Collegiate Times

For four years, our troops have been in Iraq and that's simply four years too long. A good number of Americans — if not a majority of Americans — will turn on their televisions for their daily dose of news and shake their heads at the incompetence of our commander in chief. Regardless of how the majority of Americans feel, the occupation will continue.

But how long will it be until our nation does what is finally right? A considerable reason for the dragging on of this illegal war stems from the effective ability of the government to spin and construct the way this war and occupation are viewed.

One powerful method is the president's ability to command the front page of most major newspapers. Whenever he gives a speech it is televised on the major networks and sparks headlines. As Bush gave his ultimatum to Saddam Hussein four years ago, his speechwriters took the first jab at constructing the debate of how the rest of the war and occupation would be discussed and viewed. Words are important.

As Mark Twain once wrote, "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug."

The importance is shown by the number of people who forego the appropriate and well-needed terms "war criminal" and "illegal occupation," and instead, politely legitimize the occupation by calling it a "mistake" or an example of "incompetence."

Most of the press followed lock step in line to stay within the bounds of what was falsely considered legitimate discussion. This was done for the prestige of newspapers and television networks most journalists work for and for the opportunity to interview a high-ranking government official. This is considered an excellent way to enlarge a news network's audience.

But such men as the president or the vice president have the ability to choose who they will grant access to interview them, providing an excellent filtering tool to ensure the absence of true critical questions by reporters. This also has the effect of promoting self-censorship by newspapers in what they choose to print.

One classic example is The New York Times decision to abide by President Bush's request to hold off on reporting for a year on his administrations' illegal wiretapping. This also has the effect of encouraging reporters based in Washington D.C. to tend toward giving government officials far more say in their news stories while often neglecting the voices of dissidents.

Continue Reading: 12 Next »