Propaganda & Mass Persuasion: 04/22/2007 - 04/29/2007

Friday, April 27, 2007

In the Line of Fire



"There is a feeling in our newsroom that you need to be as realistic as possible and carry the images of war and the effect that war has on people," he says. "If you are in a war, your population shouldn't just eat their dinner and watch sanitized images on TV and video games produced by the technological whizzes in the Pentagon and say, 'This is war.' No. You really need to show every family what your men and women are going through...If you leave it to politicians, you won't see anything."
-Hafez Mirazi, Washington Bureau Chief of Al-Jazeera (as quoted in Peter Carlson, Washington Post, 4/3/03)


After the first few weeks of the (second) Gulf War, Mirazi is commenting on the different approach Al -Jazeera, the Arab TV news network, takes from the American news networks, including giants like CNN. Mirazi is referencing "sanitized images" of war as being unacceptable representations of the reality of war. Instead of just showing colorful graphics of missiles being fired, he argues, that the media must show the end result of the missiles' missions-- plainly speaking, dead and injured bodies along with its collateral damage.

The brutality of war, including gruesome closeup footage of the dead and injured, is being shown on Al-Jazeera , something which you won't see on CNN or any of the major broadcast channels. Though certainly not pleasant dinner-fare, more grimy images of war make sense, to a degree, in letting the public in to the dirty secrets of war. This is especially important in a war as unpopular as this one.

To think that four years have gone by since President Bush gave his marching orders in March 2003, and matters are getting
uglier everyday. One thing that is for sure is that more body bags are being filled on all sides of the conflict and are we any closer to a conflict resolution?

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Al Jazeera the threat

"Many Iraqis remain weary of having their names published" MacFarquhar puts this quote in parentheses for a reason. IF Al-Jazeera is such a popular information outlet for Iraqis, why are so many resistant to allowing their names to be used? Is there a sense of fear for going against this network's views and information among the citizens of Iraq? If i believed in a network and its opinions, there would be no problem using my name to support them; the same being as if I were a dissender of the network. This doesn't seem to be the case in Iraq, where anonymity rules regardless of personal opinion.

Fox Portrays a War of Good and Evil, and Many Applaud


I was shocked to hear that Fox News channel correspondents called Osama bin Laden a “monster”, a “dirt bag”, and “diabolical. That’s strong language and seems somewhat unprofessional in my eyes for channel correspondents. But this was after the September 11th attacks when emotions ran high and many people wanted revenge. Even Geraldo Rivera said he wanted to kill Osama himself. He was quite angry and I’m sure he was in good company.

Rivals Criticize CNN


CNN's rivals have many reasons to question CNN's creditability to report objectively. They question CNN's policy of sharing satellite dishes with other global news networks such as Al Jazeera in or to get war zone pictures other networks can not get.

CNN also maintains a news sharing arrangement with other governments and foreign news organizations used on their World Report. CNN's competitors feel that these broadcasts are unedited news pieces from state run news agencies, and in the case of Iraq, is nothing more than Iraqi government propaganda.

Rivals of CNN also claim that CNN too quickly accepted restrictions placed on them from the Iraqi government when reporting from Baghdad.

What they aren't criticizing is that for weeks, CNN was the only broadcasting network allowed in Baghdad. This was an advantage over CBS, ABC, and NBC. CNN was able to offer pictures and reports that the other networks could not offer. Even if CNN accepted the restrictions, they were in Iraq and reporting something the other networks could not offer to their viewers.
Rivals aren't also mentioning that CNN has has the largest network of foreign affiliates. They have affiliates in countries such as Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Their affiliates allow them to fill in news that is run 24/7 on their network.

Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder. ABC, NBC and CBS will all air their version of the war. They make these accusations to try to get viewers to change the channel and watch their programs, especially when they can not offer programming their competition can.

Arabic Stations Compete for Attention

Reading this article made me think of how our news stations compete against one another for audience attention. The more popular stations CBS, FOX, MS NBC, and CNN all compete against one another for viewers. In the end they are all saying the same thing, but in different ways.
Al Jazeera, the satellite station based in Qatar, is the dominating station. Although Al Jazeera has many loyal viewers, there are many opposed to the way they inform. The director of foreign media at the Foreign Affairs said, "They may speak Arabic, but they are not reporting from an Arab perspective that takes a clear stand against war".
The common anti war reports that Al Jazeera is delivering is what is angering many listeners and driving them to other stations. For those who don't like the approach from Al Jazeera they can switch to Abu Dhabi TV, which is said to be gentler.
Ultimately, news stations have a job to do and this job is to gain as many viewers as possible. All though they are all pretty much saying the same thing, it comes down to how they deliver their information.

To Much at Once?


The introduction of the news crawl or “ticker” as others refer to it has been an advantage to most news stations that have lots of developing and impending stories to report and has left many Americans in either a news fog or state of confusion. In Farhi’s ”’Crawls’ March Across TV Territory”, explain that many cable news stations use crawls to get as much information to the public as possible, all while reporting on the days top events however many fell that its way too much information at one time for the audience making the not want to view the news at all. For this very reason, major news networks such as CBS, NBC, and ABC and local Washington new stations have all opted not to use crawls while reporting (although that has changed since October 2001 when this article was published). In the article, senior vice president of CNN, Susan Bunda stated that “Whether we like it or not, a faster pace is the reality now" and that “People will become accustomed to it.”, but also quoted in the article was director of NewsLab, Deborah Potter’s 15 year old son whom because of all the information being shown at once during the news said “Mom, I don’t know where to look.” I fear that if there isn’t an alternative to the news crawls, views will find other news stations to look at. Or has it come true what Bunda predicted that we have become accustomed to it because nearly six years after this article was published, virtually every news station as a crawl.

Fair and Balanced?


In the article “The Fox News Memo” a former producer and newsroom copy editor for Fox News explains the importance of the daily memos sent to the Fox staff to inform them of the stories being reported during the day. These memos served the purpose of both delivering future news stories and talking points also remind the staff of opinions and approach to take when reporting or writing the news, all while reporting under the famous slogan “Fair and Balanced”. Most compelling in this article is the authors first had encounter with a memo sent to the staff on March 20, 2003, where management spoke candidly about a comment then Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan made in regards to Iraqi’s:

"There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought."

So, while creating a news story regarding a United Nations official that should just contain the facts, management has made it’s sentiments know by injecting there opinion in these memos. Rather than “Fair and Balance”, the slogan should maybe read “Opinionated and Bias”

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

How to Change the News On Iraq

According to E.J. Dionne Jr. Fox channel 5 news is "television's most pro-Bush network,..." so the real question is why are they offering very negative news of the Iraq war. Amazingly, the Bush administration took a poll asking whether or not "news reports are making the situation seem worse than it really is, better than it really is -- or are reports showing the situation about the way it really is.?" (Dionne Jr) To a surprise, "fifty five percent of those who said the Fox News Channel was their main source of news said the newsies were making things seem worse...". (Dionne Jr.) Even though the poll showed that Fox news audience is significantly more Repulican than most networks the news they are seeing has "little to do with what they are seeing or reading and a lot to do with their political preconceptions." and their view on whether or not Bush is right or wrong. (Dionne Jr.) The fact is that "this news may contradict the optimistic predictions made by the administration, so I don't blame Bush or his supporters for not liking what they are seeing or reading. But changing the news won't change the situation. Improving the situation will change the news." (Dionne Jr.)

Rivals criticize CNN




In the article "Rivals Criticize CNN Methods of War Reporting", Jim Rutenberg and Bill Carter discuss how other news stations are complaining about how CNN gets their news overseas. They that CNN uses unethical methods to get stories before they do. "People at those networks still maintain that CNN could have enjoyed such exclusives access to Baghdad only by striking some sort of deal with the enemy". After reading this article, I was not really convinced. They did not give any clear evidence of foul play and it seemed as though the other news organizations were jealous of their access. The article explains why CNN has such great access and to me it sounds believable. Maybe someone else can give me a different point of view, if there is one.

Bomb Remnants Increase War's Toll



The picture to the left is of a landmine. But to most children in Iraq this could be seen as a food packet for a young child or adult in the Afghanistan region. In this article by Amy Waldman, unexploded bombs such as landmines cause increased civilian collataral damage. The reason for this is that the "the pieces of the bomb are yellow, the same color as the packages of food rations dropped by American planes. And while the Pentagon said its plans to change the color of the food packets from yellow to blue to avoid confusion it had not yet done so." (Waldman) This article was written over two years ago and hopefully by now our government realizes that it has killed many innocent people and children. These unexploded landmines and bombs displace people and their families. Personally, I think the government should go back in and dismantle as many of these bombs as possible after the war is over. It will help save millions of innocent people and their families. Unfortunately, today in 2007 the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is still taking place.

War's Hidden Cost

John Cushman of the Wahington Post has been reporting of the Iraqi War and the collateral damage being caused by the United States military and government. According to him, "when bombs fall, some of them will fall on the wrong people. Sometimes innocents are killed..." (Cushman) Even though the United States military assesses each situation for civilian risks, nothing is ever one hundred percent guaranteed. One pilot said that "as a pilot, I can do everything perfectly with a perfect weapons system and still cannot account for every weapon going exactly where it's supposed to go." An example of this would be when the United States bombed a military facility in Tora Bora and killed a high amount of civilians and innocent people. Unfortunately, innocent people always occur as casualties in a war. There is nothing to do no matter what the public expects. Machinery is not one hundred percent guaranteed and there is always a possibility of something going wrong.

No News Is No News


Michael Schiffler and Michael Rinzler have a news report about the governments restrictions to what news is allowed to the public in the midst of the Gulf War. According to the government these "restrictions are presented as necessary to protect the national interest, and few would argue in favor of media reports that place troops in danger." (Schiffler/Rinzler) This statement sides with how our government feels but not all of the public agrees or has the same persperctive as the government. Some of the public feel that "media restrictions have further served to shift the debate from vital questions--such as what the position of the United States in the Arab would will be when the troops have come home..." (Schiffler/Rinzler) I would have to agree with both sides, I can understand the government not wanting to lose public support for the war. But it is the publics sons and daughters that they are sending to war. Besides, if the public does not know the whole truth about what the situation actually is then, they can feel deceived and undemocratic. Most public feels that for "democracy to flourish, informed public discourse concerning the war must be full and free." (Schiffler/Rinzler)

Stuart Ewen: War in the Persian Gulf


According to Stuart Ewen the Gulf War had a series of television management skills conducted by the U.S. government for the mass media to follow. The reason being was the Bush administration did not want to lose public support like the Vietnam War in the past. Ewen says, "In the first hours of war, the media obeyed completely. The script for the first night was tightly managed; "factored down, canalized, compressed and made uniform." (Ewen 4) What amazes me about the whole situation is that I can understand why the Bush administration would censor what is seen or heard publicly. But, where does the government draw the line, when should the public be able to see the negative side of the war and the human casualties that the United States has taken. I think that the people of this country deserve to hear and see the truth at all times no matter the circumstance.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism


Today's video, "Outfoxed" was very thought provoking and I really want to look at the other news outlets to see how they portray their version of the news. I was first introduced to the fox news point of view during Michael Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 911"in which he discussed the correlation between Fox and George W. Bush. I'm not a fan of Fox news although I have tuned in to The O'Reilly Factor. I agree with the point of view the documentary that Fox is favorable for Republicans but I also want to see if the other new organizations are favorable toward liberals. I watch CNN and other forms of media but I never actually though about their agenda because it doesn't seem as obvious as Fox news.
This is a little off topic but I just wanted to also comment on the decision by NBC to play parts of the tape sent in by the Virginia Tech murderer. We have been discussing how people are complaining that they are not getting enough news information, especially when it comes to war. I think that playing parts of the video was their responsibility because it was a part of a major news story. I do not think they crossed the line because they did not show much of it and it was not done for sick gratification. It was as tasteful as it could be and if the information was withheld, there would be plenty of people complaining about it. NBC was in kind of a lose, lose situation.

FOX News : A Reliable Source?


""You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word.""
"Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management."

In the article The Fox Memo Romenesko, a past worker for Fox News, steers the reader to believe that what is said in done at Fox news is controlled by the Management. Romenesko makes it seem like the stories that come from fox news are directed by the Managements views, opinions, and belief. This to me seems like a form of censorship that goes on in the Fox work field. This has been a common public view against this News Station. The fact that many workers are coming out and confirming this makes it even more believable. An example of the limitations placed on the workers was written by Romenesko in his article; "One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be "whining" about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital." If a story does not fit the guidelines given by management it isn't used. So can Fox really be trusted?

Maybe Saddam didnt have connections to terrorists



As we have learned hearing stories of this war in Iraq and seeing the propaganda videos in class, this picture is a grave understatement of how easy it is to spot the enemy and the ally. As we have seen from 9/11, it is not always a man with a turban and beard who is the guaranteed enemy and i think that what the soldiers are dealing with in Iraq is next to impossible to claim victory. Insurgents are coming out of nowhere, car bombs are going off everyday and we are occupying very, very unstable territory. When thinking of all of this now and seeing what a hole we are in, it could bring one back to think of how rushed this war was to begin and that maybe Saddam did not have connections to terrorists. If Saddam truly did not have connections to terrorists and Al Quada was not playing house in Iraq, then maybe we shouldn't be there and is it even winnable at this point

embedded journalism

even though embedded journalism gives the american people a first hand view of the war, i think that it does create a biast one. instead of seeing the war from a third person perspective and seeing just the facts of the war, the american public is seeing a more personal and emotional side of the war as they are seeing soldiers as real people who have families and lives that are outside of the war. This can be both positive and negative. It can positive for the soldiers because the people see their efforts and courage to protect us. It can be negative for the government because the people can see the destruction and damage first hand and have an emotional feeling towards not wanting all of it to take place.

CNN FROM FOLLOWERS TO LEADERS

"Despite aggressive attempts, CNN has not yet had a breakthrough comparable to its moment in Baghdad in 1991, when it was for some time the only television news network with clear camera shots of the city during United States bombing raids. MSNBC, Fox News and the three broadcast networks have been able to essentially match it in images from Afghanistan." In the last Gulf War Cnn were the leaders in the TV War New department and they followed tried to follow the rules of the pool report as better as they can. Most people at this time got most of their news by CNN. Now A liitle over ten years CNN has more compettition from other networks, and in the years their over seas reporting was becoming lax. This lead most of the CNN reporter to go back to the old time reporting and finding new ways to get an exclusive report that neither their competition had or the government wanted them to have. "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. The other networks grabbed the Al Jazeera signal when bombing began and CNN backed off from enforcing its agreement. "

Troop's Eye View of Reporting


"Not unlike covering a state house or congress, you get cozy with the people you
cover. They take you into their confidence. You end up self-censoring for
obvious reasons."
The problem with newscasters reporting from the front lines, is that journalists lose their objectivity by being involved personally with the soldiers fighting at the front lines of the war. They do not report casualties or disclose information against the military.
"Embedding" allows journalists to travel with and receive protection from the military and report in the middle of all the action of the war. Technically, this concept should allow for maximum amount of open coverage of the war. But people form bonds when there is a social connection and journalist lose sight of their main objective- TO BE OBJECTIVE.

I don't blame them for this. It's a human reaction. But on the other hand it's unfair to the American public who rely on the free press. We depend on the press to tell us what the government won't.

Media; Hearts, Minds and Satellites

In reading this article by Jim Rutenburg, you get the sense that if not for September 11th, CNN would not be the news station that it once was and still is today. He explains that many people were on the verge of losing their jobs and that CNN was trying to get away from their old school image of just being a news reporting station and that they were on the verge of a change or a reformation from strictly a hard news station to a television station that was more about today and other things out their in the world like the culture, what's going on in Hollywood, technology and science to all go with the current times but the effect of September 11th was to great of an effect on everyone to ignore and made CNN realize what they are and what they are known for and that is being one of the top news stations in the past, present and future. It was the capturing of what looked like green explosions during one night in Kabul by a video phone that could describe CNN at the tiem and their change of heart. They were hoping to go in a different direction but when it came down to it, no matter the circumstances, they just couldnt' get away from what their best at and what they've done throughout their history and that is be one of the top news stations going right now.

Fox Portrays a War of Good and Evil, and Many Applaud


"Fair and Balanced" is the Fox News networks catch phrase to suggest its politically conservative objectivity while its competitors are liberally biased. With the Iraqi war in occurence Fox News has become portrait of good-versus-evil. The problem is reporting America's views according to Fox is not explaining the motives of the enemy against the U.S. and why they view us as evil. They use
slander against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda without acknowledging why they criticize the U.S.

According to New York Times journalist Jim Rutenberg:
"Ever since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the network has become a sort of headquarters for viewers who want thier news served up with extra patriotic fervor. In the process, Fox has pushed television news where it has never gone before: to unabashed and vehement support of a war effort,carried in tough-guy declarations often expressing thirst for revenge."

There is no doubt that this smack news coverage has increased ratings because of its increase in patriotism along with cursing the enemy. Many question whether releasing such emotion gets in the way of objective reporting. Personally, I believe it does.

Embedded, And Taking Flak

Reporters like John Roberts of CBS are frustrated with criticism and flak from those who are tearing apart the Pentagon's embedding program for journalists. According to Washington Post Staff Writer Howard Kurtz:

"The 600 embedded correspondents have clearly braved difficult conditions to
bring viewers and readers the most vivid, compelling and instantaneous coverage in the history of war. But they are taking considerable flak for overly sympathetic reporting, dismissed by some as part of the military propaganda
machine."

Favoritism does exist amongst war officials and correspondents and it has been that way for many wars. ABC correspondent Ron Claiborne does not believe it undermines their objective. One questions whether the bonds the journalists share with the armed soldiers influence their reporting. The dangers these reporters face is evident during wartime and soldiers are there to protect them from the enemy.

The most prevalent criticism against embedded reporters is their narrow view of the war effort. Constant images and small battle reports may distort the viewers interpretation of the war. No one can deny the fact that this journalistic system is better than the pool system of the first Gulf war, where there were more limitations on the way journalists reported wartime.

Rumsfeld Calls Civilian Deaths Relatively Low



Defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in July 2002 that fewer deaths of innocent civilians was relatively low in comparison to previous wars. According to Thom Shanker American commanders at times used inaccurate information provided by local Afghans. Mr. Rumsfeld states:



"It is exceedingly difficult to get into an area immediately, find out
exactly what the casualties were, and come up with something that one feels confidence in by way of an estimate."

He also claims that the numbers of casualties found have often been less than what was initially reported. It is difficult to estimate how many innocent civilian casualties there are and what really counts as one. There are many different circumstances and situations in war that calculating deaths based on American attacks is questionable. Although Rumsfeld states that even with the age of advanced technology and precision-guided munitions there is still evidence of innocent lives lost, there has to be some carelessness on their behalf.

Monday, April 23, 2007

News Programs place in the media today


The article "Sunday Mourning" by Liz Cox does a great job in describing how important televised news programs are today. The article depicts an average setup for one of the Sunday afternoon from the standpoint of supervising producer of Fox News Sunday Richard DiBella. The five major Sunday news shows Fox News Sunday, This Week, Face The Nation, Meet The Press, and Late Editionhave a similar format. Each week they invite an influencial political figure on the show to discuss issues facign the nation that week. There can be many problems with this format however. According to the article,
"The producers must perform a delicate dance: if they book guests early in the week, they are less flexible to react to late breaking news; if they hesitate too long, a rival show willbeat them to the booking. The producers for one show might make 100 calls in a week to a list of thirty prospective guests."

Needless to say this is not an easy task. Although all shows are similarly the same, guests seem to favor shows with the higher ratings which at this time is NBC's Meet The Press. Much like we have seen all throughout this course ratings is the most important thing in today's news media.

Moyers: Selling the War















Bill Moyers has produced a new documentary for PBS called Buying the War It will air on Tuesday April 25th at 9:00pm on Channel 13(WNET).

Moyers also gave an interview about the documentary to Terry Gross on Fresh Air from WHYY. You can listen to it at online.

Final Essay Assignment Available!

The third and final essay assignment is available on Blackboard.

Labels:

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Fox Portrays a War of Good and Evil


"Osama bin Laden, according to Fox News Channel anchors, analysts and correspondents, is "a dirtbag," "a monster" overseeing a "web of hate." His followers in Al Qaeda are "terror goons." Taliban fighters are "diabolical" and "henchmen."
Ever since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the network has become a sort of headquarters for viewers who want their news served up with extra patriotic fervor. In the process, Fox has pushed television news where it has never gone before: to unabashed and vehement support of a war effort, carried in tough-guy declarations often expressing thirst for revenge." (Rutenberg, N.Y. Times, 12/3/01).

No other event in recent history has so changed the rules of engagement as the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Even the most pacifist-minded of groups were riled up by the horrible, mind-boggling events of that day, in which nearly 3000 civilians lost their lives-- a day that started out simply as a bright, sunny Tuesday morning in September.

With the American public's anger at the terrorists at full throttle, Fox News Channel gave the green light to its anchors and analysts to NOT hold back their tongues in a journalistic effort to be politically correct. Instead, they were encouraged to go after a "no-holds barred" approach to news of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Needless to say, this type of emotional, name-calling, flag-waving approach to telling the story is not what is taught at Columbia's School of Journalism.

Since its inception in 1996, Fox News Channel has always had a reputation of being politically conservative. But after 9/11, Fox correspondents went over-the-top in displaying their patriotic fervor, all while being given the stamp of approval from their bosses at Fox. Emotions were allowed to triumph over objective reporting, in a way never before displayed by the so-called media elites.

As Roger Ailes, the Fox News chairman said at the time, "Look, we understand the enemy- they've made themselves clear; they want to murder us, We don't sit around and get all gooey and wonder if these pople have been misunderstood in their childhood, If they're going to try to kill us, that's bad."

While many Americans seemed to go along with the Fox approach, as demonstrated by the growing audience of Fox News Channel (some days larger than that of CNN), critics of the Fox approach are not hard to find, particularly among students of journalism. You would think that Fox correspondents would "cool their jets" somewhat and not join the ranks of yellow journalism, or would you?