A comment on Media
I would like to talk about media, but more precisely about the influence of media on people. More specifically, I will take the example of the Iraq war because of the documentary we watched last time. Therefore, I will focus on the impact and drawbacks of TV.
At first, I was deeply against the war. I also demonstrated in Paris, such as millions of people throughout the world, just before the war finally started (against the UN agreement).
After that, we can simply watch at the news to know what is going on in Iraq. That is where we have to trust media…
I mean by media, any kind of source of information available: TV, radio, newspapers, internet...
To be honest, I first realized the real power of media during that war, and more precisely the power and huge influence of TV. Why TV? Because everybody watches TV, let alone 99% of people.
In my opinion, you have to compare lots of sources of information to be able to say, “Now, I am informed”. Unfortunately, nobody really has the time to do so. That is why TV is the main source of information because it is the easiest way to get the information. It is maybe the easiest, but certainly not the more accurate way to get it.
During that war, and even nowadays in 2006, I am still amazed to see so many differences and so many points of view, so much ignorance about that war. The reason is TV channel did not give the same and not always the good information.
Because I was very concerned about that war, I watched the news, of course on French TV, but I was also following the US news on FOX, CNN and on others public channels. I wanted to have a wide panel of channels to be able to compare the information efficiently.
My point of view is that the information has to be given in a very neutral way, without any change from the original version or without any personal point of view (of the channel). I was very disappointed to observe that information on TV quickly became misinformation, and even manipulation. I really think of FOX while I am making that point. That is not the only example, but to me, it represents the most obvious. Moreover, I really think it helped, and continues helping the government to hold on during that war because they were using the information at their advantage. I especially think of the randomly shootout in Iraqi villages (to help liberalizing the Iraqi people?), the “effort” made to hide the daily act of torture toward Iraqi prisoners or also minimizing American human losses. I was really choked to see so much misinformation. As I said just above, this is manipulation.
So how can we trust those kinds of TV channels? Personally, I simply decided to stop watching at FOX for instance (which is not the only one). I really think it is disgusting to manipulate million of people at will, just to be credible and not to lose the following election…
[I repeat myself: "If you want to discuss issues about America with Americans, at least get your facts straight before telling us how everything we do is wrong. Making statements that are blatantly false is just embarrassing; if you just make stuff up because it “feels” right, then the person on the other side of the discussion will discount your opinions and quickly lose interest." At least provide the source for your information particularly when making a statement of fact. By the way, this is torture (en français). The people who did the panties on the head thing at Abu Grahib are in jail where they belong. That is the difference - if an American does it, he/she is punished. If a terrorist does it, he's rewarded. Every major newspaper and television news source headlined the Abu Grahib story and pictures for no less than three months. How is this hiding anything? They don't hide it, they dwell on it and intensify it! (If you want a good example of suppressed news, see this story. I'm pretty sure it happened because hundreds of people have written about it online, but it has not been reported by any major news sourse.) "Daily torture" as you say is what "al Qaeda in Iraq" does, not to mention decapitation, driving car-bombs into crowds of childred, booby-trapping toys, booby-trapping bodies, etc, etc. Also, I am wondering... can you even watch FoxNews in France? On what specifically are you basing your opinion? -Wagner]
posted by Florian DENEAU @ 1:38 PM
3 Comments:
I would like to respond to your comment.
I made a mistake using the word "hide" concerning torture, or acts of violence and humiliation in prison, for instance. But my opinion is still the same about that sensitive topic. I am just asking the following question: how long it took before those acts became public? I agree that the governement has made a lot and is currently making a lot to condemn those acts and the people who did it, but how long did we have to wait for that? But to me, the time they waited to announce publically what was done in prisons in Iraq is close to the concept of hidding something...
Moreover, you don t make any comment on my second example concerning the fact of minimizing american losses... And I insist to say it is very dangerous and very serious to act that way.
What are my sources?
As I mentionned, I quoted Fox.
It was very easy to watch Fox during that war because every day, we had the american news during the french news. And mostly from Fox...Moreover, I was in this US last year so I was able to watch FOX for real. In addition, you can go to their website. And I watched lots of documentary, which were using a lot from Fox. So maybe, I don t know 100% of what was broadcasted on Fox, but I was able to have and build my own opinion. That is only what I am trying to do in this blog, giving my opinion on that topic.
To sum it up, my sources were french (all of them) and american channel (mainly CNN, FOX..)in general.
And to conclude, I would like to say that I don t want to tell american what they are doing wrong or good, simply because I have american friends (deeply republican and democrats) that I respect. I had the opportunity to talk about the war last year with both "sides", listening to their opinions and arguments (without judging). A lot of those people were pro republicans, so I had the opportunity to understand why they supported that war. I was sometimes really amazed, listening to their comments and ideas. And those people were watching Fox with me during each and every lunch break... I really know that talking in the US about the war is a sensitive topic (especially to your Dr Wagner, because you think the opposite way that I think on this topic), but I think this blog is meant to give our opinions, even on " don t talk about the War in Iraq in the US"' subjects. That is what I do here.
"Minimizing American losses?" I thought I had misunderstood you. We get nothing but a tally of American losses every single day. Everytime someone dies in Iraq, we hear about it. Go to a local grocery store, like Raley's, and there are pictures of our dead on a big bulletin board at the front of the store - you can't miss it as you exit the cash register area. But the American dead are nothing compared to Iraqi dead - killed by insurgents/terrorists. If the U.S. pulled out, do you really think the killing would stop?
The numbers are numbing, but they are never compared with the (higher) murder rates in other places like Washington DC (the Revolutionary war is a quagmire!), or the country of Brazil. The death toll in Iraq is the lead item in the Wall Street Journal every single day, and has been for years now.
About your other issue (torture?): Details of the Abu Graib investigation were public information for months before it broke on the front page of the times; there was a press release from the military (can't find the link right now), but it was the pictures discovered as the formal investigation was beginning that put Abu Graib on the front page of the NY Times for 40 days straight. You would think the military would try to cover something like that up, but they just didn't; the court martials are over now but were widely reported on. I don't see the logic in saying that there was a cover up in that case. Nor do I see how anyone can think that making naked-human pyramids is standard military proceedure. The free press had a field day - the media hyped that story all they could, particularly the American media. Why is there little or no coverage of the insurgents' attrocities I wonder? (As if they are comparable.) It seems to me that it is only newsworthy if an American is doing something wrong. If Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera would display the same indignation over mass murder that they did over the accounts of humiliation of detained insurgents at Abu Ghraib, the violence in the Middle East would decrease drastically. The media that allege war crimes are the same state-controlled and censored media that enthusiastically print accounts of death and desecration of Westerners and broadcast an institutionalized anti-semitism reminiscent of the Nazis.
I'm sorry if I seemed harsh - yes I am sensitive to Iraq because I have relatives over there. It is torture and death that they are trying to fight against, so yes, it bothers me when someone says they randomly shoot people and torture for fun. When you say things like that it makes me want to quit my job and join the Army. Seriously. After the initial invation and overthrow of Saddam's government, all they have been doing is trying to bring hope to a place that had none.
It wasn't just your post though. In general there needs to be more citing of sources, evidence, etc. Feel free to express your opinion, but please be specific. You say you quoted Fox, but you did not actually quote Fox. Don't get me wrong, I think they are biased, too, just like CNN and ABC and NBC and CBS and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press and Reuters and AFP and every other major news outlet, and in each case I can think of specific examples of bias, sloppy reporting, or pure fabrication of news. This is a post on media bias, right? Can we just try to be specific? Was there a fake story, a doctored photo or forged document? Are they saying, "Americans think ________," without providing any proof that that is actually what people think (or maybe they just found two Americans who thought that)? Are they telling only one side of the story? What story, specifically? Are they only telling certain kinds of stories and ignoring others? If you just say that Fox is biased and I say CNN is more biased, have either of us actually said anything useful? What are we using as a basis for comparison? Why would they be biased or dishonest? What is the motivation?
Here's a modest theory on why the media may appear biased on the issue of acts of torture.
The attention is probably out of porportion when such acts are committed by American soldiers as opposed to when they are committed by terrorists. One reason for this is that Western democracies (The US and France in particular) have historically been at the forefront of furthering human rights.
This history is a significant part of the legitimacy that they enjoy when they act on the world stage. As a result, they are held to a far higher standard regarding acceptable uses of force or torture.
Perhaps the Western media focuses on such acts because citizens of the Western democracies are expected to comport themselves in a manner that accords with such histories.
In closing, here is a decent read that foreshadows what happens when a Western democracy loses its legitimacy due to acts of torture:
"Torture Didn't Work for the French in Algeria Either"
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home