Lion For Lambs Analysis

The seemingly unending wars in the Middle East have sparked much controversy. When Bush announced the War on Iraq (which is often confused with the War on Terror); a quarter of a million people protested by marching in Washington. However, most, were intoxicated by the political propoganda, believing that the protestors were in fact supporting terrorism. Contrary to the majority opinion, Lion for Lambs is composed of three individual storylines, hoping to expose the truth of America’s current political stance but just fallin short to allow space for the liberal judgement of the audience .

American politicians’ penchant to control mass media is not a shocking revelation. Jasper Irving, a Senator in Lions for Lambs is no exception. When “the future of the Republican Party” calls on TV journalist Janine to discuss a timeline for the War on Terror, it is merely a pretext for selling his “real story” (his new military strategy in Afghanistan) to Janine (the TV network). Although the interview was originally requested for the Senator’s own purposes, the conversation eventually progresses into an entertaining ping pong match between
Janine Roth and her network are model representations for the numerous privatised media networks in America, questioning the operations and values of these networks; Is the media more interested in reporting sex scandals of celebrities as opposed to new political policies? Although thousands may be dieing all over the world, isn’t the new mobile more worthy to be reported? Irving is right in saying, “Janine, we both put our fighting men at risk.” It is not only safe but more accurate to say that politicians are not the only ones that have allowed America to invade the Middle East and caused America an economical loss of billiions of dollars (although their position as forerunner in this movement is