Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War

by John R. MacArthur, Ben H. Bagdikian (Foreword by)

While the United States government made noisy preparations to go to war against Saddam Hussein, it was also purposefully planning another war. But this enemy, unlike Hussein, was strangely passive in the face of these threatening maneuvers. John R. MacArthur scrutinizes the government's unprecedented assault on the constitutional freedoms of the American media during Operation Desert Storm. With a reporter's critical eye and a historian's sensibility, he traces decades of press-government relations—during Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama—which helped set the stage for restrictions on Gulf War reporting and for a public-relations triumph by the government.

Genres: History, Politics, Journalism, War, Military Fiction

274 pages, Paperback

First published June 19, 1992

Reviews

[Nathan Albright · Rating 1 out of 5]

One of the oddest aspects of the Gulf War has been the extent to which journalists have complained about the treatment that they received from the government, and their belief that the restrictions against them were unprecedented even though they matched previous restrictions in conflicts like World War II, Korea, as well as smaller operations like Grenada and Panama. The press appears to have gotten used to the relative freedom it had in Vietnam and also wishes to deny its corrosive role in morale in that conflict, while the author simultaneously demonstrates a certain feeling of obligation in being opposed to the foreign policy behavior of Republican presidents when it came to foreign interventions. The blatant partisanship of this effort undercuts the author's claims to demonstrate the nobility and ethics of the journalist profession by showing that journalists are by and large entitled hacks who lack a great deal of self-awareness. And when one is writing a book like this which the ire and frustration of the press, and with the author with the corporate interests of the press who were less than mighty in defense of press rights during the war, that lack of self-awareness is crippling for one's arguments.

This book is between 200 and 250 pages long and consists of fairly long chapters that are made up mostly of whining about the Gulf War as it relates to the press. The book begins with a discussion of the deal that was cut between the media and press companies and between the United States and Saudi Arabia, for example, and the deal between Kuwait and lobbyists to defend their own interests in the American press (1). After that there is a discussion about the somewhat dishonest and shady way in which the U.S. government, Kuwaiti government-in-exile, and other organizations intentionally or unintentionally sold the image of the Iraqis as being brutal Nazi-like war criminals in occupied Kuwait, to inflame the hostility of the people even further against Iraq (2). This i followed by the design of the war and of the war effort in such a way that minimized the ability of the press to present a skewed anti-war perspective or to destroy the element of surprise by leaking American war plans (3). After this comes a chapter that discusses the author's complaints about the way that the press has been blamed for the decline in morale in Vietnam (4), as well as the author's rage at the effectiveness of the muzzling of the press (5). Finally, the book ends with a discussion of the cowardice of press companies in suing the government over restrictions (6) as well as notes, a brief appendix, and an index.

One of the foremost positions of the author is that the Bush administration treated the media like the enemy of the state. If there is one thing that the last few years have taught any American who has eyes to see and ears to hear, it is that the press is the enemy of the people and the enemy of any sound and right-thinking government. The author, while not wanting to admit that the press was really the enemy of the people, nonetheless is honest enough to note that the war was very popular with the people but not particularly popular with the press itself. And the author does not seem to find this to reflect badly on the press that the interests of the people and that of the press diverge to such a great degree as they did with regards to the popularity and the general justice of the cause of the United States during the Gulf War. Where this book is at its most damning is in the way that it points out how the press companies themselves failed to best reflect the interests of journalists while still failing to reflect the interests of the government as well as the people, and in showing how cowardly controlling editors were when it came to the restrictions that were placed on them.

[Andrew Burin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting book. Especially for anybody interested in journalism seeking to understand the nitty-gritty of how cable news and newspapers produce their war coverage. It may be a bit outdated by now, considering the rapid decline of the news media in the last two decades in terms of ad revenue and journalism's overwhelming digital transformation. Would be particularly insightful to someone with significant background knowledge of Desert Storm who is looking to understand the conflict even deeper. I found myself learning about the basic facts of the war as I read which was a little distracting.

In terms of meat, MacArthur effectively tears apart the mainstream media for what he argues was inexcusable, cowardly, and cowing coverage of this conflict. He is convincing. Though at times the constant references to journalists, managing editors, and military PIOs (public information officers) can be a bit mind-boggling and overwhelming to the average person who did not follow coverage of this conflict with laser-focus, a few chapters are especially poignant.

In one chapter, MacArthur flexes his investigative chops and pieces together the chronology of a rumor turned government-supported lie turned news story turned sophisticated PR effort that revolved around a rumor of Iraqi soldiers mercilessly killing Kuwaiti babies by stripping them from their incubators. He is at his strongest here, and it is definitely chilling to see the intersection of highly paid PR officials, Kuwaiti oil money, and unethical Reps and Sens working together with a complicit media establishment to push yet another pointless and bloody (for Iraqi civilians) conflict.

[Hubert · Rating 5 out of 5]

A rigorous exposé of the silencing, manipulation, and propagandizing of the American press that covered Iraq War I. News and television media organs regularly adhered to military norms and principles that limited their participation to the front lines to "press pools," wherein they were shown only what the military wanted them to see; footage promised to them was often delayed, and reports were often edited.

In some cases, news organs reported that Kuwaiti babies were taken off ventilators by Iraqi soldiers - this was a falsification / exaggeration that was put out into the press by members of the Kuwaiti elite regime family, to drum up American public support for the war.

The current story is placed in historical context by discussion of the coverage of the Vietnam War - there is a narrative that the U.S. military has blamed the press in the late 60s / early 70s for turning public sentiment against the war; 20 years later, the military promised not to make the same mistake again.

I was afraid that this writing would come off as academic and dry, but John R. Macarthur (editor of Harpers) keeps the reader engaged while providing significant evidence and details for his points. Reading it 30+ years post publication, we realize that issues of institutionalization versus independence, conformity v individuality, and First Amendment press freedoms, are as relevant then as they are today. Dis/Mis-information is not a symptom of the early 21st century; it's been with us for a long time.

[George Edmunds · Rating 3 out of 5]

High 3 star

[مؤيد حسن · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's an easy to read, every interesting book about what happened behind the media scenes during the Gulf War of 1991. The book shows us how the spectators of that war were sometimes, somehow, deceived by what they were seeing, hearing and reading about it. It is not necessarily always a 'bad' thing to be mislead by the media during war time, it was not a new phenomena during the Gulf War in particular, and it was and will not be the last time this kind of deception used under similar circumstances. If you have to lie in order to win a war you probably will, and maybe should, if you can do it right! This book gives you an example of how that kind of lying was done successfully, and for a good cause in my opinion!

This book is a good companion to Jean Baudrillard's 'The Gulf War Did Not Take Place', but not necessarily vice versa. Baudrillard gives a deeper and more complicated cultural analyses of the role of media during the war, and in this book one can see a live example of that role.

[Crunknor · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unconvincing. Or perhaps I should say the premise convinced me, but I have a hard time caring. The book is a self-acknowledged polemic against government restrictions on the freedom of press reporting in wartime, but the author himself makes the point, in the first chapter, that governments have always and will always do this. He then goes on to document how the Bush41 administration did it, but it seems so inevitable it's hard to really care.

[Whitney · Rating 3 out of 5]

it was scary to read this and see so many similarities to our present situation.

[Kamil Salamah · Rating 5 out of 5]

OUTSTANDING