Explore
Articles/Opinions
Astrology
Bangladesh News
Blogs
Calendar
Cartoons
Chanachoor
Classifieds
Courtyard
Lettingo
Diaspora News
Entertainment
Bangladesh
India
Pakistan
Snapshots
Fashion
Catwalk
News
Snapshots
Food
Eating out
Glossary
News
Recipes
Restaurants
Hottie of the day
India
News
Lifestyle
Message
Board
Money Transfer
Movies
National Anthems
News Explorer
News Features
Newsmakers
Offbeat
Oscar-Tango
Pakistan
News
People
Shop
on Line
Snapshots
Sports
Snapshots
Top
Picks
Unzipped
Urdu
Videos
World News Sites
|
|
|
|
Aljazeera: Plot Thickens |
|
By
RAMZY BAROUD |
|
|
THE launch of Aljazeera International on November 15, the
English arm of Aljazeera Satellite Television was hardly an
ordinary event.
It was another notable addition to the growing global
efforts aimed at counterbalancing American-European
domination over world media: deciding on what story is to be
told and how, thus shaping public opinion, reinforcing
Westerns policies, disseminating its own ideas and ideals,
at the expense of the almost entirely neglected and utterly
hapless audiences that neither relate nor wish to identify
with such discourses.
It’s still too early of course, to appraise, in any serious
fashion, academic or otherwise, the performance of Aljazeera
English, and whether it has lived up to its own ideals and
the expectations of its projected audience. However, it must
be said that the clash of discourses and the calls for a
balanced media is hardly new. This topic is in dire need of
urgent and continual discussion.
Clearly, the need for Aljazeera, and subsequently its
English service, came from the realization that the
presentation of events in Arab countries are far from fair
in the mainstream media in the US and elsewhere in the West.
Further, the public’s opinion of these events is not only
scarce, but bits and pieces that they may perceive are often
tainted.
But, how much does the average person in the West know about
the Middle East’s key conflict, that between Israel and the
Arabs, primarily the Palestinians? How much of that
knowledge is molded by the media, and how much by personal
discovery predicated on one’s own objective reasoning?
Answers may differ, but it remains true that opinions formed
regarding distant conflicts like that of the Middle East
tend to be homogeneous in nature, and for the most part fail
to deviate from the predominant media narrative espoused by
the mainstream.
Further, how much influence do states have on their media,
being mindful that ideally the media should be completely
divorced of the public sector, therefore being an
independent and unbiased critic? While states cannot prevent
events or guarantee absolute power for themselves, they’ve
well learned of the value of the media and its ability to
forge a favorable climate of public opinion that seems
incidentally consistent with that of the state.
Public opinion is molded in the western mainstream media by
consistently pressing particular issues, while repressing
others. For example, it is quite rare that a routine attack
by Israeli forces on the civilian population in Palestine
makes headline news, but a reaction to such an onslaught,
such as a suicide bombing would be the leading story and
priority for news outlets everywhere.
In doing so, public opinion is slowly conditioned to think
that Palestinian lives are not as significant as Israeli
lives, and that Palestinian attacks are far more frequent
and brutal. And while these policies are certainly mandated
by the upper echelons of any given media institution, they
are effective in not only tainting the publics view of
events on the ground, but the reporters who compile those
facts as well.
Another obvious example is the Iraq war. The US media, and
to a lesser degree the British media, though they might
allow for a controlled debate regarding the methods and
tactics used to win the war, seem in unison regarding the
‘admirable’ objectives of the war. The BBC hesitates little
to use such assertions often infused by Tony Blair such as
‘liberating’ Iraq, bringing ‘democracy’ to the Iraqis, and
so forth.
In Afghanistan, the picture is equally tainted and
dishonest. How often do we hear of a meaningful debate about
the true intention of the war on that poor, ruined country?
Almost never. Commemorating the fifth anniversary of the
Afghanistan invasion, CNN, the BBC, plus numerous media
outlets in the West dispatched their reporters to Kabul and
various other Afghani towns to examine the situation in that
country after years of violent Taliban ‘resurgence’ and
collation ‘reconstruction’ efforts. They examined the plight
of women, education, the health sector, security, drug
trafficking, etc. Some of the reports were astounding,
indeed. But such a selective examination was clearly a
wholehearted embrace of the US government’s claim that its
war on Afghanistan was motivated by such noble objectives as
freeing women from the grip of extremism, improving the
plight of ordinary Afghanis etc. These objectives were only
introduced when the original ones failed, such as the
capturing of Osama bin Laden, one that the media had also
touted in the early months of the war. It was conveniently
dropped by the media, when it was dropped by the military
and as an official priority by Western governments. Now,
Western journalists freely and often courageously challenge
the failure of the NATO led coalition in Afghanistan to
improve the lives of the people as the situation there is
worsening and drug trafficking, mostly from Afghanistan to
Iran to Europe is at an all time high.
It is important to remember all of this, but equally
important to truthfully examine the state of the Arab media,
especially with the advent of Aljazeera English, regardless
of how it wishes to define itself.
The many years of controlled Press in the Arab world has
produced two equally alarming phenomena: one restrictive
that champions the viewpoint of the authority, and another
overtly impulsive that discounts the authority and offers
itself as the only viable alternative. Will Aljazeera be
that third voice that speaks truth to power, yet neither
self-congratulating, nor reactionary? Is that even possible,
considering how Aljazeera is itself funded and politically
shielded? The debate is hardly meaningful if rashly
examined.
It ought to be said however, that without a serious
challenge to the prevailing media control mechanism, a
reordering of media priorities and a re-examination of the
relationship between the media and the state, it’s most
likely that media distortions will continue to afflict the
collective imagination of entire societies, thus shaping
their views of themselves, of the world around them, and
therefore prejudicing the way they define their views and
responsibilities towards global conflicts, whether in
Palestine-Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. (End) |
|
|
|
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not reflect
those of DesPardes.com |
|
Have Your Say > |
|
|
|
|
|
|
E-mail it to:Articles@despardes.com
|

Ramzy Baroud’s latest book: The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle
(Pluto
Press, London) is now available in the US from the
University of Michigan Press and from Amazon.com.
DesPardesPicks
@
desistore.com
--Quran
Ki Azmat Aur Uss Ki Bunyadi Talimaat
--If
I Am Assassinated by Z A Bhutto
--Heera
Mandi Ki Dar Pardah Saqafat
--Muslim
Showers
--Indus
Journey by Imran Khan
--Gandhi's
Passion -Stanley Wolpert
--More..
@
amazon.com
--Jesus,
Last King of Kashmir
|