War Is a Media Racket

The non-stop huffing and puffing we've seen in the past several weeks over the withdrawal of American troops and the return of the Taliban has laid bare a deep problem in larger media institutions.  Smedley D. Butler used the phrase "War is a Racket" in a series of speeches given in the early 1930s, which he turned into a book published in 1935.  In it, he explained how the U.S. military was used to support corporate interest in various countries it was deployed to in the 1910s and 1920s.  These days the U.S. military does not so much prop up overseas corporate operations directly as aim a giant fire hose of defense dollars to defense contractors large and small.  These companies and their owners in turn use some of the money as campaign contributions to the most hawkish or pro-outsourcing politicians, who then seek to extend wars or have the military turn over as many functions as possible to private industry.  The money also flows to various "think tanks" who generate position papers, op-eds, and conveniently available talking heads for any news show that makes a last-minute request.

The media, too, has an interest in conflict and war.  At the institutional level, war is good for ratings, subscriptions, "engagements", and - ideally - revenue.  That's not surprising.  The uncertainty and potential threat from war makes people pay attention because there is a long history of war causing massive amounts of death, well above the everyday level of death that people have always experienced.  So it is completely rational for media organizations to cover war in detail, and bring in lots of guests who are pro-war, or at least deeply, deeply concerned with developments.  Little time is given to anti-war voices, who are viewed and portrayed as naive and idealistic.  We saw this in 2002-2003, and we're seeing it again, though the pro-war voices present now are mostly there to re-enforce the idea that Afghanistan was a "loss" and thus Biden is a loser who should be replaced with a more war-friendly president, or at least replaced.

What is more complicated is individual motivation among members of the media.  I think a lot of them have a pro-war bias because covering a conflict could be better for their career than covering anything domestic.  Those who are assigned to the war get to stand in exotic locations and talk intensely about dramatic developments for reports that are aired at the top of the hour, or have their reports published on the front page.  Those covering ongoing domestic issues tend not to be the center of their reports, which are relegated to the second half of the show, or farther into the newspaper, next to the ads for the discount liquor stores.  It is also probably more rewarding personally to cover war.  The locations are distant and different.  The conflict-zone reporters have opportunities to "embed" with the military and be flown around in helicopters while officers explain complex programs.  Domestic reporters on assignment get a rental car in which they have to drive themselves around to assemble their story.  And so on.

Ultimately, an overwhelming majority of journalists and media institutions cannot be trusted on matters of war.  They may create and run tragic stories from the front lines, or about the victims, or even the aftermath, if the leadership thinks viewers still remember the war. But in the lead-up to any war of choice, they will be biased in favor of war.  That will come though in the choice of stories, interviewees, and overall tone.   American citizens will have to learn to fight this bias by choosing different media outlets for their information.  Otherwise, the country will eventually repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War and the overly-long occupation of Afghanistan.