Propaganda & Mass Persuasion: 04/16/2006 - 04/23/2006

Saturday, April 22, 2006

I Want My Al Jazeera, Inside Al Jazeera

This reading talks about how both sides of a conflict get a chance to share their point of view. Yousef Al Shouly, a Palestinian senior producer for Al Jazeera says that "When there is a controversy in a country, he says, his station allows both the government and the opposition to give their point of view. Al Jazeera give both sides a chance." Some goverments though do not like Al Jazeera even though they get their point of view across. Like when Al Jazeera upset Palestinian authorites with a preview for a March 2001 documentary. In the documentary the network explored the role of Palestinian guerillas "as players in Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war. " All coverage was supposse to be removed because that's what Arafat had requested but Al Jazeera didn't listen and aired all the footage any way. Saudi Arabia doesn't allow Al Jazeera in it's territory. Although they do allow the network to cover certain events. Jordan too had problems with the network. Although Algeria has not, "There's hardly an Arab government that the station has not offended. Al Jazeera staff say the Qatari foreign ministry has recieved more than 400 complaints. When the network aired a program probing Algeria's civil war, the government in Algiers cut the signal. Nadia Tabib, an Al Jazeera employee, says Algerian soon flooded phone lines with cries of "I want my Al Jazeera.!" The Algerians must really like and approve the network and it's coverage. Even know its the regions number one watched news network it's revenue is not as high as other in the region. Also Al Jazeera's advertising is down. Only forty percent of advertising revenue come from commercials. Al Jazeera is expanding to the U.K. "as well as Indonesia and Malaysia." Al Jazzera had a fallen out with its connection to CNN over an interview with Osama Bin Laden. The interview was not supposed to be aired because Al Jazeera felt it wasn't newsworthy. As a result of this Al Jazeera "severed" its relationship with CNN.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

Arabic Stations Compete for Attention

In Arabic Stations Compete for Attention by MacFARQUHAR he explains that his article talks about the television stations competing against another to get viewers to watch their station. One satelite station Al Jazeerat hat is in Qatar, their are many new and smaller stations that are challenging views on Arab viewers. The Al Jazeera is very graphic with their pictures than any network. Also Al Jazeera is a popular station, one Iraqi lady says she watches the news all day and according to her mood will she change the channel, but she states to watch Al Jazeera the most. Another satellite network is Abu Dhabi. This network goes in deep to want they want to get for their story. Its slogan is known as "On the Front Line" and Al Jazeera is "War on Iraq". On the other hand, In Syria "the government views Al Jazeera as insufficiently antiwar" All these networks compete with one another to get the best story out to the viewers for them to watch. In my other blog I had mentioned how CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News compete against one another for the best stories. Every station wants to have viewers watch them and want to keep their ratings up even if it means spending more money to get it. These stations play such a big role in our every day lifes and some people dont even realize what it takes to get such a great story, becuase we are the viewers and we are only watching while they might put their life on the line to get us a story.

Media; Hearts, Minds and Satellites

In the article Media; Hearts, Minds, and Satellites by Rutenberg he explains that CNN showed an exclusive look at a bombing dropped on Kabul , a videophone tape this. This was very importnant to CNN. There are a lot of other news channels as well competing with every other channel for people to watch their newtwork. "After the Spetember 11 attack CNN saw an immediate chance for redemption; its longest news executives, cringing ata future filled with heavy coverage of shark attacks and Congressional sex scandals, saw an oppertunity for re-direction". During the Gulf War CNN was the only 24 hour news channel but not anymore. Fox News Channel is trying to become its parent company News Corporation. Like CNN is to Aol Time Warner which is a global news with an international reach. MSNBC'S corespondest Ashleigh Banfield who is getting all the media attention. When it use to be CNN Christiane Amanpour. CNN average audience is 1.8 million up since August. Fox News has 1.1 million also up and lastly MSNBC, has 900,000 also went up from 229,000. Also CNN is allowed to spend high money to get the story when at one point they weere worried about budget cuts. "On September 11, CNN was the only news network that already had correspondents in Afghanistan". Eason Jordan is the chief news excuitive. Jordan wanted to strike a deal with Al Jezeera an Arabic language nework. This made the other networks mad. Usually when I want to watch the news I turn to Fox News first and then to CNN. I bet its very hard for these 24 hour networks to go against one another to get views to watch their network. Its interesting to see how each one does compete and how each network.
i definitely think the news coverage in Iraq is somewhat untrue. i believe they either try to make it look really bad in order to keep support and faith in the war. it is obvious that Bush won't pull troops out b/c he likes to keep things going. the media coverage doesnt always show the true pain and struggle that the citizens are enduring due to our occupation. No wonder why we are so hated.

How to Change the News on Iraq

The news does not always give an accurate representation of what is happening in a war. Fox News is especially biased in its presentation of war, Fox likes to make things seem worse in order to drum up war support from its viewers as it has a republican pro-bush pro-war agenda. It is important to note that "55 percent of those who said the Fox News Channel was their main source of news said the newsies were making things seem worse, compared with only 32 percent of CNN viewers." The news likes to focus on the negative aspects of war, for example when large numbers of civilians and soldiers die, when there are good things happening too, and we just don't know too much about them because the news is not focusing on them. It is hard to understand what is really happening in Iraq when we are give biased news coverage.

How to Change the News on Iraq

The writer of this article is trying to make a point that the media should put a positive spin on their reporting's of the war.Bad situations are always better than they look and "human beings, even in the worst of times, try to go about their business and are quite heroic in their efforts to make life as normal as possible. I believe like many others that this way of thinking helped many Americans get through the events of 9/11.When they talk of the war they should see the positive aspects and not the destruction and fatalities. I feel that the war has gotten to the point were many people are not even focusing on the war as much as they once did. When the war first began it seemed everyone was glued to their televisions and reading up on the war. Now it seems people have moved on with their lives as the writer describes. I guess it is almost in our nature to adjust to events in our lives. I really liked his closing quote- "Changing the news won't change the situation. Improving the situation will change the news." It shows that we make our own news not the media.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

MEDIA; Hearts, Minds and Satellites

It seems cnn is a head of the game in contrast to its competitors. “On Sept. 11, CNN was the only news network that already had correspondents in Afghanistan. Nic Robertson began reporting live within hours of the strikes”. I don’t see why fox wouldn’t use a tactic like this because it was successful indeed. I found it interesting how fox mocked cnn about their footage as well. “The images were said to be an exclusive look at bombs dropping on Kabul, captured by a videophone. In the newsrooms of CNN's competitors, there were titters. The pixilated CNN screen was compared to an Etch-a-Sketch”, I probably would have used it as well, as long as it portrayed the truth. Because as we learned visual pieces and footage have been proven to be the most liked and attracted the most attention there fore increasing viewers. I believe something is better than nothing. From my perspective I believe its all fair game between them. “Mr. Jordan's most aggressive move was to strike an exclusive deal with Al Jazeera, the Arabic-language network that has the only solid position in Taliban-held Afghanistan. That angered the other networks, which said CNN had put itself in a position to have the only clear pictures of the first United States strikes against Afghanistan”. Is this wrong? I think that they others would have done the same thing, and they could.
I don’t CNN will ever be as popular and get as much coverage as their glory days with the first gulf war, after all it was the only 24 hour news channel in that period, but its seems they now are more diligent and are using different tactics to get coverage.

Integrity of Reporters in Iraq

", which has had the most extensive ongoing Iraq presence of US networks in recent years, has been beefing up its staff in the country and the region, as have its rivals. But staffing is subject to the whims of the Iraqis, who periodically take issue with Western reporters, prohibiting some from renewing their short-term visas and threatening to expel others, even as they have recently welcomed NBC'S Tom Brokaw and ABC's Ted Koppel."
Where I take issue with this is in the integrity of the reporters. If they know they can be denied renewal of their visas or sent out of the country, what is to stop them from reporting in a way that makes them a more favorable addition to the news staff in Iraq? It seems very reminiscent of the coverage of the Gulf War in that in order to keep access, media outlets may tend to be less controversial.


The Fox News Memo

Charlie Rena is an ex employee of Fox News Channel. He talks about a Memo that management has created in order to ensure that their political views are met in the reporting. They would allow reports from both sides, but the Republican view would be allowed to get the last word. I have heard of this bias behavior and never really paid much mind to it, but it's disturbing when there is someone speaking about it. He maybe just a disgruntled ex- employee of Fox or it may be a valid story. This is what the problem is with media. They have to be careful how and what they report things in order to keep their credibility with the public. If he was fired this could be his way to discredit Fox and their policies. I don't know how I feel about Fox it's not my first choice for news but if what he says is true and he worked for them- to me it takes away from his credibility to me as well as the networks.

No News Is No News

This article talks of the Pentagons restrictions on the media during the Gulf War. The writer speaks of how the censorship from the "Guidelines for News Media" is causing journalist to distort what is really happening in the war to the public. He feels that there is an "Absence of the effort by the American military to confirm or deny such rumors" that the media is being given, therefore putting them in a compromising position. If they report a false story it effects their credibility to the public. Sometimes I feel it's good to have all the facts and show as much of the war as you can. But then again how much is too much? Aside from what maybe ethical to show- what more does the media want? A day to day plan of what we're planning to do. It maybe just me but sometimes I wonder how much you really can show through the media. Sometimes when I watch the President speak of his plans for the war and what the next steps will be- I always think- What if Saddam or even a terrorist is watching this? We just gave them too much information. As in the article he speaks of a reporter who was allowed to report on the Manhattan Project but wasn't able to release the story until after the bombings. If it would have been public knowledge they would have known our plan. It may seem stupid on my part but I feel that sometimes it's better not to know too much about the war-at least until it's over and becomes part of history-then at that point I feel all the facts should be available so we can learn from our mistakes.

The Business of Covering a War

In Hotel warrior's, John Fialka talks about how the press described the Marines and Armies roles during the war. He talks of how Marines were eager to get covered by the media, while the Army saw risks in allowing the media to follow them. With all the media coverage, it pretty much created kind of an accidental propaganda. Marines were being seen as the hero's of the war being reported by name and rank, while the Army was seen just by the unit. The public was being led to believe we were winning the war thanks to the Marines. When in reality the Marines were there as more of a "sideshow" and for support, while the Army was there for the "main attack." In my opinion I don't think it should matter who was doing more as long as they win the war quickly and with few fatalities as possible. But on the other hand it also makes you wonder, if they weren't showing us what really was true with something as menial as this what else are they misinterpreting for us?

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

CNN: The Monopoly is a Memory

In the article " The monopoly is a memory " by Elizabeth Jensen we read how CNN was able to provide coverage of the Gulf War in 1991 to many people, not to mention the exclusive showing of the bombing that was taking place. This though is a different war and CNN doesn't have that privilege. The first Gulf War put CNN on the map as a credible news network, not to mention how it help make it millions of dollars. CNN states that since the first war it is doing well for itself as a company, " CNN International channel reached a mere 10 million households outside the U.S. in 1991; today, CNN International is in 170 million homes. " (page 2) Though there are laws against monopolies in the U.S., it would be tough to say or even prove that CNN has one right now. This is to CNN 's displeasure because we have other networks providing us the news and people also have access to international news. We should give credit to CNN for being a pioneer in this area, since then other networks have grown. One example of this would be "French President Jacques Chirac proposed a government-financed ' French CNN ' .....the idea was dropped because of its high cost. " (page 2) This could have created a problem because a government-financed company might not be able to be bias. We also read how Al Jazeera wanted CNN to become a minority stakeholder in its company and they declined. Did CNN turn them down because it felt it could have a negative association with them ?

Monday, April 17, 2006

When Images Compete as Fiercely as Armies

Jefferson Morley’s piece, “When Images Compete as Fiercely as Armies” does a good job comparing and contrasting the biases of Western and Middle Eastern Journalism. Morley points out that the world was largely dependant on the Western media (CNN) to get news about the 1991 Gulf War.

In 2003 however, there were over 20 stations reporting the story, including several Middle-East based stations (Al Jazeera being most famous). Coverage by these Middle-East stations often displayed graphic images of civilian casualties as well as dead GI’s, in contrast to the coverage of US media.

The differing coverage goes a long way to explaining how different populations view themselves and the conflict (according to the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland (UM) 62% of Americans thought the rest of the world either favored, or was indifferent to an American invasion of Iraq even though the invasion was almost universally opposed outside the US).

While cultural differences are certainly a factor in shaping opinion, the power of media to influence public opinion is well displayed by this disparity in popular belief.

GOOD NEWS OR NO NEWS

In the article Pentagons strategy for the press: Good news or No news written by James LeMoyne he speaks of the different sorts of restrictions they had during the Gulf war. It seemed the Pentagon only wanted the reporters to report only certain kinds of stories. “Pentagon press officers warned reporters who asked hard Questions that they were seen as “anti Military” and that their requests for interviews with senior commanders and visits to the field were in jeopardy”. How do we as a public expect to get the truth from our media if our government is censoring them? They need to ask the hard questions so we as the public get to know the facts. Hasn’t our governments figured out no matter how much they try to keep the truth from us during these wars are eventfully going to come out. So why can’t they just tell us the truth for the get go. It will save them the headaches later. Do they really believe that they can forever keep the truth under wraps? No right? So why not just tell the truth.

When Images Compete as Fiercely as Armies

In this reading the author talks about how there were alot more radio stations during the Iraq War than in the Gulf War. In the Gulf War there was really just a U.N. based CNN news network, but by the Iraq War there were alot more. Iraq began forming news networks. Like al-Jazeera, the Abu Dhabi channel and the Hezbollah-run al-Manar based in Lebanon. Which is completely about propaganda, about how bad America is and how the Iraq War is a war about "American Aggression." Al-Jazeer's network makes a more neutral approach. The Abu Dhabi channel focuses on the news in the Gulf States.
"These stations calls for a new political reality." It would have taken alot more time for the images of Americans prisoners of war and killed Americans would have gone through Iraq alot more slowly than they did with these new mid-eastern stations, and certain the expectation of a quick U.S. victory would not have been so diminished so quickly. "The freedom of the press is a double edged sword that can be dangerous for the big democratic powers as it is for the dictatorial regimes." These stations especially the Lebanon based station, al-Manor is for American propaganda making the Americans the aggressor, and images of the U.S. as a liberator is yet to be seen. There are alot of pictures of Iraqi civilans being killed by American soldiers with these stations. The author writes "as the battle for Baghdad begins new images will emerge to define the course of the propaganda battle." You're only getting half the story from the Arab stations, the American stations as well. The U.S. will continue to seek the upper hand in the "psychological war."

Sunday, April 16, 2006

CNN: Elites Talking to Elites

Television is the primary medium through which the world becomes mediated, represented, and looked at to the majority of the public. Vincent talks about how combat was shown through images in the American television news. CNN was the key player in the coverage of the war. CNN was able to be watched in over a hundred countries, and it was in a money-making financial situation because they got advertising and cable free revenues in addition to news service fees. CNN was getting the best coverage of the war because they had access to leaders. While CNN relied on these elites for information, these elites relied on them in the same way. During the war, CNN was the highest watched network by the public. One of the topics that Vincent discusses in this article is Press briefings, Speeches, and Other Staged News events. In other words Military Technology: satellite communication and heat shield cameras. The live broadcasts by means of satellite of the bombings of Baghdad, of the Patriot/Scud duels, and of the military briefings in Saudi Arabia meant that there was little time left for the analysis and assessment of the claims being made in and by the images. This concurrence, by hurting the media's ability to take two looks at their sources, gave the military an increased power over the communication situation. Pushing this effect, was the fact that the live images, like Vincent looks at, "tend to be specifically designed and orchestrated by elites to supply information and promote a particular point of view"(Vincent pg. 186).
The concurrence of live transmission created a feeling of being there as the event is actually happening, which took away the audience's understanding need for reporter's after the fact analyses, since they already saw it with their own eyes. Images of actuality seem to be impulsive, showing "real" events, although they need no further assessment and observation. Although there was no time and no demand for the media's verbal interpretation for example mediation, of the images, and this "shifted the burden of analysis from newscasters to viewer"(Vincent pg. 184). This meant that the media's power over the interpretation and creation of images of violence was partly taken away by the military because the content of an image by determined by the military and through censorship and production, and partly given to the audience who had to interpret images on their own. The fact that briefings were shown live meant that the military, to a certain extent could sidestep the media collectively and address the recipients of their propaganda effort directly, yet in the process keep the symbolic authorization derived through the objective and unbiased news organizations which hardly showed the reality as it was.

Fragmentation and Integration

war propaganda is all about strategic fragmentation and integration, so that the whole nation, at least the majortiy of the population, can move towards the same direction.first, integration. as we all admit, war is concerned about creating a unified image that has the power to call on everybody.no wonder, slogans like "Your Own USA", "God Bless the USA", "Giving back their (Kuwait) democracy" are therefore singing to people's ears everywhere. it's something that had the unanimous and tacit approval among all media forms that such kind of patriotism and humanitarianism should be aroused frequently by those common accepted symbols that have been effective whenever in wartime.second, fragmentation. as Daniel C.Hallin and Todd Gitlin said in "The Gulf War as Popular culture and Television Drama" : "television news, especially at the local level, is centrally concerned with community.As Phyllis Kaniss has pointed out (1991), this is in part an economic imperative for local news, which needs to create a symbolic sense of common interests which will unify the fragmented metropolitan news audience. Perhaps, too, it reflects a general cultural yearning in a society characterized most of the time by individualism and fragmentation. it is very common for the news media, above all local TV news, to focus on events or activities that 'bring people together'--the effort to aid victim of a natural disaster, for example, or poignant tragedy that becomes a focus of collective empathy.for local Tv news, the Gulf War was above all the story of a threat to the solidarity of the community, and eventually, a celebration of community spirit. this theme was present in network news as well, but was far more prominent at the local level." local news media come more closely to audience's hearts. no matter what level, both media are creating the identity for people to identify with and find the foundation to rely on, so they won't feel emptiness when the whole nation is in a state of war.and these images that come from both channels are cooperating with each other to make the effect much more stronger.

CNN Elites Talking to Elities

In this article by Vincent he goes on to talk about pool stories. That much of the stories covering the Gulf war was on the press."The pool system which he explains was designed to give a limited number of print and electronic journalists access to allied operations and keep them under the watchful eye of the military". After the stories were prodcued they were then given to the others . Due to its restrtictions with the pool system large media were often represented. Cnn was a twenty four hour a day news coverage during the Gulf war in the ninties. They spent over 15 million on the coverage of the war. "CNN also had great acess to world leaders for stories and interviews" It was stated that the Pentagon was watching CNN for breaking news, that the intelligence might of not gotten yet. Since the ninties we see that CNN has been on the tv with twenty four hours a day giving reports that kept us up to date on news from all over the world. The media has been a major role in our every days lives and will continue to kept getting stories and news especially when a war is going on. For example, we have coverage all the time on tv, newspapers on the Iraq war covering everythign that is going on over there, always keeping us updating on breaking news. Thats the media role and job to do to kept the public at an up to date acess on the war and any new breaking story.

Press and Military: Old Suspicions

In R.J. Apple Jr's article he talks about covering the gulf war. "More than 500 journalists assigned to cover the war express intense dissatification with the quality of information furnished to them by the United States command and even more with the restritctions on their ability to go see for themselves" This quote states that these journalists who are covering the war are dissatifised with the information that is given to them. They are also mad that they are placed with retrictions and are not allowed to go see it for themsleves. The article states and talks about the pool system. The Pentagon set this up where a small numbers of reporters are allowed, under military escort to go to permitted areas. During this time the others wait for them to come back and give them the news for them to get a story. Although, the problem with this is the pool reporters had arrived late. Only a few reporters were permitted to go to the ground field. No reporters where allowed to go to Khafji so they got their information from the staff officials far from the scene. On the other hand the best information came from Khafji when reporters and photographers came by themseleves violating the pentagons rules. "After this Col William Mulvey at the Pentagon said that he would increase the number of pools to allow more reporters to join ground troops and generally improve acess".