Who Can Write My 4 Page Paper?

Kumar1.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Who Can Write My 4 Page Paper?

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN Media constructions of the Jessica Lynch story

Deepa Kumar

Introduction

The “rescue” of Private Jessica Lynch was one of the most extensively covered events of the 2003 US-led war on Iraq. In the 14 days after her rescue, Lynch drew 919 references in major newspapers. In contrast, General Tommy Franks, who ran the war, got 639 references, and Dick Cheney got 549 (Christopher Hanson 2003). The coverage of the Lynch story continued well into the year and far outstripped that devoted to any other captured or rescued prisoners of war (POWs), making Lynch a household name. This article studies how the Jessica Lynch story was constructed. I examine the conditions under which women in the military become visible and how their stories are told, both by the media and the military. The military, a quintessential patriarchal institution, relies on the construction of a soldier in specifically masculinist terms. While women have always been a part of the military, their presence has been systematically marginalized. Their role has typically been as “camp followers,” i.e., service and maintenance workers, rather than those involved in active combat.

Lynch stands out as one among a handful of women who have come to symbolize the presence of women in the US army. Yet, this is not a step forward for women. Instead, the Lynch rescue narrative, I argue, served to forward the aims of war propaganda. The story of the “dramatic” rescue of a young, vulnerable woman, at a time when the war was not going well for the US, acted as the means by which a controversial war could be talked about in emotional rather than rational terms. Furthermore, constructed as hero, Lynch became a symbol of the West’s “enlightened” attitude towards women, justifying the argument that the US was “liberating” the people of Iraq. In short, the Lynch story, far from putting forward an image of women’s strength and autonomy, reveals yet another mechanism by which they are strategically used to win support for war.

Women, War, and Visibility

The most prominent role that women play in war narratives is that of victim. Women can suffer rape, torture, or death during war, giving the male soldier the special duty to protect her from such consequences. For instance, US military recruitment posters for World War One featured the German Kaiser as a large vicious beast carrying away a

298 DEEPA KUMAR

scared, half-naked white woman. Similar strategies were used in World War Two with the Japanese now added to the list of villains. Women, incapable of protecting themselves, serve as the grounds on which to persuade men to exert their masculinity and vanquish the enemy. These “captivity scenarios” can be traced all the way back to the seventeenth century, when Native Americans were accused of kidnapping white women in order to justify genocide (Richard Slotkin 1973). Susan Jeffords (1991) refers to this victim narrative as the “protection scenario.” Building on Judith Hick Stiehm’s (1982) work on the protector, protected and defender, Jeffords argues that there are three actors in this scenario of protection: “the protected/victim—the one who is violated by the villain…; the threat/villain—the one who attacks the victim…; the protector/hero—the one who protects/rescues the victim from the attacker” (Stiehm 1982, p. 204). Jeffords shows how the 1991 US-led war on Iraq was justified through this logic, based on the argument that Kuwait was raped by the villainous Saddam Hussein and Iraq. In a repeat of this scenario, the 2001 war on Afghanistan saw the Taliban as villain, Afghan women as victims and the US, predictably, the gallant hero/protector (Carol Stabile & Deepa Kumar 2005 forthcoming).

Linda Grant De Pauw (1998), based on her extensive study of the role of women in war from pre-history to the twentieth century, argues that the classic role of women as victim is complemented by her role as the instigator. In many cultures women have served the function of inspiring men to fight and shaming them when they don’t. Women on the home front in the US, involved in the rituals of tying yellow ribbons or pasting ribbon stickers on their cars, perform a similar function. In addition to the classic victim/instigator persona, De Pauw points out that there are three other roles that women are accorded in war narratives: camp followers, virago roles, and the androgynous warrior. Camp followers are, as mentioned earlier, men and women who follow an army and perform services and support functions such as providing food and drink, clothing, and other supplies. They also perform various services from nursing to prostitution. Cynthia Enloe’s (2000) research shows that historically, occupying armies have encouraged and institutionalized prostitution. They do so as a way to prevent soldiers from raping local women, to keep morale high and to check the spread of venereal diseases. For instance, the prostitution industry that served American soldiers in South Korea was monitored and shaped by both the South Korean and American governments (Enloe 2000).

In contrast to the passive victim and camp follower roles, some women have occupied positions of power (virago). De Pauw points to women like Elizabeth I of England and Catherine the Great of Russia, both war leaders who led armies. A recent example would be Margaret Thatcher. Additionally, she points out that women have fought in wars disguised as men, or have been involved in covert operations to gain information. When not disguised as men, women warriors are seen as Amazons, a term used to describe women who fight in segregated units. De Pauw adds that women who serve in integrated armies do so by relinquishing their gender and becoming androgy- nous warriors. They become “honorary men” thereby eschewing “feminine” behavior, not unlike the role played by actress Demi Moore in the Hollywood film GI Jane.

This negation of “femininity” arises from the military’s masculinist self definition. One of the bastions of hypermasculinity in a sexist society, the military constructs male identity as being predicated on violence and combat. This stands in contrast to the notion of women as passive, away from the battlefront. As Cynthia Enloe (1983) explains:

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN 299

Women as women must be denied access to “the front”, to “combat” so that men can

claim a uniqueness and superiority that will justify their dominant position in the social

order. And yet because women are in practice often exposed to frontline combat the

military has to constantly redefine “the front” and “combat” as wherever “women” are

not. Women may serve the military, but they can never be permitted to be the military.

They must remain “camp followers.” (Enloe 1983, p. 15)

Women have always been, and will continue to be, a part of the military but they exist in the margins and only in the roles that a sexist society expects of women. In recent decades, greater numbers of women have been integrated into the military because of a “manpower” shortage. However, the military’s attitude towards these women soldiers has been contradictory. For instance, women in the US army are asked to keep their hair short, but not so short as to be “unfeminine.” Women in the US marines are required to tweeze their eyebrows in the regulation arch (Enloe 1983). Enloe points out that the military’s institutional ambivalence is captured most clearly in a recruitment brochure featuring a picture of an attractive woman in a combat helmet with a caption that reads: “Some of the best soldiers wear lipstick” (Enloe 1983, p. 119).

Several women in the military have attempted to challenge the institution’s sexist view of women. For instance, Colonel Lorry Fenner argues for greater integration of women in the army, including their involvement in combat (Lorry Fenner & Marie DeYoung 2001). Fenner presents empirical evidence to disprove the commonly held view that women are incapable of handling the physical and emotional burdens associated with the military. Feminists like Fenner see their arguments as forwarding women’s aspirations for greater equality and liberation in a sexist society. However, it would be a mistake, I would argue, to view an imperialist and sexist army as the location for women’s liberation, not least because the military has routinely exploited these aspirations. Astute military commanders have, as Enloe reminds us, “tried to camouflage women’s service to the military as women’s liberation” (1983, p. 6). This tendency is especially visible in the Jessica Lynch story. As a female hero/soldier she came to reflect the US’s “civilized” and emancipated culture, in contrast to a carefully constructed image of the Middle East as barbaric.

Prior to her capture, Lynch lived on the margins of the military as a camp follower. She was a member of the 507 Maintenance Company, whose role during the war was to repair and maintain the equipment and vehicles of the 5 Battalion, 52d Air Defense Artillery (Attack on the 507th 2003). She was assigned the job of a supply clerk. On March 23, 2003 Lynch and her company were the last in a convoy of 600 vehicles making their way towards Baghdad. In the course of the journey, they lost their way and found themselves isolated in combat territory in the city of Nasiriya. Not meant explicitly for combat, the members of the maintenance company nevertheless fought to defend themselves against attacks. Many were killed and several taken prisoner. In all, on March 23 American and British ground forces suffered some of worst casualties up until that point. At least 20 American soldiers were assumed to be missing or killed and 50 or more were wounded.

Rather than being the presumed “cakewalk,” the war was posing many challenges to the war makers. Several questions were beginning to be raised, such as why the US “liberators” were being met with guerilla style resistance and why they were not prepared to handle such attacks. Additionally, questions started to surface about the absent

300 DEEPA KUMAR

weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the key rationale for the war. In this context, the “daring” and “dramatic” rescue of Lynch, as the media would describe it, served to deflect attention from the difficulties and to win support for the war effort.

A Lexis-Nexis search for television, newspaper, and magazine coverage of the Lynch story, from the time of her rescue on April 1 to the end of 2003, shows that the bulk of news stories are clustered around three periods—the rescue, Lynch’s return home, and the media events planned around Veterans Day. In this paper, I study how the story evolved over these three stages. The first stage begins on April 2 after Lynch’s rescue the previous night, but media coverage continues for at least two weeks after that. The second stage marks Lynch’s return to her home in Palestine, West Virginia on July 22. The third, which extends from November 5 to November 17, is the period of commercial bonanza involving highly publicized interviews, documentaries, and films. There is a small spike in news reporting in the weeks after the BBC makes public its investigation into the Lynch rescue on May 18, 2003. The BBC documentary titled “War Spin,” accused the Pentagon of stage managing the “rescue” and using the story to further propaganda aims. Yet, the impact of this revelation on US media was relatively minor—both in terms of the number of stories that address this charge and the overall tone in the second and third stages.

Stage One: The Rescue Story

The construction of the rescue in the first few weeks of April, 2003 cast Lynch as both a victim in need of protection, and as a hero. Recreating the classic “damsel in distress” story, Lynch is whisked out of an Iraqi hospital in the dead of night by strong, capable male soldiers, members of the Navy Seals and Army Rangers. Lynch’s victimhood is established through three descriptors: her small physical size and young age, her status as a member of a non-combat unit, and the wounds and injuries she suffered during the ambush. All three served to present her as a woman who was incapable of taking care of herself. Lynch was constantly described by the media as being a “tiny” and “petite” 19-year-old. This was juxtaposed with pictures of Lynch that testified to her small stature. Additionally, it was reported that she had suffered bullet and stab wounds. The image of a young, helpless woman who was shot and stabbed cried out for protection. To add to this sympathetic picture, reports of abuse after her capture only served to further her victimhood. An Iraqi lawyer, identified at this stage only by his first name Mohammed, was quoted extensively by the media as having observed Lynch being beaten by Fedayeen soldiers. In a front page story in USA Today the lawyer is quoted as saying: “I saw them hit the female soldier, and my heart stopped” (David Lynch 2003, p. A1). This would then prompt him to tip off the American forces. The most commonly used language to describe this incident was that Mohammed was “moved to action by the sight of a hulking, black-clad captor slapping her across the face, with his palm and then the back of his hand” (Jerry Adler 2003, p. 46). The story goes on to stress the veracity of this claim by stating that it was confirmed by Marine officers.

If the stab and bullet wounds and the abuse at the hospital helped construct Lynch as a victim, they also helped to cast her as a hero. The following CBS news segment illustrates this process. The footage on screen is of soldiers seen carrying a stretcher and gurney accompanied by the following voiceover:

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN 301

Clayson (reporter): Jessi arrives in Germany for treatment at a military hospital, and the

Lynches learn that Jessi’s arm and both of her legs are broken. She cannot feel her feet,

and it’s still unclear how her legs were broken. Medic Sean Galvin was aboard the flight.

Sean Galvin: I’m not sure I could have gone through that. I’m 6’2”, 200 pounds, and she’s

just a little thing. She must be tough as nails.

Clayson: Tonight Jessi’s family learned just how tough she is, doctors in Germany now

say she was shot twice during her ordeal, in the left leg and the right arm. (Dan Rather

2003)

Reports like this serve to simultaneously establish her heroism and victimhood. While “Jessi” is just a “little thing,” she is also “tough as nails.” The quote from Air Force Captain Galvin would be repeated in several news sources (such as Patrick Rogers, Peter Mikel- bank, Rose Ellen O’Connor, Susan Keating, Jane Sims Podesta & Courtney Rubin 2003). At this stage, the bullet wounds and the abuse (later found to be fabrications) would be powerful elements within the story; her ability to endure the pain inflicted by an enemy turns her into a hero. People magazine’s front page story on Lynch captures this logic in its title: “Saved from Danger: Brave young Jessica Lynch survives captivity—and torture— to become a hero of the Iraqi war” (Rogers et al. 2003, p. 54).

The most clear-cut construction of Lynch’s heroism can be found in the now infamous page-one Washington Post story by Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb. Citing US officials, the report claims that Lynch “fought fiercely and shot several enemy sol- diers … firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition” (Schmidt & Loeb 2003, p. A1). Describing her as a “19-year-old supply clerk,” the article goes on to quote an unnamed official: “She was fighting to the death … [s]he did not want to be taken alive” (Schmidt & Loeb 2003, p. A1). This Rambo-style construction is further reinforced by Senator Pat Roberts who states: “Talk about spunk! She just persevered. It takes that and a tremen- dous faith that your country is going to come and get you” (p. A1). Lynch would later reveal that she did not fight back, that her gun was jammed and that all she did was to duck for cover and pray. But at this stage, Lynch was not able to speak for herself and this allowed various anonymous officials to fill in the gaps and construct a particular hero narrative. This is a gendered hero narrative, filled with the contradictions and ambiva- lences discussed in the previous section. While Lynch is a hero, her heroism is tempered by sexist notions of women’s bravery. Ultimately, despite her courage she is still in need of rescue by her male counterparts, the real heroes.

This ambivalent construction of Lynch as hero and victim is further reinforced by personal narratives. From the very outset of this story, members of Lynch’s family, her friends and several residents of her home town Palestine, West Virginia, were interviewed to help draw up a picture of Lynch. Lynch was described by these various individuals as being both tough and prissy at the same time. While she was the county fair’s “Miss Congeniality,” a title awarded to contestants at beauty pageants, she was also a member of the varsity softball team (Adler 2003, p. 47). While she wore pretty dresses and had “her moments where she liked to look real nice,” according to her sister Brandi Lynch, she also challenged her brother to “push-up contests and other tests of strength” (Rogers et al. 2003, p. 58). She is characterized as “[p]art tomboy, part wannabe beauty queen” (Rogers

302 DEEPA KUMAR

et al. 2003, p. 58), echoing the military theme cited earlier that some of the best soldiers wear lipstick!

The most extensive treatment of the rescue in print can be found in the two front page stories of Jessica Lynch in Newsweek and People. These magazines did more than simply tell the story of “the first U.S. prisoner to be rescued from behind enemy lines” (Adler 2003, p. 44); the articles also contained an entire hero biography with pictures of Lynch, her home town, and her life. Anna Makolkin’s (1992) research reveals that heroic biography is intimately connected with the nation and nationalism. Heroic biography draws on the rhetoric of nationalism; at the same time, it also “actively participates in building the ‘character of the nation’ ” (Makolkin 1992, p. 22). The biography of Jessica Lynch reflects this dual nature—the nation is represented by Lynch, while Lynch the individual highlights all that is “good” about American society. In the first instance, Lynch as hero/victim came to symbolize the plight of the American nation: the victim of an unprovoked attack on 9/11, but also a hero/avenger that is justified in its war efforts. At the same time, Lynch fits into the mold of the “all-American girl.” She is a blond, blue-eyed, pretty, docile yet spunky young woman who hails from humble country origins. Tropes of a small tight-knit community with specific gender roles participate in re-constructing idealized notions of the American nation. This narrative is not unique to Newsweek and People, but rather is reflected in several media outlets. As one CNN reporter put it: “She’s not just the Lynch’s daughter. She’s everyone’s daughter, every- one’s sister” (Patty Davis & Leon Harris 2003).

The construction of the all-American “girl next door” is mediated by a number of discourses, involving particular understandings of beauty, race, and politics. Not everyone can become America’s hero/sweetheart. At the time of the Lynch episode, there were at least two other women who could have been seen as heroes. Yet, while Lynch was elevated to national prominence, these two other women, Rachel Corrie and Shoshana Johnson were passed up. Rachel Corrie, who was killed a week before Lynch was taken prisoner, strongly resembled Lynch. Also blond and petite, Corrie met the beauty standards. However, unlike Lynch she was on the wrong side of US foreign policy. Corrie had gone to Palestine in order to stop the killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. She met her death when an American-made bulldozer, operated by an Israeli soldier, ran over her and crushed her. Corrie’s death was in the news for barely two days, even though eyewitnesses stated that it was not an accident but rather a deliberate act (Naomi Klein 2003). Shoshana Johnson, also a member of the 507th Maintenance Company was captured and held prisoner after the March 23 ambush. We first see Johnson and four of the other POWs when Al-Jazeera, and later Iraqi television, show footage of them on March 24. Twelve days after Lynch’s rescue, Johnson and the other POW’s were also rescued. While the stories are similar, Johnson could not be Lynch. As a black woman with dreadlocks, she simply does not qualify for the status of “girl next door.” While Johnson did receive some mention in the media, she would not be nearly as visible as Lynch.

The deployment of whiteness in the Lynch hero/victim narrative is essential to differentiating “America” and the “West” from “Islam” and the “Middle East.” As Edward Said’s work makes clear, orientalist ways of framing the Middle East rely on caricatures and polarized constructions of culture and politics. While the “West” is presented as the beacon of civilization, Arab society comes to personify the very opposite, mired in barbarism (Edward Said 1981). In the Lynch narrative, the white angelic hero/victim stands in contrast to the dark uncivilized Iraqi villains. There are two villains in this story:

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN 303

the Fedayeen, Saddam Hussien’s special military, and Iraqi people in general. The Fedayeen are the perfect Hollywood villains, they are described in several news accounts as being “mysterious” characters dressed in black. One report quotes a “Capitol Hill source privy to intelligence briefings” who claims that some of Lynch’s wounds were the product of torture. He is quoted as saying: “Those people—the Iraqi captors—were barbaric” (Rogers et al. 2003, p. 56). Furthermore, at this stage of the story’s development, there are almost no redeeming Iraqi characters, with the exception of informants like Mohammed, to whom I will return shortly.

It is interesting to note that even though Lynch was “rescued” from a hospital, it does not occur to the media that there might have been other Iraqis, like the doctors and nurses at the hospital, who helped her to recover. These individuals are virtually absent from the narrative at this stage. When Lynch finally tells her version of the story in November through her book and in an interview on the ABC television network (Diane Sawyer 2003), we learn that she was treated very well by the doctors and nurses without whose assistance she might have died. Yet, this does not stop the producers of the ABC Primetime show from constructing Iraqi people in ways similar to the first stage of the narrative. For instance, there is a segment, clearly shot after the war had ended that tries to recreate the scene of the ambush in Nasiriya. The subjects in the scene are ordinary Iraqi men standing among bombed and ruined buildings. In order to vilify these men, highly stylized cinematograph and editing methods are employed. The picture has a grainy texture and it is presented in a jerky and hazy way. In order for this image to invoke the desired effect, i.e., fear and foreboding, it needs to rely on two interpretive codes: the cinematic code that tells us to be afraid, and the ideological codes of orientalism which clearly demarcates “us” and “them” and presents Arab men as villain- ous, evil, and barbaric. These codes can and do make sense in the way they are intended because they rely on the culture’s shared meanings.

Unfortunately, Lynch corroborates this view. During the interview, the topic of Lynch being raped during her captivity is raised. This is not fully established as fact: Lynch herself has no recollection of sexual assault and Iraqi doctors found no such evidence. It was only much later that American doctors claimed that she had been the victim of anal sexual assault. Given the ambiguities surrounding this event, Diane Sawyer, who inter- viewed Lynch, asks her why she mentioned the rape in her book. Lynch replies as follows: “I have no memory of that … but you know if it did happen, people need to know that that’s what kind of people that they are, that’s how they treat the female soldiers over there,” invoking orientalist fears of the insatiable sexual drives of colonized men of color (Sawyer 2003). Absent from this discussion is the extent to which rape and sexual assault exists within the US military. This absence is not the product of ignorance, I would argue, but one of choice. Apart from the general fact that rape, sexual harassment and assault is prevalent and persistent in the armed forces, that year the US Air Force Academy was involved in a scandal. The Academy had come under public scrutiny after a survey found that 12 percent of the female graduates in 2003 had been raped and 70 percent had been the victims of sexual harassment (Diana Jean Schemo 2003). While Air Force officials initially dismissed the claims as the work of a few “bad apples,” they later acknowledged that the problem was widespread and replaced the academy’s leadership. Even though this story was in the news, and was a reminder of abuse within the military, it did not feature in the Lynch narrative. As a corollary to this point, it should also be noted that while the alleged abuse of Lynch by her Iraqi captors became front page and headline

304 DEEPA KUMAR

news, the daily constant abuse that American women face at the hands of their domestic partners is not deemed newsworthy. For the media, enmeshed in the logic of orientalism, the abuse of white women by brown/black men trumps out that meted out by white men.

However, not all Iraqis were demonized. In contrast to the general picture, Mo- hammed Odeh Al-Rehaief, the informant, was cast as a hero. The role that Al-Rehaief played in this narrative was twofold: first, he was the key eyewitness to Lynch’s abuse at the hands of the Fedayeen, and second, he represented the “good” Iraqis, the ones that the US was “liberating” from their “bad” leaders. For his part in the drama, Al-Rehaief was well rewarded. He and his family were granted political asylum in the US. He was hired by one of Washington’s biggest lobbying firms, the Livingston Group, and acted as a consultant for NBC’s movie on the rescue (Saving Jessica Lynch 2003). Additionally, he signed a lucrative contract with HarperCollins for a book based on his version of the events (Andrew Buncombe 2003). Lauri Fitz-Pegado, a former US official, helped to publicize the book.

Al-Rehaief’s role in this story is questionable for a number of reasons. First, Lynch would later go on record as stating that she had no recollection of him or of Fedayeen soldiers slapping her (Sawyer 2003). Second, his windfall in the US is tied to known propagandists. Fitz-Pegado was previously involved in another high profile PR campaign involving Iraq. She was a senior executive at the Hill and Knowlton public relations firm that spun the story about babies being snatched from incubators by Iraqi soldiers in 1990 (Buncombe 2003). This story, later disproved, was one of rallying cries for the gulf war of 1991.

At this stage in the narrative, the absence of facts that contradicted the rescue story enabled the media to turn a humble camp follower into a national symbol, her story mediated by the discourses of orientalism, the protection scenario, and heroic biography. The resultant narrative served at least two objectives: to demonstrate the “West’s” cultural superiority over a sexist and barbaric Iraq, and to invite American audiences to identify with Lynch and her military objectives. This later goal turned the rescue of a POW into one of the key moments of patriotic hype during the war. If Lynch was “everyone’s sister or daughter,” then her enemies became ours. In the process of identifying with a solider, the public was invited to consent to the US’s goals in the region. In short, the discussion of a controversial war was displaced from a rational critical sphere to an emotional one.

Controversy and Criticism

Shortly after Lynch was “rescued,” the story began to unravel. The London Times published an eye-witness account that stated that the rescue was staged (Robin Anderson 2003). Then on May 15, 2003 reporter John Kampfner published two articles, one on BBC On-line and the other in The Guardian newspaper, that revealed the results of his investigation into the Lynch rescue. These preliminary stories gave an outline of the information in Kampfner’s documentary on BBC titled “War Spin,” which aired on Sunday, May 18. Upon interviewing several witnesses and doctors at the Nasiriya hospital, Kampfner arrived at the conclusion that the Lynch “story [was] one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived” (John Kampfner 2003). His investigation revealed at least five inconsistencies in the Lynch story. First, Lynch did not suffer bullet or stab wound injuries but rather wounds consistent with a traffic accident. Second, she

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN 305

was given the best treatment possible and assigned the only specialist bed in the hospital. Third, the US knew that the Iraqi military had fled the hospital the day before the rescue making the highly armed and “daring” rescue seem unnecessary. The report quotes Dr. Anmar Uday who states: “It was like a Hollywood film. They cried ‘go, go, go’, with guns and blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show of the American attack on the hospital” (Kampfner 2003). Fourth, the report raises questions about why the operation was filmed. Kampfner argues that the reason the “rescue” was filmed by the military, edited, and then shown to embedded journalists was in order to ensure the “right” coverage. This degree of control over the story combined with the influence of Hollywood producers of reality TV and action films such as Jerry Bruckheimer leads Kampfner to conclude that the mission was stage managed. And fifth, the report states that two days before the rescue an Iraqi doctor had tried to return Lynch to the Americans but had to turn around because the troops fired at the ambulance they were in, casting further doubt on the necessity of the elaborate rescue mission.

At the very least, the BBC report raised a number of important questions and threw into doubt the veracity of the military’s claims. However, pending a conclusive investiga- tion, it is hard to say with certainty what really happened during those weeks in Iraq. But it would be inaccurate to conclude from this that the entire story was simply a misunderstanding caused by the “fog of war.” As Robert Ivie, a scholar of war rhetoric notes in relation to the Lynch story, “I recognized the pattern: She was being made into an important symbol … [s]he stood for the narrative that the Bush administration was telling” (Hugh Dellois & E. A. Torriero 2003, p. G6). The first pattern is the spread of misinformation. For instance, the Washington Post Rambo article discussed earlier quotes military officials who claim that Lynch was fighting to her death. Later, when the Post conducted an investigation they were informed by other officials that Lynch’s gun was jammed and that she did not fight back. Additionally, they stated that she had not been stabbed or shot and had actually been in an accident (Dana Priest, William Booth & Susan Schmidt 2003). When military officials provide information to journalists that they later correct, it is not the product of an innocent mistake but rather part of a conscious strategy of misinformation. John McArthur’s (1992) research documents the US military’s long history of employing misinformation strategically. The Iraq war was no exception— my research shows that this strategy was used extensively in that war (Deepa Kumar forthcoming 2006). It is more than likely that the Lynch rescue was spun to suit the aims of propaganda. Furthermore, the construction of Lynch as a hero/victim has all the markings of the military’s long held ambivalent attitude towards women. Even the images used in the stories reflect this view. The picture of Lynch that appeared on the covers of both Newsweek and People, most likely supplied by the military, was of a smiling woman in camouflage uniform and helmet wearing lipstick; not unlike the recruitment posters mentioned earlier. And finally, consistent with the logic of the protection scenario and war rhetoric, the “protected” was rendered voiceless. Right from the outset, military spokespersons took great care to emphasize that Lynch was suffering from amnesia and could not tell her side of the story. In this scenario, if the protected is allowed to speak, she might contradict the official story. Just like the women of Afghanistan during the US war, Jessica Lynch was also rendered voiceless.1 However, this would change once she recovered.

Even though the BBC report raised legitimate questions about the Lynch story, the mainstream media in the US would not be moved. Overall, their response was quite

306 DEEPA KUMAR

underwhelming, especially in comparison to the extent of coverage in Stage One. For instance, a Lexis-Nexis search with the terms “BBC,” “Lynch,” and “rescue” in the full text (not simply headline) for a two month period after the BBC report results in about two dozen news reports in major newspapers. Of these slim pickings, only a few reports are actually critical of the military’s claims, such as a story written by Robert Scheer (2003) which was run by several newspapers. A majority of the stories simply reported the BBC finding and had little or no discussion of the depth of the deception. Several adopted a tone that defended the military establishment, stating that such mistakes were due to the “fog of war.” The broadcast media didn’t do much better. However, some sections did raise questions. CNN interviewed BBC reporter Kampfner who defended his story. Kampfner went on to add that he had asked the Pentagon to release the entire real-time unedited film of the rescue, instead of the slickly edited five minute version that was shown to embedded reporters, so that people could determine for themselves what really happened. The Pentagon refused to do so (Leon Harris 2003). Additionally, a CNN embedded reporter verified Kampfer’s story that Iraqi doctors had tried to return Lynch to the Americans.

In general, media treatment of the BBC report was less than adequate. There were relatively few stories on this controversy, and many media outlets would take weeks before they responded to it. Several journalists have acknowledged this fact. Michael Getler (2003) of the Washington Post wrote that the Lynch story was “the single most memorable story of the war, and it had huge propaganda value. It was false, but it didn’t get knocked down until it didn’t matter quite so much” (Getler 2003, p. B6). There are at least three ways to understand this lackluster treatment. First, as Hanson (2003) points out journalists are hesitant to puncture “feel good” stories, especially when they have played a role in creating the story. Second, there are structural reasons why the media tend to be complicit with war propaganda. The emphasis on profit making, in the era of giant media conglomerates, has meant an even greater dependence on free and “reliable” information from government sources. When this reliance is combined with the develop- ment of more and more sophisticated methods of media control since Vietnam, the result is a media system that is, in some ways, far more integrated into the military industrial complex than during the cold war (Kumar forthcoming 2006). This integration is not coerced but rather is based on mutual benefit. Given that Lynch had become a household name, the production of films, interviews, and docudramas held out the prospect of high ratings and profits for the media. By June, several news media outlets were in competition to sign a contract with Lynch to tell her story. In this context, it made economic sense to merely pay lip service to the BBC report.

Stage Two: The Hero/Princess Returns Home

Jessica Lynch returned home to Palestine, West Virginia on July 22, 2003. Her homecoming was the next stage in the Lynch narrative. A spectacle in its own right, Lynch received a hero’s welcome. She was awarded the Bronze and Purple heart medals, and flown home in a black hawk helicopter. Upon her arrival in neighboring Elizabeth city, crowds of people greeted her as she drove past in a motorcade flanked on both sides by military men, her brother and her boyfriend Sergeant Ruben Concheras. The route was decorated with yellow ribbons as well as posters and placards with messages such as “Thank you God 4 saving Jessica” and “American hero.” She was welcomed back in a

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN 307

formal ceremony by the governor of West Virginia. And she would return to a home that had been rebuilt and remodeled by the community. Conspicuously absent from this tale were the facts that could destabilize the hero narrative. As Mike Blanchfield (2003) of the Montreal newspaper The Gazette observed,

[h]er homecoming was pure stagecraft—a carefully controlled media event that did

little to quell the controversy about what really happened to Lynch in Iraq, and whether

her story was manipulated by the U.S. government in order to create a U.S. hero at a

time when the war was going badly.” (Blanchfield 2003, p. A18)

Discursively, at this stage, heroic biography was brought together with elements of fairytales. Lynch, the damsel in distress had returned home to marry her prince and live happily ever after in fairytale-land. At the homecoming function, the wise patriarch, the governor would thank god for the miracle of her safe return (Brian Williams 2003). Lynch would go on to thank everyone involved in her rescue ending with a special tribute to Concheras: “I want to thank Sergeant Ruben Concheras. Ruben, you never let me give up. When I wanted to quit PC, you-you kept me going. You’re—you’re my inspiration, and I love you” (Williams 2003). Not only would Lynch return to Concheras, but to the wholesome goodness of Palestine, a town of loving and caring people.2 As one reporter put it, “Love is the operative word here, especially among people who knew Jessica best” (Hannah Storm 2003). For the media, this was a picture perfect ending to the Lynch saga.

What makes this narrative a construction, rather than an accurate reflection of reality, is not only the absence of controversy, but the absence of class. Lynch, a young woman from a working class family was morphed into an acceptable state of classless- ness. As a symbol of America, Lynch became a member of the ubiquitous “middle class,” and Palestine became “middle America.” Few, if any, news media reports discussed the high unemployment rates in Palestine or the difficulties that the residents might have encountered in raising the money to rebuild the Lynch home. When these hardships were alluded to, they were framed as a validation of the American dream: that hard work can make dreams come true. Even at this stage, heroism is enmeshed in nationalist discourse, as it takes on elements of fairytales.

Stage Three: Propaganda is Profitable

The period of commercial bonanza spans roughly from November 5 to 17. Lynch’s book, I am a Soldier, too, written by journalist Rick Bragg (2003) was released on November 5 to coincide with the events of that week. Planned around Veterans Day, several media outlets featured stories on Lynch. The television network CBS included one of Lynch’s rescuers on their program 60 Minutes on November 9, 2003. NBC would follow suit on November 10 and broadcast its version of the story in the form of a docudrama titled Saving Jessica Lynch (2003). The next day, ABC aired its exclusive interview with Lynch conducted by Diane Sawyer (2003). That same day, Glamour magazine would honor Lynch and Shoshana Johnson by giving them Glamour’s Women of the Year awards. On November 12, the cable channel A&E aired a documentary (Saving Private Lynch 2003). On November 13, Lynch and her parents were interviewed by anchorperson Katy Couric on NBC (Katy Couric & Matt Lauer 2003), and on November 14, she appeared on the talk show Late Show with David Letterman. Time magazine ran a cover story on Lynch in their November 17 issue titled “The Real Story of Jessica Lynch” (Nancy Gibbs

308 DEEPA KUMAR

2003). Ironically, the controversy surrounding the factual errors, barely addressed by the mainstream media in previous months, now became the basis of competition and commercial opportunity. Media outlets would try to out do each other with claims that each had the “true” Jessica Lynch story.

In reality, there was very little of the truth in these stories and films. Given that they were clustered around Veterans Day, these media artifacts would not seriously challenge the theme of patriotism found in previous stages. While each report and program acknowledged the controversy, the larger part of the narrative was simply a validation of the original story. Told in greater detail at this stage, the Lynch story would reiterate the themes of the previous stages while keeping discussion of the factual errors to the minimum. In the NBC interview (Couric & Lauer 2003), the controversy is mentioned and dismissed in about four sentences. Time magazine’s 19-page cover story devotes barely a few paragraphs to the questionable facts. Even though it asks the question of whether Lynch was a “hero or a pawn” (Gibbs 2003, p. 27), the bulk of article, including the photos, is rooted in heroic biography and patriotism.

This tendency is evident even in the titles of the programs such as ABC’s Primetime show titled “Private Jessica Lynch: An American Story.” Needless to say, the “American story” is not based on fabrication and propaganda. The central building blocks of the story remain the same, as do the discourses that mediate the construction. Interspersed within this broader narrative are statements by Lynch that contradict aspects of the story told during Stage One. Lynch points out that she was used by the military: “They used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff,” she states. She also reveals that she did not fight back during the ambush but rather ducked for cover and prayed for her safety. Additionally, she presents a very humane picture of the Iraqi doctors and nurses acknowledging that without their help she would not have survived. Not only does she mention their kind treatment, she also talks about their attempt to return her. Speaking of one Iraqi nurse who would sing to her, Lynch states, “I loved her, there was something about her that made me feel safe” (Sawyer 2003).

However, as discussed earlier, the construction of Iraqi people in this interview is contradictory. There are several segments that work to undermine their role and de-legit- imize their status as heroes. In one segment, an Iraqi doctor states that he had assured Lynch that she would not be hurt. Sawyer then asks Lynch if she believed him. Lynch replies, “No, I mean who would though. If you were surrounded by a hospital of Iraqis, would you believe them?” The shared understanding is that Iraqi civilians, including doctors, cannot be trusted. When combined with Lynch’s unwillingness to eat the food provided to her because she suspected that it was poisoned, the racist construction of the ambush discussed earlier, and Lynch’s denunciation of the “kind of people” they are, this construction leads straightforwardly to the idea that the only real heroes are the Americans. Ultimately, it is an “American story” replete with images of flags and messages of patriotism.

This theme is also reflected in the A&E documentary titled Saving Private Lynch (2003). In one segment, an army spokesperson refers to Lynch as an “all American girl” based on the food she had requested after she was rescued—turkey, apple sauce and carrots. Thematically, what differentiates this documentary from the others is that it included the two other women involved in the ambush—Shoshana Johnson and Lori Piestawa. Yet, it too was deficient on the facts. The documentary presents Mohammed Al-Rehaief’s story as true, including his allegation that Lynch was slapped by the

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN 309

Fedayeen (Saving Private Lynch 2003). But the narrative that presents Al-Rehaief as an unqualified hero is NBC’s film Saving Jessica Lynch (2003). Cast as the protagonist, Al-Rehaief’s involvement in the rescue frames the story.

This film has a nuanced construction of Iraqis. In addition to Al-Rehaief, there are several other sympathetic Iraqis such as a nurse that looks after Lynch, Al-Rehaief’s wife and daughter, and an older Iraqi man who saves Al-Rehaief’s family from the Fedayeen. In contrast to these characters, the Fedayeen are portrayed as evil and vicious. They are shown beating Lynch, harassing and even ruthlessly murdering Iraqi civilians. By differen- tiating between “good” and “bad” Iraqis, the film justifies the US’s stated goal of “liberating” Iraq. Furthermore, the real heroes are the “good” one-dimensional American characters. While Al-Rehaief plays an important part in the mission, it is up to the soldiers to rescue Lynch, and ultimately Al-Rehaief and his family as well by taking them to safety in America. One of the sources of conflict in the film is the tension between Al-Rehaief and his wife over whether the Americans could be trusted. Throughout the film, Al-Rehaief’s wife, allegedly a nurse at the hospital where Lynch was being treated, expresses skepticism about the US’s motives. A strong female character, she challenges her husband’s faith in the Americans and even confronts him about which side he is on in the war. Ultimately, however, the film proves her wrong. Not only do they rescue Lynch, the American forces whisk her and her family to safety and a better life thus underscoring the benevolence and generosity of Uncle Sam. In short, even in a film with an Iraqi protagonist the real heroes are the Americans (Saving Jessica Lynch 2003).

While each of the above mentioned accounts of the Lynch story differed in certain ways, they were similar in their superficial treatment of the controversial aspects of the narrative. Because of this, the Lynch narrative, even in this stage of its construction, could continue to function as a ringing endorsement of the war and patriotism. Designed consciously to coincide with Veterans Day, the commercial bonanza would not only send a pro-war message but would also net considerable profits for various media organiza- tions. More than 15 million watched NBC’s docudrama. The Sawyer interview on ABC drew 16 million people. This is an impressive number given that Sawyer’s interview with pop star Britney Spears only drew 11.4 million (Leon Howell 2003). If nothing else, Stage Three of the saga attests to the profitability of war propaganda.

Conclusion

Some feminists have argued that women’s integration into the military marks a step forward in the struggle for women’s liberation. After the Gulf War of 1991, feminist Naomi Wolf (1993, p. 51) argued that the images of “women wielding real fire power shook loose the blinders that keep women from imagining themselves as beings who can elicit not just love and desire, but respect and even fear”. This is a dangerous position. The image of a woman with a gun and of a female US soldier in particular, can be liberating only if we ignore who is forced to fear and respect her. It is not her male counterparts or even American citizens, but in the case of the gulf war, the people of Iraq. Over 200,000 Iraqis, many of them civilian women and children, were killed by the US in that war. American women cannot achieve their liberation on the backs of the victims of US imperialism.3

Similarly, the image of Jessica Lynch cannot be viewed as a symbol of female power. In addition to the problems of the hero/victim persona, which far from being liberating conforms quite well to patriarchal notions of femininity, Lynch’s own actions

310 DEEPA KUMAR

and her subjectivity were marginal to the narrative. The military strategically constructed a particular narrative in which Lynch was an object about which stories were told. There is nothing empowering about this construction. Instead, it served war objectives in two ways. First, it became the basis for an emotional/non-rational pro-war argument. Second, the selection of a female hero served to demonstrate the superiority of the “West,” justifying the argument that the US was in Iraq to “liberate” its people and promote modernity.

For over two centuries, colonial and imperialist nations have justified brutal wars through the logic of “liberation,” “protection,” or “humanitarianism.” Yet in 2001, organi- zations like the Feminist Majority supported the US-led war on Afghanistan, accepting the Bush administration’s claims that it would liberate the women of Afghanistan. Today, Afghan women are far from liberated and, in some ways, have to suffer conditions worse than those before the war (Stabile & Kumar forthcoming 2006). Each of these cases—the Gulf War of 1991, the war on Afghanistan, and the recent war on Iraq—reminds us of the importance of grounding our understanding of women’s oppression within an analysis of the larger political and economic context. The US military can be viewed as empowering women only if it is stripped from its institutional role as the instrument of empire.4

Perhaps the most graphic reminder of what US imperialism is about can be found in the image of Lynndie England, one of the three female soldiers seen in the graphic Abu Ghraib prison torture photographs. These images have challenged the liberal feminist argument that if women are placed in positions of power (the prison was also headed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski), the world would be transformed into a kinder and gentler place. Barbara Ehrenreich (2004), commenting on how the Abu Ghraib incident has been a learning experience, states that a “certain kind of feminism, or perhaps I should say a certain kind of feminist naı̈veté, died in Abu Ghraib.” While some have been jolted from their positive associations between female soldiers and women’s power, others have characterized England as the polar opposite of Lynch. Yet, this is a false dichotomy. Both women have much in common: they are both from rural working class families and joined the military for economic opportunities. They were both placed in situations where their actions served the aims of conquest, although England’s actions were far more con- sciously ghoulish and racist. Perhaps the key difference is that one’s image was constructed for public consumption, while the other’s was not. Ultimately, when we wipe away the lipstick, the horrors of US imperialism become plain to see.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was presented at the International Communication Association conference held in New Orleans in May 2004. I wish to thank the organizers of the panel, the Feminist Scholarship Division, and all those who attended the presentation. Addition- ally, special thanks go to Lisa McLaughlin, Cynthia Carter, Danielle Fisher and Nagesh Rao, for their helpful comments and suggestions.

NOTES 1. When Lynch’s parents meet with their daughter, they told reporters that she did not

have amnesia. However, they too were silenced. When asked to respond to the

allegations made by the BBC, Lynch’s father replied: “Right now, we’re really not

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN 311

supposed to talk about that subject” (Derek Rose & Thomas M. DeFrank 2003, p. 10).

When pressed if his family was asked not to speak with reporters, Lynch said no.

2. Ironically, despite all the rhetorical embellishments the name of the town, Palestine, continues to remind us of the reality that is being glossed over.

3. Furthermore, the idea that the military can be empowering to women is flawed. As an institution, the military requires absolute subservience. Ironically, this hypermasculine

institution is actually based on servility.

4. This is not to suggest, however, that women shouldn’t join the military or once there shouldn’t fight for greater equality. In the US, the military presents working class women

and men with economic opportunities they are otherwise denied. Furthermore, even

within an imperialist military it is important, I would argue, to support women’s

struggles against sexual harassment and for better treatment, just as it is important to

support the struggle against homophobia and racism. However, taking a position

against discrimination within the military is not the same as seeing it as a site of

liberation.

REFERENCES ADLER, JERRY (2003) ‘Jessica’s liberation’, Newsweek, 14 April, pp. 42–47.

ANDERSON, ROBIN (2003) ‘That’s militainment: the Pentagon’s media-friendly reality war’, Extra!,

May/June, [Online] Available at: http://www.fair.org/extra/0305/militainment.html (June

2004).

ATTACK ON THE 507TH (2003). US Military, [Online] Available at: http://216.239.39.104/search?

q � cache:6sznckCeAJIJ:www.army.mil/features/507thMaintcmpy/AttackOnThe507Maint

Cmpy.pdf � 507 � Maintenance � company&hl � en (June 2004).

BLANCHFIELD, MIKE (2003). ‘Myth and mystery’, The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), 23 July, p. A18.

Available at: Lexis Nexis Academic.

BRAGG, RICK & LYNCH, JESSICA (2003). I am a Soldier, Too, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.

BUNCOMBE, ANDREW (2003) ‘Gulf war disinformation pr promotes Private Jessica memoir’, Indepen-

dent (London), 19 October, p. 18.

COURIC, KATY & LAUER, MATT (ANCHORS) (2003) ‘Jessica Lynch and her parents Greg and Dee discuss

their experiences while Jessica was a POW’, Today Show, 13 November. Available at:

Lexis-Nexis.

DAVIS, PATTY & HARRIS, LEON (2003) ‘Family of Jessica Lynch celebrating her rescue’, CNN Live Today

10:00, 2 April. Available at: Lexis-Nexis.

DE PAUW, LINDA GRANT (1998) Battle Cries and Lullabies: Women in War from Prehistory to the

Present, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

DELLOIS, HUGH & TORRIERO, E. A. (2003) ‘How the Jessica Lynch story turned into a fable’, San Diego

Union-Tribune, 1 June, p. G6.

EHRENREICH, BARBARA (2004) ‘Prison abuse: feminism’s assumptions upended’, Los Angeles Times

On-line, [Online] Available at: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/

commentary/la-op-ehrenreich16may16,1,2584958.story (May 2004).

ENLOE, CYNTHIA (1983) Does Khaki Become You: The Militarization of Women’s Lives, South End

Press, Boston, MA.

ENLOE, CYNTHIA (2000) Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives, Univer-

sity of California Press, Berkeley, California.

FENNER, LORRIE M. & DEYOUNG, MARRIE E. (2001). Women in Combat: Civic Duty or Military Liability?,

Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.

312 DEEPA KUMAR

GETLER, MICHAEL (2003) ‘A long and incomplete correction’, Washington Post, 20 June, p. 86.

GIBBS, NANCY (2003) ‘The private Jessica Lynch’, Time, 17 November, pp. 24–46.

HANSON, CHRISTOPHER (2003) ‘American idol: the press find the war’s true meaning’, Columbia

Journalism Review, July/August, [Online] Available: Lexis-Nexis (May 2004).

HARRIS, LEON (2003) ‘Saving Private Lynch’, CNN Live Today, 19 May. Available at: Lexis-Nexis.

HOWELL, LEON (2003) ‘Using Private Lynch’, The Christian Century, vol. 120, no. 25, p. 9.

JEFFORDS, SUSAN (1991) ‘Rape and the new world order’, Cultural Critique, vol. 19, Fall, pp. 203–

217.

KAMPFNER, JOHN (2003) ‘Saving private Lynch story “flawed” ’, BBC On-line, 15 May, [Online]

Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm (April

2004).

KLEIN, NAOMI (2003) ‘On rescuing Private Lynch and forgetting Rachel Corrie’, The Washington

Report on Middle East Affairs, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 27.

KUMAR, DEEPA (2006, forthcoming). ‘Media, war, and democracy: strategies of information

management during the 2003 Iraq war’, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,

forthcoming.

LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN (2003) CBS, 14 November.

LYNCH, DAVID (2003) ‘Iraqi lawyer’s tip led to rescue of POW’, USA Today, 4 April, p. A1.

MAKOLKIN, ANNA (1992) Name, Hero, Icon: Semiotics of Nationalism Through Heroic Biography,

Mouton de Gruyter, New York.

MCARTHUR, JOHN (1992) Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, Hill and Wang,

New York.

PRIEST, DANA, BOOTH, WILLIAM & SCHMIDT, SUSAN (2003) ‘A broken body, a broken story, pieced

together’, The Washington Post, 17 June, p. A1.

RATHER, DAN (ANCHOR) (2003) ‘Mission at midnight; rescue of Private Jessica Lynch from Iraqi

captivity’, 48 Hours, 4 April. Available at: Lexis Nexis Academic.

ROGERS, PATRICK, MIKELBANK, PETER, O’CONNOR, ROSE ELLEN, KEATING, SUSAN, PODESTA, JANE SIMS & RUBIN,

COURTNEY (2003) ‘Saved from danger’, People, 21 April, pp. 54–59.

ROSE, DEREK & DEFRANK, THOMAS M. (2003) ‘Jessica’s family mum on rescue’, New York Daily News,

30 May, p. 10.

SAID, EDWARD (1981) Covering Islam: How the Media and Experts Determine How We See the Rest

of the World, Pantheon Books, New York.

SAVING JESSICA LYNCH (docudrama) (2003) NBC, 10 November.

SAVING PRIVATE LYNCH (documentary) (2003) A&E, 12 November.

SAWYER, DIANE (2003) ‘Private Jessica Lynch: an American story’, Primetime. Available at: Lexis-

Nexis.

SCHEER, ROBERT (2003) ‘Saving Pvt Lynch; Saving Pvt Lynch, Take 2’, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

(Wisconsin), 22 May, p. 29A.

SCHEMO, DIANA JEAN (2003) ‘Rate of rape at academy is put at 12% in survey’, New York Times, 29

August, p. A12.

SCHMIDT, SUSAN & LOEB, VERNON (2003). ‘She was fighting to the death’, Washington Post, 3 April,

p. A1.

SLOTKIN, RICHARD (1973) Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier,

1600–1860, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Connecticut.

STABILE, CAROL & KUMAR, DEEPA (2005, forthcoming) ‘Unveiling imperialism: media, gender, and the

war on Afghanistan’, Media, Culture and Society, forthcoming.

WAR PROPAGANDA AND THE (AB)USES OF WOMEN 313

STIEHM, JUDITH HICK (1982) ‘The protected, the protector, the defender’, Women’s Studies Inter-

national Forum, vol. 5, no. 3/4, pp. 367–377.

STORM, HANNAH (ANCHOR) (2003) ‘Former American POW Jessica Lynch now readjusting to life back

in her hometown of Palestine, West Virginia’, CBS: The Early Show, 23 July. Available at:

Lexis-Nexis.

WALLACE, MIKE, SAFER, MORLEY, BRADLEY, ED, KROFT, STEVE & STAHL, LESLIE (2003) 60 Minutes, CBS, 9

November.

WILLIAMS, BRIAN (ANCHOR) (2003) ‘Jessica Lynch homecoming’, NBC News, 22 July. Available at:

Lexis-Nexis.

WOLF, NAOMI (1993) Fire with Fire: The New Female Power and How It will Change the 21st Century,

Chatto and Windus, London.

Deepa Kumar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Journalism and Media

Studies at Rutgers University. Her work appears in several scholarly journals,

including Critical Studies in Media Communication and Television and New Media.

Her forthcoming book on media and social class in the US is titled Challenging

the Corporate Media: Globalization, Democracy and the UPS Strike (University of

Illinois Press). E-mail: [email protected]