Rupert Cornwell: Don't believe all the patriotic fire on American TV

Contrary to the impression put about by foreigners, the American public can think for themselves

There have been times, living in America of late, when it seemed I was back in the Communist Moscow I left a dozen years ago. Turn on the local all-news radio station, and between the war bulletins, there's Lockheed Martin running spots extolling its commitment to national security and American greatness.

Switch to cable TV and reporters breathlessly relay the latest wisdom from the usual un-named "senior administration officials", keeping us on the straight and narrow.

Everyone, it seems, is on-side and on-message. Just like it used to be when the hammer and sickle flew over the Kremlin. Those vanished Central Committee propaganda bosses would have been proud of how the Bush crowd, who operate with a similar hermetic secrecy, are running things. Then it was called democratic centralism. Here they call it the "Fox Effect". The Fox in question is the Fox News cable channel, owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose super-patriotic coverage has been a ratings winner. Fox has taken its cue from George Bush's view of the universe post-11 September – either you're with us or against us. Fox, most emphatically, is with him, and it's paid off at the box office.

Not for Fox to dwell on uncomfortable realities like collateral damage, Iraqi casualties, or the failure of the US troops to protect libraries and museums. Islamic manuscripts, ancient vases and Sumerian inscriptions? Leave them to pointy-heads and lefties. Such coverage as there was showed mobs running amok, with references to participants as "Ali Babas" (Forty Thieves, get it?).

But it works. One reason is the erroneous but insidious belief, cleverly fostered by Mr Murdoch, that liberals control the US media, and that "fair and balanced" Fox is a necessary and healthy antidote. Second, for all the lofty talk about truth and trust, cable TV news is showbiz. Like it or not right-wing views, not burdened by self doubt or political correctness, tend to be more entertaining than well meaning opining from the left.

Most important though, Fox has grasped one simple truth. People who watch 24-hour cable coverage of the war do so because they support the war. The last thing they want is wall-to-wall coverage of anti-war demonstrators (the "great unwashed" according to one Fox anchor) and of anti-US protest on the streets of foreign cities.

Not surprisingly, most war coverage has resembled an Olympic sports event which Americans win – where tanks race across open desert, and where reporters embedded in the field and retired generals embedded in the TV studios peddled that dehumanised but exotic military lingo, allowing the viewer to experience the vicarious thrill of a bit of "incoming" (preferably accompanied by a lot of "outgoing"). Where Fox led, others have followed. MSNBC, long the also-ran in the cable news race, suddenly hired a clutch of right-wing commentators and launched a feature "America's Bravest Wall", where female presenters attach photos and mementoes of ordinary soldiers, a hall of fame for GI Joe. And what goes for TV is doubly true of talk radio, and its predominantly male and conservative audiences and testosterone-fuelled hosts.

In fact, none of this is especially new. As the New York Times acknowledged, in the Second World War (when newspapers were what TV is now) it ran headlines in 1944 such as "Our Boys Strike at Japs". But by then nobody doubted the absolute necessity of defeating the Japanese and Germans. This time, you can't help feeling the flag-waving has a touch of desperation about it, to justify a war that need never have been fought.

America's attitude to this war is more complex than the polls suggest. Though TV may cheerlead, the news agenda is set not by Fox or CNN (who have far fewer viewers than the major networks) but by a handful of leading newspapers. The Washington Post (to the surprise of many) and the Wall Street Journal have strongly backed the use of force to topple Saddam. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have been lukewarm at best, as have several smaller, but influential, regional papers.

As always, backing for the war went up as soon as the troops went into action. But the support, I suspect, is broad but not deep. Americans are proud of the performance of their soldiers, relieved that the war has been so short but anxious to move on. Bush and his policies are popular right now. But that could change quite quickly if Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (in whose name the war was fought) fail to materialise, Iraq becomes a political mess, and America the liberator turns into America the occupier.

Lastly, contrary to the impression put about by foreigners who consider themselves far more intelligent, the American public can think for itself. It didn't buy the overblown euphoria at the start of the war. Nor did it buy the equally silly media pessimism when Iraqi resistance for a few days proved greater than expected.

So there's no reason to imagine the cheerleaders at Fox and elsewhere will have it all their own way for ever, still less that Americans will somehow connive at a Kremlinesque suppression of dissent. Yes, it may have seemed like it every now and then, but America – even the America of George Bush – isn't the Soviet Union.