Danielle PoeReality America
As I try to discover aspects of what "The New America" is, I
find myself focusing on the media phenomenon of "reality
television." This phenomenon interests me particularly in its
relationship to how September 11, 2001 and the 2003 war against
Iraq were covered by popular U.S. news outlets. September 11,
2001 interests me because of its status as a potential turning
point in U.S. relations with the world. According to the
philosopher Slavoj Zizek, the attacks of that day allow a
glimpse into the "Desert of the Real," the world behind what
Americans typically believe to be reality. Prior to the attacks
in New York City and at the Pentagon, it was possible for
Americans to believe that we lived in a charmed world where we
could pursue the American dream of wealth and security without
interference from hostile forces around the world. The attacks,
though, opened a window through which Americans had the
opportunity to glimpse the suffering that happens around the
world everyday, an opportunity for empathy (Zizek, 389).
However, the attacks also provided an excuse to shore up any
cracks in the American illusion and to extend the U.S.’s
self-image of strength and security (Zizek, 389). I am also
interested in the 2003 war against Iraq because it allows an
opportunity to expose the mechanisms at work in creating a
"reality world" in which the US is impervious to attack. Through
the manipulation of images, stories covered, and soundtracks,
popular American media outlets such as ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and
Fox News Channel construct an uncritical perspective on the Iraq
war and the US’s role in the world.
I will begin my analysis of what I call "reality America" by
discussing what "reality television" is and how it appears in
entertainment and how it seeps into popular news outlets. Next,
I will turn to the events of September 11, 2001 by way of Slavoj
Zizek’s who argues that 9/11 reveals "the Real." I argue that
Zizek underestimates the power that reality America has over its
viewers, even if there are moments in which the tropes of
reality television are exposed. As witnessed during the Iraq
war, the popular media is actively involved in constructing
media events such that they follow the patterns of reality
television more than they follow patterns of objectivity.
1. Reality Television
Although I will argue that reality television shares
characteristics with popular news media, they are not reducible
to the same category. One crucial distinction between the two
categories is that viewers know that the reality television
genre is misleading and highly constructed, but viewers believe
that the popular news media is objective. If American viewers
brought the same awareness of the characteristics of reality
television to the news media, we would be in a much better
position to come to conclusions about the world around us than
we currently are.
To clarify the distinction between reality television and the
popular news media, I will use a definition of reality
television that comes from a study conducted by Robin L. Nabi,
Erica N. Biely, Sara J. Morgan, Carmen R. Stitt. In this study,
"Reality-Based Television Programming and the Psychology of Its
Appeal," the authors explore what is characteristic of reality
television, its appeal to viewers, and what distinguishes
regular viewers from occasional viewers of reality television.
They define reality television as follows,
After considering the qualities of television
programs that seem representative
of the burgeoning genre, we offer the following
definition of reality-based television programming:
programs that film real people as they live out events
(contrived or otherwise) in their lives, as these events
occur. Such programming is
characterized by several elements: (a) people
portraying themselves (i.e., not actors or public
figures performing roles), (b) filmed at least in part
in their living or working environment rather than on a
set, (c) without a script, (d) with events
placed in a narrative context, (e) for the primary
purpose of viewer entertainment (304).
While the definition that the researchers use was
predetermined, their research results did reinforce that the
definition does reflect most people’s assessment of what reality
television is (Nabi et al, 307-310). Reality television should
differ from news programming based on the obviously scripted
nature of news and that the primary purpose of news is to
provide objective information, even when it is also
entertaining. Clearly, the two genres share that people portray
themselves, a heavy usage of people filmed at least in part in
their living or working environment, and the events are placed
in a narrative context.
One of the most important aspects that Nabi et al address is
why reality based television is so popular with viewers, or what
gratification is being sought by viewers when they watch reality
television. In particular, they were looking to see whether they
could verify that people watch reality television in order to
satisfy voyeuristic tendencies (312), or for the hope of seeing
"something forbidden from an unsuspecting target" (Nabi et al,
319). The researchers’ hypotheses help to determine whether
there is any accuracy in the popular belief that reality
television viewers believe that the events that they witness
represent actual events (Bagley, 74). The results of Nabi et
al’s research indicates that most people are not watching to
satisfy voyeurism, they do not believe that others are watching
to satisfy voyeurism, and they disagree that they are seeing
something "real" when they watch reality television (319).
The results of their study indicate a higher level of
sophistication present in the viewers than is popularly
attributed to reality television viewers. The researchers
explain that,
Research Question 3 questioned the psychological
needs met by watching reality based television. In Table
3, we present the results of the open-ended analyses,
which suggest that regular viewers watch mainly because
they are entertained, find the programs suspenseful, and
enjoy their unscripted nature. In contrast, casual
viewers are more likely to watch out of curiosity and
for entertainment value. Of note, although liking the
"real" quality of the programming, respondents disliked
reality-based TV mostly because it appears contrived,
that is, not in fact real. For regular viewers,
misleading editing (a likely indicator of contrived) was
also bothersome. For casual viewers, the amount of
conflict and negativity was most problematic (320,
reiterated on 321-322).
While many people seem to think that reality television
viewers gullibly believe that everything presented on reality
television is real, the results of Nabi et al.’s study is that
viewers are aware that this genre is edited in such a way as to
be highly contrived and misleading. When people watch reality
television, they are not trying to get information about how the
world works or their own place in the world; instead, they are
watching primarily for entertainment or for curiosity.
Although I could not find any studies that tested why viewers
watch television news programs, I will assume based on
journalism reviews that people are watching the news for
information and facts, even when they are also watching for
entertainment or curiosity as well (see Farhi, "Red News, Blue
News", Morris). Thus, it would be highly problematic to find
that television news is using the same tropes as reality
television, such that television news is also constructed in
highly contrived and misleading ways. While it would be naïve to
hope that the popular news media will shift away from the rising
trend toward entertainment and bias (See Aday et al, Hickey,
Kelliher, Westin), we can hope that American viewers will become
more savvy in their viewing and question the reality of what we
see on popular news broadcasts just as they do with reality
television.
2. September 11, 2001
Slavoj Zizek, in "Welcome to the Desert of the Real," seems
to believe that on September 11, 2001, the American people had
an opportunity to begin to see beyond our previous conceptions
of the world into a new understanding of the world and the US’s
place in it. For Zizek, as with many other authors, September
11, 2001 marks a turning point in contemporary analysis of the
US’s relationship to the rest of the world. Certainly, the
events of that day created a space and opportunity for
interpretation. Zizek offers two possibilities for how Americans
might interpret the events of September 11, 2001,
Either America will persist in, strengthen ever, the
attitude, "why should this happen to us? Things like
this don’t happen here!"---leading to more
aggression toward the threatening Outside, in short: to
a paranoiac acting out----or America will finally risk
stepping through the fantasmatic screen separating it
from the Outside World, accepting its arrival into the
Real world, making the long-overdue move from "things
like this should not happen here!" to "Things
like this should not happen anywhere!" (389).
As we continue to live in the aftermath of 9/11, we can see
that the US has not decided between the two possibilities:
lashing out against all perceived threats and turning outward to
promote justice throughout the world. While I will ultimately
conclude that Americans prefer a reality America to the Real, in
this section of the paper I will examine the small glimpses of
people turning away from the fantasy of the US as a bastion of
strength and security and moving to what Zizek calls the Real.
When Zizek talks about the Real, he is referring to the state
of affairs as experienced by the majority of people in the
world, not some objective view separate from the subjective
perspectives of actual people (Zizek 388). Zizek makes the
assessment that the US is engaged in a fantasy of security based
on a comparison of Americans’ reported experiences and the
reported experiences of people outside the US,
Cruel and indifferent as it may sound, we should
also, now more than ever, bear in mind that the actual
effect of these bombings is much more symbolic than
real. The United States just got a taste of what goes on
around the world on a daily basis, from Sarajevo to
Groznyy, from Rwanda and Congo to Sierra Leone (388).
Zizek’s analysis may in fact seem cruel to many, but he is
right to emphasize the symbolic power of the attacks more than
the real effects. Robert Paul Churchill points out that had the
hijackers simply wanted to kill Americans they would have been
much more effective targeting crowded football stadiums, but the
point of the attacks was not just to kill people, but to make a
symbolic point. Churchill goes further than Zizek by emphasizing
that the symbolic point is that for many around the world
American capitalism and militarism are directly responsible for
their suffering. If we combine Zizek and Churchill’s analysis of
the events on September 11, 2001, what makes that day Real is
that Americans discovered ourselves to be just as vulnerable as
those who suffer around the world and that we had the symbolic
opportunity to discover our role in others’ suffering.
In part, many Americans, and others around the world, did
discover what Zizek calls the "desert of the real," a phrase
that he takes from the movie Matrix (1999),
The material reality we all experience and see around
us is a virtual one, generated and coordinated by a
gigantic megacomputer to which we are all attached; when
the hero (played by Keanu Reeves) awakens in the "real
reality, " he sees a desolate landscape littered with
burned ruins---what remained of Chicago after a global
war. The resistance leader Morpheus utters the ironic
greeting: "Welcome to the desert of the real." (386).
"The desert of the real" is the reality behind the virtual
reality, a field of desolation hidden by a shiny veneer of
prosperity and safety. For many Americans, the war against Iraq
has opened an opportunity to question the readily apparent to
find what would otherwise be hidden. One example of this
questioning occurred during the protests preceding the invasion
of Iraq. During those protests, millions of people in the US and
abroad gathered together to challenge the Bush administration’s
assertions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the
supposed link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and the claim
that the US needed to invade Iraq to make itself more safe
(Aday, 11).
Of course David Kay, the lead weapons inspector in Iraq, has
indeed revealed that there is no evidence that Iraq does now, or
did prior to the March 2003 invasion, possess weapons of mass
destruction. But, even before the war began, common sense told
us that Saddam Hussein could not have had weapons of mass
destruction. In the days leading up to the invasion, Colin
Powell presented the US’s case for invasion to the United
Nations Security Council. However, all of his information
(including photos, taped conversations, and film footage) was
subject to criticism even before the U.S. began its war. Prior
to the war, Maria Tomchick, an American journalist, wrote
"Powell’s Flimsy Evidence" in which she raises a series of
questions about Powell’s evidence of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq, which came from undocumented sources, contained blurred
images, and showed empty trucks. Her conclusion is that at best
the evidence is too murky to justify an invasion; at worst, she
believes the evidence may be fabricated.
Further questioning of the U.S.’s stated motives for invading
Iraq continue. As Arundhati Roy has observed in her criticisms
of the U.S. (and allies’) invasion of Iraq, "In the fog of war -
one thing's for sure - if Saddam 's regime indeed has weapons of
mass destruction, it is showing an astonishing degree of
responsibility and restraint in the teeth of extreme
provocation" (Roy 34-35). Her comments were made after the war
began, but the same reasoning applied even before the "shock and
awe" campaign. Either Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass
destruction or he had weapons of mass destruction. If he had
none, then he was not an immanent threat to the U.S. If he had
weapons of mass destruction, then he was quite restrained in his
use of those weapons and not an immanent threat to the U.S. If
he is not an immanent threat to the U.S., then the U.S. had no
justification for its pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
Although many journalists and academics were questioning the
need for a war in Iraq, in the lead-up to the war Bush linked
Hussein and Al-Qaeda so successfully that polls by New York
Times/CBS News and ABC news indicated that
between 42% and 55% of Americans believed that Saddam
Hussein was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks (Roy 43).
However, no such evidence has ever been uncovered, in the months
leading up to the invasion of Iraq and the months following.
Behind the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction and that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible of
the 9/11 attacks, Americans seemed to have an underlying belief
that the invasion of Iraq would make the U.S. safer. However,
the belief that the war in Iraq has made us safer is quickly
eroding. One powerful example of that erosion is Cindy Sheehan’s
attempts to meet with President George W. Bush. Sheehan, a
mother grieving for the loss of her son, wants to ask President
George W. Bush why her son was sacrificed in the occupation of
Iraq. That she wants to question Bush about his policy in Iraq
is not new, many people have been asking that question for
years. What has changed, however, is the media reception and
coverage of Sheehan’s attempts. The Bush administration and
media outlets such as Fox News Channel have attempted to portray
Sheehan as a peace activist pushing her own agenda (Rich), but
these attempts have largely failed as other popular media
outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington
Post, and Clear Channel Radio Stations have favorably
covered Sheehan’s vigil outside Bush’s Texas ranch (Rich).
The protests against the war in Iraq, the analysis of the
Bush administration’s motives for going to war, and coverage of
Sheehan’s protest all point to Americans’ discovering the Real
that usually remains covered by fantasy. As I pointed out above,
though, the Real is not some unchanging world behind the scenes.
The Real is a dynamic reality that shifts as events shift. Even
as the Real shifts, so too does Reality America. Even while some
are persuasively arguing against the Bush administration’s
reasons to go to war, Bush is able to convince many Americans of
a fictitious link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Thus, popular media coverage of Sheehan’s protest should not
distract us from the ways in which popular media manipulates
consumer perceptions and perpetuates (if not produces) bias in
the viewing audience. The effect of glimpses of the Real that
show through the façade is to strengthen the appearance of
objectivity in reality America’s popular news media.
3. The Iraq War
In the previous section, I discussed Zizek’s use of the Real
and his assertion that we have a choice between facing the
desert of the Real in which Americans recognize our place among
others who suffer and lashing out against the Outside world (Zizek,
389). What Zizek misses, though, is that the drive to lash out
against the Outside is not simply to preserve the American image
that we are good and the Outside is evil (Zizek, 387-388). The
lashing out against the Outside is also about rejecting the
point of view of the Outside that lashes out against the U.S. In
Zizek’s articulation of the conflict, the US is embarked on a
positive project of self-definition (Americans- good; Saddam
Hussein-evil). In my articulation of the conflict, the US is
also embarked on a negative project of disavowal, or refusing
the Outside’s definition of us (Americans-evil). In order to
accomplish the positive and the negative projects, the US
government and media create a reality for American viewers.
Thus, the small signs of hope, the glimpses of the Real, should
not distract us from the systematic manipulation of reality in
the news media.
We find evidence that the American news media is actively
involved in creating its own version of reality by examining
coverage of the Iraq war. Consider, for example, the soundtracks
used by the various media outlets as they covered "the shock and
awe" phase of the 2003 Iraq war; each of the cable news channels
developed music that heightened the feeling of crisis (Engstrom,
46). According to Nicholas Engstrom the preparations for these
soundtracks began well in advance of the actual breakout of war,
Five days before the war with Iraq began, I visited
Fox News headquarters to pick up a CK labeled
"Liberation Iraq Music," containing what was to be the
theme music for the war coverage. The Fox theme could b
Metallica rehearsing Wagner, the guitar chords rising
over thudding drums. It seemed ready-made for
Apocalypse Now, when helicopters blare The Flight
of the Valkyries from mounted speakers as they swoop
down on a Vietcong-held village. Would the coverage fit
the music? (45).
The fact that Engstrom compares Fox News Channel’s (FNC) war
music to movie scenes emphasizes the way in which even
supposedly objective sources of news are giving viewers a narrow
perspective on what is happening in Iraq. We could imagine a
quite different soundtrack in which heart wrenching music is
used to emphasize the suffering and plight of Iraqi citizens
whose infrastructure and lives are falling to ruins as the U.S.
stages its "shock and awe" campaign. However, CNN, FNC, MSNBC,
and CBS all relied on music that heightened identification with
the American military (both its soldiers and its technology) to
help deliver and determine the content of their coverage of the
initial US invasion of Iraq (Engstrom, 46-47).
While the soundtracks used by the major news networks may
lead us to suspect that the Iraq war coverage is biased, we must
look to the actual content of the news to determine whether or
not we are justified in that belief. My analysis of the
manipulation of news does vary slightly with some of the cable
news networks. A study of CNN and FNC, which are perceived by
many to be liberal and conservative respectively, reveals that
the content of the news is the same on both networks; the
distinction between these networks is the manner in which news
is delivered. While FNC relies heavily on opinionated
journalists to deliver the news, CNN relies on calm staid
journalists to deliver the news (Farhi, 1-2). Overall, FNC’s
manner of delivering news results in the most biased coverage
(Aday et al). In "Embedding the Truth: A Cross-Cultural Analysis
of Objectivity and Television Coverage of the Iraq War," Sean
Aday, Steven Livingston, and Macye Hebert carried out a
comprehensive study of 1, 820 news stories on ABC, Al-Jazeera,
CBS, CNN, NBC, and FNC in order to determine whether or not
these popular media outlets have a bias when they try to deliver
objective news (7-9). They examined these networks’ objectivity
at two levels:
First, it must look at coverage at the story level.
It must examine the objectivity of individual stories
and compare the overall body of work at various networks
and, in this case, across cultures. Second, such an
examination must look at the overall picture of the war
offered by the various news organizations. For example,
it may be that stories are objective but that a bias can
be seen in the relative selection and avoidance of
certain story topics (8).
At the level of the story, all of the networks except FNC
maintained an overall neutrality. FNC’s coverage of the war was
deemed biased largely because of its reporters’ identification
with individual troops and the U.S. military ("our troops") (Aday,
8-13). The bias of FNC coverage, though, also included one
anchor calling anti-war protestors "sickening" (Aday, 10). The
bias of FNC coverage was significant as compared to other
networks,
In addition [to bias from interviews with retired
military], much of the prowar slant in stories came in
stories where the anchor was the primary reporter (e.g.,
stories read or interviews conducted by the anchor),
with 66.7 percent of these adopting a supportive tone.
This compares to a range of 3.3 to 8.5 percent of the
anchor-led stories on the other American networks (Aday,
14).
The overall conclusions of the authors of this study is that
FNC’s decision to encourage the use of first person plural in
reporters’ coverage of the Iraq war is significant because it
encourages a prowar stance in its viewing audience. The bias
that this effects in viewers is all the more significant,
according to the authors, because FNC viewers already tend to be
proadministration and prowar (Aday, 18).
Another interesting outcome of this study is the conclusion
that the authors draw about the effects of having embedded
journalists covering the war. In relation to the authors’ first
criterion for analyzing bias (story content), they conclude that
the embedded journalists stories are overall more neutral than
stories by other journalists (Aday, 15-16). However, the second
criterion for analyzing bias (stories covered and stories
avoided) reveals that embedded journalists do give a prowar bias
because of their emphasis on personal stories and pictures of
American soldiers, their avoidance of pictures and stories about
casualties (American military, Iraqi military, and civilian),
and their focus on battles (Aday, 15-16).
The conclusion in "Embedding the Truth" is that while
individual stories may be neutral in their coverage of the Iraq
war, the news stations still operate with a bias by virtue of
what they cover and what they do not cover. The bias comes from
the sanitized version of events (no blood, no casualties even
when embedded journalists cover fighting), the lack of coverage
of dissent, and the lack of coverage of international diplomatic
efforts to prevent and halt the war (Aday, 3 & 16-18). While
this study confirms popular opinion and other research that FNC
is particularly guilty of constructing a highly edited and
artificial version of reality, it also reveals the ways in which
the major popular U.S. media outlets are using standards of
neutrality to conceal bias at other levels. Very few individual
stories are guilty of extreme bias (less than 1% according to
Aday et al’s research) (12); nevertheless, the overall coverage
of the war is largely supportive.
In conclusion, I am far less hopeful than Zizek that
Americans have reached a point at which we are able to see the
"desert of the Real." Certainly, the possibility for us to be
savvy and to see past manipulative soundtracks, camera shots,
and narratives exists. In spite of popular wisdom that says
people believe what they see on "reality television," most
people recognize that all manner of illusion is used in "reality
television" to give a misleading construction of actual events.
When we turn to the major news media, we can see that they use
many of the same methods to convey a biased narrative that
"reality television" uses. The news networks use soundtracks,
sanitized camera shots, personalized focus on individual
soldiers. They systematically fail to cover dissent, casualties,
and international diplomatic efforts to stop the war. All of
these tactics should make viewers at least as suspicious of news
coverage as they are of reality television. Yet, we do not have
evidence that most people are able to apply the same critical
lens to the popular news media that they apply to entertainment.
As the popular news media becomes more seductive by way of using
the techniques of reality television, Americans seem to be
retreating further from the Real, further into our belief that
we are good and the Outside is evil, and further into our
disavowal of the Outside’s insistence that the US is evil.
Works Cited
Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs. 2004. CNN.Com
(January 26, 2004), http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/.
Aday, Sean, Steven Livingston, and Macye Hebert. 2005.
Embedding the truth: A cross-cultural analysis of objectivity
and television coverage of the Iraq war. Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics 10, (1): 3-21.
Bagley, George. 2001. A mixed bag: Negotiating claims in
MTV's the real world. Journal of Film & Video 53, (2/3):
61..
Churchill, Robert Paul. Forthcoming. "Globalization and
terror". In Parceling the globe: Philosophical explorations
in globalization, global behavior, and peace., eds. Danielle
Poe, Eddy Souffrant. Amsterdam; Atlanta: Rodopi Press.
Engstrom, Nicholas. 2003. The soundtrack for war. Columbia
Journalism Review 42, (1) (05//May/Jun2003): 45..
Farhi, Paul. 2003. Everybody wins. American Journalism
Review 25, (3) (04//): 32.
Hickey, Neil. 2003. Cable wars. Columbia Journalism Review
41, (5) (01//Jan/Feb2003): 12.
Kelliher, Laurie. 2004. Fox watch. Columbia Journalism
Review 42, (6) (03//Mar/Apr2004): 8-8.
Morris, Jonathan S. 2005. The Fox News factor. Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics 10, (3): 56-79.
Nabi, Robin L., Erica N. Biely, Sara J. Morgan, and Carmen R.
Stitt. 2003. Reality-based television programming and the
psychology of its appeal. Media Psychology 5, (4): 303.
None. 2004. Red news, blue news: A search for meaning in a
fog of facts. Columbia Journalism Review 43, (4)
(11//Nov/Dec2004): 6-6.
Rich, Frank. 2005. The swift boating of Cindy Sheehan. The
New York Times, August 21, 2005, 2005.
Roy, Arundhati. An ordinary person's guide to empire.
Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2004.
Tomchick, Maria. Feb. 9, 2003. Powell's flimsy evidence.
Z-Net.
Westin, David. 2005. The truth about TV news: When opinion
dominates, everything becomes opinion. Columbia Journalism
Review 43, (6) (03//Mar/Apr2005): 8-10.
Žižek, Slvoj. 2002. Welcome to the desert of the Real!
South Atlantic Quarterly 101, (2): 385.
Danielle Poe is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at
the University of Dayton. She is currently co-editing
Parceling the Globe: Philosophical Explorations in
Globalization, Global Behavior, and Peace with Eddy
Souffrant, from University of North Carolina at Charlotte. |