This New York Times story nails a problem that I've written about a lot here, but misses one important point. The story focuses on the circulation of rumours on the Iraqi street, and describes American efforts to collect these street rumours in order to understand Iraqi public opinion: " Under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi state became an industry of untruth, where rumors often consigned people to the torture chambers, and propaganda was presented as fact. Believing almost nothing, Iraqis turned by the millions to the base currency of all who live in closed societies: the whispers of unsanctioned truth. Throw in the natural suspicions now raised by the presence of an occupying power, and you have an almost ideal hothouse for rumors and gossip. Seven days a week, a staff of Iraqis and Americans compile and analyze local press and satellite television reports. And once a week, in what has become required reading for senior American officials in Baghdad and a devoted readership in Washington, The Mosquito produces an exclusive collection of rumor, gossip and chatter called, "What's the Word on the Streets of Baghdad?""
The story probably accurately reflects the attitude of the American officials involved - that the street's rumour mill is a natural, given fact of life in Iraqi society. Within those parameters, it makes perfect sense to try and listen in. But it would be far better to deflate this rumour mill with accurate, credible, transparent information. What the story is missing is the way that the absence of a credible, independent Iraqi media empowers the street's rumour mill. A different approach to the media could allow the United States (and, more importantly, any new Iraqi government) decrease the influence of the rumour mill, rather than simply adapting to and working with it.
Rumours and gossip are a poor substitute for the open public debate essential to democratic political life. And even if democracy isn't such a big deal for Americans right now, the rumour mill also works very much against American interests since it will tend to highlight the worst about the occupying power. Jim Scott's classic book "Domination and the Arts of Resistance" would be a sobering text for anyone interested in exploring the rhetorical practices of the disenfranchised... let's just say that it is highly unlikely that the United States (or its Governing Council) will come out looking very good in an environment permeated and shaped by whispers on the street.
So, back to beating my dead horse: changing the American approach to the Arab media really is a vital security interest, not just a good idea or the appropriately "liberal" thing to do.
Comments