The Spanish-American War of 1898 is similar in many aspects to the War on Iraq in 2003. Both wars were carried out in order to rid the country of tyranny and both wars reflect the effects of the media on the public sentiment.
In the 1800’s, Cuba was a colony of Spain. Spanish leaders made laws for Cubans. Spanish soldiers in Cuba enforced these laws. The Cubans had little control over their own lives and freedom. In 1868, the Cubans rebelled against the Spanish rule. Cuban revolutionary groups wanted their independence from Spain. The United States supported these rebels. In January 1898, riots in Havana, Cuba, destroyed shops and endangered U.S. citizens living there. Rumors also spread that Spanish soldiers planned to murder U.S. citizens. At the time, William McKinley was president of the United States. He did not want to start a war with Spain. But McKinley wanted to prevent U.S. citizens from being harmed in Cuba. McKinley ordered the battleship Maine to sail to Havana's harbor. McKinley hoped its presence would prevent U.S. citizens from being harmed. On February 15, 1898, an explosion erupted in Havana's harbor. This explosion sunk the Maine and killed 266 sailors aboard the ship. U.S. Navy investigators could not discover what caused the explosion.
Many people in the United States blamed the explosion on Spain. U.S. newspapers ran stories accusing Spain of sinking the Maine. These stories were untrue. But many U.S. citizens believed them and wanted the United States to go to war with Spain. Many U.S. politicians also spoke against Spain. They supported Cubans in their revolution. In April 1898, McKinley asked Congress to declare war on Spain. Today, historians point to the Spanish-American War as the first press-driven war. Although it may be an exaggeration to claim that Hearst and the other yellow journalists started the war, it is fair to say that the press fueled the public's passion for war. Without sensational headlines and stories about Cuban affairs, the mood for Cuban intervention may have been very different. Although Spanish mistreatment of Cuban locals was certainly a more common occurrence than was remotely acceptable, it was greatly over-exaggerated and over-used by reporters.
However, the single most influential and newspaper-exploited event in the process of bringing the United States into a state of war was media coverage of the mysterious and unexplained explosion of the U.S.S. Maine. Immediately after, many newspapers (particularly those such as Hearst's Journal that commonly practiced certain aspects of yellow journalism) carried headlines such as "Remember the Maine!" and articles immediately accusing the Spanish for the destruction. Some even went so far as to make up detailed stories, stressing that it must have been a mine or torpedo (delivered by, of course, the Spanish) that caused the deaths of two-hundred and fifty-two American soldiers. Within days, headlines became so blunt as to say "War? Sure!" With pressure on the government from the people, the press, and eventually even on certain parts of the government itself, a state of war came into effect on April 25, 1898 (made retroactive to April 22, 1898). Armies were mobilized, emergency funds were allocated, and ports were blockaded, marking the beginning of the Spanish-American War.
In the ongoing Iraq conflict, there is a growing realization among mainstream newsmen that they have failed the American public. Critics agree the role of the press in the war against Iraq has been to deter dissenting opinions and to be "cheerleaders" for the ongoing battle. Any attempt at objectivity was abandoned once the bombs started dropping and was replaced with one-sided and overly patriotic sentiments. Equally disturbing in the media war coverage was the reporting of Iraqi civilian casualties, and the framing that occurred to discern between U.S. and Iraqi actions. In an interview on April 2, 2003, with Amy Goodman from Democracy Now!, Norman Solomon commented on the reporting of Iraqi casualties.
Amy Goodman pointed out that, "In the news Iraqi civilian casualties get almost no attention, whereas U.S. casualties are carefully documented." "The visible anger of Iraqi people has roots in events that usually get described in antiseptic and euphemistic terms by U.S. media outlets," said Solomon.
"With a straight face, and a scant willingness to raise fundamental questions, American networks uncritically relay nonstop barrage of statements from U.S. officials that portray deadly Iraqi actions as heinous and deadly American actions as positive. They have "death squads," and we have noble troops. Their bombs are odious; ours are remedies for tyranny."
One can easily see a difference in the public sentiment regarding the war. The Spanish-American War was a successful venture of the U.S. Army; however, they haven’t enjoyed the same levels of success in Iraq which could partly be the reason people have a negative outlook towards the War on Iraq. There are still issues of security and stability in Iraq. A non-Iraqi can possibly argue that life in Iraq after Saddam Hussein has improved for the Iraqis, but in reality does anybody apart from those living there really know the answer? Reports from the news corporation BBC-UK provide disturbing insight into the life in Iraq post the Saddam Hussein regime, to say the least.
I find it unsettling that the Iraqis have to watch their homeland get blown into smithereens by external forces, even if it meant getting Saddam Hussein out of the way. There are numerous reports of North Korea possessing WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and what’s bothering me is that the U.S. Government has simply “strongly condemned” this. This brings the following questions to my mind: Why the polite behavior in this case and what next? Will the U.S. and her allies be at war with North Korea too? In the unlikely event that it happens, I don’t think it’s not going to be as easy as invading Iraq in any case because, let’s face it, they probably have nukes at their disposal waiting to retaliate if even a paper rocket so much as approaches 50 miles of their boundary, which translated in layman’s terms means chances are they won’t be as powerless as Iraq. I could be wrong but that’s my two cents on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment