Debating War and Peace : Media Coverage of U.S. Intervention in the Post-Vietnam Era

John Mermin turns the old saw -- "we lost Vietnam because the liberal press turned against the effort" -- on its head in "Debating War and Peace." Instead, Mermin suggests that the modern media fails to fulfill the important role of a free and independent press in a democratic society. Taking recent conflicts as his starting point, Mermin concludes that the modern media, rather than critically examining government policies and providing a crucial independent source of information to an informed public, frequently parrots the conventional wisdom inside the Washington Beltway. For those who are troubled by consolidation in the media industry, the trivialization of major issues, and the potential sway of a "liberal" press, this may not be such a bad result. Nevertheless, Mermin's book warns us to read the news from Washington, D.C. with a critical eye, especially in a time when the rapid-fire news-cycle prevents reporters from pursuing more than a sound-bite about the issues of the day. The First Amendment ideal of an independent press allows American journalists to present critical perspectives on government policies and actions; but are the media independent of government in practice? Here Jonathan Mermin demonstrates that when it comes to military intervention, journalists over the past two decades have let the government itself set the terms and boundaries of foreign policy debate in the news. Analyzing newspaper and television reporting of U.S. intervention in Grenada and Panama, the bombing of Libya, the Gulf War, and U.S. actions in Somalia and Haiti, he shows that if there is no debate over U.S. policy in Washington, there is no debate in the news. Journalists often criticize the execution of U.S. policy, but fail to offer critical analysis of the policy itself if actors inside the government have not challenged it. Mermin ultimately offers concrete evidence of outside-Washington perspectives that could have been reported in specific cases, and explains how the press could increase its independence of Washington in reporting foreign policy news. The author constructs a new framework for thinking about press-government relations, based on the observation that bipartisan support for U.S. intervention is often best interpreted as a political phenomenon, not as evidence of the wisdom of U.S. policy. Journalists should remember that domestic political factors often influence foreign policy debate. The media, Mermin argues, should not see a Washington consensus as justification for downplaying critical perspectives. 000_FrontMatter......Page 1 001_Chapter 1......Page 13 002_Chapter 2......Page 29 003_Chapter 3......Page 48 004_Chapter 4......Page 78 005_Chapter 5......Page 112 006_Chapter 6......Page 132 007_Chapter 7......Page 155 008_BackMatter......Page 166 The First Amendment allows American journalists to present critical perspectives on government policies and actions. But are the media independent of government in practice? This book argues that, in the case of the military, they are not