Why We Fight

I've been thinking about the documentary by Frank Capra that we watched in class today. In no particular order:
(1) We forget sometimes the propaganda that our country engages in. We think of "propaganda" as a peculiar element of Soviet countries and other enemies of the state, but we churned out one-sided media just as readily. The difference of course is that the free market makes room for more than just the propaganda, whereas the closed market disseminates only state approved messages.
(2) It's amazing how transparent the propaganda is to our savvy 21st century eyes. It makes me wonder what I am accepting as unbiased today that future generations will giggle at.
(3) All those Biblical references in a film produced by the Department of War and intended for Army use - wouldn't see that today. I liked it.
(4) The narrator (Walter Huston) at times sounded like Burl Ives in Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.
(5) Speaking of Hollywood and WWII, I've been meaning for some time to track down a book about the Hollywood prop masters who fooled the enemy into believing in the existence of entire brigades that were entirely fabricated.

What questions do I have?
(1) Is propaganda an appropriate tool for a democracy to use?
(2) During war, does the media have an obligation to cooperate with its government or is its responsibility to scrutinize it even more carefully?

(1) I think that propaganda is usually not terribly useful, as it seems that anything published by the government is immediately suspect. What about items covertly published by the government? It may be that the internet may ferret some of these out, but overall I suppose the intent must be scrutinized. A democratic government should not be in the business of duping its own people. However, propaganda targeted at foreign allies, neutrals, and enemies, I suspect may be of value.

Tehran Times suspects conspiracy!!!

I'm reproducing this article in full. It is the top headline at the Tehran Times for March 17, 2008.

U.S. biggest loser of Iran poll
Tehran Times Political Desk

TEHRAN -- Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini declared here on Sunday that the United States is the main loser of the parliamentary election in Iran.
“Surely the biggest loser of this election was the United States, and the real winners were the people of Iran,” Hosseini told reporters at his weekly press briefing.
About 60 percent of eligible voters in Iran took part in Friday’s parliamentary elections.
The Western plot to discourage the Iranians from participating in the elections was foiled, the Foreign Ministry spokesman stated.
The U.S. put great pressure on its European allies and other countries sitting on the Security Council to approve additional sanctions against Iran prior to elections in order to discourage people from turning out for polls.

Wow. I'm currently reading The Persian Puzzle which looks at Iranian-American relations. One of the main points the author pushes is that Iranians perceive the United States to be more interested and involved in Iran than it actually is. This article I think is a perfect example of that mentality.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, covered Iran's parliamentary election by reproducing a Reuters article which called into question the legitimacy of the elections, but otherwise does not appear to have paid much attention.

Oil is to blame for... the war. Or is it?

The Washington Post presents a column that actually rationally looks at the case of blood and oil in the Middle East. Columnist Steve Mufson states that it is nearly impossible that the invasion of Iraq was at the behest of Big Oil, but also admits that yes, the government does have an eye on oil and it is impossible to extricate energy security interests from our national security interests.
Some of the comments following the column, however, are impossible.
A sample:
"Of course, AA 77 never took off, and no plane struck the Pentagon. Explosives were planted in the Pentagon, and it might have been struck by three cruise missiles."
"...let the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese defend their oil interests with their own soldiers. The Arabs would not be whining about their relatively benign treatment under US occupation anymore. I'll bet they would be very well behaved if they were occupied by the Chinese Army- the Chinese wouldn't put up with the kind of b.s. that we do out of some misguided sense of political correctness."
"I do not believe Iraq was about oil directly; but it was about preserving the "Imperial Dollar" as the world's currency standard."
"Israeli security interest as represented by the neocon architects of this disaster. For the Jews, having a major American land army invade one of their sworn enemies and having to deal with resentful fundamentalist suicidal Muslims was perfect. They can’t be too open about it but you see their silent hand on it. Joe Lieberman and subtle Jewish influences in the media are obvious."

My question - how is the article improved by this commentary? It seems quite clear that a number of the commentators did not read the article or address it. Some of these outrageous
statements seem ripped straight from the Tehran Times. It seems a shame that a decent article was ruined by the obnoxious and ignorant commentary that followed. It is no surprise that the Post hides comments behind a link, unlike other papers which stick comments right on the bottom.