When you hear the word ‘strike,’ you probably think of a number-limited mistake scheme in a game or sport. Alternatively, your mind may orient to the bright flash during a storm, soon to be followed by a thundering boom. However, if you were a parent just getting to work after dropping your daughter off to school in Minab, Iran, a ‘strike’ would be the Western corporate media term used to describe an indescribable loss. 

After the U.S.’s archaic show of moral depravity in Minab, – including a secondary strike (gamifying-ly referred to as  a ‘double tap’) to kill remaining survivors, as well as emergency responders – news sources consistently reported with what must be an ill-intended use of ambiguous language. Amongst others, publishers like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and even the Associated Press ran headlines calling the brutal disregard for the life of these children just that – a ‘strike’. Over 160 people are reported to have died as a result of the attack, with numbers rising still, and dozens more injured. Many, if not most, of the most recent victims of Western imperialism were girls under the age of twelve, and reporting from the West will supply readers with little more than Orwellian doublespeak. 

Had this issue of nonspecific language been solely an isolated incident, there could exist some justification for these headlines. Maybe editors were simply so horrified by this massive loss-of-life event that they simply could not interact with the idea of children dying at the hands of their own government. 

This is not the case, nor has it ever been for the United States or its media apparatus.

 For years, independent journalists have documented the mainstream media’s discrepancies in reporting. A simple glance at the Wall Street Journal can reveal inconsistencies in their portrayal of involved parties. When Iran launches an offensive, the language used is not only ‘other’-ing, but deterministically condemning. On the side condoning neocolonialism, these same military attacks, though often much more brutal, are presented as unfortunately bad, but also somehow absolutely necessary. What necessitates the destruction of human life is often left to the reader to assume. If one, however,  is regularly versed in popular media publications, the assumption is likely to be informed by the same regurgitated abstract rhetoric of ‘protecting democracy’ or ‘stopping the spread of extremism, Jihadism, communism, terrorism, etc.’. 

To understand why exactly the derived perception of reality of everyday people even matters, we have to consider the phenomenon of manufactured consent. Manufactured consent relies on the premise that citizens of a nation are being controlled by the leaders/ruling class of that nation. Rather than controlling by means of force (such as in a fascist uprising), modern self-proclaimed democracies rely on the control that comes from controlling the beliefs, opinions, and ideologies of a citizen body, by means of media regulation. It is of utmost importance that this is not regarded as a ‘conspiracy’ shrouded in secrecy. In reality, the publishing apparatus that is mass media contains systematic features that only allow U.S.-interest aligned rhetoric, filtering out anything that contradicts a ‘good guy’ portrayal of the nation. When the U.S. initiated the Vietnam War soon after WWII, media sources consistently regarded the U.S. involvement as nothing short of morally just – despite policy that then, and now, would be considered highly aggressive and with no regard for Indigenous peoples. The media is not only complicit in, but a key player, U.S. foreign strategy and therefore responsible for all deaths it enables the war machine to inflict. 

When reporting of objective facts is reduced to a never ending slurry of euphemisms, half-truths, and blatant omission of key details, it ceases to be reporting, rather embracing fairy-tale recounts of real-world events. Oftentimes, reporters will float the idea of protecting the reader, sparing them all the ‘gory’ details. But when domestic tax revenue funds the military, and by extension, the extermination of 150+ mostly children, do we deserve protection from this reality? Or, is there maybe a more sinister root cause for this constant flood of mis- and disinformation? 

Whatever the answer to those questions most closely resembles the truth, you can be sure you will not be reading about it in our mainstream media. So then, what can we do? Surely there exists some practical solution to everyday readers of the media. While I do not have an answer, community involvement is paramount in these times. Going out and interacting with others will show you that you are not alone, you are not crazy – the world is. If we cannot fix it right away, most pressing is to prevent it getting worse. German journalist and author Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann’s concept of the ‘spiral of silence’ highlights the dangers of remaining silent in these times. Her theory, derived from witnessing the atrocities of a fascist Nazi regime, states that individuals are likely to self-supress their opinions or beliefs when they feel that they will be outcasted or alone. When perception of public opinion is allowed to be shaped by mass media, as it is, it’s easy to feel as if those of us who care are the odd ones out. We must resist the social pressuring placed on us to comply and witness these atrocities without qualms or concerns.