The American media — like its Russian and Chinese
counterparts — carry the notion that its government, even when mistaken,
operates as an inherently altruistic entity. The United States is always
assumed to be using its massive power for the international good, even when the
outcome is something as bloody and brutal as the occupation of Iraq. The
typical liberal reporter will posit: “I may object to the mishandling of
the war, but not for a second do I doubt we are trying to improve the situation
for these Iraqis. I mean, we overthrew Saddam, and he was a real
bastard!”a

Of course, this is utter nonsense — just ask the
overwhelming majority of the Iraqi public what they think of the occupation.
(Here’s a hint: A Washington Post poll showed that 82 percent oppose the
presence of the U.S. military in their country.) Saddam has always been a
bastard, but he was our bastard throughout the 1980s, receiving billions in
military aid even as he gassed the very Kurds who are now supposedly so
precious to the Bush administration. Not only does the media refuse to
challenge the stated rationale for any U.S. foreign policy decision, but even
worse, they serve as a propaganda organ for even the most hypocritical and
abusive of government behavior.

Take the tendentious and selective coverage of victims of
human rights abuses. The most recent wave of repression in Tibet has been given
more than generous coverage by all the major networks, exposing Communist
brutality in all its sordid details. High school students are being shot,
Buddhist monks imprisoned, demonstrations violently dispersed; thanks to The
New York Times and Fox News, these and other atrocities are now in the popular
consciousness of America. The cause of a free Tibet — a just one, to be sure
— has become America’s cause.

And it has been for some time. The fact that everyone is
aware of the plight of the Tibetan people is quite remarkable; Americans aren’t
exactly known for a scholarly knowledge of international affairs. This is a
testament to the consistent intensity of the media’s condemnation of China’s
ongoing cultural genocide in a territory it unjustly occupies.

Contrast this with the situation in Palestine. The
41-year-old military occupation of the West Bank, destruction of Palestinian
civil society, expropriation of natural resources and ongoing growth of
settlements, is barely acknowledged by mainstream news sources, let alone
condemned for the viscous colonialism the policies constitute. The codified
oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories has garnered almost
universal charges of “apartheid,” with the exception of the United
States. It is an accusation endorsed by both Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu
(actually, the latter contends the word “apartheid” doesn’t go far
enough). Even the very term rarely — if ever — makes its way onto CNN.

As the late scholar Edward Said exposed in his
much-celebrated publication “Orientalism,” the popular media does a
stellar job in “highly exaggerated stereotyping and belligerent
hostility” in portraying Arabs — Palestinians in particular. If Americans
are conditioned to view Arabs as red-eyed, bearded, terrorist fanatics — even
as Israel’s own religious fanaticism and more entrenched racism rampage
unchecked by Brian Williams — popular support for Israel suddenly becomes
explicable.

How are we to account for the wildly disparate coverage of
two comparable situations? It’s really quite simple: The news corporations
exist to serve power. Thus, the victims of an American enemy (China) are valued
enough to be lavished with front-page sympathy, while those of an American
client-state (Israel) are relegated to obscurity or even demonization.

Both depictions justify U.S. policy, which includes annually
heaping billions onto the Israeli military and heaping billions more onto our
own forces of aggression to check Chinese ambition. Both bolster the U.S. image
as a reluctant superpower forced to engage in world affairs only to tame the
ever-riotous forces of malevolence.

Similarly, Americans never hear of Colombian President
?lvaro Uribe and his violent subjugation of trade unionism and other dissident
movements. Why? Because he acts with the unwitting yet munificent support of
the American taxpayer as a pro-American stabilizing force in a region rocked by
socialist populism.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s execution of
the occasional journalist is common knowledge to anyone who subjects himself or
herself to the nightly news. Why? Precisely because Mr. Putin rivals American
power.

The Kurds were sidelined during the 1980s; after the Gulf
War they became a vulnerable people, courageous in their fight against an
ostentatious despot. The women of Afghanistan were forgotten when the
mujahedeen were at war with the Soviets; after Sept. 11 they became the
“cause celebre” of both CNN and the Bush administration.

The subservience of the media may keep Americans ignorant of
many crucial international happenings, but the notion of a complacent press has
certainly penetrated the popular consciousness. I am reminded of Stephen
Colbert’s courageous and humorous speech at the 2006 White House
Correspondents’ Association Dinner, when he sardonically lauded the press for
ignoring important issues: “We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had
the courtesy not to try to find out.” I agree with the latter half of that
statement.

?

Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is
a junior majoring in Spanish and history.