Yes, of course they do try to influence the editorial agenda, and sometimes succeed at doing so. Other times, they don't. That's not control, however.
The media collectively did indeed do a terrible job covering the 1991 Gulf war, and the military did a masterful job of manipulating them, with partial information combined with unstoppably telegenic footage that the major networks could not resist (the first footage of "smart bombs", dramatic videos of night raids and anti-aircraft fire, etc).
There was, later, a lot of hand-wringing and postmortem analysis on the part of various media organizations (as there well should have been) to look at how they did their job so poorly.
There was a lot more balance to the coverage in the run up to the Iraq invasion, actually. But that time, the American public really was itching for a fight and very easily persuaded (until the main justifications for the invasion were found to have been completely fabricated, and it became obvious that the war would achieve literally none of its goals, harm the US in various ways, and help the very perpetrators of the WTC bombing immensely).
That invasion, which of course ultimately proved idiotic and counterproductive to the national interest, could perhaps have been avoided through a combination more intelligent government, better journalism, and more rational citizens.
But I don't think government control, or even effective persuasion, of the media was a critical factor.
Comments
Yes, of course they do try to influence the editorial agenda, and sometimes succeed at doing so. Other times, they don't. That's not control, however.
The media collectively did indeed do a terrible job covering the 1991 Gulf war, and the military did a masterful job of manipulating them, with partial information combined with unstoppably telegenic footage that the major networks could not resist (the first footage of "smart bombs", dramatic videos of night raids and anti-aircraft fire, etc).
There was, later, a lot of hand-wringing and postmortem analysis on the part of various media organizations (as there well should have been) to look at how they did their job so poorly.
There was a lot more balance to the coverage in the run up to the Iraq invasion, actually. But that time, the American public really was itching for a fight and very easily persuaded (until the main justifications for the invasion were found to have been completely fabricated, and it became obvious that the war would achieve literally none of its goals, harm the US in various ways, and help the very perpetrators of the WTC bombing immensely).
That invasion, which of course ultimately proved idiotic and counterproductive to the national interest, could perhaps have been avoided through a combination more intelligent government, better journalism, and more rational citizens.
But I don't think government control, or even effective persuasion, of the media was a critical factor.
The military being a part of the government.