<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/April/2o/Saving%20America%20is%20the%20responsibility%20of%20the%20US%20media%20By%20Marwan%20Al%20Kabalan.htm">http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/April/2o/Saving%20America%20is%20the%20responsibility%20of%20the%20US%20media%20By%20Marwan%20Al%20Kabalan.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=Arial size=4>Saving America is the responsibility of the US media
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>By Marwan Al Kabalan</FONT></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Gulf News, April 2, 2004</FONT></P>
<P></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Anyone interested in the study of state-press relations in
the United States would have noticed that since coming to power, the Bush
administration has been immune to a wide-scale media criticism on foreign
policy-related issues. Criticism – whatever little there was – almost
disappeared after the September 11, 2001 attacks, as the media stood by the Bush
administration on every single foreign policy question. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>To a large extent, it echoed the voices and reflected the
dominant views in the foreign policy establishment, garnering domestic and
international support for official policies. The stance against terrorism
replaced the ideological bond of the Cold War and led to a new consensus shaped
largely by patriotism and America's exceptional position in world history.
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>In the aftermath of 9/11, the media accepted the role of an
indentured servant for the foreign policy elite because it was expected to be
patriotic in a global battle in which so much was at stake. It disseminated
information and presented certain views in order to ensure that the strategic
interests of the US were served and well protected. The US media committed
itself totally to this role, particularly during the war in Afghanistan and
Iraq. In these two cases, very few expected the media to take the risk, oppose
policy, and, subsequently, be branded unpatriotic. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>In the past few weeks, however, the media have started
challenging the official agenda by putting on the news divisive issues and by
giving space for opposing views. This new line of coverage should not be
understood as part of the investigative traditions of the US media - as some
American journalists have us believe. Rather, the media became critical of the
policies because they detected weakness in the executive, and divisions among
the ruling elite. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Policy-makers are getting increasingly weary of the
situation in Iraq and the outcome of the "war on terrorism", particularly after
the Madrid bombings. They are also becoming less certain about their policy
concerning a wide range of international issues and, hence, are unable to feed
the media and the public a consistent policy line. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>In the past few months, Democrats have started questioning
the motives for going to war in Iraq after the US failed in finding Saddam's
alleged weapons of mass destruction. But, this was something quite normal, given
the partisan nature of the domestic debate in an election year. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Hence, the Bush administration did not seem to be
particularly concerned about the Democrat offensive. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>However, things became serious last week when an
administration insider launched the first major attack against the president. In
his book, "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror", Richard Clarke,
former White House counter-terrorism co-ordinator, asserted that President Bush
had "failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from Al Qaida despite
repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet
insufficient steps after the attacks." </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>He also questioned the basis for the Iraq war and alleged
that Bush had pressed him to find any clue that linked Saddam to 9/11. "Go back
over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this," Bush asked Clarke in a
private conversation. Clarke also stated that among the motives for the war were
the politics of the 2002 mid-term election. "The crisis was manufactured, and
Bush political adviser Karl Rove was telling Republicans to run on the war,"
Clarke told CBS's 60 Minutes in an interview broadcast recently. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>This was the first detailed portrait of the Bush
administration's war-time performance by a major participant and the media
seized on it to break the government monopoly on information supply. The Bush
administration, by the account of many observers, is the most disciplined
government the US has had since the Eisenhower presidency. And this was, indeed,
one of its major strengths vis-à-vis the media, the public and the opposition
Democrats. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>This discipline has been troubled for the second time in
less than three months. In January, former Treasury Secretary, Paul H. O'Neill,
resigned from the administration in protest over the handling of foreign policy,
making similar accusations regarding both Iraq and the "war on terrorism".
</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>This must be seen as a positive development. The outbreak of
debates among the elites will provide the media with a more regular supply of
safe, reportable opposition views to put in the news. This will intensify in the
light of the public's insistence on knowing what happened inside the Bush
administration after the September attacks and during the planning of the Iraq
war. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>When leaks and trial balloons function as devices of elite
communication in an election year, the media responds with a frenzied coverage.
If this happens, the public debate will slip away from the hands of
policy-makers and this will be good for the US, for democracy, for the world,
but not for Bush and his neo-conservative clique. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Arial>Dr. Marwan Al Kabalan is a scholar in international
relations based in Manchester, UK. He can be contacted at: <A
href="mailto:makabalan@gulfnews.com">makabalan@gulfnews.com</A>
</FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>