Types Of Enemy Labelling Is An Appropriate Way Of Analysing Its Arguments

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

The United States government has historically used propaganda to entice, encourage, and even shame a person into enlisting in to the uniformed services and/or supporting the war effort. The effective use of propaganda does not only affect the American public’s opinion of a war and its leaders, but also affects their commitment to the war effort. Ineffective use (or lack of) of propaganda can lead to resentment and undermine public trust in its leaders and their ability to lead the nation. This essay will show how the use of media has either supported or hindered the effective use of governmental propaganda in influencing the American public during times of war and why is it sometimes not important to know what is the “whole truth.” The areas that will be covered will be the propaganda used during the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I-II, the Cold War/Vietnam, and also it’s affect on public opinion.

The Vietnam War proved to governments all over the world that, in order to have a successful military campaign, some form of censorship needs to take place. The Washington Post has reported that due to the effects of the media in Vietnam, “every U.S. military engagement since… has featured attempts to control the media” (Hajela 2006, para. 13) which demonstrates how, since Vietnam, governments have been trying to avoid a similar reaction. Journalists who also reported in Vietnam recall interviewing generals with media handlers present in later conflicts, and mention, in relation to the censorship in Vietnam that, “[they] don't think that in our lifetimes we will ever see that kind of freedom again.” (Hajela 2006, para. 14) The Vietnam War not only made people aware of the need for censorship, but also the power the media holds, which was made clear in the changing attitudes of the media. This is made clear through public reactions and the timing of which they began to support withdrawals from Vietnam. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs, of the Australian government, highlights the power of the media, stating that, “opposition to the war, as the ALP had learnt to its cost in 1966, was not a vote winner… [however in] 1969… it was electorally popular to oppose the war,” (Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs 2015, para. 2) This emphasises the power of the

Powerful words these scholars use such as ‘decisive’, suggest the true extent of the medias’ impact. In the end it was the public pressures the media itself created through its strongly emotive coverage that was a deciding factor in America’s continued involvement in Vietnam. The historic decision to demobilize to satisfy public opinion proved to be a significant aspect in why the United States lost the war in Vietnam.

political and social circumstances; that is, terrorism involves variables that can be measured on a criminological scale. The measurable by-product can be examined through psychological factors that vacillate with political circumstances. Ross's conclusions lead to two practical considerations.

As an academic, one becomes increasingly aware of the biases in others’ writing. It becomes engrained - to dissect the author’s worldview and biases in order to best determine how those things are affecting their writing. This dissection is all the more important when it comes to journalism. In current times, it is not just the academics that are concerned about biases. The average populous has become increasingly aware that the information that mass media attempts to feed them can be biased beyond belief. The coverage of the Battle of Vimy Ridge in the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail showcases the differences in how a singular event can be reported in very different ways beautifully.

For instance, documentary filmmaker Adam Curtis argues that the so called “war on terror” is just another Cold War, where there is a good guy and a bad guy. This time however, instead of the bad guy being the Soviet Union, the bad guy is a “phantom enemy” that we assumed to be the worldwide terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. Curtis also does not believe in the description of Al-Qaeda as being a worldwide terrorist organization, centered around one man, Osama bin Laden. Thus, he believes that Al-Qaeda “is more of a world view, a set of ideas around which to inspire a diverse range of political and/or militant, Islamic groups from Africa, the Middle East and Asia” (McLaughlin 193). The propaganda created by the attacks of 9/11, proposed by George Bush and expanded upon by the media, was supported by the suspicion of the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the security measures taken around the world in order to defend against these organizations (McLaughlin 194). The media, by covering the “war on terror” in such detail, had actually been doing exactly what these organizations want, because they feed on the attention given by the nations affected by these

What this paper seeks to address are the differences and underlying reasons in media coverage and national perceptions, as demonstrated by the case of Bergdahl and Shalit. Despite the remarkable similarities between the two stories of their captivity and release, why did each play out so differently in their countries’ respective media outlets? These two cases can help us understand what role the media plays in delivering the news and how certain news is framed and for what purpose. It also demonstrates the role that partisan coverage plays in the current media environment and how those narratives define perceptions of the event and essentially tell the viewer what to believe, instead of giving them information to make their opinions.

People tend to carefully hang a frame in their minds as if they were, they had just moved into a new home. As soon as people hear something that favors their perspective from what the claim is a legitimate source, they would argue, that whatever that source is saying, is true. “Every narrative make assumptions about how the world works, what is important, what makes sense, what should be. All frames are selective because they are based on decisions about what to include and exclude,” (Schudson, 2011). Schudson’s remarks about how people from certain perspectives frame a certain event by his theory being “Frame Theory”. Frame Theory in Schudson terms, is that everyone frames something in their own image, whether doing it subconsciously or purposely, it’s instinctive to human nature. This can be amplified by the media, stereotypes, and by one’s own belief. James Bamford, who wrote the novel “A Pretext of War” had made the strongest impression of criticizing the Bush

Firstly, the “war on terror” had reduced the humanitarian concerns down, and the foreign policy. Furthermore, media coverage had become more deferential and constrained: therefore, reducing the chances of media influencing policy. The “war on terror” most importantly provided journalists with a guide in which they could understand global events and policy makers with the ability to justify a more aggressive foreign policy plan. At last, the “war on terror” had constructed an ideological bond between journalist and policy makers which created stronger media management. Techniques developed to display coverage of certain issues over others to frame stories that support official

Comparing the attitudes towards terrorism in ‘Out of the Blue’ (Simon Armitage) and ‘The Right Word’ (Imtiaz Dharker)

Millions of people globally supported the ‘war on terror’ at one time, largely because the discourse around it was successful in divisively framing the identities involved and attributing a ‘truthful’ nature to that framing. Governments, with the Bush administration seemingly as the lead, created ‘the other’ to be ‘the terrorist’, and those ‘terrorists’ were probably Muslim or Arab. The fear was then created by the comparison of this ‘other’ to the self; or ‘them vs. us’.

That call to action can come in many forms of media and to a global audience. “Terrorist recruitment videos, often released online, have been tailored to appeal to various audiences. A propaganda video, which can still be watched on YouTube of captured U.S. soldier, Bowe R. Bergdahl, compares what seems to be his good treatment under al-Qaeda, to those of U.S.-run prisoner of war camps” (Philipp).

In times of War, the media plays a crucial role both in reporting, monitoring and giving updates. During the Vietnam War of 1955-1975, the American press played crucial roles of reporting until it ended up shifting its tone under the influence of occurrence of some events like the Tet Offensive, the My Lai Massacre, the bombing of Cambodia and leaking of Pentagon papers resulting into lack of trust in the press (Knightly 1975). From the beginning of the war up to present times there have been undying debates over the role of media in the war. The have been various criticisms over the American News Media’s actions and influences on the outcome of the war. The debate is embedded on the particular political assumptions perceived across the

The public believes what the media writes due to the immediacy of the reporting and the inaccessibility of other information. When contemplating whether to kill the Afghan herders or let them go, Luttrell explains why, despite being the incorrect military decision, freeing the herders might be the best choice. He fears that if they are killed, then the media will “latch on to it and write stuff about the brutish U.S. Armed