In the United States, the media has always played a crucial role in retaining a democratic government. The founding fathers knew that freedom of information was essential to true democracy. Democracy itself is the foundation for national pride in America, and makes possible ideals such as "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." One of the creators of democracy in America, Thomas Jefferson said "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." Even in 1787 Jefferson could see how important media was to maintaining democracy, but today many argue that the media as Jefferson knew it is non-existent. Around the time of the founding of the nation there were dozens of independent publications in every east coast settlement, this is the "media" Jefferson refers to. These publications helped shape the first government in the new world, and the Founders were held accountable by the media during America's fight for independence, and the drafting of the constitution. It is no surprise, therefore, that the constitution's first amendment ensures the "Freedom of the Press". This freedom allowed independent hand printed publications to act as the sole source of information for the American public during its founding years.

Today, independent publications are no longer the main source of current events for most Americans. All types of news sources are increasingly being consolidated into larger corporations. Many Americans are worried that under corporate pressure, the media the founding fathers knew is fast becoming merged into entertainment for greater appeal to the public and increased profits. This is a recent occurrence in the United States. For hundreds of years most large cities had dozens of newspapers, but today most cities have only a few at best, and those are often owned by the same parent companies. With fewer sources of information, the American public must rely on fewer sources of information which are ultimately owned by only a few corporations. Is this consolidation dangerous to public political awareness in America? After 9/11 the media played a key role in leading the U.S. to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some say this was because of the media's failure to question government information, and in turn the people were lead to believe false information. Many experts predict if the media continues on its current course, it may pose a serious threat to democracy, which established the United States as a symbol of freedom.

Since the dawn of the democratic system, there has been media by its side. This relationship ensures that democracy stays true and representative of the people by informing them of current events and important government decisions, and keeping politicians under the watchful eye of the public. "News is not only information, it is a vital aspect of any democracy", says David Dadge in his book The War in Iraq and Why the Media Failed Us (98). Although the media is vital to democracy, it is not a public institution in America, it is owned mostly by a few large corporations. "There has always been a fine line between the two aspects of news: it's commercialization within a capitalist society and the essential role it plays within a democracy" (Dadge 99). Dadge explains that commercialization of the media has consolidated, and in some cases monopolized the media. This monopolization can be seen in towns across America, such as Clear Channel Communication's ownership of all the commercial radio stations in Minot, North Dakota (Dadge 98). A news service owned by a corporation is expected to bring in the same percentage of profit as an entertainment branch of a corporation. Americans must ask what effects corporate policies are having on quality reporting. Some argue the desire for increased profit demands genuine news to become watered down entertainment. This is a relatively new phenomenon stemming from corporate ownership. In the past, news outlets made small profits to support a minimal staff, but provided important public services. However, there has been a baseline shift in the past twenty years through the buyout of most major newspapers and other media outlets across the country. This means there is less competition, and more drive for profit over information. As Dadge contests, "greater pressure is exerted on media organizations to maximize profits" (99) and to earn profits through advertising, news outlets must increase their audience. For news outlets to gain an audience as large as the entertainment sector, they must provide entertainment themselves, and thus begins the popular corporate mindset of 'entertainment over information.'

The corporatization phenomenon has changed the content of the news, and with it the minds of the American public, and government foreign policy. Just a few days after the invasion of Iraq on March 23rd, 2003, news sources across America reported that PFC Jessica Lynch was injured and captured by Iraqi forces (Dadge 100). The U.S. Government fabricated a story of her recovery a few days later and forwarded a video to every major news outlet of her heroic rescue from Iraqi custody by a Special Forces unit (Dadge 103). It was later proved through an investigation that Lynch was never captured or injured, and the heroic rescue video was a fake produced by the order of the Pentagon (Dadge 100-103). Media corporations such as CBS picked up the story and even had plans for movie deals with the Lynch family. This proved to be a conflict of interest with objective journalism. If CBS learned the story to be false, they would lose the movie deal. Therefore, it was in the best interest of CBS to ensure that the story remained true, which we now know was false. Because the story was shown to be false by another agency, CBS lost a movie deal and a significant amount of revenue.

Of many, Dadge believes that this conflict of interest is present within every corporation which runs both news and entertainment (102). The corporations who seek to entertain over educate are launching a private attack on the sanctity of the press. If the American public allows this trend to continue, honest journalism will continue to fall by the wayside and the true stories of the war in Iraq will continue to be ignored. The American Society of Newspaper Editors Statement of Principles explains that "freedom of the press belongs to the people. It must be defended against encroachment or assault from any quarter, public or private" (ASNE). Clearly, the freedom of the press is under attack from public and private sectors, specifically corporations. While large media corporations are interested in retaining the media, they are also degrading its integrity in new ways. It is the responsibility of the American people to defend the freedom of the press, whether through elected officials or outside activism and education on the topic. The media industry is losing integrity. The loss of media integrity causes people to distrust the media and feel disenfranchised, causing many Americans to be dangerously uninformed. "Critics of the media environment say that the loss of voice is actively harming American society" and "the result is a glaring lack of awareness about world events" (Dadge 98). When media reports are shown to be false, the public becomes less trusting of the news, and are less likely to inform themselves of current events and government policies. This happens because the people are increasingly disenfranchised with the government and the media. They know they have been told false information, which lead their nation to war, and in some cases lead them to joining the military themselves. When the people become disenfranchised with the media, government, or both, democracy faces serious challenges.

The system of representative democracy in the United States depends on the knowledge of the public as a whole to elect the individuals who will best help the nation and the planet. If the U.S. media is not fostering political awareness in Americans, but disenfranchising them, encouraging entertainment, apathy, and consumerism over knowledge, our country will see the damaging effects through poor decisions from the government, with little protest. Many in America believe that these poor decisions in government are occurring more frequently and becoming more dangerous. The press is an industry that serves the people and keeps the government honest. This industry has never been as important as now, in the most powerful nation in the history of the world. According to the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) Statement of Principles, "Freedom of the press belongs to the people. It must be defended against encroachment or assault from any quarter, public or private". The people benefit from media, and media holds democracy intact, if the people fail to protect the press, there will be more disastrous consequences.

In the United States, the media does more than just keep American democracy intact, American media can affect the rest of the world. Because America is a global power with military presence in 156 countries, American foreign policy can dictate life-changing effects for residents of most of the planet (UFPJ). With a representative democracy, the decisions government officials make are based on the mindset of the American public. The mindset of the public however, is largely dictated by information that is received or not received through news outlets. In the lead up to the Iraq War the American public was told two main reasons for war through all major media sources: the removal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the replacement of Saddam Hussein with a democratically elected leader. The decision to go to war in Iraq was one of the largest public foreign policy debates in years, but was approved by congress almost unanimously. As Americans eventually found out, "there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", and "before the war, United Nations investigators had indicated as much; several outspoken critics like former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter had insisted that U.S. claims were unfounded" (10) said Lee Artz in Bring 'Em on: Media and Politics in the Iraq War. Although evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) was later proved to be falsified, and weapons were not found in Iraq, why was the media complacent in supporting the call for war in Iraq? According to Artz "the corporate media didn't challenge even the most spurious U.S. assertions" (12). "There was no evidence of al Qaeda in Iraq" said Artz, "the media didn't challenge White House talking points" (12). When the media fails to verify information, it is clear that it is on the track to becoming entertainment. The media is turning war into entertainment, joining in the already popular trend of war profiteering. This practice leads to misinformation and the corruption of the media. Media corporations pushing false information on the American public is causing untrusting viewers to become further disenfranchised.

According to the ASNE Statement of Principles, "every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate" (ASNE 1). Although there were whistle blowers before the invasion of Iraq, the media gave them little or no attention, nor did the media examine the evidence given as justification for war. For these corporations to continue to receive government contracts and advertising dollars, they must please their investors by appealing to the lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator in the case of the Iraq War, was a large portion of Americans who were willing to attack Iraq, or any middle eastern country as revenge for 9/11 with little or no evidence. The corporate media were complicit in this action because of their willingness to appeal only to their investors. This shows a failure on a massive scale, by corporate media to provide honest, verified information. Unfortunately this failure has caused the second longest war in U.S. history surpassed by only Vietnam (Blimes 1). It is no surprise that such a long war is so unpopular, before the invasion in 2003, 53% of Americans said they thought the war in Iraq would last just a "few weeks" (CBS). It is important to question why the majority of the public thought the Iraq war would only be a few weeks long. Having been educated through corporate media, the majority of the public was, and continues to be, shocked by the length of the war. It is no surprise that many are disenfranchised and public support for the war and presidency is at all time lows. Support for the war fell sharply from 76% of Americans supporting military action against Iraq in 2003 (CBS), to 68% of Americans opposing the war in June, 2008 (CNN). This radical shift in public opinion shows that the war did not live up to the expectations of the public. Undoubtedly, the American public was misled, but can this be avoided in the future? I believe the state of the corporate media in America holds the power to cause other such actions by the U.S. Government. Today, while the war in Iraq continues, the media has moved on. "In February 2008, coverage of the war in Iraq dropped to 3%" of all news reporting, according to The Project for Excellence in Journalism (Sartor 1), this trend in reporting is becoming a danger to the democracy and people of America, and the world as a whole.

While corporate media has been a dominant force in recent American politics and foreign policy, independent media has been trying to compete with huge corporations mostly through the internet and magazines with limited distribution. A recent Pew Research Center study found that "the internet news audience – roughly a quarter of all Americans – tends to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole" (1 Kohut). The youth of America are showing a new trend in receiving news from the internet. The internet may be what the media needs to get back to honest, competitive reporting. Because independent news websites and blogs are not operated by corporations, and work on a much smaller scale, they are often more efficient. These websites are also less dependent on ad money from major corporations and political candidates, which ensures fewer conflicts of interest between the reporters and advertisers. While mainstream media was unquestioning of the White House call for war, the independent news sources were running a far different story. In recent years the internet has shown us that people who use independent online news sources are better educated and less trusting of the mainstream corporate media (Kohut 1). While not every American family has the internet, it may be enough of the population in future generations to retain a knowledgeable class of young Americans who recognize the decaying state of corporate media. The internet is not in the clear though, efforts have been made by corporations to privatize the internet further and allow corporations to dictate content (STI 1). This action would have serious consequences on the freedom of information. Along with many other independently educated Americans, I believe that independent media must survive monopoly capitalism, or as history proves, true democracy cannot function.

The media has played a large role in all of our lives, whether it is a small magazine or corporate television news show. In the lead-up to the Iraq War the media played a large role in encouraging myself and many others to enlist in the military. In the winter of 2002 I sat down with an Air Force recruiter to sign the government contract. Unlike the majority of Americans who thought the war would last a "few weeks", I hadn't actually thought about how long the war might last, but I did have memories of Operation Desert Storm. I did not attend Basic Training until I graduated high school, just after the invasion of Iraq in the fall of 2003. By the time I was in Basic Training, Americans were already asking where the WMD's were in Iraq, but the military gave us no news for those seven weeks. The only news about Iraq we were told during those weeks was that Saddam was linked to al Qaeda and 9/11. When I finished training and began my full time Air Force job, I was lucky to be stationed at a computer desk with plenty of time to read independent internet news. I had never been conscious of different types of news media, but being in the military I felt it necessary to educate myself on the war. Over the next two years my understanding of the war grew exponentially, and with that I learned that I had been lied to. By this point in my career I had already known the lies the recruiters told me, but I now knew the full extent of lies used to enlist young people into the military, and gain public support for military actions abroad. It also became increasingly aware to me that the corporate news stories were shockingly uninformative on the true nature of the war in Iraq. Corporate stories lacked hard questions, but rather used quotes directly from the White House Press Secretary or Pentagon without questioning of fact checking. If it were not for independent online sources, I would never have begun to understand the complexity and politics of this war. As an enlisted person, I took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I took this oath seriously, and continue to protect the constitution. As Thomas Jefferson would say, good media is integral to democracy, and thus the constitution. If we allow corporate media to continue, can democracy survive? If that was the case, myself and many others would have never learned the truth about the war.

On the 5th commemoration of the invasion of Iraq, over 250 veterans from the United States military gathered near Washington D.C. to give their firsthand accounts of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I attended this event, titled "Winter Soldier,” to hear the testimonies of the veterans. Media from all over the world was present for four days of emotional testimonies. Major foreign news sources such as the BBC, The Guardian, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and Al Jazeera ran front page stories on their websites and in publications. The BBC predicted that Winter Soldier "could be dominating the headlines around the world [that] week" (FAIR). The United States corporate media, however, was completely absent from the historic event. While the previously untold Winter Soldier veteran testimonies were receiving broad international attention, the U.S. corporate media focused primarily on Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John McCain's comments in support of the war, despite their lack of experience on the ground in Iraq. Most independent American sources such as Democracy Now, and The Nation magazine were present at Winter Soldier to write about the event and compare the firsthand accounts with the words of Cheney and McCain. This corporate media blackout in America became obvious to me during and after my time at Winter Soldier. The Washington Post published an article on Winter Soldier in the local news section, while it ran stories of pro-war gatherings in the A section, even though The Washington Post called those gatherings "small in number", the largest (about 15 people) being a protest directly outside the Winter Soldier hearings (FAIR). Through this obvious misinformation and media self-censorship I began to realize the consequences of a media who is only concerned with the bottom line of share price. The corporate media will not take a risk, and they will intentionally avoid and censor many issues including but not limited to the War in Iraq. The national corporate media could not run a story counter to what Cheney and McCain were saying that week, although Winter Soldier became one of the top news stories in the world. Because of this media attitude, the American public continues to be deprived of truthful information from firsthand accounts on the ground in Iraq, and must depend on government reports from the Pentagon or White House. When the citizens are uninformed in a democratic society, there will be no democracy at all.

It is no coincidence that support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although low in the U.S., is far lower in every other country in the world, where the media tells a much different story, including the first hand stories from Winter Soldier. Many Americans are beginning to recognize the growing difference between corporate and independent media sources. These same people are often seeking to receive more valid information from reliable independent sources as opposed to unreliable mainstream corporate media. However, with the majority of the country receiving most of their information from corporate news sources, Americans may never understand the truth of the war. Furthermore, corporations continue to make record profits through advertising and recent government support for corporate culture. The Bush presidential administration wants to keep the war going, therefore it is in their best interest to allow certain corporate outlets to under-inform the public on the subject.

The citizens of the United States have an interest in continued democracy, and they vote for what they think will benefit our society. However, if the citizens are uninformed on the issues, they will vote for what media corporations tell them to vote for. This corporate system poses an immediate threat to the American way of life. There is a war raging on American soil that controls the future of the war in Iraq, and is responsible for the creation of the war in Iraq. Many believe this war will be responsible for the creation of other disasters if it is not stopped. This war is a corporate war on American democracy. In recent years, the government has allowed corporations to be in command of government policy. If the people do not recognize the corporate war on democracy in America, democracy will fail. The fate of democracy lies in the hands of those who are informed. I will continue to fight for democracy and the freedom of information, not because I signed a government contract, but because I believe it is my duty as a citizen. It is the collective civic duty of Americans to stay informed and act when democracy is in danger.

Works Cited

Artz, Lee and Yahya R.Kamalipour. Bring 'Em On: Media and Politics in the Iraq War. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005.

"ASNE Statement of Principles" The American Society of Newspaper Editors. 29 Nov. 2006.

Blimes, Linda J. and Joseph E. Stiglitz. "The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More." Washington Post 9 Mar. 2008.

Boyd, Julian P. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. 26-29 Jun. 2008.

CBS News. "Poll: Americans Support War Effort." New York, 22 Mar. 2003.

Dadge, David. The War in Iraq and Why the Media Failed Us. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). "Why Are Winter Soldiers Not News?" 19 Mar. 2008. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3318

Kohut, Andrew et al. "Internet News Audience Highly Critical of News Organizations: Views of Press Values and Performance: 1985-2007" Pew Research Center Aug. 9 2007.

Sartor, Tricia and Mark Jurkowitz. "Iraq War Coverage Plunges" The Project for Excellence in Journalism 25 Mar. 2008.

SavetheInternet.com (STI) http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

United for peace and Justice (UFPJ). "U.S. Military Troops and Bases Around the World" http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884 2006.