This is an abridged version of an article published in Taiwan's “The Journalist ”, a weekly news magazine. In the article, the writer laments that the American media has become a political tool that assists the expansion of terrorism.
Three American missiles hit the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia “by mistake” and sparked off demonstrations and protests of students and the masses in mainland China. It is worthy to note the mode of reporting and the language used in the American media with regards to this incident.
First of all, there is the “mode of exclusion”。 The American media has always love nitpicking where other things are concerned, but as to how three “intelligent weapons”could have hit a target “by mistake” and with such accuracy, the most basic media scepticism was not to be found. This is indeed an eye-opener.
Anyone with some knowledge will know that this was not an accidental hit. It was right on target. Therefore, the American media should have posed these questions： Why was the Chinese embassy the target for missile strikes？ Why did three missiles simultaneously struck “by mistake” and with such accuracy？ Alas, they are not at all interested in these obvious questions.
This is a form of “mode of exclusion”。 Never ask questions which are not supposed to be asked. For one, it is to shirk the responsibility in the international arena. For another, it is to shape the thinking modes of Americans within the United States. This “mode of exclusion” of the American media has developed into a new “political correctness” which appears on its own without any directives from the media bosses.
Secondly, there is “selective inclusion” and“misinformation”。 For instance, in the reports on the students' demonstrations and protests in China following the missile strikes, the American media, in its images and reports, has repeatedly reminded their readers and viewers that they were state-orchestrated demonstrations. This is very strange. It is strange to the point of perversity. The US has bombed another country's embassy, but does not allow the citizens of that country to protest. Any protestors who took to the streets must have been mobilised by the government.
Such a mean and despicable attitude stems from the attempt to shirk its own responsibility by calling into question the genuineness of the demonstrations. In the reports of the protests and demonstrations by the American media, the inconvenience suffered by and the anxiety of the US embassy staff were played up, and the demonstrations were seen as a big threat. The fact that the US has bombed someone else's embassy was downplayed, while the seriousness of irrelevant incidents was exaggerated. Their deliberate obfuscation of the issue and shameless spouting of nonsense show up their malevolence.
And this is the American media's “model of argument”。 In his four books on the American media - “Manufacturing Consent”, “Necessary Illusions： Thought Control in Democratic Societies”, “Turning the Tide” and “The Culture of Terrorism” - American linguistic doyen Noam Chomsky argues that the American media has already become a propaganda tool for American terrorism.
Its ultimate aim is to convince the public, make them realise how evil the enemy is, and set the stage for the inteference, sedition or support of national terrorism, so as to achieve the goals of perpetuating a never-ending arms race and armed conflicts. To all of this, a noble reason is bestowed.
In their news reports, the American media is becoming used to “excluding” or “including” the issues.
As the United States is seeking the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the current Yugoslav conflict, its media has vilified the Serbs in its one-sided reports, ignoring the massacres of the Serbs by Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovo Albanians.
Three years ago, the American media worked closely with the US government, and labelled the Kosovo Liberation Army as “terrorists”。 But today, they are seen as “fighters for a just cause”。 This arbitrary change in labels stems from the fact that three years ago, the United States had wanted both Croatia and Bosnia to secede.
If then it had included Kosovo, an inherent part of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia would have given strong opposition, and the problem of Croatia and Bosnia would not have been solved.
However, the above problem has already been resolved, and Yugoslavia can now be disintegrated even further. To give legitimacy to its present cause, the US has transformed former “terrorists” into “fighters for a just cause”。
The US assigns labels on others according to its own strategies, and the media can lend support to such efforts with the necessary images and news angles. This is selective misinformation. In an era where the media is highly sophisticated and the people's memories are short, it is becoming increasingly easy to use the media in the manufacturing of consent.
In the media age, the structural control of the media, and the moulding of fixed models of argument and rhetoric through the media, are equivalent to moulding political agenda and public opinion. Control over the media means control over ideas, language and the way people discuss particular issues.
Most of what have happened in Yugoslavia can be explained from the angle of how the media creates language and the way we think. The incident of the “accidental”missile hit is but one example.
美國(guó)媒體變恐怖主義傳聲筒
媒體的責(zé)任是報(bào)道事實(shí),但作者認(rèn)為美國(guó)媒體的選擇性報(bào)道方式,已使它淪為政治的工具,在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中更助長(zhǎng)了恐怖行動(dòng)的擴(kuò)張。
美國(guó)的三枚飛彈,同時(shí)“誤擊”中國(guó)駐南斯拉夫大使館,引發(fā)大陸學(xué)生及群眾的**運(yùn)動(dòng)。非常值得注意的,乃是美國(guó)對(duì)整個(gè)事件的報(bào)道模式及其使用的語(yǔ)言。
其一是“排除模式”。美國(guó)媒體一向?qū)e的事情喜歡雞蛋里挑骨頭,但對(duì)自詡“聰明的武器”卻三枚居然都那么準(zhǔn)地“誤擊”,連最起碼的懷疑精神都告失去,寧不使人嘖嘖稱奇。
稍微有點(diǎn)常識(shí)的人都知道這絕非誤擊,而是準(zhǔn)確地?fù)糁心繕?biāo)。因此,美國(guó)媒體應(yīng)當(dāng)提出這樣的問(wèn)題：為什么以中國(guó)大使館為打擊之目標(biāo)？為什么會(huì)三枚飛彈同時(shí)那么準(zhǔn)確地“誤擊”？但對(duì)這些如此明顯的問(wèn)題,它們卻毫無(wú)興趣。
這就是一種“排除模式”,不去問(wèn)不該問(wèn)的問(wèn)題,一則在國(guó)際上逃避責(zé)任,另外則是在國(guó)內(nèi)誤導(dǎo)美國(guó)人民的思考模式。美國(guó)媒體的這種“排除模式”,早已發(fā)展成一種不必媒體老板交代即會(huì)自動(dòng)出現(xiàn)的新“政治正確”。
其二則是“選擇性的包含”及“誤訊”。以這次飛彈攻擊所引發(fā)的大陸學(xué)生**為例,美國(guó)媒體在畫(huà)面及文字上,即不斷強(qiáng)調(diào)這是大陸官方都鼓動(dòng)的*。這實(shí)在是非常奇怪,而且奇怪到很變態(tài)的一種心態(tài)。將別人的大使館炸掉,居然還不準(zhǔn)*,*者一定是官方發(fā)動(dòng)的群眾。
這種心態(tài)的卑鄙與惡質(zhì),乃是在于非法化*活動(dòng)以逃避自己的責(zé)任。美國(guó)媒體在報(bào)道**時(shí),并將使館人員因此而造成的不便與不安,夸大處理,*活動(dòng)儼然變成了很具威脅性的事情。將自己炸別人寫(xiě)得輕淡幾筆,卻將不相干的事情寫(xiě)得嚴(yán)重?zé)o比,因果倒置,胡扯耍賴,其邪惡由此可見(jiàn)。
而這就是美國(guó)媒體的“論述模式”,當(dāng)代美國(guó)語(yǔ)言學(xué)大師杭士基曾先后以《加工制造同意》、《必要的幻象：民主社會(huì)的思想控制》、《改變潮流》、《恐怖主義文化》等四本討論美國(guó)媒體之著作,闡釋美國(guó)媒體早已成為美國(guó)國(guó)家恐怖主義的宣傳機(jī)器。
而其終極目的,則在于“說(shuō)服公眾,使人民了解敵人的邪惡,并設(shè)定干涉、*、支持其國(guó)家恐怖主義的舞臺(tái),進(jìn)而達(dá)到無(wú)休止的軍備競(jìng)賽和武力沖突之目的,并使這一切都有高貴的理由?！?BR> 如果由近代美國(guó)媒體史的發(fā)展以觀,60年代及70年代初之前是個(gè)階段,當(dāng)時(shí)的媒體可以說(shuō)乃是一個(gè)單獨(dú)的公正勢(shì)力,它和“軍—產(chǎn)復(fù)合體”的統(tǒng)治階級(jí)并無(wú)太大的利益掛¤,因而遂能以中立的態(tài)度看待不正義的越戰(zhàn),并對(duì)越戰(zhàn)進(jìn)行批評(píng)。
反戰(zhàn)運(yùn)動(dòng)和媒體的角色,使得越戰(zhàn)終究無(wú)法取得正當(dāng)性,而這也是美國(guó)在越南戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)失敗的主因。
不過(guò),值得注意的,乃是越戰(zhàn)尾聲,代表了美國(guó)統(tǒng)治階級(jí)的“三邊委員會(huì)”曾特別就越戰(zhàn)引起的統(tǒng)治危機(jī)進(jìn)行研究,研究題目乃是《民主體制的可統(tǒng)治性》報(bào)告結(jié)論中指出,“媒體已成為國(guó)家權(quán)力的明顯資源”,媒體的無(wú)法掌握,“內(nèi)則使得民主過(guò)度,使政府威信掃地；外則使國(guó)家在國(guó)際社會(huì)的影響力衰退”或許正基于這樣的覺(jué)悟,美國(guó)遂于1970年代中后期進(jìn)行了一次大規(guī)模的媒體股權(quán)交換。
普利茲獎(jiǎng)得主巴迪姜在《媒體壟斷》這部著作里,即對(duì)這種“軍－產(chǎn)－媒體”聯(lián)合的新結(jié)構(gòu)做了詳盡的分析。從此以后,美國(guó)“自由媒體”的時(shí)代宣告結(jié)束,媒體與統(tǒng)治集團(tuán)掛¤,并成為國(guó)家恐怖主義的宣傳機(jī)器的新時(shí)代開(kāi)始來(lái)到。
1960年到70年代初,媒體敢于揭露軍特部門(mén)秘件,敢于抨擊侵略活動(dòng)之勇氣,開(kāi)始被一種新的“共識(shí)”及“政治正確”所收編。
杭士基教授在前述四本討論到媒體控制的著作中,曾對(duì)80年代后,美國(guó)的媒體宣傳及控制有過(guò)詳細(xì)的討論及分析。
例如,媒體會(huì)自動(dòng)地設(shè)定出誰(shuí)是“有價(jià)值的受害人”,或誰(shuí)是“無(wú)價(jià)值的受害人”。當(dāng)它要丑化某個(gè)國(guó)家時(shí),就會(huì)從該國(guó)找出“有價(jià)值的受害人”。但若是美國(guó)的朋友,或?qū)γ绹?guó)言聽(tīng)計(jì)從的庸屬國(guó),縱使再多人受害,媒體也將無(wú)動(dòng)于衷,因?yàn)樗麄兪恰盁o(wú)價(jià)值的受害人”。
就以眼前的事情為例,庫(kù)特族分布于中東各國(guó),在伊拉克所受待遇,在土耳其則所受待遇最慘,但因土耳其為美國(guó)之庸屬國(guó),縱使再多庫(kù)特族被殺,也都只是“無(wú)價(jià)值的受害人”；伊拉克對(duì)庫(kù)特族,但因它的反美,遂使得美國(guó)不斷慫恿庫(kù)特族反叛并使之成為“有價(jià)值的受害人”不久前,美國(guó)甚至協(xié)助土耳其至外國(guó)綁架庫(kù)特族領(lǐng)袖,但美國(guó)媒體卻對(duì)這樣的行為無(wú)所置評(píng)。
美國(guó)媒體的墮落由此可見(jiàn)。易言之,這等于他們?cè)跊Q定什么人的死亡與受害是有價(jià)值的或無(wú)價(jià)值的。塞爾維亞人及伊拉克人的死亡當(dāng)然沒(méi)有價(jià)值。
例如,美國(guó)媒體已愈來(lái)愈習(xí)慣于報(bào)道新聞時(shí),將什么話題“排除在外”及“包括進(jìn)來(lái)”。
就以稍早前的波灣戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)為例,美軍有一個(gè)工兵旅即用挖土機(jī)挖出壕溝,而后將伊拉克傷兵用推土機(jī)推進(jìn)壕溝活埋,主流媒體居然視為理所當(dāng)然地不予報(bào)道；對(duì)美軍轟炸造成伊拉克平民至少25萬(wàn)人死亡也無(wú)動(dòng)于衷。
有關(guān)近年來(lái)的南斯拉夫*,美國(guó)為了肢解南斯拉夫,媒體也一面倒地丑化塞爾維亞人,對(duì)克羅埃西亞、波士尼亞,以及科索沃阿爾巴尼亞裔對(duì)塞爾維亞人的屠殺不予報(bào)道。
三年前美國(guó)媒體配合政府,將“科索沃解放軍”定位為“恐怖分子”,到了今日,則又被視為“正義斗士”,標(biāo)簽的任意變換,原因在于三年前美國(guó)主要以肢解克羅地亞及波士尼亞為目標(biāo),設(shè)若當(dāng)時(shí)也將南斯拉夫固有領(lǐng)土科索沃包括進(jìn)來(lái),勢(shì)必造成南斯拉夫嚴(yán)厲反對(duì),而使克羅地亞及波士尼亞問(wèn)題亦無(wú)法解決。
而今前面的問(wèn)題業(yè)已解決,已可進(jìn)一步肢解南斯拉夫,為了合理化自己,于是昔日的“恐怖主義”立即翻轉(zhuǎn)成了“正義斗士”。
完全根據(jù)自己的策略而決定將別人貼上什么標(biāo)簽,媒體都能充分配合地采取必須的畫(huà)面和報(bào)道視角。這些乃是選擇性的“誤訊”,在這個(gè)媒體發(fā)達(dá)而人民健忘的時(shí)代,借著媒體來(lái)加工制造同意,已的確愈來(lái)愈容易了。
杭士基在《恐怖主義文化》里特別指出,當(dāng)年的“伊朗——尼游丑聞案”可以說(shuō)乃是一個(gè)最特殊且成功,甚至“*的助手弋貝爾及史大林都會(huì)為之大笑”的案例。
當(dāng)時(shí)國(guó)務(wù)院為了替*及侵略制造民意基礎(chǔ),特地在國(guó)務(wù)院下秘密設(shè)置“公關(guān)室”,展開(kāi)一個(gè)代號(hào)“真理作業(yè)”的“心理戰(zhàn)計(jì)劃”,由“國(guó)安會(huì)”主控,“將宣傳當(dāng)作機(jī)密消息”發(fā)給媒體,為了如何掌控媒體,他們于85年3月,甚至草擬了一份厚達(dá)15頁(yè)的備忘錄。
那是近代美國(guó)借著掌控媒體而制造民意的最成功的經(jīng)驗(yàn),此后更江河日下,無(wú)往不利。
媒體時(shí)代,媒體的結(jié)構(gòu)性掌控,以及借著媒體而塑造出固定的論述及修辭模式,也就等于塑造出了政治的議程及民意。掌控媒體也就掌控了概念、語(yǔ)言、人們談?wù)撃硞€(gè)問(wèn)題的方式。
發(fā)生在南斯拉夫的所有事情,有一大半都可以從媒體創(chuàng)造語(yǔ)言及思考方法的角度來(lái)加以切入。飛彈“誤擊”事件,不過(guò)是其中的一環(huán)而已。
Three American missiles hit the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia “by mistake” and sparked off demonstrations and protests of students and the masses in mainland China. It is worthy to note the mode of reporting and the language used in the American media with regards to this incident.
First of all, there is the “mode of exclusion”。 The American media has always love nitpicking where other things are concerned, but as to how three “intelligent weapons”could have hit a target “by mistake” and with such accuracy, the most basic media scepticism was not to be found. This is indeed an eye-opener.
Anyone with some knowledge will know that this was not an accidental hit. It was right on target. Therefore, the American media should have posed these questions： Why was the Chinese embassy the target for missile strikes？ Why did three missiles simultaneously struck “by mistake” and with such accuracy？ Alas, they are not at all interested in these obvious questions.
This is a form of “mode of exclusion”。 Never ask questions which are not supposed to be asked. For one, it is to shirk the responsibility in the international arena. For another, it is to shape the thinking modes of Americans within the United States. This “mode of exclusion” of the American media has developed into a new “political correctness” which appears on its own without any directives from the media bosses.
Secondly, there is “selective inclusion” and“misinformation”。 For instance, in the reports on the students' demonstrations and protests in China following the missile strikes, the American media, in its images and reports, has repeatedly reminded their readers and viewers that they were state-orchestrated demonstrations. This is very strange. It is strange to the point of perversity. The US has bombed another country's embassy, but does not allow the citizens of that country to protest. Any protestors who took to the streets must have been mobilised by the government.
Such a mean and despicable attitude stems from the attempt to shirk its own responsibility by calling into question the genuineness of the demonstrations. In the reports of the protests and demonstrations by the American media, the inconvenience suffered by and the anxiety of the US embassy staff were played up, and the demonstrations were seen as a big threat. The fact that the US has bombed someone else's embassy was downplayed, while the seriousness of irrelevant incidents was exaggerated. Their deliberate obfuscation of the issue and shameless spouting of nonsense show up their malevolence.
And this is the American media's “model of argument”。 In his four books on the American media - “Manufacturing Consent”, “Necessary Illusions： Thought Control in Democratic Societies”, “Turning the Tide” and “The Culture of Terrorism” - American linguistic doyen Noam Chomsky argues that the American media has already become a propaganda tool for American terrorism.
Its ultimate aim is to convince the public, make them realise how evil the enemy is, and set the stage for the inteference, sedition or support of national terrorism, so as to achieve the goals of perpetuating a never-ending arms race and armed conflicts. To all of this, a noble reason is bestowed.
In their news reports, the American media is becoming used to “excluding” or “including” the issues.
As the United States is seeking the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the current Yugoslav conflict, its media has vilified the Serbs in its one-sided reports, ignoring the massacres of the Serbs by Croatians, Bosnians and Kosovo Albanians.
Three years ago, the American media worked closely with the US government, and labelled the Kosovo Liberation Army as “terrorists”。 But today, they are seen as “fighters for a just cause”。 This arbitrary change in labels stems from the fact that three years ago, the United States had wanted both Croatia and Bosnia to secede.
If then it had included Kosovo, an inherent part of Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia would have given strong opposition, and the problem of Croatia and Bosnia would not have been solved.
However, the above problem has already been resolved, and Yugoslavia can now be disintegrated even further. To give legitimacy to its present cause, the US has transformed former “terrorists” into “fighters for a just cause”。
The US assigns labels on others according to its own strategies, and the media can lend support to such efforts with the necessary images and news angles. This is selective misinformation. In an era where the media is highly sophisticated and the people's memories are short, it is becoming increasingly easy to use the media in the manufacturing of consent.
In the media age, the structural control of the media, and the moulding of fixed models of argument and rhetoric through the media, are equivalent to moulding political agenda and public opinion. Control over the media means control over ideas, language and the way people discuss particular issues.
Most of what have happened in Yugoslavia can be explained from the angle of how the media creates language and the way we think. The incident of the “accidental”missile hit is but one example.
美國(guó)媒體變恐怖主義傳聲筒
媒體的責(zé)任是報(bào)道事實(shí),但作者認(rèn)為美國(guó)媒體的選擇性報(bào)道方式,已使它淪為政治的工具,在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中更助長(zhǎng)了恐怖行動(dòng)的擴(kuò)張。
美國(guó)的三枚飛彈,同時(shí)“誤擊”中國(guó)駐南斯拉夫大使館,引發(fā)大陸學(xué)生及群眾的**運(yùn)動(dòng)。非常值得注意的,乃是美國(guó)對(duì)整個(gè)事件的報(bào)道模式及其使用的語(yǔ)言。
其一是“排除模式”。美國(guó)媒體一向?qū)e的事情喜歡雞蛋里挑骨頭,但對(duì)自詡“聰明的武器”卻三枚居然都那么準(zhǔn)地“誤擊”,連最起碼的懷疑精神都告失去,寧不使人嘖嘖稱奇。
稍微有點(diǎn)常識(shí)的人都知道這絕非誤擊,而是準(zhǔn)確地?fù)糁心繕?biāo)。因此,美國(guó)媒體應(yīng)當(dāng)提出這樣的問(wèn)題：為什么以中國(guó)大使館為打擊之目標(biāo)？為什么會(huì)三枚飛彈同時(shí)那么準(zhǔn)確地“誤擊”？但對(duì)這些如此明顯的問(wèn)題,它們卻毫無(wú)興趣。
這就是一種“排除模式”,不去問(wèn)不該問(wèn)的問(wèn)題,一則在國(guó)際上逃避責(zé)任,另外則是在國(guó)內(nèi)誤導(dǎo)美國(guó)人民的思考模式。美國(guó)媒體的這種“排除模式”,早已發(fā)展成一種不必媒體老板交代即會(huì)自動(dòng)出現(xiàn)的新“政治正確”。
其二則是“選擇性的包含”及“誤訊”。以這次飛彈攻擊所引發(fā)的大陸學(xué)生**為例,美國(guó)媒體在畫(huà)面及文字上,即不斷強(qiáng)調(diào)這是大陸官方都鼓動(dòng)的*。這實(shí)在是非常奇怪,而且奇怪到很變態(tài)的一種心態(tài)。將別人的大使館炸掉,居然還不準(zhǔn)*,*者一定是官方發(fā)動(dòng)的群眾。
這種心態(tài)的卑鄙與惡質(zhì),乃是在于非法化*活動(dòng)以逃避自己的責(zé)任。美國(guó)媒體在報(bào)道**時(shí),并將使館人員因此而造成的不便與不安,夸大處理,*活動(dòng)儼然變成了很具威脅性的事情。將自己炸別人寫(xiě)得輕淡幾筆,卻將不相干的事情寫(xiě)得嚴(yán)重?zé)o比,因果倒置,胡扯耍賴,其邪惡由此可見(jiàn)。
而這就是美國(guó)媒體的“論述模式”,當(dāng)代美國(guó)語(yǔ)言學(xué)大師杭士基曾先后以《加工制造同意》、《必要的幻象：民主社會(huì)的思想控制》、《改變潮流》、《恐怖主義文化》等四本討論美國(guó)媒體之著作,闡釋美國(guó)媒體早已成為美國(guó)國(guó)家恐怖主義的宣傳機(jī)器。
而其終極目的,則在于“說(shuō)服公眾,使人民了解敵人的邪惡,并設(shè)定干涉、*、支持其國(guó)家恐怖主義的舞臺(tái),進(jìn)而達(dá)到無(wú)休止的軍備競(jìng)賽和武力沖突之目的,并使這一切都有高貴的理由?！?BR> 如果由近代美國(guó)媒體史的發(fā)展以觀,60年代及70年代初之前是個(gè)階段,當(dāng)時(shí)的媒體可以說(shuō)乃是一個(gè)單獨(dú)的公正勢(shì)力,它和“軍—產(chǎn)復(fù)合體”的統(tǒng)治階級(jí)并無(wú)太大的利益掛¤,因而遂能以中立的態(tài)度看待不正義的越戰(zhàn),并對(duì)越戰(zhàn)進(jìn)行批評(píng)。
反戰(zhàn)運(yùn)動(dòng)和媒體的角色,使得越戰(zhàn)終究無(wú)法取得正當(dāng)性,而這也是美國(guó)在越南戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)失敗的主因。
不過(guò),值得注意的,乃是越戰(zhàn)尾聲,代表了美國(guó)統(tǒng)治階級(jí)的“三邊委員會(huì)”曾特別就越戰(zhàn)引起的統(tǒng)治危機(jī)進(jìn)行研究,研究題目乃是《民主體制的可統(tǒng)治性》報(bào)告結(jié)論中指出,“媒體已成為國(guó)家權(quán)力的明顯資源”,媒體的無(wú)法掌握,“內(nèi)則使得民主過(guò)度,使政府威信掃地；外則使國(guó)家在國(guó)際社會(huì)的影響力衰退”或許正基于這樣的覺(jué)悟,美國(guó)遂于1970年代中后期進(jìn)行了一次大規(guī)模的媒體股權(quán)交換。
普利茲獎(jiǎng)得主巴迪姜在《媒體壟斷》這部著作里,即對(duì)這種“軍－產(chǎn)－媒體”聯(lián)合的新結(jié)構(gòu)做了詳盡的分析。從此以后,美國(guó)“自由媒體”的時(shí)代宣告結(jié)束,媒體與統(tǒng)治集團(tuán)掛¤,并成為國(guó)家恐怖主義的宣傳機(jī)器的新時(shí)代開(kāi)始來(lái)到。
1960年到70年代初,媒體敢于揭露軍特部門(mén)秘件,敢于抨擊侵略活動(dòng)之勇氣,開(kāi)始被一種新的“共識(shí)”及“政治正確”所收編。
杭士基教授在前述四本討論到媒體控制的著作中,曾對(duì)80年代后,美國(guó)的媒體宣傳及控制有過(guò)詳細(xì)的討論及分析。
例如,媒體會(huì)自動(dòng)地設(shè)定出誰(shuí)是“有價(jià)值的受害人”,或誰(shuí)是“無(wú)價(jià)值的受害人”。當(dāng)它要丑化某個(gè)國(guó)家時(shí),就會(huì)從該國(guó)找出“有價(jià)值的受害人”。但若是美國(guó)的朋友,或?qū)γ绹?guó)言聽(tīng)計(jì)從的庸屬國(guó),縱使再多人受害,媒體也將無(wú)動(dòng)于衷,因?yàn)樗麄兪恰盁o(wú)價(jià)值的受害人”。
就以眼前的事情為例,庫(kù)特族分布于中東各國(guó),在伊拉克所受待遇,在土耳其則所受待遇最慘,但因土耳其為美國(guó)之庸屬國(guó),縱使再多庫(kù)特族被殺,也都只是“無(wú)價(jià)值的受害人”；伊拉克對(duì)庫(kù)特族,但因它的反美,遂使得美國(guó)不斷慫恿庫(kù)特族反叛并使之成為“有價(jià)值的受害人”不久前,美國(guó)甚至協(xié)助土耳其至外國(guó)綁架庫(kù)特族領(lǐng)袖,但美國(guó)媒體卻對(duì)這樣的行為無(wú)所置評(píng)。
美國(guó)媒體的墮落由此可見(jiàn)。易言之,這等于他們?cè)跊Q定什么人的死亡與受害是有價(jià)值的或無(wú)價(jià)值的。塞爾維亞人及伊拉克人的死亡當(dāng)然沒(méi)有價(jià)值。
例如,美國(guó)媒體已愈來(lái)愈習(xí)慣于報(bào)道新聞時(shí),將什么話題“排除在外”及“包括進(jìn)來(lái)”。
就以稍早前的波灣戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)為例,美軍有一個(gè)工兵旅即用挖土機(jī)挖出壕溝,而后將伊拉克傷兵用推土機(jī)推進(jìn)壕溝活埋,主流媒體居然視為理所當(dāng)然地不予報(bào)道；對(duì)美軍轟炸造成伊拉克平民至少25萬(wàn)人死亡也無(wú)動(dòng)于衷。
有關(guān)近年來(lái)的南斯拉夫*,美國(guó)為了肢解南斯拉夫,媒體也一面倒地丑化塞爾維亞人,對(duì)克羅埃西亞、波士尼亞,以及科索沃阿爾巴尼亞裔對(duì)塞爾維亞人的屠殺不予報(bào)道。
三年前美國(guó)媒體配合政府,將“科索沃解放軍”定位為“恐怖分子”,到了今日,則又被視為“正義斗士”,標(biāo)簽的任意變換,原因在于三年前美國(guó)主要以肢解克羅地亞及波士尼亞為目標(biāo),設(shè)若當(dāng)時(shí)也將南斯拉夫固有領(lǐng)土科索沃包括進(jìn)來(lái),勢(shì)必造成南斯拉夫嚴(yán)厲反對(duì),而使克羅地亞及波士尼亞問(wèn)題亦無(wú)法解決。
而今前面的問(wèn)題業(yè)已解決,已可進(jìn)一步肢解南斯拉夫,為了合理化自己,于是昔日的“恐怖主義”立即翻轉(zhuǎn)成了“正義斗士”。
完全根據(jù)自己的策略而決定將別人貼上什么標(biāo)簽,媒體都能充分配合地采取必須的畫(huà)面和報(bào)道視角。這些乃是選擇性的“誤訊”,在這個(gè)媒體發(fā)達(dá)而人民健忘的時(shí)代,借著媒體來(lái)加工制造同意,已的確愈來(lái)愈容易了。
杭士基在《恐怖主義文化》里特別指出,當(dāng)年的“伊朗——尼游丑聞案”可以說(shuō)乃是一個(gè)最特殊且成功,甚至“*的助手弋貝爾及史大林都會(huì)為之大笑”的案例。
當(dāng)時(shí)國(guó)務(wù)院為了替*及侵略制造民意基礎(chǔ),特地在國(guó)務(wù)院下秘密設(shè)置“公關(guān)室”,展開(kāi)一個(gè)代號(hào)“真理作業(yè)”的“心理戰(zhàn)計(jì)劃”,由“國(guó)安會(huì)”主控,“將宣傳當(dāng)作機(jī)密消息”發(fā)給媒體,為了如何掌控媒體,他們于85年3月,甚至草擬了一份厚達(dá)15頁(yè)的備忘錄。
那是近代美國(guó)借著掌控媒體而制造民意的最成功的經(jīng)驗(yàn),此后更江河日下,無(wú)往不利。
媒體時(shí)代,媒體的結(jié)構(gòu)性掌控,以及借著媒體而塑造出固定的論述及修辭模式,也就等于塑造出了政治的議程及民意。掌控媒體也就掌控了概念、語(yǔ)言、人們談?wù)撃硞€(gè)問(wèn)題的方式。
發(fā)生在南斯拉夫的所有事情,有一大半都可以從媒體創(chuàng)造語(yǔ)言及思考方法的角度來(lái)加以切入。飛彈“誤擊”事件,不過(guò)是其中的一環(huán)而已。