Debates
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12877239 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James Smith Page (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2004 |
| Volume | 1 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 261-266 |
| Publication date | 2004-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Critical Discourse Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1740-5904 • E-ISSN: 1740-5912 |
| Publisher | Routledge (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/1740590042000302094 |
| OpenAlex | W2097558990 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 4 |
This article responds to the analysis by Douglas Kellner of the way the Bush Administration has manipulated media coverage, especially coverage of the attacks of 11/9/01, to support an aggressive foreign policy.The writer is generally in agreement with the analysis, although the article makes posits five propositions: 1) there is nothing new in using terror and atrocity as a pretext for war, 2) the attacks and response reflects a deeply ingrained culture of violence, including within the USA, 3) the current conflict is profoundly theological in nature, 4) the discourse of the US Administration reveals a profound ignorance of the possible motivations of the attackers, and 5) the portrayal of the attacks and the response reveals the continuing atavistic appeal of violence.By way of conclusion, it is suggested that there needs to be an on-going commitment towards educating for a culture of peace and that developing a critique of militaristic discourse is one start to this
Political science · Sociology · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · War, Ethics, and Justification
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,15 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2006 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |