Terrorism, Global Journalism and the Myth of National State

Deni Elliot's article in the Journal of Mass Media Ethics gives an accurate portrayal of the faults of the American media following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. I agree with Elliot's thesis that journalists should not be cheerleaders for government policy and that journalists must report on the views and opinions of the proverbial enemy.

Extrapolating on Elliot's argument, it becomes much easier to see how the Bush administration was able to launch its case for war in Iraq with the such media complicity. Back in 2002 and 2003, it became incredibly difficult to find a questioning voice in the mainstream media. The sheer volume of articles supporting the war vastly outweighed the number of articles against war, which were normally found buried in the back pages of newspapers.

Just as the Bush administration primed the nation for war by staging patriotic events, such as a gathering at the National Cathedral in Washington, which was supposed to represent the day of mourning but culminated with the "Battle Hymn of the Republic," the media followed suit by breaking into live coverage to broadcast the "Battle Hymn." Like our representatives, not one mainstream media member took the time to peruse the USA PATRIOT Act, which later the media criticized at every turn.

As signs point increasingly towards the possibility of armed conflict in Iran, the media has a responsibility to engage the American public in a more efficient way than took place in the run-up to the war in Iraq.