Journalists acting in a time of crisis

Buying the War:

I think this is a great documentary of how journalists need to better reporters and skepticals. It illustrates that journalism failed and failed the public when it came to relaying the facts. Coverage of the officials and the war was a collaboration of government propaganda and groupthink. There wasn’t much double-checking of the sources and facts or holding officials accountable. It was pretty pathetic that one journalist asked Bush about his faith during a press conference about Iraq. Now, let’s not ask the hard questions…I mean it’s war, what’s to lose…America never loses. The documentary also demonstrates how journalists turned against the public by saying that if you were not for the war than you were unpatriotic and unsympathetic to the victims of 9/11. Bill O’Reilly even said that if you were not for the war then you were a “bad American.” There’s also shame that the bureaucracy within journalism conglomerates would not open the gates to dissenting views. And even when skepticism started to leak through, it seemed the opinion was to continue to back the government so that we can protect their reputation as well as ours’. What’s even sadder is that broadcast journalism, which can reach a larger mass of people, has turned into pundits talking on talk shows rather than reporters.

Ignoring the lessons of 9/11:

As part of his opening statements, Jensen is essentially saying that the U.S. has significant soft power, but we don’t mind to show that we have the hard power to back it up. I also like how he used the word critical thinking in two different ways: one of being consciousness of the war and one of showing dislike toward dissenters. Jensen also reflects on what we have been talking about and that is the U.S unwilling to relinquish its power and global control based on its founding principals. My favorite two lines of his article are of the following: It's tempting to argue that we should refrain from political debate on the 9/11 anniversary to honor those who died and to respect those who lost loved ones. I would be willing to do that if the cheerleaders for the U.S. empire would refrain from using the day to justify the wars of aggression that followed 9/11.” Loss is tragic not just American tragic. We define terrorist as physical attacks and Middle Eastern. However, I think many countries would label the U.S. as a terrorist in terms of finance, trade and enablers of corrupt leaders. Instead of being quick to blame, we should look inwardly at ourselves and use critical thinking as to why Al Qaeda attacked us.

Framing the war:

Journalists are very important when it comes to shaping public opinion where that’s cover elections or crimes. The amount of coverage and use of frames is significant. Unfortunately, after 9/11, the media created an “us” vs. “them.” There wasn’t much room for debate nor room to add context in regards to America’s past with the Middle East and the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the word “terror” is a loaded word that naturally instills fear. The word, in my opinion, also suggests never-ending, and, honesty, the war has lasted entirely too long.

As a side note, journalists were crafty in how they framed the war after it was in progress. (Remember the backlash against the Dixie Chicks?) I remember during 2004, I was one of the few in my eighth grade class to show disproval of Bush and the war. People around me said the war was good because we were helping people who were being tortured and under a dictatorship. There was less talk about weapons of mass destruction and connections with 9/11 than it was with the welfare of the Iraqi people and power battle among the Shiites and Sunnis. Granted we were in eighth grade with not much knowledge about foreign affairs, but my classmates had to get that idea from somewhere…