User:Zqib/sandbox

Part 2: Worthy and Unworthy Victims
The authors in this chapter discuss the different treatment that US media affords victims of repressive state violence. Victims of repressive violence in enemy states are deemed “worthy” by the propaganda model; as they help demonize the enemies of the US, and justify its actions against them. On the other hand, victims of violence of friendly administrations are deemed “unworthy”; as they undermine the government’s credibility. The authors specifically contrast the media’s treatment of the murder of the Polish dissident Jerzy Popieluszko, with the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero and other dissidents of the US-sponsored Revolutionary Government Junta of El Salvador and military dictatorship of Carlos Armas in Guatemala. According to the authors, US media accorded Popieluszko disproportionate amount of coverage and attempted to link his death to the Soviet Union. On the other hand Romero's death received much less coverage, with no investigation regarding the possibility of government culpability in his death, even though it emerged that Roberto D’Aubuisson, an ex-member of the military secretly working for senior military commanders, was likely responsible for the assassination.

Part 3: Legitimizing vs Meaningless Third World Elections
In this chapter, the authors compare the difference in US media coverage regarding elections held by US-sponsored governments, such as those in Guatemala and El Salvador, versus those held by governments which the US government opposed, such as in Nicaragua.

The authors allege that during the 1984 Guatemalan constitutional assembly election, 1985 Guatemalan general election, and 1984 Salvadoran presidential election the conditions for fair elections were virtually non-existent. While international observers decried continuous campaigns of state sponsored violence and bans on freedom of assembly, US observers declared the elections fair and free. Media coverage was positive, framing the elections as a great triumph amidst ongoing civil war.

By contrast, the 1984 Nicaraguan general election was declared fair and free by most international observers, including the Latin American Studies Association (LASA). However, the elections were dismissed as a sham by the United States and criticized for being held too early during a conflict. The media also gave intensive coverage to Arturo Cruz, an expat on the CIA payroll who falsely alleged that the Sandinista government would not allow him to run.

According to the authors, the emphasis on elections by the media are a method to placate the American people and assure them that their money is going towards saving democracy and preventing communism. This is evidence, the authors allege, that the media in the US is in fact subservient to, and not a check on, state power.

Part 4: The KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Kill the Pope
This chapter is concerned with media coverage and speculation surrounding the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II by Mehmet Ali Ağca. Specifically, the authors focus on the discredited theory mainly perpetuated by Claire Sterling, Paul Henze, and Marvin Kalb that Ağca carried out the assassination attempt on the orders of the Bulgarian Secret Service and the KGB. The authors allege that the "Sterling-Henze-Kalb" Model was not scrutinized enough by American media, and that numerous revisions and inconsistencies were ignored in order to give the theory legitimacy and drum up anti-Soviet sentiments.

Part 5: The Vietnam War
This chapter aims to counter the assumption that the US lost the Vietnam War as a result of negative US media coverage, especially during and after the Tet Offensive. The authors attempt to show that coverage was in line with the government and business elite’s view, even when it was negative.

As the US was gearing up for the invasion, the authors note that the media largely took it for granted that invading Vietnam was a moral and justified course of action. Public debate was split between two "extremes"; the "doves" who opposed the war due to its cost, and the "hawks" who argued for continuous aggression against communist forces. No one side, the authors argue, took to seriously questioning the intentions of the US government. Instead, the media played an active role in drumming up public support for the war by portraying the invasion as a moral requirement to defend the free world against the threat of communism

the tet offensive was going badly

post war was focus on sodliers and portraying usa as having lost

Comparisons with Soviet Unvion after Afghanistan