The gross incorrect framing of an event we sponsored by a recent article in the Oregon Daily Emerald (Unconventional War Protest Satirizes U.S. Interventionism,” ODE, March 30) has prompted us to address a larger problem in Emerald coverage of political events. While this commentary focuses on one particular event and article, we believe the extreme bias in this article is symptomatic of consistent Emerald coverage that mischaracterizes and consistently marginalizes events such as this.
The Emerald’s coverage of the Iraq War Commemoration on March 30, written by reporter Deborah Bloom, completely missed the point of the event and did not portray the views of those interviewed fully or accurately. The Emerald story framed the event as mainly about wasteful spending. We did have handouts explaining that almost 50 percent of the discretionary U.S. Federal Budget is allocated to military spending, and that this amount of money is more than the military spending of the rest of the world combined. Nonetheless, the main point of the event was to make clear that the United States is a massive empire.
The visual imagery at the event made clear that empire, not economic waste, was our major concern. We had three large signs, none of which gave information regarding spending. One sign noted that the U.S. has close to 1,000 military bases in more than 130 countries. Another sign listed the 47 interventions the U.S. has engaged in since World War II, with an asterisk next to key democratic governments the U.S. has overthrown, including Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), the Congo (1960), Chile (1973) and Haiti (1994/2004). The last sign attempted to list the total number of casualties for which the U.S. has been responsible, including the figure of over one million Iraqi civilians killed. We also had a cake with a map of the Middle East indicating a “carving up” of the region.
The main message of our March 30 event was that U.S. foreign policy is not primarily humanitarian, aimed at spreading democracy and freedom or even focused on protecting the American people. Instead, U.S. foreign policy seems to be centered on creating profits for defense contractors and securing valuable resources for corporate exploitation (oil being the main reason for U.S. involvement in the Middle East). Mitch Monsour, a member of Students Against Empire, made this central message abundantly clear to Bloom in his interview with her, yet she did not convey his arguments accurately. Monsour emphasized that the U.S. government does not truly represent the interests of the people or pursue the public good, because political campaigns are largely financed by corporations, rendering corporate lobbyists more powerful than the will of the majority. As a result, no matter which major party Americans vote for, U.S. foreign policy largely remains unchanged.
Thus, importantly, the event featured cutouts of President Bush and President Obama in front of a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner, questioning the idea that anything of lasting value has been accomplished in Iraq and that both Presidents have pursued similar policies. For example, Obama has surged the U.S. military in Afghanistan, launched countless drone attacks killing civilians in Pakistan and continues to allow the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Even though Obama has withdrawn many troops from Iraq, 50,000 U.S. soldiers remain, plus 30,000 for-profit “private contractors.” It has been clear for years that the majority of Iraqis and Americans desire a complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, yet the U.S. is currently expanding three key military bases in Iraq. There is no end in sight.
We were very surprised to read the Emerald coverage framing our message as primarily about wasteful spending. Further, Bloom quotes only one person expressing any real opposition to the event, yet this critic was allotted as much article space as all of the event’s supporters. This created “balance” in the article, but falsely portrayed the actual reception of the event. Bloom also presented the event as controversial, buttressing this claim by inaccurately framing a lengthy interview she had with political science professor Jane Cramer. She framed Cramer as critical of our event, while Cramer felt she expressed full support of our efforts to Bloom. Cramer emphasized how important and difficult it is to draw student attention to these incomprehensible foreign policy realities.
Further, the article’s placement was a few pages in with no picture. This signals to the reader that this story was not as important as the cover stories with pictures. One of the cover stories was about candidates for student government canvassing for votes. While we don’t want to minimize their efforts or the importance of student government, our event attracted far more attention than they did. Yet, they were considered more newsworthy.
If the Emerald did a better job of reporting on events about international issues, we would not have to resort to satire to attract attention in the first place. We urge the Emerald to try to be more objective and accurate in future articles about student events on campus. Journalists must constantly try to be objective and portray events accurately and honestly. But journalists also need to be aware that manufactured “balance” and reporting “controversy” inaccurately is fake objectivity. If reporters and editors do not confront their own biases and seek truth they often end up simply promoting the ideas of those in power, surrendering their responsibility as public watchdogs.  
 
Lidiana Soto
Undergraduate; Multicultural Center co-director; Students Against Empire
Abdurrahman Pasha
Doctoral student, political science; Students Against Empire
Mitch Monsour
Doctoral student, sociology; Students Against Empire
Ben Jones
Undergraduate, Survival Center co-director; UO Multicultural center
Emily Stokes
Arab Student Union
Jane Cramer
Professor of political science
[email protected]