The First Draft of Propaganda

Here is a peek at the New York Times' front page photos from the period 6APR2004-13APR2004. That period reflects the opening rounds of the operations against Al-Sadr. I don't have yesterday's or today's edition.

Consider the following:

6APR: M1 to the right and mid-range in photo; woman crossing street in front of it. Implied malevolence toward women by combining the symbol of the ultra lethal machine with the symbol of the frail, weak. Life taker against life bringer.

7APR: Marine loading dead Marine, in body bag, into Humvee. Beneath, another pic of 2 armed men, energetic, members of the "Mahdi Army". Implication: Marines dead or sullenly defeated as they police their dead; Mahdi Army in action, relentless.

8APR: Navy corpsmen bringing wounded Marine on stretcher to waiting UH60. Beneath, pic of Marine's torso and arm, enough to see holding rifle, closeup. Background, hooded bound prisoner in mechanic's pit. Implication: Marine casualties serious; bottom pic, juxtaposition of huge size and huge weapon from close-up, vs small frail person, made small and, therefore, weak by distance from photographer. Implication: bullying. Lowest pic: Group of ~10 Iraqi men, apparently cheering, 3 visibly armed. Implication again of great numbers, victory, energy.

9APR: Rice testifying at 9-11 commission

10APR: Man grinning, gleefully brandishing pair of US-issue boots he claimed to have retrieved from fallen soldier from ambushed Army supply convoy. Implication: Population is against us

11APR: Old pic of damaged USS Cole with 2 9-11 hijackers.

12APR: Marine in foreground, again proximity to camera makes him large or looming; in middle distance, group of children and woman gathered in doorway, made small by distance. Implication: implied malevolence toward women and children by large, bullying Marines.

13APR: 6-7 Iraqi men looting a burning supply truck. Implication: the entire population is against us.

This small sample demonstrates the astonishing disconnect between the public perception of battle and the reality of combat operations then underway. Given that most of the American public has never served in any capacity, let alone in combat, it must rely on media for all of its information regarding the armed forces. The Times has taken to this task with gusto, allowing the reading public to perceive the American effort in Iraq an utter defeat.

Posted by GeekLethal GeekLethal on   |   § 8

§ 8 Comments

1

GL, Nice work.

I think part of the problem is market-related. That is, the New York Times (which is still a very good paper, the best in the nation on its best days) has a vested interest in not blurring itself with other news outlets. I'm thinking specifically of the relentless triumphalism of FOXNEWS in this case.

Here's my theory. Over the last couple decades as marketing practices have allowed managers and advertisers to slice more and more finely the demographics to which a publication or product appeals, that way of thinking has pervaded the entire structure of media companies.

This is a damned shame. Iraq is currently a clusterfuck years away from being unfucked. It would be nice-- really nice-- if the Times would sometimes do an above the fold color shot of good things happening in Iraq. But good news doesn't sell papers, and it would not be good for the times (or so the thinking goes) to run the same photo that FOX News and the NY Post are running that day.

I quote Bill Hicks:<blockquote>"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself. No, no, no it's just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day, they'll take root - I don't know. You try, you do what you can. Kill yourself. Seriously though, if you are, do. Aaah, no really, there's no rationalisation for what you do and you are Satan's little helpers, Okay - kill yourself - seriously. You are the ruiner of all things good, seriously. No this is not a joke, you're going, "there's going to be a joke coming," there's no fucking joke coming. You are Satan's spawn filling the world with bile and garbage. You are fucked and you are fucking us. Kill yourself. It's the only way to save your fucking soul, kill yourself. Planting seeds. I know all the marketing people are going, "he's doing a joke... there's no joke here whatsoever. Suck a tail-pipe, fucking hang yourself, borrow a gun from a friend - I don't care how you do it. Rid the world of your evil fucking machinations. I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too, "Oh, you know what Bill's doing, he's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market, he's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that. You fucking evil scumbags! "Ooh, you know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar. That's a big dollar. A lot of people are feeling that indignation. We've done research - huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scum-bags!
Quit putting a godamm dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet!
"Ooh, the anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market, Bill's very bright to do that." God, I'm just caught in a fucking web! "Ooh the trapped dollar, big dollar, huge dollar. Good market - look at our research. We see that many people feel trapped. If we play to that and then separate them into the trapped dollar..." How do you live like that? And I bet you sleep like fucking babies at night, don't you?"</blockquote>

2

J,
I'm not sure if you're exceptionally insightful having that...um, energetic... Bill Hicks quote close to hand, or creepy.

Do I sense some residual annoyance... by which I mean searing, seething anger... toward the music industry in all this?

3

GL,
Now that I was kicked out of the music biz, I'm working as a fucking secretary. What do you think.

Alhough, I must say the pay is better, I'm going to the gym these days, sleeping more and eating well, happier and less frequently sick, and haven't been called incompetent in more than a year. So my seething anger toward the music industry isn't so much personal as universal... I want the way business is done to change completely and quickly for two reasons. First, I hate doing business the way they do it now and can't stand to work in the music biz, and yet I'm a fairly talented businessperson who loves music. Second, if the biz doesn't change, it may someday be harder for me to find excellent music. For me, that would be like having a hard time finding excellent oxygen.

4

And also, Bill Hicks is a sort of hero of mine. Except for the parts where he calls pro-lifers evil ignorant idiot fucks (hey... a bit over the top), and the parts where he fantasizes about Nancy Reagan squeezing a dookie into Rush Limbaugh's mouth during sex. That's just... gross. Hell, Buckethead thinks the rhetoric is heated these days... Hicks died in '94.

5

Nothing wrong with being a secretary. I think most office jobs today are basically being someone's secretary, even if it's not the official job title. Besides, isn't Secretary's Day soon? Shit you even get an extra holiday.

But if you want to give all that up, you can always sell insurance. That's what I tell myself when times are grim....I could always leave this and sell insurance. More money, probably... able to look myself in the face every day? Mmmm.... reluctantly, maybe a passing glance.

I'd rather eat my size 11, 10-eyelet Docs though than sell anthing.

6

"Implication: Population is against us"

Isn't there a remote possibility as the war moves from dynamic (gaining new territory) to static (holding territory gained) that some of the locals are going to see themselves as "occupied"? Humans are humans the world over, and only the truly kinky like cages.

7

Picker,
Sure it's possible. It's just as likely that the broader population forgets that these cities were never seriously contested by American forces last year, but bypassed; these are the fights that should've happened last year.

I don't like though that the "newspaper of record" uses photos that are so clearly used on the front page to influence opinion a certain way, as opposed to using just as much discernment to find one not so glaringly anti-militaristic.

I mean, the juxtaposition of symbols is so obviously peacenik I can't believe so many people fall for it.

One example, the one where the woman is crossing the street with a tank in the background. It comes across like the scene in "Apocalypse Now", where Coppola is playing a director, filming the battle, and exhorts Sheen to run across the camera's view, "Like you're fighting! Like you're fighting! Don't look at the camera!" It's factual, but phony at the same time.

Does anyone really believe that this photographer scoured Baghdad to find just the right M1, and then waited patiently hoping for a woman to walk in front of it? Of course not; the intent was to juxtapose eminent lethality with eminent frailty, and send a message of American bullying.

8

15APR: Discover media likes to highlight, or if necessary, create conflict in order to get attention and sell more ads.

16 APR: Go back to reading blogs.

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]