ideological movements behind them increased the discussion of “anti-Americanism” in regard to national security concerns (Friedman 2012 & Rubin 2002). McCarthy and his oppression of “un-American” activities exemplify the height of this fear mongering (Friedman 2012). After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade center, use of “anti-Americanism” as a buzzword continued to increase in American politics (Friedman 2012). Many pundits and politicians used “anti-Americanism” with such fervor that any questions about the oversimplification of the concept were likely drowned out (Friedman 2012). In its first chapter, the 9/11 Commission Report declared “anti-Americanism” as a primary reason for the September 11 attacks and reaffirmed the need to defend all that was “American” and defeat anyone who was “against” it (The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004). America saw the reemergence of an “us v. them” ideology, this time in reference to “terrorism” and our ideological war to end it. Currently, “anti-Americanism” is defined very broadly and often includes any type of action, speech, or opinion that is negative or hostile toward the United States. This could be detrimental to the public’s understanding of anti-Americanism if most available sources rely on this definition. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedic source available on the Internet, uses the broadest definition of anti-Americanism possible, with no references to the very comprehensive nature of research (“Anti-Americanism”, 2014). News sources, which many Americans rely on for factual political information (Zaller 1992), also tend to use the broad definition. Some political scientists have highlighted the problems resulting from the sensationalization of anti-Americanism in the media, and they believe this may be a reason for the rise in fear and isolationism within the U.S. population (Friedman 2012 & Rugh 2006). Research, however, has benefitted from the fear associated with anti-American
ideological movements behind them increased the discussion of “anti-Americanism” in regard to national security concerns (Friedman 2012 & Rubin 2002). McCarthy and his oppression of “un-American” activities exemplify the height of this fear mongering (Friedman 2012). After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade center, use of “anti-Americanism” as a buzzword continued to increase in American politics (Friedman 2012). Many pundits and politicians used “anti-Americanism” with such fervor that any questions about the oversimplification of the concept were likely drowned out (Friedman 2012). In its first chapter, the 9/11 Commission Report declared “anti-Americanism” as a primary reason for the September 11 attacks and reaffirmed the need to defend all that was “American” and defeat anyone who was “against” it (The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004). America saw the reemergence of an “us v. them” ideology, this time in reference to “terrorism” and our ideological war to end it. Currently, “anti-Americanism” is defined very broadly and often includes any type of action, speech, or opinion that is negative or hostile toward the United States. This could be detrimental to the public’s understanding of anti-Americanism if most available sources rely on this definition. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedic source available on the Internet, uses the broadest definition of anti-Americanism possible, with no references to the very comprehensive nature of research (“Anti-Americanism”, 2014). News sources, which many Americans rely on for factual political information (Zaller 1992), also tend to use the broad definition. Some political scientists have highlighted the problems resulting from the sensationalization of anti-Americanism in the media, and they believe this may be a reason for the rise in fear and isolationism within the U.S. population (Friedman 2012 & Rugh 2006). Research, however, has benefitted from the fear associated with anti-American