The Mass Media In The Age Of Terrorization
Introduction
In this paper, I will discuss the usage of language and the words and how they relate with power in reporting the news and events regarding the Middle East region in America and other Western countries. In this discussion I will provide some examples of that power. I will link Hollywood with the notion of terror. I will also link the political and the economical power with the mass media, especially the non-mainstream one. Due to the natural of my paper, written and visual media will be discussed with the way each one operates in terms of its wide influence on the public (particularly the Western public). Furthermore, I will try to illustrate how the powerful parties can affect other less powerful parties’ existence, culturally, economically, and politically.
The important powerful role played by the press in the political is issues very obvious. Clerk et al (1997) argue that the press operates through the written language, and anyone writing anything will have a wide range of meaning beyond that writing. The press is related to the Civil Society that is often in contrast with the Political Society which is represented by the government. There is always a struggle for dominance between the dominant political society and the civil one although they are not separate from each other, but the government tries to exert influence over the society in order to keep its dominance. Here the press plays the vital role in that struggle between the two societies. First, the mainstream press plays a crucial role in maintaining or constructing consent around the interest of the dominant class since it covers the real events without any influence from the government. In the non-mainstream Press, the government can exercise some influence over the representation of the news by circulating alternative news that will not be heard for a long time.
But some sections of the press can be in conflict with the government when the press circulates information that could be harmful, such as the information about the date of the missiles arrival in Britain during the Falklands war. Here the government does not intervene with the civil society or the press unless it is challenged. Power is related with money, and money is related with media. While the war on Iraq started, a different type of war started as well between media and how different channels and newspapers cover it, especially Arabic and U.S. coverage of the Iraq War. Lehrer (2003) pointed out that on the first day of war, U.S. newspaper printed headlines like: “bush Orders Starts of War on Iraq; Missiles Apparently Miss Hussein” (The New York Times); “U.S. Opens War with Strikes on Baghdad; Aimed at Hussein” (The Washington Post). On the other hand, Arabic newspapers were vastly different, with headlines like “Baghdad set Ablaze” (Arab News) and “U.S. Unleashes Massive Air War on Iraq” (Gulf Times). An interesting article at The Guardian by Tryhorn (2004) reported that senior editor at Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Jazzera have acted after the huge pressure by the U.S. to prevent staff at its English-language website describing “the continuing American-led military involvement in Iraq as an ‘occupation’” (paragraph. 1), which is not true according to Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush’s administration. However, many journalists at the channel’s Qatar headquarters were unsatisfied with this and believed it glossed over the reality of what was happening in Iraq. Therefore, according to Tryhorn, Ballout, a spokesman for Al-Jazeera said that the channel had decided to drop the word ‘occupation’; which is obvious that the power of the American government forced channels owned by independent countries to change even what to write and how to report their news. What is really interesting is how America convinced the world that the War on Iraq was justified. A very interesting book by Rampton and Stauber (2003), titled Weapons of Mass Deception explains that Iraq had been occupied because manipulating the words and making lies and that is how the War was sold to the public in US, Britain and Australia. In this book, the Authors take headline by headline, news show by news show; the deliberate, aggressive, and highly successful public relations campaign that sold the Iraqi War to the public. In April 9th appeared to confirm what Washington had been saying that the Iraqi people would ultimately see America as their liberator, not their enemy. Yet the American media chose to use words and headlines such as “Iraqi celebrate in Baghdad” (Washington Post) rather than on a Reuters long-shot photo of Firdos Square showing it to be nearly empty, or the 20,000 Iraqis in Nasiriyah rallying to oppose the U.S. military presence, according to the writers. Hadley (2004) argues that the invasion on Iraq and Afghanistan interpreted by a large number of American citizens as they had been convinced that America’s national security was threatened, and that Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for 9/11. Furthermore, the expansion into Iraq was not to occupy it, but to “brought freedom, economic growth, education and democracy to people who have suffered under years of oppression and mismanagement” (Hadley, 2004 quoted Assistance for Iraq). Robert Fisk (1998) who had won the 1998 Amnesty International UK Press Award mentioned that:
“for writing my eye witness report on the Israel massacre of more than 100 Lebanese civilian refugees in the UN camp at Qana in Southern Lebanon in 1996, I was vilified by a reader as anti-Semitic and compared to Hitler- a statement not repeated when I threatened a liable action” (Paragraph. 3).
Clerk et al (1997) argue that over the centuries the recognition of the power to influence opinion has meant that newspapers and journals all over the world “have been banned, journalists have been arrested, tortured and even killed; such is the power of the written words” (p. 25). What is noticeable is that when it comes to the non-mainstream press, different means of stories and events (were they often serve the government’s benefit of the powerful party) come to the front of the conflict, and become in some cases the only available news source. Thus, independent news web sites such as Al-Jazeera had been attacked, where such news sources can be seen by those parties as an obstacle to achieve their goals. In 2003, Dominic Timms reported for the Media Guardian that the English- language website of Qatar-based broadcaster Al-Jazzera was forced down after a spate of suspected hacker attacks. Communications manager Jihad Ali Ballout stated that “there are rumors that the attacks originated in the US”. According to Timms, while Al-jazeera’s English website has no multimedia capability and so cannot show video, its TV section has come under attack in the U.S. for showing footage of U.S. prisoners of war and allied fatalities. The reporter also illustrates that the U.S. hosting service that runs the English language site has bowed under pressure not to host the site any more. Therefore, Ballout said “in certain quarters there is a fear of freedom of expression and freedom of the press”, whereas 90% of Middle Eastern news web sites are biased and serve American’s ambitions, according to Al-Qasmy (2004).
No one denies the power of visual media. According to Phillipson (2006) media is not only organize production on a new scale and force a new structure sufficient to global space, but also make its justification inherent power, as it “produces, organizes, as it organizes, it speaks and expresses it self as authority” (p. 352). Macnamara (2003) pointed out that the influence of mass media has lead to extensive studies of media effects in “areas ranging from political campaigns to portrayals of violence, racism, and women” (p.2). Thus, political parties saw media as an important source of powerful influence. Phillipson (2006) argues that the development of communications networks has a basic relationship to the emergence of the new world order. He illustrates that “communication organizes the movement by multiplying and structuring interconnections through networks” (p. 352); with words, old men, women, and babies can be killed, believes and ideologies of people can be changed, and stereotypes can be planted in people’s minds.
Karsh (2003) in his book Arafat’s War illustrated the Jewish control over the mass media and how they have the power to decide what to be shown on most news channels. Karsh (2003) mentions number of news agencies, newspapers, magazines, and TV networks which demonstrate their overwhelming influence over the mass media, according to him, “they control several French and British newspapers, including the Times” (p. 95). Karsh (2003) also accused the Jews of monopolize the British chattering classes,
“In addition to the Times, they have taken over the Daily Express, Daily Mail and the Observer, among numerous other journals. In United States, [the Jews control] the New York Times, New York Post, Washington Post, the New Yorker magazine, Business Week, and so forth and so on, in other Western countries, like Australia, they own a fair share of the media , including the world’s leading TV networks. ABC, NBC, CBS, and many more are controlled by Jews” (p. 95)
Thus, it is evident that Jewish control over the mass media has been exploited for putting a fire lining on the vile image of Jews, while at the same time vilifying Arabs, so as to persuade world public opinion that Arabs are the historic enemies of Christian culture, according to Karsh. It is sensible to point out here that such power was behind forcing Arabic news channels and news web sites (for example, Al-Jazzera) to change terminologies were used in reporting news to the world (particularly the Western world) regarding the Middle East news. CAMERA, which was founded in 1982, a Jewish news agency based in America assumed in its official website that CAMERA Committee devoted to promoting accurate and ‘balanced’ coverage of Israel and the Middle East. However, in its article in December 24, 2003, titled (The Power of Words-Reuters’ and CAMERA’s), by Ricki Hollander mentioned that measuring the effects of CAMERA’s work, to foster sound reporting and to ensure that public discourse about Israel and the Israel-Palestinian conflict be informed by ‘accurate and unbiased news reports’, varies with the natural of the problem; Therefore, CAMERA accused Reuters (the European-based news service) of using partisan language in news stories that “whitewash the clearly stated goal of Palestinian terror organizations to destroy Israel” (Hollander, 2003). After CAMERA sent letters to Reuters’ executives, CAMERA succeeded to make Reuters believe that terminologies and phrases such as ‘uprising for independence’ were misleading. According to Hollander, in the first period (Sep- Oct 2000) Reuters articles referring to the Palestinian ‘uprising’ includes such phrases as ‘uprising for independent’, ‘uprising against Israel occupation’, and so on, 83% of the time. After CAMERA informed Reuters of its wish to change these phrases, the results were reversed, moreover, expressions such as ‘uprising against Israel occupation’, and ‘uprising for statehood’, were used only 15% of the time.
Before and After examples, according to Hollander, 2003:
BEFORE:
Past Reuters statements, were the following:
Palestinian militants fired at an Israeli car south of Jerusalem, wounding a woman and a nine-year-old girl, rescue workers said on Sunday. It was a rare flare-up of violence since Palestinian militants waging a 34-month-old uprising for statehood declared a three-month truce on June 29. (”Palestinians fire at Israeli car, at least 2 hurt,” August 2, 2003)
and
Palestinian militants waging an almost 35-month-old uprising for independence have frequently bombed Israeli buses…(”Bomb wrecks Jerusalem bus, seven dead,” Barry Moody, August 19, 2003)
AFTER:
Since the CAMERA alert and article, Reuters has generally refrained from describing the uprising as being “for statehood” or “for independence.”
Israel, battling a three-year-old Palestinian uprising, says roadblocks and other travel restrictions on Palestinians are necessary to stop suicide bombers from reaching its cities. (”Palestinians say Israeli troops kill West Bank man,” November 1)
Palestinian militants have killed hundreds of Israelis in a string of suicide bombings mostly in Israeli cities since a Palestinian uprising began three years ago. (”Palestinian bomber blows up near soldiers in W. Bank,” November 3, 2003)
(Hollander, 2003)
Let us consider that I am a viewer located in the Western World, watching the news from CAMERA’s lens, which is a Jewish- American news agency, and I could not access to any news channel from the other side (unbiased Arabic channels), how would you consider the news as fair and accurate, while I am hearing only one side of the story? People in Europe and America are subjected to bias and whimsical news reporting. If we consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is noticeable how the Western media report it. When Palestinian dies it is reported as Palestinian ‘terrorist’ or ‘militant’ had killed; when the reality could be that he was a 14 year old boy going to his class, got shot in the head by an Israeli sniper. On the other hand, When an Israeli dies it reaches front page news in papers and headline news all over the world and his death is referred to as ‘killed’ or ‘murdered’.
For example, the BBC news reporting in Wednesday, 16 April 2008 on its website:
Click on the link to access the report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7349873.stm
The psychology behind such reporting has a huge impact on people (especially, Western people). By placing the death of the Israelis in bold and in a prominent place on the web site, it gives it importance and status and it tells us that it is something we should care about. Then below in smaller, less prominent script we read about four Palestinians who were killed.
What interest me is the cruel attack by Hollywood on Arabs and Muslims recently in its movies (for example: The Onion, 2008, and You Don’t Mess with the Zohan, 2008) which promote Arabs as terrorists directly and indirectly. Although in the Crash movie (2004) which suppose to deal with racial and religious problems in societies such as America, we find that Arabs are not mentioned, but instead, their is the Persian man (Farhad), suspected by anonymous attackers as being an Arab, thus, he suffered a break-in to his store when his wife (Shereen) reacts to the slurs written on the walls of the store: “They think we’re Arab. When did Persian become Arab?” (Crash film, 2004). The director (Paul Haggis) may be was trying to say that if this family is an Arabic family, it is ok to destroy their shop, because Arabs deserve this. Who controls the media, controls the words, and who controls the words, controls the world. Dresner (2003) argues that Jews dominate Hollywood and always have. He explains that the immigrant Jews who created Hollywood’s major studios were followed by another generation of Jews who founded the nation’s major TV network (William Paley’s CBS, David Sarnoff’s NBC and Leonard Goldenson’s ABC). Dresner illustrates that, today about two-thirds of leading TV and movie producers are Jewish; four of the five companies that dominate America entertainment are run by Jews. Thus, he explains that this fact is infrequently discussed in the mainstream media because Jews control that too. A movie by the Palestinian director Hani Abu Assad titled ‘Paradise Now’ had faced too many obstacles to reach the Western theaters because it shows Saied (Palestinian man preparing for a suicide attack in Israel) talking and explaining to his boss that he is going to blow himself up in Israel because his life and others’ life became Intolerable, where he cannot work, cannot travel and how Israel takes advantage of the weakness of Palestinian people and hire them as traitors; with all that, Israel convinces the whole world that they are the victims, according to Saied; where Saied used words such as (subjugation, occupation, humility, injustice, resistance, and martyrdoms instead of terrorists). Moreover, he stated clearly that he tried to convey his message to the whole world by other means instead of being a suicide bomber, but he could not, thus he intended to carry on with his operation; where his words seen by Israelis as dangerous, and misleading. Also the movie shows Saied as a human, who loves, fears, and hates, where people like Saied have no feelings, according to Irit Linur (an Israeli novelist and screenwriter). Thus, the movie had been prevented to receive the Oscar Award after the pressure on the organizers of the Oscar Award ceremony, whereas the movie deserves to receive the award according to some movie reviewers and the director of the film.
“Gorgeous, smart, rich and never make mistakes? If you spend a lot of time watching TV, or reading daily propaganda, it seems as if everyone is rich, smart, and never makes mistakes, on the other hand, it may makes the picture vice versa, while in most cases its might be not true. This is the powerful of media to shape our concepts of ourselves and the world” (Nwosu, 2007). Hanania (2001) illustrates that using certain headlines and adjectives describing both sides of the Israel- Palestinian conflict, play a significant role in how the public responds, and how the political theatre acts itself out. Thus, who has the political and the economical power, controls what to be written or what to be said in the mirror which suppose to be held up to the public of the free world. Why headlines such as ‘Jewish terrorists murder Arabs’ or ‘the occupation army killed 100 Palestinians in Gaza strip’ or ‘Sick child dies in Gaza due to the siege’, do not appear in the major western mass media, and if they appear, not frequently, whether in the written or in the visual ones? Well, I think it is obvious now why.
References:
BBC News, 2008, ‘Israel soldiers die in Gaza clash’. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7349873.stm [Accessed 10 Nov 2008]
Clark, R., & Ivanic, R., 1997, ‘Writing, Politics and Power’, in the Politics of Writing, Routledge, London, 20-65
Dresner, R., 2003, ‘HOLLYWOOD: Who Created It and Who Runs It (IN Their Own Words Series)’, White Slavery of Christian Girls – In Israel!! PLUS Jews Dominate Hollywood and Porn. Available from: http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.culture.austria/msg00384.html. [Accessed 12 Nov 2008]
Fisk, R., 1998, ‘The Power of Words’. Available from: [Accessed 10 Nov 2008]
Hadley, G., 2004, ‘ELT and the New World Order: Nation Building or New Reconstruction?’, in TESOL Islamia, Niigata University of International and Information Studies. Available from: http:/tesolislamia.org/articles.html [Accessed 11 Nov 2008]
Hanania, R., 2001, ‘Media bias whitewashes Israeli terrorism ‘, media Monitors Network. Available from: http://www.mediamonitors.net/hanania21.html [Accessed 10 Nov 2008]
Hollander, R., 2003, ‘The Power of Words-Reuters’ and CAMERA’s’. Available from: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=36&x_article=630 [Accessed 8 Nov 2008]
Karsh, E., 2003, ‘Arafat’s War: The Man and His Struggle for Israeli Conquest’, Grove Press. Available from: http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mu5iXayocdQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Karsh,+E.,+2003,+‘Arafat’s+War’&ots=O8Di2V5NkS&sig=-Ao53fo7r0RQTQXQOC8iUP4QcYw [Accessed 12 Nov 2008]
Lehrer, M., 2003, ‘Two Different Wars: Comparing Arab and U.S. coverage of the Iraq War’, MacNeil-Lehrer productions. Available from: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/media_4-3.html [Accessed 9 Nov 2008]
Nwosu, B., 2007, ‘The Power of Visual Media-Art and Self Esteem’. Available from: http://bnwosu.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/the-power-of-visual-media-art-and-self-esteem/ [Accessed 9 Nov 2008]
Rampton, SH., & Stauber, H., 2003, ‘Weapons of Mass Deception’, Hood Headline Australia.
Phillipson, R., 2006, ‘Language Policy and Linguistic Imperialism, in T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method’, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.246-361
Timms, D., 2003, ‘Al-Jazeera websites hit by hackers’, Media Guardian Articles. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/mar/26/newmedia.iraq [Accessed 9 Nov 2008]
Toomey, M., 1999, ‘The Power of Language’, Liberation Psychology. Available from: http://www.mtoomey.com/poweroflanguage.html [accessed 10 Nov 2008]
Tryhorn, CH., 2004, ‘War of Words at Al-Jazeera’, Media Guardian Articles. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/oct/07/iraqandthemedia.digitalmedia [Accessed 10 Nov 2008]
