Randal Marlin
Page 60
.
113 Thanks to Betsy Struthers for drawing this to my attention.
114 That the Bush administration presented such claims as truth can be seen in then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003. That the intelligence community had doubts about the reliability of evidence allegedly supporting these claims, and said so, is attested by insiders such as Richard A. Clarke in Against All Enemies. See especially 22f. and 268.
115 See on this Michael G. Kearney’s thorough treatment of the subject in The Prohibition of Propaganda for War in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); and John B. Whitton and Arthur Larson’s earlier classic, Propaganda: Towards Disarmament in the War of Words (New York: Oceana Publications, 1964).
116 National Post, September 9, 2009.
117 See Warren P. Stroebel and John Walcott, “British Memo Indicates Bush Made Intelligence Fit Iraq Policy,” Knight Ridder News, May 6, 2005, published by the Common Dreams News Center
www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0506-01.htm>. The whole leaked memo is also posted at
downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html>.
118 Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004).
119 Clarke 30–32.
120 Just war theory has been much discussed in recent years. Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1977) has become a modern classic. Brian Orend applies the theory to recent wars including Iraq in 2003 in his The Morality of War (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2013). For a spirited attack on the possibility of just war today, see Andrew Fiala, The Just War Myth (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2008).
121 Details are provided in Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber’s The Best War Ever (New York: Tarcher/
Penguin, 2006), Chapter 4.
122 Rampton and Stauber 106.
123 See Andrew Calabrese, “Historical Memory, Media Studies and Journalism Ethics,” Global Media and Communication (2007): 367–68.
124 See on this Oliver Boyd-Barrett, “Judith Miller, The New York Times, and the Propaganda Model,” Journalism Studies 5, no. 4 (2004): 441.
125 Douglas McCol am, “Ahmed Chalabi’s List of Suckers,” Columbia Journalism Review, on AlterNet July 12, 2004,
126 McCol am 8.
127 National Post, February 6, 2003; Le Devoir, February 6, 2003; Globe and Mail, February 6, 2003; La Presse, February 6, 2003.
128 Wall Street Journal, September 26, 2002,
129 Marie-Josée Kravis, “Canada’s Schroeder,” Ottawa Citizen, September 27, 2002: A17.
130 Robert Parry, Consortium News, November 21, 2011,
slanting-the-case-on-irans-nukes/>.
CHAPTER 7: THE QUESTIon oF ConTRoLS 305
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 305
9/5/13 4:52 PM
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 306
9/5/13 4:52 PM
CHAPTER 8
Propaganda, Democracy,
CHAPTER 8:
and the Internet
PROPAGANDA,
DEMOCRACY,
AND THE INTERNET
THE ACHIEVEMEnTS AnD PRoMISE oF THE InTERnET
In the 10 years since this book was first published, there has arguably taken place an
information revolution with no less dramatic and far-reaching effects than the pub-
lishing transformation accomplished by Gutenberg in the fifteenth century. Marshall
McLuhan’s description of the modern world as a “global village” has never been more
apt. The arrival of the Internet in previous decades was itself a major change, but
the development of the World Wide Web and sophisticated search engines such as
Google, together with the Wikipedia phenomenon, have put a wealth of information
at the fingertips of anyone with Internet access through their personal computer, pub-
lic library, Internet café, or suchlike. Among the many indirect effects brought about
by this revolution is the change in library space allocation to accommodate demand
for Internet access—more space for computers, less for books.
In the twentieth century and earlier, a scholar had to do laborious fact check-
ing even on simple matters such as the spelling of someone’s name, dates, and places.
Such things can often be easily verified in a matter of seconds now. There are pitfalls,
of course, and there is misinformation, but for the most part reliable sources can be
found. One result is that the layperson wanting to express opinions in a given con-
troversy may be less easily discredited, thus reducing the power imbalance between
laypersons and professionals. One is reminded of Bernard Shaw’s dictum “all profes-
sions are conspiracies against the laity,” but with the realization that access to informed
opinion has now introduced cracks in the shell separating the two. With the arrival of
Google, the autodidact has never had it so good. Such is the speed with which infor-
mation is accessible that today’s professor, facing a classroom of computer-equipped
307
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 307
9/5/13 4:52 PM
students, may be challenged on factual matters on the basis of a search taking only a few seconds. At the same time, members of the professions are sure to issue reminders that a little learning is a dangerous thing, and they would be right, but for those
with the time, ability, and inclination, more than just a little learning is available on
the Internet. Another result may be a reconfiguration of the skills sets necessary for a
successful career in any of the different professions where a prodigious and accurate
memory was previously a more highly valued asset. As the value of a memory for detail
is diminished, the value for synthesizing information from different sources and seeing
unusual connections has risen.
From the standpoint of propaganda, the Internet has already played an important
role in challenging the establishment mass media’s version of events and their signifi-
cance. A growing number of websites exist for the purpose of countering or correct-
ing facts and opinions in the mass media. Some of these have institutional backing,
such as the Annenburg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org. Others have built up
trustworthiness over the years, such as Truthout and Common Dreams, or they have
a consistent political stance on current affairs, such as Alternet’s generally left-oriented
take on events. Even if individually these sites lack huge audiences, collectively they
can have a big impact, especially when combined with the interconnected groups of
people making use of Twitter and Facebook who can further disseminate at great
speed items of special significance.
To many, the arrival of the Internet has been a gift, an answer to the problem of
media concentration and corporate dominance. It is no longer necessary to rely on the
local newspaper or television for vital and authoritative information or interpretations
of events. All or virtually all major newspapers and magazines, including the Guardian,
the Independent (London), the New York Times, Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel,
Al Jazeera, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Irish Times, are online. A wealth of government documents can be downloaded from a decent Internet-equipped computer at increasingly lower cost; many organizations, pressure groups, propagandists,
bureaucratic documents, and even such esoteric entities as a flat-earth society can be
&
nbsp; found at the stroke of a key on any good search engine. Robert Fisk’s thoughtful, coura-
geous, and historically sensitive reporting from the Middle East is accessible daily on
the Independent’s website, while his critics can be found at another.1 News junkies can assemble their own list of favourite news sources by bookmarking them.
On reading different and somewhat conflicting accounts of what the IAEA said
in its report on Iran’s nuclear program in November 2011, I found it very useful to
look up the actual report through Google. The search was complicated by the docu-
ment carrying two distinct dates, November 8 (publication) and November 18 (date
of de-restriction), but having found and downloaded it, I was able to see some highly
nuanced language wrongly interpreted by some as clearly indicating that Iran was on
a path to making nuclear weapons.2 In the “old days” prior to the twenty-first cen-
tury, a social critic who wanted to have some influence was handicapped by delays in
308 PRoPAgAnDA AnD THE ETHICS oF PERSUASIon
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 308
9/5/13 4:52 PM
accessing court judgments, government reports, or other documents. This created a disadvantage compared to those whose jobs were bound up with the media. To a large
extent, that is no longer true. Government press releases in Ontario appear not only in
the media but, at the same time, are posted on the government Web pages, with links
to actual documentation.
The power of the Internet to affect political and economic decision-making was
made manifest in Seattle in 1999. A high-level World Trade Organization meeting
was effectively shut down by a mass of highly coordinated protesters. Beginning in
December 2010, popular uprisings spread from Tunisia to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen,
Syria, and other countries in a movement collectively known as the “Arab Spring.”
These civil demonstrations were fuelled by communications carried over the Internet
and by cellphone. No doubt inspired by this movement, a sustained popular demon-
stration against a dysfunctional US financial sector took flight on September 17, 2011
in an area of New York near Wall Street known as Liberty Plaza or John E. Zuccotti
Park. Aimed at challenging complex and ethically dubious financial practices that
developed following deregulation, “Occupy Wall Street,” as the protest was known,
managed to grow in the days and weeks ahead, sustained by Internet communications.
The so-called mainstream media ignored the protest until thousands demonstrated on
the Brooklyn Bridge and police made 700 arrests. Prominently placed stories started
then to appear. Critics have faulted the protestors for not having a unified proposal
for remedying the situation, but defenders have argued that just the mere coming
together, letting the world know that the current situation is intolerable, was sufficient
justification. People have become more aware of how the “one per cent,” as the very
rich have come to be known, have tilted tax and other structures in their favour. The
term “occupy” is recognized everywhere with its social activist and political overtones.
The Internet has given governments an increasingly difficult time when they try
to engage in old-style propaganda. Military recruitment is helped, as always, by the
creation of heroes, but two attempts to distort events for this purpose in the US-led
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were likely foiled by the Internet. The first example is
that of Pfc. Jessica Lynch, injured during the invasion of Iraqi on March 23, 2003. The
Washington Post presented the story as one of heroism. Following the headline “She
Was Fighting to the Death; Details Emerging of W.Va. Soldier’s Capture and Rescue,”
staff writers Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb wrote:
Pfc. Jessica Lynch, rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital, fought fiercely and shot
several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army’s 507th Ordnance
Maintenance Company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S.
officials said yesterday.
Lynch, a 19-year-old supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she
sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit
die around her in fighting March 23, one official said. The ambush took place after
CHAPTER 8: PRoPAgAnDA , DEMoCR ACy, AnD THE InTERnET 309
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 309
9/5/13 4:52 PM
507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.
“She was fighting to the death,” the official said. “She did not want to be taken
alive.”
“Lynch was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in on her position,” the official
said, noting that initial intelligence reports indicated that she had been stabbed to
death. No official gave any indication yesterday, however, that Lynch’s wounds had
been life-threatening.3
Taken to Saddam hospital in Nasiriyah by the Iraqis, Lynch was cared for by medical
staff, until the hospital was stormed in a made-for-TV rescue operation.
Very different accounts of what happened emerged when hospital personnel
and others were interviewed by British and Canadian news media. The Toronto Star’s
Mitch Potter interviewed three doctors, two nurses, and one hospital administrator.
According to Dr. Harith Houssona, Iraqi soldiers and commanders had left almost
two days earlier, after which senior administrators decided to return Jessica Lynch to
the US forces, but the ambulance conveying her had to turn back when fired upon.
The raid itself scared and disrupted the work of some 40 medical staff. Dr. Anmar
Uday said, “Everyone expected the Americans to come that day because the city had
fallen. But we didn’t expect them [Army Rangers and Navy Seals] to blast through the
doors like a Hollywood movie.” Dr. Mudhafer Raazk testified that two cameramen
and a still photographer, also in uniform, accompanied the US teams into the hospi-
tal, and Potter notes “maybe this was a movie after al .” Dr Raazk also stated that the
hospital carried out orthopedic surgery on Lynch’s left leg in a procedure involving a
platinum plate, although the hospital had only three. “At least 100 Iraqis were in need,”
he said, “but we gave one to Jessica.” This statement bears contrasting with the igno-
rant and ungrateful (to Iraqi medical personnel) remark made by Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld on the BBC a couple of weeks later: “We are certainly grateful for
the brilliant and courageous rescue of Sergeant, correction Pfc. Jessica Lynch who was
being held by Iraqi forces in, in what they call a hospital.”4
So many key components of the Pentagon narrative fell apart that it was eventu-
ally abandoned. Medical testimony indicated that Lynch had no stab wounds. The
Christian Science Monitor reported that she had been injured in an accident, not by
enemy fire. “Before being captured she had not emptied her rifle at the approach-
ing troops because her gun had jammed (as did many other weapons in her unit). In
the hospital, which Iraqi troops had evacuated shortly before her rescue, she was well
treated by nurses and a doctor who tried to return her to American lines.”5
Eventually the Washing
ton Post admitted the errors of its initial account,6 but
there would have been a lot of pressure upon them to do so, since rival accounts
did not just appear in newspapers such as the Toronto Star, the Guardian and the
Independent, but also in many different Internet sources, such as Common Dreams.7
310 PROPAGANDA AND THE ETHICS OF PERSUASION
BV-Propaganda-Interior-04.indd 310
9/5/13 4:52 PM
The second example is that of Pat Tillman, a professional football star who felt cal ed to serve his country in Afghanistan. His signing up for the armed forces amid
great fanfare was a boon to Army recruiters since he had turned down a football con-
tract worth over $3 million to do so. When he was killed in action, the military said
his death had taken place in heroic circumstances. According to the Washington Post,
“the Army kept the soldiers on the ground quiet and told Tillman’s family and the
public that he was killed by enemy fire while storming a hill, barking orders to his
fellow Rangers.” US Army Special Operations Command released a statement on
April 30, 2004 to go with the posthumous award of a Silver Star for combat valour:
“He ordered his team to dismount and then maneuvered the Rangers up a hill near
the enemy’s location. As they crested the hill, Tillman directed his team into firing
positions and personally provided suppressive fire ... Tillman’s voice was heard issuing
commands to take the fight to the enemy.” But the Washington Post obtained dozens of internal Army documents describing Tillman’s death by “friendly fire.” Greg Mitchell,
editor of Editor & Publisher, wrote that at least 14 sworn statements had been taken from Tillman’s platoon members, making clear the true causes of his death. But these
statements were suppressed in the story given to the public. Mitchell concludes that
“The Army’s April 30 news release was just one episode in a broader Army effort to
manage the uncomfortable facts of Pat Tillman’s death, according to internal records
and interviews.”8 Again, the viral dissemination on the Internet of the Tillman fam-
ily’s furious reaction to the manipulation of the facts surrounding his death created