During the recent war, some of the biggest U.S. television channels fired their correspondents in Iraq. What does this denote?
From the outset, let us go away from the media in the third world. In the third world, it is simple to say that the journalists and all workers in the media field are controlled by the regimes. The media there always is described as subjective but there is little mention that the media in the U.S. is subjective too. What about the freedom of U.S. journalists and correspondents? Are they free from lobbies?
In the Middle East, the people look at the workers in the U.S. media as not being controlled by the regimes, but by other parties. The career of the U.S. journalist or correspondent may depends on satisfying these parties, which represents another way of controlling U.S. media workers.
From this leading motivator, the workers in the media have different ways to manage the audience’s minds (mind-washing). By these ways, the audience will accept the targeted images unconsciously.
One way is to set some base ideas to be POSTULATEs and then build all related issues on these false truths, which made them as POSTULATEs or AXIOMs. Thus, there is no discussion on these false truths. Instead, all discussion is about the related issue. In this way, if anybody discusses the base idea and tries to prove it is wrong, he will be faced with the charge that he denies a fundamental truth.
For instance, the right of creating the state of Israel through a UN resolution was set as a postulate. However, the nations in the Middle East believe that this is wrong. Why should lands in Palestine be given to people who came from Eastern Europe, U.S. and Africa? So, the nations in the Middle East do not ask to go back to 1967 borders, not even go back to 1948 borders because they think that both these borders are not postulate rights. They believe that all this land is for Palestinians. See how the base idea should be discussed.
Another way is to sanctify some ideas and criticize others. A clear example is sanctification of secularism in the Turkish constitution. Nobody is allowed to touch it. On the other hand, they criticize the frame of religious jurisprudent guardianship (Wilayat Alfaqeeh) in the Iranian constitution. These are two contradictory visions.
A third way is to enlarge some issues and marginalize others according to the lobbies’ interests, regardless of their real volumes. The Cuban child Elian Gonzalez is a very clear example. The media does not give even 1 percent to the tragedies of Palestinian children and families since 1930. The nations in the Middle East see that no value is given to these children. Are they flies or rats? The media made the Gonzalez picture very well known while pictures of killed and expelled Palestinian children and families since 1930s are not known at all. Yes, they make a mountain out of a molehill and make a molehill out of a mountain.
A fourth way is to fill facts with doubts until the public opinion dismiss these facts. A recent instance is the doubting of cases of Gulf War disease.
One of the major lobbies that leads the mainstream media is the corporations, especially those that produce weapons. The other one is the Zionists who prevent discussion of details of the Holocaust and make this discussion as a question of denial. These two parties destroy the myth of the free press.
Those who obstruct the U.S. media from freedom should be uncovered. They start with the corporations and the Zionists, who influence the channels’ owners and the newspapers’ editors. Then, the writers and the correspondents must follow what their bosses dictate if they want to develop their career path. If they do not follow what they are told, they will be fired, as occurred in this recent war.
Is there any editor who can rebel against the corporations and other powers? Is there any journalist who can rebel against all editors and all channel owners? Who would dare to destroy his career, his future and may be his life! Who would dare to be against the mainstream and face the giants?