War on Terror Readings

Ignoring the lessons of 9/11:
"Critical thinking became a mark not of conscientious thinking but of dangerous disloyalty."
I completely agree with Jensen's argument in this article- that as a global powerhouse, the United States feels entitled to an aging notion of American imperialism. U.S. policymakers used the attacks as an excuse to start a war with "terror" (a concept- not a country). They pounced on Americans while they were weak and spiritually broken, just as men go after women when they are at their most vulnerable. At a time when Americans came together and united as a country (and should have been allowed to do so in peace), their own leaders marketed their American spirit and unity to rationalize an illegal war. In my eyes there were two big failures here: 1) U.S. policymakers failed to recognize that the time of American Imperialism is fading (big surprise there) and 2) that American journalists failed to do their jobs, which includes being critical of whatever political decisions are made regardless of emotional turmoil the country is experiencing. Essentially, journalists are not here to be our national cheerleaders and life coaches. They are here to report unbiased (in this case, American or anti-American) news. I have to ask, if 9/11 never happened, would America have found another excuse to go to war? Or would the war never have happened?

Buying the War:
I was most fascinated by the scene featuring the White House press, where specific journalists were called on and asked a prescribed question. Not only did the questions asked during the press conference ignore the discussion of he ramifications of the war and what they would honestly mean for America, they chose to take a human interest angle and talk about President Bush's faith. Good for him for having faith in America but the press conference was so completely staged and didn't answer any logistical or pragmatic questions. This kind of vague, amorphous propaganda made it easy for the U.S. government to so quickly and insensitively market the American people's moment of unity.

Framing the War on Terror:
"...the War on Terror was more than a policy label; it was a powerful organizing principle and, to the extent that journalists shared that way of structuring the world as indicated in the reports and analysis, create favorable news discourse climate for military action in Iraq." Journalists latching on to phrases of any kind is always a problem, because it frames people's ideas, promoting narrow-minded thinking and unquestioned politics. A phrase used by reporters over and over again can easily change the life of millions of people- that is why it is so crucial that they choose their words carefully. By referring to the war as "the war on terror" repeatedly, reporters structured the way the world thought about why America chose to illegally invade Iraq. The entire thing just seemed like a staged production with plenty of photo-ops along the way. Turns out, it was. On the other hand, it is difficult for journalists not to be sensitive during a national crisis. 9/11 is still a hugely emotional experience for me and I'm sure millions of other Americans. Re-watching those planes crash into the World Trade Center is a horrible sight. However, I still feel that there is a time and place to be political. And as a reporter, that place is at home.