another attack.

For example, under the Patriot Act, the accused can be held for up to seven days without a charge and those aiding what the government considers a terrorist organization can also be penalized under the same auspices as a terrorist engaging in an act of destruction and violence, said Van Bergen.

Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, argued that the mainstream media acts as an agent to further the propaganda of the Bush administration. The mainstream media is complacent, said Rothchild. "There is no voice for the opposition of the war." The New York Times, which is supposed to be representative of liberal ideologies in this country, is not questioning the war. The media is not engaged in critically examining the administration or the war. If they did take a closer look at the situation, they would find that there are bigger threats to the U.S. than Iraq. Countries like Pakistan and North Korea pose a greater threat to the United States than Iraq, according to Rothschild.

Sut Jhally, professor of communication at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, also discussed how the media presented propaganda but with the emphasis on the Palestinian and Israeli conflict."[In the media,] Palestinian attacks have no context," Jhally said. The media never gives all the facts about the attacks, he said. The media omits the fact that, "Israel has illegally occupied the Palestinian territories in the West Bank," said Jhally.

"U.S. support of Israel comes from ignorance", he said. When facts about the occupation are removed from the report, there is a change in the context of the situation. The media also does not report on the peace movement and subsequently renders it invisible, said Jhally. "Soldiers and rabbis are speaking opposite [views about the progression of the war] therefore you have to make them invisible."

The media not only negatively characterizes the Palestinians, but the Israelis too, according to Richard Baehr, former Education director of AIPAC of Illinois and consultant to members of Congress."The media’s bias in the Middle East show Israel is too successful and western to gain sympathy," Baehr said. But Israel has suffered too. Israel is involved in "a war they didn’t seek," he said. "Americans have the most sympathy for [the people of] Iran and Iraq."

In both the Palestinian and Israeli situations, the media provides the American citizen with little information about the context in which the message is delivered, and this makes the situation vulnerable to propaganda, said Baehr.

The Palestinian and Israeli issue drew heated comments from the audience. Several people accused CMW president Liane Casten of sabotaging the conference by bringing in Baehr as a speaker, while many others agreed that this provided a balance view. The following links offer further comments on the matter.

• CMW president Liane Casten's statement
• CMW advisory board member Joan Levin's personal observations
• Michael Miner's Hot Type column in the Chicago Reader

Overall, the speakers gave overwhelming evidence for the occurrence of media propaganda with respect to the Palestinian and Israeli conflict and propaganda in the laws of the U.S. But the most harmful result of contemporary propaganda has to be the failure of the U.S. government.

With the White House armed with its public relations and political consultants, it has constructed an aura of infallibility. The September 11 attacks were a result of this manufactured consent. Author John McMurtry talked about the government's failure to see the warning signals for the attacks. September 11 was preventable, McMurtry said.

The conference concludes that propaganda is pervasive in the U.S. It is seen in the laws—look no further than the Patriot Act; the history, as evidenced in the era of Nazi Germany, in the U.S. mainstream media; and in the U.S. government.

Perhaps the best solution is the one Rothschild advocates:"We are the people we have been looking for." It is up to conscious citizens to fight against propaganda and its negative effects.