April 08, 2003

The media dogs of war

It is often argued that public opinion is very elusive. We are never sure what public opinion is at any moment, and that its formation all depends upon accident and chance. For something so elusive public opinion is extremely important in public policy making, since it is the link between civil society and the political institutions of the state.

Philosophy.com holds that public opinion is, and should be, formed through public debate by citizens on matter so concern to them. The process of formation through dialogue is the core of a public reason in liberal societies and it requires a lot of energy, battling and defending to ensure that public reason survives and broadens beyond our formal parliamentary institutions. We need a lot more sentries for a deliberative democracy. Political decisions are only legitimate if they have been defended on the basis of reason that all citizens can accept.

The Tampa episode in the last federal election in Australia, which was used by the Howard Government, to shape, stir up and manipulate public opinion around refugees, defending national borders, resisting terrorism and protecting national security. And the Howard Government toned down its early bellicose war rhetoric because the consensus of majority public opinion in Australia was in favor of war with Iraq only if it was down under the auspices of the United Nations. The UN was the forum where the reasons for war would be evaluated and judgements made. As is well known the Anglo-Americans spurned the liberal conventions of public reason in favour of might is right when their case was found wanting.

We need institutions in civil society to foster the practices of critical public reason. As the party political organizations into machine politics decline as mediating institutions between civil soceity and the state, due to the control of political elites and number crunching factional heavies, the media has come to play an extremely important role in government attempts to persuade or confront public opinion. Though the media does set policy on certain issues--eg. law and order--it mostly amplifies the policy agenda set by the government of the day and contribute to the various options. The media sees itself as the watchdog of democracy--exposing corruption, spin, dirty dealings and cover ups in the name of the truth. Citizens need to be informed on public issues and the media enables or faciliates the 'process of becoming informed' through deliverying the truth.

What the war with Iraq has highlighted is only do the media have their own political agenda but that sections of it (eg. Fox Television or the Daily Telegraph) see themselves as the spin factory for war machine. The culture industry, the military, and the technocratic Enlightenment have fused. Most of corporate media are biased in that they support the Anglo-American view of the war with Iraq; or if they are critical or have reservations (the liberal media ) they still obtain most of their information from the Anglo-American side of the conflict. Censorship is standard operating procedure: the media downplay or cut out the extent of civilian deaths and the horror images of twisted, burnt bodies of ordinary Iraqi's. Rarely do we hear or have access to the diverse perspectives of Arab voices in the Middle East. These are beyond the horizon, part of what lies outside the everyday discourse. As the liberal media becomes a lap dog citizens increasingly turn to the internet to become informed aND gain public knowledge.

In this selling the war a number of conservative journalists have redefined the role of their profession. They are no longer watchdogs or even lap dogs. They are war dogs:-warriors fighting a battle with the left forces that need to be destroyed to ensure victory. For them the real war is here at home and it's has to be waged against the anti-American leftists who are full of hate and envy.

Their commentary is provocative and abusive; they have little concern for the liberal conventions of public debate; they distort the views of their opponents; and they seek blood. They--- Anne Coulter in the USA, Miranda Devine in Australia are among the many---are flagwavers or exemplars for the new dogs of war. The dogs of war love the taste of the kill. Hunting the left down is what they do whilst killing the prey is what turns them on.

One role for a critical public reason in these times is to fight the dogs of war to protect the liberal values upon which liberal political institutions depend. An example of this, with repect to the war on Iraq, is here Once correcting the misconceptions and challenging the opinions of the media was usually done in terms of Letters to the Editor. to the limitations imposed by the coporate media on citizen participation in public debate, the watchdog role of challenging manipulative political rhetoric is increasingly done by bloggers. In Australia it is standard pratice for rightwing bloggers to regularly take on the biased views of the liberal media, with Tim Blair as the standard bearer. On the lefty side -- Tim Dunlop and Gummo Trotsky and Public Opinion take on the polemical rightwing commentators.

An example of the genre is this piece by Glen Condell. Unsuprisingly it was rejected as a letter to the editor. It tackles the Australiaan commentator Miranda Devine, and it shows a critical public reason at work in civil society. This is what Glenn has written.

Miranda Devine's establishment cheerleading is fairly harmless when she's patrolling her local turf - bushfires, 4 wheel drives, women's apparel - but it simply isn't good enough when the subject is war ('Bush's tough stance is the steel in UN jelly', Sun-Herald, 29 September). Ms Devine's readers deserve the same kind of 'dispassionate argument' she credits US Ambassador Schieffer with, not simply a lazy rehash of the pro-hawk position that he, 'an old Texas friend and business partner of President Bush', so dutifully put. Apparently, his 'logic' was 'compelling'. He must have felt like Joh Bjelke feeding the chooks. Where is the cost/benefit analysis for Australia? The discussion of the long-term consequences of pre-emption? The investigation of who benefits from a war? (Answer in no particular order - Republican Party, Israel, US economy - especially oil, arms and infrastructure) Is the asking of such questions 'leftist' and therefore beyond the pale?

The contrast between the suspicion and contempt that laces her every mention of progressives and the fawning obsequiousness she reserves for fellow travellers such as Sheiffer is revealing. She has an acute bullshit detector but it is unfortunately pointed over the fence so that the stench from behind her goes unremarked. A good pundit is a sceptic, not a mouthpiece. At a time like this, you have to feel sorry for reactionary commentators, for whom most issues du jour helpfully divide the community along predictable lines. Money for jam. All of a sudden, venerable old conservatives have joined the usual suspects in condeming US actions and intentions and strident souls like Ms Devine find themselves increasingly isolated and sounding a bit shrill. This is an inevitable consequence of playing the man and not the ball; concentrating on the provenance of arguments rather than their intrinsic merits. Which is why an otherwise intelligent woman finds herself trying to defend the nonsensical while studiously avoiding the bleeding obvious.

Thus she acknowledges caution from 'conservatives such as Owen Harries', whose 'counsel comes from the lessons of 400 years of history'. (The lessons of those years, and many more, are also available to Ms Devine; her deference to experts, especially conservative ones, reveals a curious lack of confidence in her own instincts) Even Daniel Pipes, Israeli uber-hawk, feels Iraq is 'tangential'. But Ms Devine feels the 'overwhelming' evidence (from 'credible' sources) of Saddam's arsenal is 'an imminent threat to the peace of the world', a line that could have been lifted from a Cheney or Rumsfeld press release. In fact, the 'evidence' so far is distinctly underwhelming and resembles nothing so much as the fabricated material, since discredited, that was used as part of the casus belli for the Gulf War. Or the trumped up Gulf of Tonkin 'crisis' that led to Vietnam. Some of us are feeling a chilly sort of deja-vu that Ms Devine, like Mr Bush, lacks either through temperament or education.

Many old proverbs don't hold much water nowadays, but 'those that don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it' has never been truer. History informs the letter signed by emeritus Australian PMs, but the most important focus is the future. Every year we move further in time from the great upheavals of the last century and there is a danger that recognition of the benefits of the co-operative international system that arose after WW2 is being eroded by people who have never known war; indeed, by people who managed through connections to secure exemption from combat in Vietnam. This includes the man whose 'tough stance is putting steel in the UN jelly'; a man who was more jelly than steel in the 1960s. Will any young Bushes fight in this war?

Another proverb, 'you don't know what you've got til it's gone', comes to mind if you try to imagine what the future holds if things don't go according to script, or even if they do, perhaps especially if they do. The baby and the bathwater apply here too. The UN may not be perfect, but the former PMs and most Australians know that it is preferable to the domination of any single nation. Ms Devine's crack about 'men so politically seasoned' exhibiting 'a faith in the infallibility of the UN' was meant I suppose to infer a sort of oldster naivety but to jeer at this sentiment while herself exhibiting faith in the infallibility of the US speaks volumes for her own callowness and lack of perspective. I'm sure the signatories also recognise that much of the blame for the UN's ineffectiveness over the years lies squarely at the feet of the US, which makes criticism of it from Mr Bush (and media flacks like Ms Devine) especially galling. To bellow about Saddam's flouting of UN resolutions while Israel and the US grow their own arsenals and refuse inspections is such daring hypocrisy you can almost admire it. Almost.

'It is tempting not to argue against such national self-interest', Ms Devine admits. There's nearly an outbreak of common sense, but balance is restored by a rather desperate argument that it is 'neither smart nor courageous' for us to try and minimise the harm that may come to these shores by 'going out of our way not to attract the attention of terrorist fanatics'. Better all round to lead with our chin as Mr Howard so memorably did when promising an armoured division at the merest whiff of war. 'It is hard to dismiss the elder statesmen' she says, so she doesn't. She simply berates 'others' who 'don't do their cause any favours by portraying Mr Bush as an ignorant cowboy'. Mr Bush doesn't need to be 'portrayed' this way; it is obvious. This comment, by the way, does not make me anti-American, just anti-Bush. There are quite a few of us now; an apolitical but socially conservative aunt in her late 70's told me last week 'he's such a DILL!' This week he's 'as mad as a meataxe'. No-one told her to think these things (take it from me, no-one can tell her to think anything) and she tells me such thoughts are widespread at church and in the historical society where she helps out. As I said, Mr Bush's ignorance is that obvious, but it's his dishonesty, bad faith and the danger he poses that lie at the root of this disgust.

Perhaps some of us are too hard on him, the poor bloke, but Ms Devine more than makes up for us with her breathless summary of Mr Bush's glittering achievements, crowned by a 'proven business record'! It's as if she just tunes out anything that doesn't square with her rosy view of our hero. Mr Bush's business career is an embarrassing catologue of near failures rescued by people who were either friendly with his father or wished to be. Ms Devine's colleague Alan Ramsey's piece on 21 September makes it clear that CIA material relating to several US companies who did business with Iraq related to weapons of mass destruction is still classified. Is the 'why' of classification related to the 'who' of the companies' boards? Ms Devine doesn't ask, is unlikely to know and even less likely to care. Now if the President's name was Clinton...

Like her lapdog counterparts in the US media, Ms Devine can't resist a dig at his predecessor while praising Mr Bush's 'tremendous self-discipline: a non-drinker and runner with the physique of an elite athlete', as if these were qualifications for office. She seems to think it his his personal manliness that forced Saddam to back down, rather than US military capability. (There is a psychological link here with Ms Devine's fatuous comparison of the UN to 'the worst sort of indulgent mother' who 'turns on Daddy when he finally steps in'. No prizes for guessing who Daddy is. Power is male and it carries a big stick. There is scope here for speculation which I'm afraid would be off-topic) She fails to mention that Mr Bush has had more vacation days than any previous president which, given the circumstances, is telling. She also fails to record the Stalin-esque White House cleanups of the Presidential prose. He is like a royal personage surrounded by jesters and court intriguers who defer to him publicly but have the final say. Many of us hope that it is Colin Powell, rather than Mssrs Cheney or Rumsfeld, who has the last word so that there may be a reason, however flimsy, for invasion, rather than simply a pretext.

Ms Devine's reactionary boilerplate rarely hits a nerve, dealing as it so often does with ephemera. But to read that 'as distasteful as war is, and as desperately as we may all wish to avoid it, past inaction against Iraq doesn't justify inaction now' was like a red rag to a bull. 'Distasteful'?? Like the tummy rolls of young women that so annoy her? Distasteful? Like the photo of a dead Middle-Eastern child that spoils your breakfast croissant? Distasteful? If there is war, we'll be lucky if the worst we can say is that it's distasteful. My guess is that Ms Devine will be among those so blessed. And I don't see her 'desperately wishing to avoid it' either; she is running with a pack led by the Kristols and the Krauthammers and and they are presently drooling with anticipation for the blood of other people, preferably nameless brown Muslim people who can, with a rueful shake of the head, be labelled 'collateral damage'. And if 'past inaction' then doesn't justify 'inaction now', how exactly does it justify action now? Who knows, but it sounded good, didn't it?

The other day I watched a group of schoolchildren file into the Opera House. They were about my daughter's age, the girls all busy hugging each other and holding hands, the boys skylarking about. And I thought, is this where they'd hit us? What if she was there? I had to stop for a moment, the nausea of imagining was so strong. Last year affected all of us, not just Americans. For me, as I'm sure it is with many, the single most important thing is to minimise the possibility of such a thing. Not prevent, mind, as there can be no 'final solution' to a problem like this. I think to myself; in which scenario is my daughter more likely to be at risk: Australia opts out of invasion force citing lack of public support, or Australia alone joins invasion force with Anglophone friends? There is room for respectable disagreement about this, but support for the former view requires more intellectual and moral grunt than you'll find in Ms Devine's work. More broadly, the whole tenor of US reaction since 9/11 seems to me to have made terrorism more, rather than less likely in the long term. I wonder, in the future, if we are targeted by disgruntled Islamists who remember the role our troops played in the conquest of their country for US interests, whether warmongers like Ms Devine will apologise for their irresponsibility.

Though one of her favourite tactics is to characterise her opponents as weak, it is Ms Devine who lacks steel in this matter and her targets, the 'elder statesmen' who display it. Mr Keating's presumably pique-driven refusal aside, the letter is an index of the strength and essential unity of our polity and it's recognition that our security relies on far more than one relationship, no matter how powerful the friend and that sometimes principle must take precedence over fear. Yet another proverb and one possibly known in Iraq: it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. When an apparent majority even of Americans can't say 'my country right or wrong' it doesn't behove us to try and do so for them. Such a stance is more jelly than steel.

Ms Devine has a thousand analogues in the US and many throughout the West; a diaspora of Bush-boosters, an echo chamber of second hand thought which loves nothing more than to characterise what they call the left as 'knee-jerk anti-Americans'. Ms Devine and co. daily prove the existence of the 'knee-jerk pro-American right'. Still, it's a free country (much freer than the US is right now) and she's entitled to her opinion, however silly, craven and derivative it may be.

Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at April 8, 2003 11:19 AM | TrackBack
Comments
Post a comment