When Media Goes to War: Hegemonic Discourse, Public Opinion, and the Limits of Dissent [Paperback]

Anthony DiMaggio (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 1583671994 | ISBN-13: 978-1583671993 | Publication Date: February 1, 2010

In this fresh and provocative book, Anthony DiMaggio uses the war in Iraq and the United States confrontations with Iran as his touchstones to probe the sometimes fine line between news and propaganda. Using Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony and drawing upon the seminal works of Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, and Robert McChesney, DiMaggio combines a rigorousempirical analysis and clear, lucid prose to enlighten readers about issues essential to the struggle for a critical media and a functioning democracy. If, as DiMaggio shows, our newspapers and television news programs play a decisive role in determining what we think, and if, as he demonstrates convincingly, what the media give us is largely propaganda that supports an oppressive and undemocratic status quo, then it is incumbent upon us to make sure that they are responsive to the majority and not just the powerful and privileged few.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"A pioneering book. It tells the story of how public debate on issues is restricted to the agenda of political elites. The scholarship is superb and the narrative is direct and convincing. I recommend it to students, scholars, and libraries. It is a must read for any journalist dealing with foreign affairs."
-Jamal R. Nassar,College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, California State University, San Bernardino

""In this meticulously researched, highly informative, and timely volume, DiMaggio skillfully explores how hegemonic media messages are shaped and transmitted in mainstream media's reporting of international events. Zeroing in on political coverage of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rhetorical war with Iran, DiMaggio methodically illustrates the interconnections between media, government, and commerce."
-Yahya R. Kamalipour,Center for Global Studies, Purdue University Calumet

About the Author

Anthony DiMaggio teaches American Government and International Relations at Illinois State University in the department of politics and government. He publishes regularly in Z Magazine and Counterpunch, and is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News in the “War on Terror”;.

Product Details

• Paperback: 288 pages
• Publisher: Monthly Review Press (February 1, 2010)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1583671994
• ISBN-13: 978-1583671993
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #465,129 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Interesting and Brilliant Work, May 7, 2011

By 

Andrew Raker (PA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: When Media Goes to War: Hegemonic Discourse, Public Opinion, and the Limits of Dissent (Paperback)

Both DiMaggio and I are aficionados of Noam Chomsky, especially as Chomsky relates to the reason why the United States government goes to war. This text is a MUST read for the journalists and news anchors in American media who simply regurgitate the talking points of the U.S. federal government pertaining to the reasons why the United States goes to war (ex: to promote democracy or to prevent genocide).


Below, I have provided an outline of the material covered in the text:



CHAPTER 1: Withdrawal Pains: Iraq and the Politics of Media Deference

Socialization in U.S. journalism schools
Journalism students are being taught to think within right-left paradigm [i.e. "bipartisan framing"]

In short, journalists in U.S. journalism schools are taught to provide a balanced point of view from the American Right and Left yet do not cover the issues outside of the right-left paradigm.




CHAPTER 2: There Are No Protesters Here: Media Marginalization and the Antiwar Movement


According to DiMaggio, the U.S. media treat anti-war protesters by (1) marginalizing the protesters [p.66], by not mentioning their substantive claims [p. 68], and by focusing on the small number of violent protesters to communicate how extreme all anti-war protesters must be.

According to DiMaggio, the U.S. media play a procedural role in criticizing the War in Iraq rather than a substantive one.

Procedural role [framing of issue in procedural terms]
- Not enough troops in Iraq
- Military is running a bad war strategy

* In short, SUBSTANTIVE criticisms like {see below} are not even mentioned:
- U.S. should not be in Iraq.
- U.S. government acted unjustly in invading Iraq (ex: violation of international law)




CHAPTER 3: Worthy and Unworthy Victims: The Politicization of Genocide and Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy


DiMaggio's findings pertaining to U.S. media's coverage (or lack of coverage) of genocide/other atrocities around the world:

Author writes: "Reporters and editors prioritize U.S. strategic objectives at the expense of human rights concerns" [p. 84]

Media would criticize atrocities perpetrated by nations that are not U.S. allies.
- Serbian ethnic cleansing against the Bosnian people during 1990s

Media would defend (or at least not criticize) atrocities by nations that are U.S. allies.
- Turkey against Armenians after WWI
- Turkey against the Turkish Kurds during 2000s [i.e. Media claims that Turkish Kurds are terrorists and deserve to be killed by the victims who are the Turkish military forces].

* Genocide and terrorism are terms the U.S. media only uses against enemy nations who murder their people - not allied nations who murder their people. [p. 97]


DiMaggio believes all genocidal acts should be condemned because atrocity is atrocity regardless of who commits it [p. 100]. DiMaggio writes: "a genuine concern with social justice requires a consistent condemnation of terror, regardless of whether it is pursued by U.S. enemies of allies."



CHAPTER 4: Journalistic Norms and Propaganda: Iraq and the War on Terror


Chapter discusses the military elite's effort/attempts to control the media.

Journalists never question official motives for U.S. going to war:
- Journalists are committed to altruistic democracy.
- Journalists are committed to capitalism.

According to DiMaggio, media companies believe it is important to gain access to high-level official, yet DiMaggio finds this problematic because media companies believe these officials legitimate their news programs and bring more viewers. Therefore, so as not to piss off officials, journalists do not hold the officials' feet to the fire (i.e. do not question the legitimacy of the government officials' statements)[p. 122]

Ex: Media did not challenge/question Bush Administration claims that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.


To Summarize: Most media propaganda is not the result of actual government repression of media [i.e. "if you print this, we will fire or imprison you"]. Instead, media members do not want to question bipartisan propaganda because breaking from the norm of bipartisan propaganda [i.e. being willing to be progressive] leads to: [p. 130]

1. Not fitting in with colleagues who fit the model [rubbing against the socialization progress] and thus not receiving large audiences

2. Not receiving the top U.S. government officials as guests, which then delegitimizes their programs in the eyes of most viewers
* because to brainwashed public, government guests = truth (i.e. since government would not lie - haha)

As DiMaggio summarizes: "Reporter take as an objective truth that the United States is a benevolent superpower, committed to promoting human rights, reducing poverty, and protecting global democracy. Debate may be pursued over how best to pursue these goals, but not over whether the United States is committed to them." [pp. 130-131]


CHAPTER 5: Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and the Politics of Fear


In terms of a potential U.S. military conflict with Iran, the U.S. media have behaved/responded by the following:

1. U.S. media has take the U.S. government's claim that Iran may be developing nuclear weapons without much dissent - without seriously questioning the claim [Ex: This is just how U.S. media acted when Bush claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.]

2. U.S. media has not seriously questioned the motivations for military conflict with Iran but instead simply regurgitates the Bush Administrations' reason (i.e. of preventing a nuclear Iran). [Ex: This is how U.S media acted when Bush claimed U.S. must invade Iraq to make world safe.]

3. U.S. media has not discussed whether the U.S. "retains the right to" invade Iran [p. 142] [Ex: This is just how U.S. media acted when Bush Administration wanted to invade Iraq.]

4. U.S. media received much of its information pertaining to Iran from U.S. Officials and nearly all of its information from only U.S. sources (i.e. rather than foreign ones). [p. 147] [Ex: This is just how U.S. media acted before and during Iraq War.]

5. U.S. media is concerned that U.S. military might not be able to succeed militarily in Iran.^ [Ex: This is just how U.S. media acted after Bush invaded Iraq.]

^ "[Media] criticisms are not intended to question the right of the United States to attack sovereign nations, but merely the feasibility of such attacks." [p. 145]

*In short, U.S. media has treated Bush Administration's claims about Iran in nearly an identical manner to how they treated Bush Administrations' claims about Iraq. [p. 146]


According to DiMaggio, the relationship between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. and some British media is characterized by the following: [p. 160-161]

1. Media does not trust the IAEA or its leader, Mohammad ElBaradei and view the IAEA as an agency that should demand that Iran stop all its nuclear activity.

2. Media does not trust the IAEA conclusions that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon.




CHAPTER 6: Media, Globalization, and Violence: Views from around the World

Introduction/Summary:

U.S. government's interest in Iraq [and the Middle East, in general] since WWII has been economic.

Dick Cheney said: "With two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest costs [the Middle East] is still where the prize ultimately lies." [p. 180]

"Countries cover the Iraq war according to their level of political and economic involvement in the conflict and their closeness to countries that are or were heavily involved." [p. 190]

"Wealthy countries that benefit the most from global capitalist expansion and are most directly involved in U.S. occupation of Iraq retain a strong incentive to defend these ventures in their media's commentary. In contrast, poorer countries that are more skeptical of privatization and U.S. neocolonial policies express criticism far more frequently and vociferously in their national media." [p. 204]


The media that are the most most hostile (and cynical) of the U.S.'s reasons for invading Iraq are media in:

1. Poor countries that reside outside the core of the capitalist order [p. 166]
2. Countries that are not involved in the occupation



CHAPTER 7: Public Rationality, Political Elitism, and Opposition to War


"The more citizens know about politics and public affairs, the more firmly they are wedded to elite and media perspectives on foreign policy issues." [p. 210] *

*My Note: I am not certain if this holds true after a particular point. Individuals like DiMaggio probably know more about politics that 99.99 percent of the U.S. population. Therefore, after a point, one does begin to question the rationale/views of U.S. government officials.

Why: Because highly educated are intelligent enough to understand the arguments presented by political leaders but not intelligent enough to point out the limitations/complications of the arguments [Ex: Domino theory leading to Vietnam War]

Because those who are poorly educated and those who do not care at all about politics will not even listen to the arguments made by the political leaders


According to DiMaggio,... Read more ›

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Fine study of the US and British media's coverage of recent wars, September 7, 2010

By 

William Podmore (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: When Media Goes to War: Hegemonic Discourse, Public Opinion, and the Limits of Dissent (Paperback)

Anthony DiMaggio teaches American Government and International Relations at Illinois State University. In this well-researched book, he aims to "examine how the U.S. media frame foreign policy in accord with the views of political officials. I demonstrate this point by examining media coverage of U.S. relations with Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan."

Chapters 1 and 2 examine U.S. and British media coverage of the question of withdrawal from Iraq. Chapter 3 asks whether the media cover human rights violations differently in allied and enemy states. Chapter 4 studies journalistic norms and practices. Chapter 5 examines U.S. and British media coverage of Iran and its civilian nuclear programme. Chapter 6 reviews reporting on Iraq across the world. Chapter 7 asks whether the public responds to changes in information about U.S. acts in Iraq. Chapter 8 looks at the media's effect on public attitudes towards war. Chapter 9 looks at propaganda, celebrity gossip and the decline of news. A postscript reviews media coverage during the Obama presidency.

DiMaggio examines Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's propaganda model. They alleged that the US media serve, and propagandise on behalf of, society's power holders. Its main features were: growing ownership concentration; advertising as its main source of revenue; reliance on government, business and approved `experts' for information and opinion; and anti-communism as the overriding ideology.

The media select topics, distribute concerns, frame issues, filter information, limit debate, `give little voice to civil society', and marginalise and demonise anti-war protestors. For example, The New York Times never mentioned any critics who called the war illegal, imperial, or as a war for oil.

The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007 that there was `no evidence' that Iran had a nuclear weapons programme. 2007's National Intelligence Estimate, by 12 US intelligence agencies, concluded that Iran was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

The New York Times admitted in late 2003 that it had been wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 2002-03. But this did not stop it making the same mistake about Iran's WMD, as when it editorialised on 13 January 2006 that Iran has `no other plausible intent' than `to produce nuclear weapons'.

By October 2004, 75 per cent of Americans said that if Iraq did not have WMD, or back Al Qaida, then the USA should not have gone to war. By late 2004, most Americans opposed the war as not `worth it' and backed withdrawal. But The New York Times backed the war for another three years.

The author sums up, "an increasingly critical public set the conditions for eventual media opposition to war, rather then the other way round." He concludes, "Members of the mass public reject official spin when it conflicts with their own experiences."

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A solid addition to any social issues collection, June 6, 2010

By 

Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: When Media Goes to War: Hegemonic Discourse, Public Opinion, and the Limits of Dissent (Paperback)

The media is more powerful than any point before in history. "When Media Goes to War: Hegemonic Discourse, Public Opinion, and the Limits of Dissent" discusses the media and its impact on the political opinions of he country, and in essence, its impact on the political direction of the country. Stating that much of today's news blurs the line between news and propaganda, he provides an intellectual and scholarly argument that is sure to make readers think when watching the news. "When Media Goes to War" is a solid addition to any social issues collection.