Misinformation and Slanted Reporting

Many Americans, to the degree that they think about such things at all, believe that misinformation and disinformation as tools for manipulating public opinion are relics of the Cold War. A deep distrust of the media pervades the United States, but Americans tend to suspect journalists and publishers only of possessing a political ideology that may color their view of the facts, not of having a truly malicious intent. While numerous studies have documented the political bias, both liberal and conservative, of major newspapers and television stations, there are many other ways in which apparently factual news can be manipulated. Although the American people, government, and the news industry itself hold our media to a very high standard of transparency, it is not immune to manipulation by hostile foreign actors. For example, the American people are highly sympathetic to those in positions of weakness and can therefore be easily moved by heart-wrenching stories of pain or struggle. This compassionate nature is well known to foreign actors who would like to manipulate American policy. In 1993, the United States sent troops to Mogadishu, Somalia, to restore order in a city ravaged by local warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid. But American soldiers were surrounded in the center of the city, with 19 dying at the hands of local fighters. The fight was videotaped and broadcast across the world. The images of American defeat at the hands of local tribesmen bolstered the Islamist effort worldwide while so demoralizing the American political leadership that troops were withdrawn from Somalia.

Was this information true? Sadly so. Did American media outlets have a right and even a responsibility to tell the story? Certainly. But the lesson to be learned is that even the truth can be damaging when delivered by hostile actors. Unless aware of the intent and ability of enemies of the United States to manipulate American policy through the skillful use of the international media, the American people will not be able to detect such ploys and to look beyond them. Radical Islamist leaders understand the power of the media to amplify their message and to support their limited resources. A letter from Ayman al Zawahiri to his allies in Iraq intercepted and made public by the United States government in October, 2005 explicitly discusses using the media as a tool for the terrorist cause. For the United States to avoid the undermining impact of hostile or easily manipulated media reports, the American people must be adamant in our demands for facts and truth in reporting.

Additionally, the American people must understand the commercial realities of modern news outlets, particularly on television. News networks, both cable and national, in particular are forced to compete for ratings, which encourages the distillation of complex news stories into one-dimensional soundbite format. There is a fear on the part of producers that if too many details are offered, the audience will get bored and turn away. As a result, news stories are simplified and polarized,

to entice the viewer with sensational details and emotional debate. Once again, the facts of a story will rarely, if ever, be changed. But they may be packaged in such a way as to present a misleading image of actual events, if only to increase viewership and ratings.

1. Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera is a cable television news station owned by the government and ruling family of Qatar. While many of its reporters and broadcasters were trained in the West and display a commitment to preserving high standards of journalistic integrity, Al Jazeera still has a reputation of being a mouthpiece for Islamist propaganda. A primary reason for this is the consistent practice of terrorist organizations of releasing video and audio-recorded statements first to Al Jazeera, which then releases them to other outlets worldwide. In fact, its first widespread international exposure came from the broadcast of a statement by Osama Bin Laden following 9/11 in which he assumed responsibility for and justified the attacks.

Today, Al Jazeera operates a sports channel and a children's channel, in addition to its news outlet, and maintains numerous international bureaus. It is more independent than most other Arab media outlets, many of which serve only as mouthpieces for a local regime. However, the close relationship it enjoys with numerous terrorist organizations, its history of broadcasting justifications for attacks, and its frequent lack of criticism for radical activity render it a suspect news source. While it is watched by millions of viewers worldwide and enjoys widespread prestige, its actions are often antagonistic to American objectives.

2. American Newspapers and Television

The American media is much more independent than that of most of the world. The government exerts little to no control over publishing and broadcasting, with minor exceptions for indecency and libel which are often difficult to prosecute or prove. Therefore, the content of the American newsmedia is largely determined by independent editorial staffs. Preserving the public trust is one of the primary incentives for journalists in these outlets to adhere to high standards of integrity and fairness and few, if any, national news organizations would deliberately risk the compromise of this trust to promote a particular agenda. However, an unwillingness to abandon cherished standards of integrity and truthfulness does not mean that news organizations are tools for supporting American policy.

During World War II, the American media establishment, including print and television news as well as filmmakers, largely supported the American effort to defeat fascism. They wrote stories chronicling the many aspects of American sacrifice and highlighting the numerous victories achieved overseas. They displayed faith in the American mission. But the transformations in American society that began in the 1960's impacted news outlets as well. As the American people lost faith in the governments that gave them Vietnam, Watergate, and a faltering economy, the press assumed a similarly adversarial role in its dealings with the government. This was not a new phenomenon. The ability of a free press to hold those in power up to the light of public scrutiny has always been one of the greatest checks upon extreme government power in the United States. The difference, though, was that for the first time communications technology allowed American news stories to be broadcast throughout the world. What would have at one time been merely a domestic squabble, now became the political equivalent of airing one's own dirty laundry before the entire globe. And for a world in many cases predisposed to anti-Americanism, this only gave more ammunition to the portrayal of the United States as a hypocritical bully.

This is the current state of the American press. It does an outstanding job of bringing faraway details to local populations and, for the most part, does an excellent job of meeting the high standards that it has set for itself. But because many reporters, publishers, and producers start from a position of mistrust in their dealings with the government, stories that are highly critical of government policy and intentions have become the norm, rather than the exception. The American press must preserve its time-honored tradition of exposing corruption and preventing betrayals of the public trust. But it must also understand that in a world such as ours, where information can reach the other side of the globe in less than a second, the image portrayed to our enemies and our friends of a nation that does not support its leaders, does not believe in its policy, and is stricken with domestic turmoil and disagreements, gives credence to a portrayal of the United States as the hypocrite, diminishing international prestige, encouraging anti-Americanism, and giving terrorists more hope for success every day.

3. Internet

The Internet is fundamentally changing the way that people on opposite sides of the globe interact with one another and share information. It impacts the American war on terror in two primary ways. First, it facilitates the rapid dispersal of information and ideas without imposing any of the restrictions upon content that are normally associated with traditional media outlets. Someone reading the Washington Post or watching Fox News understands that this information comes with the seal of approval of a large, well-respected organization, with a great interest in preserving the trust of its audience. While occasionally false information is inadvertently included in even the most well-respected news outlet, this is the exception, rather than the rule, and is generally followed by a public apology and extensive self-scrutiny. By contrast, the Internet is so accessible to individuals worldwide and requires only a minimum of expertise and investment to become a comfortable user, that anyone can put information online and give it the appearance and the sound of truth. The result is the proliferation of rumors and half-truths, many of which are repeated so frequently as to sound convincing simply by virtue of repetition.

Secondly, the Internet is extremely useful as a networking tool. Individuals or groups with similar interests can share stories, knowledge, and encouragement even when they are half a world away. Terrorist organizations

have already capitalized on this tool. It is no longer necessary for a young radical Islamist to travel to the Middle East or Africa to receive training as a terrorist when he can have access to most of the same information at his computer screen. No radical sympathizer needs to feel isolated and alone when he can communicate directly with like-minded supporters online, possibly even building upon these virtual relationships in person. Messages of inspiration and instruction from leaders such as Bin Laden himself no longer need to be broadcast over the public airwaves when they can be included on websites. The peculiarities of this form of communication and the related legislation make it extremely difficult for the authorities to locate such interaction and even more difficult for it to be stopped.

4. Foreign Press

While the American press generally feels some legal and moral compunction to adhere to high standards of journalistic integrity and not to directly or outstandingly endanger American citizens, the foreign press often accepts no such restrictions. Foreign news outlets are frequently mouthpieces for local and national governments or particular political viewpoints. While the United States has its share of newspapers and magazines that explicitly and unquestioningly support a particular ideological orientation, these generally do not enjoy very large circulation. In other countries, however, such publications may have effective monopolies or may still have very large readership numbers.

Due to their large numbers, these publications (and some similar broadcast stations, as well) are often considered to be unbiased and accurate sources of information in their particular countries. Even if the public is naturally skeptical of their content, in countries with one predominant, state-run newspaper, there may simply be no real competition, thus compounding the problems of complacency and bias. State-run papers can therefore manipulate their readers' perceptions of American policy and intentions with virtually no challenge. Partisan papers can contribute to the existing bias of their readers, who may be content with reading information that supports their perception, rather than challenging it with another point of view. The inescapable reality of such publications, unfortunately, is that they are often operated by individuals with strongly anti-American ideologies and therefore contribute to the continued development of anti-Americanism abroad.