Quote:
| what do they have to gain from it? |
Profit.
Take, as an example, Fox News. Do they provide reasoned analysis of events or politicised and over-simplified rhetoric? Do they make a lot of money? Rupert Murdoch has done the same thing in other countries (the UK and Australia). In the UK, one needs look no further than The Sun for the public love of rhetoric over substance. It's the highest selling newspaper and is a perfect example of what I am talking about. by keeping things simple, people are not challenged. By not challenging people, you are less likely to alienate them. If you don't alienate them, they will buy your paper/watch your channel.
The "War on Terror" is sort of an example. The term itself was coined by the whitehouse (which is a problem in itself, but not the problem I was talking about). But the real problem is the lack of critical analysis of what this war actaully means and an unquestioning acceptance of the 'official line'. Why has this term been used uncritically, rather than picked apart to explain what it really means?
(nb I picked Fox because it seems to be the most obvious example; not because of its particular ideological bias.)