The information on foreign war casualties and perspectives I provided contrasts the influence of personal experience versus news media.  The tragedy of war understandably makes us skeptical about its necessity.  However, media punditry can change civilized war perceptions can to overcome this skepticism.

At the time of World War I people got their news from local print media.  Though media empires existed, they had not the reach of broadcast media.  The broad diversity of local media reporting reflected the natural skepticism of citizens for foreign wars.

At the start of World War II only 8% supported our involvement.  That is an astonishingly low number for a diverse population, but the horrors of the previous world war loomed fresh in everyone’s mind.  This changed dramatically when Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor.  We may be skeptical of sending our soldiers to war in foreign lands, but being attacked brought the war home.

Mass media also existed at the time of World War II.  The experience of being attacked likely made this a war America would support by a majority, perhaps a large one.  However, mass media boosted the support further to the rarefied level of 97%.

Yet even this percentage supporting the war fell short of the support of Congress, 99.98 % of our representatives voted in favor of the war.  We can point to this as an example of representative efficiency being greater than relying on “the will of the people.”  However,  the percent of representatives being in favor of war always surpasses that of the public.  Always.  No exceptions.

Giving the “consent of the governed” the benefit of the doubt over “the will of the people” in matters of war always means a greater chance for the horrors of war.  Sometimes the horrors of war occur needlessly, as wars after World War II verify.  This questions the wisdom of going with the “consent of the governed” in all matters.

World War II witnessed much greater casualties, but this did not deter public support for the Vietnam War.  Though the support maxed out at about 60%, not 97%, it did so without us having been attacked.  The mass media machine was humming by this time, and the focus was anti-communist fear encouraged by leaders.  The misinformation we received about the communist threat outweighed the recent horrors experienced from World War II.  Misinformed fear goes well with advocating war, or any type of enforcement against “the other,” including domestically.

As the Vietnam War continued our skepticism grew.  In a deviation from the historical norm, broadcast media fueled this skepticism for the necessity of foreign war.  We witnessed from our living rooms the horrors unfolding and only a minority supported the war at the time of our exit.

The horrors of foreign war had grown remote by the time of the Iraq War.  Even so, the natural skepticism for war had to be overcome and leaders used mass media again in a masterful way.  By this time many more civilians of foreign countries were being killed than our own soldiers.  Not much in the way of personal experience guarded us from the misinformation that gained over 70% support for the war.

The recent bombing of Iran introduces a new mass media factor into the equation.  Corporate mainstream media as a whole need not misinform us as long as a sizable segment of that media can do so.  Next up:  the Fox News echo chamber.