What are you hiding?

While watching "Wag the Dog" I, apparently among many others, couldn't help but think of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and President Clinton's timing in attacking al Qeada in the summer of 1998. More strikingly, I was shocked by the way (in the film) the President's team of expert movie makers is able to actually convince the American public that an actual war was going on.

The similarities between the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the issue being dealt with in the movie are striking. Furthermore, the similarities in the way these issues were handled is. at lack of a better word, scary. In the film, Conrad Brean (played by Robert De Niro) is brought in by the White House staff to try to divert attention from a sex scandal involving the President. Beane hires Hollywood producer Stanley Motss (played by Dustin Hoffman) to literally create a war in the White House basement. [As Brean states "We're not gonna have a war, we're gonna have the appearance of a war."] Motss creates, including pictures and the like, a fictional war with Albania, and with the help of the media the President is able to divert attention away from the scandal and on to the war. They even release a former member of the military who is now a mental patient into the public to spread the "facts" of the "war" and discuss it.

While this is clearly a stretch from the actions taken by President Clinton in the aftermath of the Lewinsky scandal, the actions seem all too similar. In August of 1998, as the American public and press were fixated on the White House scandal, President Clinton ordered the attack of al Qeada locations in the Sudan and Afghanistan. The timing seemed striking (although it was justified as a retaliation for the embassy bombings on August 7th) and many reporters (The first being Gaylord Shaw) made the suggestion that this was a "Wag the Dog" attempt to divert the attention away from the scandal and onto the "war" overseas. Shaw even asked Secretary of Defense William Cohen about the possibility of this diversion attempt (actual recording), but Cohen, of course, reaffirmed that the President's attentions were pure and justified. [Furthermore, Cohen was then questioned about the reasoning behind the attacks and the possible "Wag the Dog" attempt.

What I would say is the most striking part of the film is the fact that the American public bought into the "war" and actually believed that it was occurring, solely based on the media's depiction of these events as facts. While we have discussed the power of the media in terms of spreading a narrative (see Cranky Doc's here and Lion's Den here) and even the media's ability to turn a blatant lie into "truth" (here), I never felt that I was effected by this and hoped that the more the American people are exposed to instances like this, the less effective they would be.

But I must admit I was 100% wrong. Even as I have finished a semester in which we have focused on facts, and worked on only making claims to support our statements, and our critical thinking skills have been sharpened and exercised to their maximum, I WAS FOOLED. While watching this short (97 minute) film I actually forgot about the scandal at the beginning of the film due to my extreme focus on the "war" taking place. Now I must reiterate that this seems to be the goal of the film, it still scares me that I, among I assume many others, could be distracted when watching a film highlighting this very issue!

This is a fact which I don't think will go away and that we need to always look out for a focus on. Furthermore, it highlights the responsibility of the media to be truthful and (Leighley's) "reporters of objective fact."

In spite of this scary and eye opening experience, this is still a well made and funny movie. I do recommend it to all of you, but viewer beware...they are out to trick you...