Hindsight on the media after 9/11

Although it was extremely difficult to see at the time, the media failed in its duty during the times of 9/11 and the beginning of the War on Terror. Retroactively, the media acted as an arm of the government, dispersing the messages it wanted to be broadcasted. Pressure came in from all sides for media to remain lenient towards the government and the Bush administration. Any challengers or skeptics were challenged as "Non-American." Immediately then the powers of the media to challenge the government were chopped out from underneath them.

The media revealed details of the Watergate scandal that would force Nixon to resign. It shows the failure of the media to live up to its responsibility by lining up to serve the government's will after 9/11. What is to blame? Those in power? Executives? Fear? Or do we not have a clue? We will likely never know what happened behind closed doors. Instead the media used fear to push the government's narrative. I believe a retroactive look and the spread of information about 9/11 on the internet has led to more Americans being skeptical about the trustworthiness and status of the media. At the time, it was easy to fear because of the narrative being pushed and the events of 9/11. What was not apparent was the government's interests in creating a war, and the use of the press to push American public opinion towards supporting the war. The media then and since is now perceived by many as a lenient lackey of the government, spreading their will, narrative, and propaganda.

The Fear to Stand Up

In all honesty the War on Iraq has been a distant memory from my thought process. I think not only because I was about eight when America was attacked in 2001, but also because my thoughts on any war are not in favor. During 2001-2003 when chaos and terror spread throughout the U.S I was too busy being a kid, like I should have been. When I look back today, in my state of age, twenty-two, I still feel the same as I did back then. Obviously I have obtained more knowledge and understanding on the matter, but why does war exist? I most definitely support my country and I am so thankful for the people who are willing to risk everything they have to protect our country. Although this statement becomes elastic in my mind, when in relation to 9/11. I say this because I have always felt that war is not the answer and during this time there was not concrete proof to kill thousands of lives on both sides during this war. I feel ashamed to think that journalists, the U.S government, and many other leading roles attempted to support something that was not even fully visible. How can we support and encourage a situation if we are so strongly being unfairly persuaded? The creation of "probable cause" throughout the process was in order to stir up patriotic feels in attempt to get all Americans on the same page.

For a society that is feeling helpless, the only thing to do is to unite together. Creditable news sources were feeding this gullible society with hate, false information, and untalented journalism. The reason I say untalented journalism is not stating that these sources were uneducated, but because they were only writing what was selling at the time, true or not. Fear filled these sources, not with the fact that the United States was at war, but with the fact that these journalists feared being different and calling out so-called, "experts" on the War on Iraq.

With all this being said, journalism is a form of freedom of speech, but were the journalist involved with the War on Iraq really free?

Bush's 2003 Address to the Nation

In an effort to better understand the American people during that time, I decided to read the polls first rather than our former president George W. Bush’s 2003 speech when American first began a war against Iraq, more specifically Saddam Hussein. The polls showed that the American people do not usually agree with going into war, and although Colin Powell’s speech helped the American people support a war more than before, it still did not impact Americans in the long run because there was this public opinion that American should have not interfered in Iraq as the losses were not being properly justified by the gains of sending our troops to war in Iraq.

After reading President Bush’s address to the nation, I concluded that President Bush wanted the American people to feel as if the problem in Iraq was affecting us in such an imminent way that the only solution, was that our troops were to interfere before the problem escalated into our land. I believe that one of the most powerful sentences in his speech was when he mentioned that we would send our troops in order to “not have to meet [the war] later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” I believe that the speech before hand had the innocent citizens on Iraq in mind and how we were entering the war, not to conquer the land, but to restore peace, and the sentence above changed the initiative of the speech and made it relevant to the safety of the American people. Former president Bush framed the upcoming war in a manner that made it important to every single person and mentioned that it was not just the US helping, instead the US alone was just one out of more than thirty-five countries helping Iraq in their time of need.

What makes a message effective?

After reading President Bush's address, I realized I needed the audio to make the  message more  personalized to me .  I couldn't read through the whole thing. It was eloquently, written. So therefore, I decided to read it while listening to the audio clip. It was impressive how my point of view took a switch  after that simple added dynamic.  My point of view of Bush is closely related to his sound which is ironic because I'm a visual learning. Perhaps, the many times I have seen Bush  on the screen added to some type of of affirmation I get when I hear his voice. If needed I'll elaborate later.
After using the added device of communication, I myself felt a little compelled to take upon an attitude that we are doing what was best for the country as a whole during the war in Iraq. I give credit to the writer of the speech , not the deliver of the message. The world usage gave the speech an element of Identification and also a weird sense of ownership, that ironically is the motivator of invasion instead of assistance. This is  only from my perspective. (disclaimer)
After seeing the almost questionable wikipedia stats , I saw a different dynamic of what politicians would say is the voice of the people.  The variation of the stats within the last three post was interesting. Could there been a  correlation of relevance within the addition of the posts?  I most admit that I was a little alarmed when I encountered the link provided was a wikipedia page. I have been taught to take the information provided with a grain of salt when it comes to its inputs from visitors. Therefore while reading, I already had a biased attitude attached to my intake of " biased" information. However , the medium is driven by the people so I am receiving  at least  a glimpse of what the people think, right?
I feel duration has something to do this media effect. The inputs on wikipedia shows how the people became less "pro"-war during the long  extension of time.Perhaps, the longer a message exist during time , it may affect its relevance, and therefore the results of causing a direct action towards a message with this effect would make the message less powerful. Does this mean in order to be effective in  causing  a change in an  attitude through a message,  relevance would need to remain fervent and influential ?

"Our" Duty.

 It's hard for anyone to look at a war in a positive light when you think of all the innocent people dying. Hints why presidents never vocalize the lives that will be lost when introducing the decision to go to war. Bush made it seem like it was "our" duty to help those who are oppressed and defend our nation. Bush used the word "our" twenty times  within this five-minute speech. By framing the war as a community contribution, it helps people be supportive of the war.

 Of course the longer a war goes on, popular opinion changes as media starts to change. Media slowly starts to focus on all the things that are actually happening while at war, which includes lots of people losing their life's. When media starts to show mission camps being bombed or little innocence children losing their life's, people naturally start to question things. This is where media agenda come in. This is up for debate, but maybe the best part of democracy is the ability to have an agenda and the choice to choose what you want your agenda to be. Many oppressed, government regulated countries, don't get to chose their own agendas. If the man in power has decided on war then that is what the country will support. Hitler didn't show his troops freezing to death as they attempted to invade Russia. Of course the less popular a president becomes, the bigger media target her or she will become. Popular opinion is really important because it paves the medias agenda and gives them power.

The Bush Address of 9/11

Whenever the President has to address the nation after a natural disaster or terrorist attack, the message is always one of hope and encouragement. After reading the address and the Wikipedia page, I thought it was interesting that Bush didn't really talk about how long this fight was going to take in order to "disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger."

The main idea behind this message was to convince our nation that we had the upper hand in this war, and that the rest of the world was standing beside us and helping us in any way that they could. I believe the reason why Bush strayed away from talking about the details was because he (and his cabinet) had no idea what their next move was going to be. If the President were to have attempted to talk about the how, he might have come off as incompetent and ill-prepared for the fight ahead. This would have made his fellow citizens lose faith in him and he would have never been re-elected.

This is a tried and true method of every political leader when faced with giving a speech of similar nature. They never want to say how they're going to deal with something out of fear of causing controversy. Therefore, they stick to encouraging words and phrases that keep leading us to believe that we, America, are the "good guys" in this situation. Framing plays a huge part in this because everyone supported Bush after he declared war against Iraq. Fast forward to now, and this war has caused us major debt and has cost the lives of thousands of soldiers. Declaring war is never easy, but I feel like if politicians were a little more transparent with how they were going to fight, the nation's confidence in their leaders may be a little more resound.

9/11 and the power of the press

After reading President Bush’s address to the nation, in March of 2003, I was interested in viewing the speech, and seeing the different responses that each gave. After completing both the difference in responses is clear. When reading the address, it is clear how President Bush is trying to frame his decision. He is trying to place a gain frame on the subject by pointing out all the great things this move will do for the people of Iraq. He explains the intent is to “to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” The frame is trying to avoid the negative aspects of war, and focus on how this was a necessity of human rights. When watching the speech, the response is much different. The frame is more on emotion and how the president is speaking. President Bush’s tone is somber, but clear. This shows that this decision was tough, but had to be made. The frame is to humanize the president, but still show power.

These two examples exemplify the power of the press, especially after 9/11. There was a difference in opinion post 9/11 throughout the country, and media helped perpetrate the argument by sharing information. How certain media outlets chose to frame the news, in this case President Bush’s address to the nation in March 2003 effected how the viewer reacted to the news. In the Wikipedia page on Popular Opinion in the US of the Iraq war, it shows that in the same month as the speech, 54% of Americans favored an invasion, while just two months later, 89% of Americans believed the war was justified. This rise in numbers has a lot to do with the way media chose to portray the news. It was framed by certain outlets positively; therefor viewers began to view the war as justified. Other media outlets framed the war negatively, thus a number of polls had varying numbers of American’s support of the Iraq war.