Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War

I wish the author of this book had gotten more media coverage prior to Gulf War Redux. It is a fascinating look at the inner workings of the so-called free press, and the difficult and dysfunctional relationship a journalist has with the DOD, Pentagon...all those governmental "powers that be"....Check it out. Definately.

And that's a lot more than the press had in its coverage of Gulf War I: The Prequel. For those of us old enough to have survived the Vietnam Era, we can recollect that some military and intelligence types blamed the loss of that police action on the media. (Even in that era, I found the media to be pretty wishy washy, but they got much worse.) Volumes have been released--some even by the Pentagon--that dispute that claim, but it was popular among Establishment types who argued that the US can do no wrong. Then there was Granada. That I recall because it was so transparently censored--while US medical students in Granada, the ones whose parents could afford to send them there after they'd been rejected by US med schools, were praising the military's arrival just in time, an obvious placement of the right message at the right time. I thought things couldn't get any worse than this. But then there was Panama...Up to the present, Gulf War II, following the subject matter of the book, we've evolved to "embedded" journalists, i.e., media personnel accompanying the brave military in staged events to make Cecil B. DeMille jealous. The process and material of this "war" was provided by PR professionals!This book documents a mid point in that process. And I remember it because I was frequently furious during Desert Storm that every local VFW chapter was called upon to comment while even major newspapers abstained from printing letters critical of the event!There's a lot in this spectacular volume. The author begins with explaining how the media plan was designed, the "pooling" of journalists covering it, to the objection of few! There is a chapter on the dubious dead babies story (covered in some detail by "Weapons of Mass Deception" in which I heard of this book). The author distinguishes between the journalistic and business voices of the major media. There is even a chapter on Vietnam, to document some of the history to which I've already referred. And one appropriately entitles "Desert Muzzle," a pseudonym to which the author frequently returns. There's a lot in the book. And be prepared to stay awake if you read it in bed. Lots will make you extremely mad, particularly the absolute gutlessness of some of the "journalists" on whom we rely for the limited information we receive and are allowed to process.The bottom line is that, if we are to maintain any sense of "democracy," we need information provided by true journalists, not media personalities more intent on getting generals' autographs and invitations to expensive White House dinners than on one-sided, gutless coverage provided by Pentagon PR specialists. And that's all we have now. It's pathetic but true. This book documents it all. Read it and weep.The book ends with a valuable observation: in the early 90s, just after the "liberation" of our wonderful ally, Kuwait, that little emirate ranked second, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), in its incarceration and torture of j

For anyone who still believes that we have a free, open, and unbiased press in this country, read this book. Before we go to war again against Iraq and start getting the government's highly censored version of events, it will be helpful to understand what we were told last time and why.

Ignore the crypto-fascists who were unable to put down their copies of MEIN KAMPF long enough to actually read this book. Very original and thought provoking.

During the Gulf War, I was an elementary schooler who eagerly bought the propaganda the government. my school district, and hometown were promoting in the name of patrotism. I earnestly snapped up everything and anything having to do with the millitary, American Flags or Yellow Ribbons convinced that our side was the right side--and unlike the war in Vietnam, the reasoning for deployment was universally accepted by the American people. Although I now realize there were people voicing conciencious objection to war with Iraq (because among other reasons, we had once supported Saddam Hussein's rise to power including oulfiting his troops with weapons when it suited our international interests and did not seriously care what would happen to the people of Iraq afterwards), if given any coverage in the national news at all, they were riddiculouslsy marginalized as outcasts who were living in a gigantic timewarp and did not understand that this was the 1990's. My parents, having lived through Vietnam, were more cynical about the millitary opperation--but did not challenge the advertising marketed towards their daughter for fear of being perceived as unsupportive of America's objectives. Because they realized that the Gulf War was fought partly over US Petroleum interests, support was actually a more complex issue than I was receiving from media, institutional, and peer socialization. MacArthur and Bagdikian provide a wealth of information for anybody who wants to revisit this time in international/American history and uncover the truth that all too quickly disappeared and was ommitted in the name of national unity. The so-called "liberal-media" defered to government preferences and reporting angles in it's coverage of the Persian Gulf, reducing 20 years of profoundly complex relations in this region of the world to a binary presentation of "good guys v. bad guys". The ultimate loosers in this scenario of course are the American people who never get to see the full justifications of their leaders, policy makers and public officials.Although we think of information suppression as something that was supposed to be eliminated with post-Vietnam millitary oversight procedures and policies, they continued during this event---in an albeit more subtle way. In the world of public policy, just because you cannot see something does not mean that it is non-existent. Granted, looking at a gritter past may be hard, but this action is neccesary to fully understand how media and politics work together in times of war--and not necessarily for the benefit of the citizens at large. The timelieness of this scholarship is wholly appreciated and badly needed.