The US media-led war on words

Since the events of September 11 the Western democratic system has revealed some serious faults. Most worrying, yet disturbingly predictable, are the attacks on free speech and, with it, constructive public debate, both stifled by authoritative actions.

Six days after the terrorist attacks, Bill Maher, host of the late-night US talk show, Politically Correct, questioned whether the labelling of terrorists as "cowards" was appropriate.

"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly", said Maher.

Amidst a frenzy of complaints about the remarks, the program’s sponsors, Sears and FedEx, pulled the plug on their sponsorship and Maher was reprimanded and forced to apologise.

The saga intensified when Whitehouse Spokesman Ari Fleischer pounced on Maher’s comments:

"It's a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate…There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

Shortly after claiming the IBF title, boxer, Anthony Mundine was lured into comment on the terrorism issue by music journalist Richard Wilkins on Channel 9’s Today Show.

"It’s not about terrorism, it’s about fighting for God’s laws, and America has brought it upon themselves [for] what they’ve done in the history of time," said Mundine.

Intense media and political pressure forced Mundine to apologise for his comments, later that night, on Channel 9’s Ray Martin Show, but was stripped of his International Boxing Federation ranking.

Then ALP Candidate, Peter Knott, was reported as saying that US foreign policy had "come back to bite them" and claimed that US policy had assisted the likes of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega, and is now paying the price.

Knott was quickly forced to toe the party line and said, "My comments were wrong and misguided and I withdraw them."

Right or wrong, the men were merely exercising their right to freedom of speech on important issues. Yet their comments were ruthlessly labelled as irresponsible, unpatriotic or false. And on each occasion, being part of a wider establishment, they were forced to recant and protect their occupation.

Here is a fundamental flaw in a society we like to think of as democratic. Just as Galileo was forced into house arrest for maintaining that the earth was not the centre of the universe, the aforementioned dissenters have been crushed by popular belief and forced into conformity.

Conformism is now the rule, consciously or unconsciously, adopted by a citizenry that is afraid of showing substantive expressions of individualism.

Trade unions, media companies, political parties, farmers associations, green groups, sporting organisations, business associations, shareholder groups, and student bodies (to name but a few) have replaced the citizen as the legitimate political mechanism. We are all members of at least one of them and they have reduced us to a state of passivity.

During the Federal Election and the "war on terrorism", who are the contestants? Who are the most respected or legitimate contestants? They are the elitist voices of self-interested organisations speaking on your behalf. You are their subject. Your loyalty and obligations lie, not with society as a whole, but with the group, organisation or company representing your interests. If you are outspoken, you are unlikely, or at least find it difficult, to have a successful or stable career in your chosen profession.

A system where decisions aren’t made by shared individual participation and debate is blinded by ideology and fails to take into account the society at large. For example, the purpose of trade unions is to ensure a certain level of wages and working conditions for workers. That is their main purpose and often with little regard to the viability of the company. Likewise, company management, trying to make as much money for themselves and their shareholders, will cut costs, which may have an unfavorable effect on the workers’ wage and possibly the effectiveness and ethical behaviour of the company.

Society, through these groups, is constantly in conflict with itself. The working-class vote Labor, while the employers and technocratic elite flock to the Liberals. An election inevitably leads to a leadership representing one side and devoid of responsibility to society as a whole, with productive, intellectual debate bound up in the chains of right and left ideology.

Our political structures – as well as the groups we belong to – censure criticism, encourage conformity and let the reality escape us. With regard to the issue at hand – that of US foreign policy – I will restrict my Socratic right for the time being, and, instead, direct you to a website which contains some of the most damning evidence of US foreign policy (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv).