Look what they
did to the 'war' photograph
If
ever there was a cliché picture, it is a picture of a soldier
going to war. But, a soldier going to war is a clever cliché
picture, and these pictures are now all over the wire services.
There was one cliché war picture, in which George Bush the
American President was shown holding a small baby over his head,
while a US marine looked on. He was the father who was going to
war, and the picture was meant to get your tear ducts working overtime.
Pictures of
this sort belonged in the historybooks. Now, they have become strong
impressions of life and times in 2003, and looking at these images
one would think that there is an attack aimed at earth by a mob
of extra terrestrials armed with unknown lethal weapons.
There is such
a sense of urgency, and poignancy that is created by these images
of American soldiers going off to war leaving their babies back
home. But this is like prostituting small babies, because there
is an immense 'hollowness' that is generated by these pictures.
They are supposed to be taking our minds to the great wars that
were fought by troops who were given a sad send off before they
left to fight the 'good wars' to save good nations from the designs
of evil powers.
But with these
pictures, there is no real sense of anxiety that's created about
the soldiers going to war, because it is generally known that they
are going to reduce Iraq to a pulp. Even the babies in these pictures
are asleep, because they can sense that their fathers are going
nowhere that is really dangerous.
Maybe these
babies have read the stories that appear alongside these pictures.
Mainstream papers now carry stories which say things like "Bush
is attacking Iraq because there is oil there, and not attacking
north Korea because there is no oil there at all.''
It reminds
me of a time when a friend of mine used to work for Reuters news
agency, when I suggested to her that all news agencies are there
to work within the subtle agenda of the Americans, and those who
make global policy who are allied to the Americans. She called me
all kinds of names for saying this.
She has since
left, but today the mainstream papers have come to the point of
acknowledging that this is indeed the role of agencies such as Reuters,
and for this acknowledgement we have to thank George Bush. Mainstream
writers such as those in the British Independent for instance, have
said quite candidly that most of the Western media follow the agenda
of the Americans and quite shamelessly so -- and now you can guess
why those pictures of American soldiers with sleeping babies appear
all over the newspapers worldwide. Reuters loves babies.
Half the war
is the propaganda war, and this time the US seems to have lost the
propaganda war even before the proper war got started. This is why
Reuters are carrying a good deal of baby pictures and tear jerking
'special-effects' photographs of soldiers preparing for war. This
is to shore up the falling credibility of the US rationale for war
against Iraq, when 'not even a jam jar'' of chemical weapons have
been found by the UN special weapons inspectors, as one writer put
it.
In the United
States itself, there is a backlash against people such as Noam Chomsky
who are continuing to expose George Bush, and it has come to a point
where Chomsky has been referred to by some editorialists as the
'man with the sick mind''.
But all this
attention has only propelled Chomsky's hitherto 'alternate' views
into the mainstream, and now they will know Chomsky by name in the
Bronx.
To that extent
George Bush has done some service by making American people more
aware of how unjust their regime is. "Closet' verities such
as the hegemony that news agencies such as Reuters have over the
world media, have suddenly come out of the closet, because of the
war the George. W. Bush is getting ready to wage.
What Chomsky
says about the American nation however seems to be coming true before
our eyes. The soldiers do the bidding of the American leadership,
and despite the fact that there is considerable opposition to George
Bush's war-policy among right thinking people, especially in American
academia, the American hoi polloi does not know anything very much
about this, and even if they do they are the 'herd' which needs
to follow orders.
Chomsky says
for instance that the role of the American media is to 'manufacture
consent'; that is to manufacture consent for the war for instance
that is to be waged against Iraq.
By and large
the American media does this by showing baseball and giving the
masses bread and circuses, so that when it comes to a time when
the President has to say 'war'.. they are in a such a daze that
they all just get up and go to war, leaving all their sleeping babies
back at home. No doubt this time too the American media has been
successful in doing that, but this war is so absurd that even so,
the news that it is an unjust war has percolated to the masses who
do not known what to do with this piece of information.
George Bush
is increasingly looking like the cheerleader who has the wind knocked
off his sails. Try as he might to 'cheer' and psyche up the Americans
for this war, the American people are not enthused, no matter how
many babies he is going to carry over his shoulders.
But even so
there is no such thing called a mass movement against the war in
America because of what Chomsky calls 'manufacturing of consent.'
The American people have a herd mentality that has been conditioned
by long years of giving 'consent' which has been artificially manufactured.
How is this consent manufactured? By saying 'we will run the country,
and you watch baseball.'
This formula
still works to the extent that there is still no mass movement against
the Iraq war in America. For one thing the people also know that
this is not going to be a haemorrhaging long standing conflict like
the Vietnam War. Instead, Iraq will be pulverised or at least brought
to submission with superior weapons. After that, the troops will
come back, there will be more pictures, more sleeping babies, and
then - back to baseball.
|