Iraq Vs tsunami: The duplicity of the media

January 19, 2005
Issue 

Mike Whitney

The US media has descended on the Asian tsunami with all the fervour of feral animals in a meat locker. The newspapers and TV's are plastered with bodies drifting out to sea, battered carcasses strewn along the beach and bloated babies lying in rows. Every aspect of the suffering is being scrutinised with microscopic intensity by the predatory lens of the media.

This is where the western press really excels: in the celebratory atmosphere of human catastrophe. Their penchant for misery is only surpassed by their appetite for profits.

Where was this "free press" in Iraq when the death toll was skyrocketing towards 100,000? So far, we've seen nothing of the devastation in Falluja where more than 6000 were killed and where corpses were lined along the city's streets for weeks on end. Is death less photogenic in Iraq? Or are there political motives behind the coverage?

Wasn't [the US ABC's] Ted Koppel commenting just days before the tsunami that the media was restricting its coverage of Iraq to show sensitivity for the squeamishness of its audience? He reiterated the mantra that filming dead Iraqis was "in bad taste" and that his US audience would be repelled by such images. How many times have we heard the same rubbish from others of his ilk?

Well, it looks like Koppel and the others have quickly switched directions. The tsunami has turned into a 24-hour-a-day media frenzy of carnage and ruin, exploring every facet of human misery in agonising detail.

The festival of bloodshed is chugging ahead at full-throttle and it's bumping up ratings in the process.

Corporate media never fail to astound even the most jaded viewer. Just when it appears that they've hit rock-bottom, they manage to slip even deeper into the morass of sensationalism. The manipulation of calamity is particularly disturbing, especially when disaster is translated into a revenue windfall. Koppel may disparage "bad taste", but his boardroom bosses are more focused on the bottom line. Simply put, tragedy is good for business.

When it comes to Iraq, however, the whole paradigm shifts to the right. The dead and maimed are faithfully hidden from view. No station would dare show a dead marine or even an Iraqi national mutilated by an errant US bomb. That might undermine the patriotic objectives of our mission: to democratise the natives and enter them into the global economic system. Besides, if Iraq was covered like the tsunami, public support would erode extremely quickly, and the US would have to buy its oil rather than extracting it at gunpoint. What good would that do?

Looks like the media's got it right: carnage IS different in Iraq than Thailand, Indonesia or India. The Iraqi butchery is part of a much grander scheme: a plan for conquest, subjugation and the theft of vital resources; the foundation blocks for maintaining white privilege into the next century.

The Iraq conflict is an illustration of how the media is governed by the political agenda of ownership. The media cherry-picks the news according to the requirements of the investor class, dumping footage (like dead US soldiers) that doesn't support its policies. That way, information can be fit into the appropriate doctrinal package, one that serves corporate interests. It's a matter of selectively excluding anything that compromises the broader, imperial objectives.

Alternatively, the coverage of the Asian tsunami allows the media to whet the public's appetite for tragedy and feed the macabre preoccupation with misfortune. Both tendencies are an affront to honest journalism and to any reasonable commitment to an informed citizenry.

The uneven coverage of Iraq and the tsunami highlights an industry in meltdown. Today's privately owned media may bury one story, and yet manipulate another to boost ratings. They are just as likely to exploit the suffering of Asians, while ignoring the pain of Iraqis. Neither brings us closer to the truth. It's simply impossible to derive a coherent world view from the purveyors of soap suds and dog food. They're more devoted to creating a compatible atmosphere for consumerism than conveying an objective account of events.

We need a media that is dedicated to straightforward standards of impartiality and excellence, not one that's rooted in commercialism, exploitation and hyperbole.

[Abridged from <http://www.zmag.org>.]

From Green Left Weekly, January 19, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.