Critical review of three seminar readings Essay

Critical review of three seminar readings - Essay Example However, propaganda warfare is not a new tactic. In fact, Sun Tzu in his â€Å"Art of War† (6th Century BC) taught that an essential part of conducting warfare involves deceiving the enemy thus putting him into a disadvantage, ironically but logically, by making him believe that he is in a more advantageous form or position. Critique Indeed, this has been an essential part in the conduct of the cold war wherein Two-time Pulitzer Prize awardee Walter Lippmann argued that their side dwell on what is true and morally upright whilst on the enemy’s was mere propaganda. Well, though most conflicts are seen as a brutal show of force, an equal and sometimes bigger of this plays out using propagandas. As such, even wars are used by politicians and even terrorists to advance their own agendas. Hence, whether willingly or unwillingly, the technical sophistication of mass media has made it probably the most effective conduit for advancing these agendas; and both Bush and Bin Laden has greatly capitalized on this. Thus, Kellner’s critique of US broadcasting networks on his â€Å"Media Propaganda and Spectacle in the War on Iraq: a Critique of U.S. broadcasting network† offers to expose the sins of commission as well as the sins of omission committed by the various networks and taken advantaged of by President George W. Bush. As such, the author launched into an immense rhetoric of lashes against the administration’s ploy to use the War on Iraq through the various US media outfits in an effort to cement itself as the ultimate harbinger of good. In effect, this has set the stage to launch various theatrics such as â€Å"the coalition of the willing†, preemptive strikes and surgical bombings. The author painted a stark picture of a Bush Jr.-driven invasion that seem to be based on the desire to wrap up what his daddy had started and reinforce the United States position as the resident global watch dog (Kellner 2004, p. 330). Of course such an invasion cannot be crafted overnight and against the backdrop of the 9-11 terror attack in late 2001, the architects of war got busy in 2002 to drum up the assault on Iraqi soil. Indeed, war is an ugly business but one cannot argue that though it brings forth economic damages, it can also be profitable for some. Back in the old days, it is the victor that seemingly solely benefits as they thrive from the spoils of war. Nowadays, one does not need for a war’s conclusion but from war itself comes the golden opportunity for media mileage and political leverage. Hence, the exploitation of these opportunities at the expense of Iraq and her people seem to be the center of the paper. Indeed, the facts were stated fully to support the allegations in this paper. However, it would seem that only one side of the story was covered. A quick review of the references used would indicate an inclination on the need to assert the wrongful acts committed during the incursion. There are indeed various areas of concern that may have been committed in this discourse. In effect, the discourse has seemingly singled out President George W. Bush against Saddam Hussein hence bringing about Manicheanism, wherein Bush seems to have been demonized in the critique. The paper likewise went about to decontextualize violence putting heavy emphasis on the attacks made and painting it as irrational while at the same time neglecting the