Painting 2 very different pictures of the same war

"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denounced the network for showing video footage of American prisoners of war, and British military commander Brian Burridge called al-Jazeera's close-up videos of two dead British soldiers "shocking" and "disgraceful.

Is this footage shocking and disgraceful because they are showing violent images or because they are showing footage that will loose support for the war in the US. The footage al-Jazeera is showing is propaganda to support the Iraqi's position on the war.The US uses propaganda to gain support for the war, why can't Iraq?

Mirazi disagrees. An Egyptian-born U.S. citizen who worked for the Voice of America in Washington for 12 years and for BBC radio for two years before joining al-Jazeera in 2000, he defends his network's policy of showing gruesome footage of dead soldiers and civilians.

"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. That's important because the families [of dead soldiers] are going to be the only ones who see those gruesome images when they get the bodies. How about the rest of the American population? How are they going to appreciate their sacrifices? . . . If you leave it to politicians, you won't see anything." Peter Carlson, “In the Line of Fire,” 2003.

I would have to agree that the Iraqi's have the right to see what is really going on in the war. The US does not show the footage of the war as it is happening which gives the American public a sense of distance from the war. Many times people forget how gruesome war can be because we are not exposed to what is really happening. We do not see people being killed or bombs being dropped, or actual combat making the war seem clean and somewhat unreal. If the public was exposed to the war as al-Jazeera presents it, the Americans would rise against the war. Sanitized and censored images of the war keep the American public distant and quiet.I feel that the public has the right and should see these images and form their opinion on the war. I do not feel that the al-Jazeera station is not wrong for exposing the gruesome footage.

Al Jazeera Will Evoke the Fear in Ya

Al Jazeera, the independent news station based in Doha, Qatar, which broadcasts in over 20 Arab countries, is not only doing more than it's fair share of frightening people, but is also relentlessly adding "fuel to the fire." As portrayed by the New York Times article on November 18th, 2001, entitled "What the Muslim World Is Watching" by Fouad Ajami, Al Jazeera emphasizes war, death and corpses to the Arab world more than anything else. From tuning in to this 24 hour news channel, an "anti-Americanist/ anti-Zionist" (New York Times) sentiment can be powerfully felt through the despicable speech used and programming shown to the public.

In terms of the level of propaganda, or amount of one-sided information and images that Al Jazeera uses in their news broadcasts and shows, it is safe to say that they go to the extreme. Not only does their programming aim to and accomplish horrifying the Arab world with their bloody, as well as devastated lands and people, but they also continually frame the "enemies," (mainly those whom are not Muslims), to anger the public and gain support in their practice and preaching of hatred.

Furthermore, in this quote from "What the Muslim World Is Watching," it is made blatantly clear the way in which Al Jazeera keeps Arabs in tune with their beliefs, as well as maintains the Arab world's feelings of sympathy in the anti-American struggle, as Ajami details a highlighted feature on Al Jazeera; an attack in 1983 by "a young man in a Mercedes truck loaded with TNT who struck the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans":

"The segment revisited the horror of that day -- the wailing of the wounded, the soot and ruin everywhere. The images were far more horrible than any I had ever seen of the tragedy. There was no sympathy in the narration, and a feeling of indifference, even menace, hung over this dark moment of remembrance. The message was clear: the Middle East was, and is, a region of heartbreak for the foreign power."

This quote helps to identify the prime example of what Al Jazeera stands for and represents to an astounding 35 million Arabs globally (Ajami): the magnification of the idea that Muslims are the most oppressed people in the world and this is mainly the fault of Americans or Zionists. If they are not airing their own civilians and children dying at the hands of American or Israeli soldiers, they will surely be found lending playtime to celebrate the killings of the Americans or Zionists who do not believe in their fundamentalist religious ideas. The Arab world, however can not be blamed for the propaganda that keeps them in fear of and in check by their religious leaders; they are simply keeping faith in Al Jazeera, their trusted news source, as there is not many other outlets by which Arabs can receive full and accurate information. Therefore, what they are allowed to know and traumatized by with gruesome images and despicable words, unfortunately is that which leads their way in terms of opinions, beliefs and ultimately, hatred.

Nintendo News

In Macarthur’s “Second Front” Jonathan Alter, a media writer, warned that “before long more television viewers may come to realize that for all the spooky network music, theatrical correspondents, and Nintendo military briefings, they have little real information about the progress of the war” (Macarthur 89).

Jonathan Alter was right and viewers lost interest in televised news, at the time, causing networks to lose millions of dollars during the Gulf War. “It became acceptable for graphics to tell most of the story” which was the only option the networks had during the war. The media, simply, did not have interesting enough footage do to censorship.

The government was successful with their censorship campaign and it helped them maintain a specific image of the war. They were able to tell the public about the victories against the “evil” forces of Iraq without showing the ugly face of war. All this was done in order to keep the public in a state that backed the war effort.

The Problem Of Objectivity ?

I enjoyed reading the long article regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the article there are a lot of things that is worth mentioning. One of the things that I noticed is that the people that were interviewed were mostly reporters. The whole purpose of the article was to show how the media reported the war in Iraq. Also this article showed how some of the reporters did their job. One of the examples that I found very interesting is that all of the information that some reporters, report back to the United States was not always true. The reason was simply because they could not check whether their information had substance. In additions the reporters seem to have a lot of difficulty finding what happen in the battlefield. They could not interview the people in Iraq because they had no knowledge of the Iraqi language. They had to rely on interpreters which were pretty difficult to find. The whole article is very interesting because it has extended my knowledge of how a reporter can have a difficult job to find information.
There are a lot of question that came to my mind when I finished reading the entire article. First I wonder how can people keep asking if the media has been objective about the news that they report every night? The reason for asking is simply because in the case of the war in Iraq it was pretty difficult to check the facts. Also, another problem that most of the reporters face is that some of the information was not allow to them or they did not have access to. This is because the military did not allow the media to report this information because they do not want to show the public about the real action that happens in Iraq. I also wonder if the picture that the media used during the report of the war was the correct one. This question falls under media representation. How correct was the media in putting a certain picture and how effective was it? Overall the article was a picture of the pro—and –cons of the whole media.

Al Jazeera or America? Who is telling the truth?

"No matter how hard we try, we cannot beat Al Jazeera at it's own game. But one thing is sure: there is no need to reward a channel that has made a name for itself through stridency and anti-Americanism. There is a war on the battlefield, and that is America's to win."

This quote from an article in the New York Times, by Fouad Ajami, expresses a lot of nationalism and a negative tone toward the Arabic news station Al Jazeera. When reading the article I had to remind myself that it was written in November of 2001, two months after the 9/11 attacks. So at this time many Americans did feel very negatively toward people of the Arabic cultures. Also during this time Al Jazeera was known for playing videos sent to them by America's number 1 enemy, Osama Bin Laden. So there are many reasons as to why this article seemed so bias.

What I got from the article is that Al Jazeera was reporting their side of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan as they saw it. They are station that was made for Arabic speaking Muslims in the Middle East, so their news is going to favor their views, not the views of Americans. What Ajami's article seemed like it was doing was basically bashing Al Jazeera in presenting the news to their people in a "anti-Americanism" way. But why would a news station, located in a country that were fighting in a war against, report news supporting the American way? American news stations weren't uplifting Al Jazeera at this time (as we can see in this article), so why should Al Jazeera uplift us in their news?

This article didn't seem objective at all. I'm guessing it was a review of the news station Al Jazeera in itself. But even the background history that Ajami provided about Al Jazeera seemed negative as well. The whole article was based on making Al Jazeera seem like an Osama Bin Laden supporter and a huge enemy of American liberty. I don't feel like this is what American journalism should be based on. Journalists have a job at being non bias in thier reporting, and I don't think this was practiced in this article.

Such an outrage it is

"...newspapers reported a U.S air assault that Iraqi officials said killed 58 people at a vegetable market in Baghdad..."

It can give you such anxiety and make you paranoid to hear such things as to one moment someone can be enjoying their day and the next be dead.

"The popular Al-Jazeera satellite television network broadcast the funerals of those killed at the market. It repeatedly showed pictures of severed body parts and wounded toddlers bandaged and crying in hospital beds".

Television ratings and movie ratings are usually there for a purpose, right? Who decides these ratings? Usually that is upon the government . For years in the United States, it was extremely rare to come across a picture of the solider that had deceased or was wounded as a result of the war. Although those images can be gruesome, bloody and morbid; the showing of those images shows the progress America has made. Reality is told in the numbers broadcasted for the death tolls of both civilians and soilders. The sad part is that it isn't until we hear those numbers or see those real and raw pictures is when we realize something is terribly wrong.

Al Jazeera...The Fox News of The East

In the document that I chose out of the packet entitled "What the Muslim World Is Watching" by Fouad Ajami, I was intrigued by the efforts that Al Jazeera has made over its short history to craft their own version of the the world as well as facilitating the ideals of Terrorist factions. In the document Ajami begins by using the example of a documentary televised on the Al Jazeera network which chronicled Che Guevara's "last stand" before his capture and ultimate execution. This "Romanticism" of a legendary "rebel" as Ajami would call him, would also make the comparison that Che Guevara is to Bolivian people as Osama Bin Laden is to the people of Afghanistan. Ajami would later in the document make the comparison between Al Jazeera and the American networks such as Fox News in how they both are the extremes of a media, but also noting that Al Jazeera takes their rhetoric to another extreme all together:

"On Al-Jazeera the Hollywoodization of news is indulged with an abandon that would make the Fox News Channel blush. The channel's promos are particularly shameless. One clip juxtaposes a scowling George Bush with a poised, almost dreamy bin Laden; between them is an image of the World Trade Center engulfed in flames"

I felt that this was interesting because when I watch networks such as Fox News and CNBC, I can see the depths that they take everyday to stay on either side of the aisle. I feel when covering news your covering some critical material which ultimately will play into the fears and the safety of the audience. As an American watching the constant videos released by Bin Laden after 9/11, you can only be worried about the future of the country in respects to the anti-American sentiment promoted on this network:

"The channel's numerous call-in shows welcomes viewers to express opinions that in the United States would be considered hate speech. And, of course, there is the matter of Al-Jazeera's "exclusive bin Laden videotape....Dressed in a camouflage jacket over a traditional thoub, bin Laden spoke in ornate Arabic, claiming that the terror attacks of Sept. 11 should be applauded by Muslims".

Although I do not promote the acts of terrorism at no time, it is important to note that this country has their own skeletons which they have seemed to try to hide themselves which makes these networks that much more harder to dissect. Before the war began their was already an attempt to create an "Anti-Muslim sentiment" to fuel the need for war by not only the Bush administration but the media alike. We as people also took on the job of adding to these feelings and still remain in a anti-Muslim country, no matter if we want to believe it or not.

You Choose the War You Want to See

Neil MacFarquhar, “Arabic Stations Compete for Attention,” 2003.

For the majority of the war in Iraq, the American citizens have been forced to watch footage that was appropriate to see (as by our government's standards). We never really saw what was really going on in Iraq where our loved ones are risking their lives everyday. Although the people deserve to see what was going on networks did not show the real footage. We saw a diluted war. If anything our networks should have done things like in Iraq.

Al Jazeera is a station locaedt in Iraq that shows actual footage from the war. However the only problem with this is that they are biased. The people in Iraq have access to this station and also to the American stations so if any thing they can watch both to get a complete understanding of the war.

"Sawsan Shair, a renowned Bahraini columnist, is among the critics of Al Jazeera's presentation. She tunes into the pro-American Kuwait channel when she wants to drown out harsh reality — 'everything is always O.K. — the allies are going through smoothly, there is no resistance, the Iraqi government will fall down soon," she said. "But if I want my blood pressure to go up, I watch Al Jazeera. They always insert their point of view'."

If we had access to information from both points of view, we would have been able to choose what we wanted to see. I think we should have been able to know what was really going on and what the Iraqis thought about us as well. Instead of being fed images of a false war we could have been seeing the truth, of a semi-diluted version of the truth.

Is The News "Too" Real?

“In the Line of Fire” by Peter Carlson, Washington Post Staff Writer

Since its creation in 1996, al-Jazeera has been a highly controversial Arab TV news network. In effort to broadcast objective and balanced news programming, Al-Jazeera airs daring images and news coverage which ruptured the domination of government controlled political propaganda on Arabic television. According to author Mohammed Nawawy, al-Jazeera “opened up freedom of speech in the Arab world.” However, al-Jazeera is constantly criticized by countries such as America, Great Britain, Iraq, and Baghdad for being too explicit . For instance, Arabs have accused the network of being a tool for Zionists and the CIA after airing interviews with Israeli and American officials whereas Israelis and Americans condemned the network for publishing tapes by Islamic radicals such as Osama bin Laden. In addition, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield denounced the network for showing video footage of American prisoners of war while British military Brian Burridge described the videos of dead British soldiers as “shocking” and “disgraceful.”

On the other hand, Hafez Mirazi, the Washington bureau chief of al-Jazeera, defends their blunt portrayal of news saying:

“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. 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.”

Furthermore, supporting viewers of al-Jazeera find their coverage of the American War on Iraq to be fair and unbiased being that they portray both sides of the war. Unlike American news channels, Al-Jazeera covered Pentagon and Centcom briefings as well as briefings by the Iraqi defense minister. In effect, Mirazi declares that their news coverage is more balanced than American media sources.

The World News coming from Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera started out as an unpopular source for news. If you compared Al Jazeera newsroom to an American newsroom, you cannot help but notice the difference in size of the two media outlets. During the Gulf War, many citizens wanted to know what was going on overseas. They turned to such stations as CNN and BBC. Al Jazeera struggled to attract an audience. But that seemed to change when Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani came into power.

"Al Jazeera, which translates as "the Peninsula," was established by emiri decree in February 1996. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who seized power in 1995 from his father, created Al Jazeera as part of an effort to modernize and democratize Qatar. He allocated $137 million to Al Jazeera with the goal that the station would be self-sustaining within five years of its November 1, 1996, debut." (Rick Zednik, Inside Al Jazeera)

Al Jazeera quickly became a popular news station. It is the only 24 hour Arab station in the world. Al Jazeera was delivering the news to its thirty-five million viewers. It was not only covering the war; it became an important player in the global battle for public opinion. American media can be credited for the success of Al Jazeera.

Media Coverage of the Gulf War

“The American mainstream news during combat has been much like the hired bards of medieval monarchs: when war has come, our journalists have become propagandists.” J.MacArthur, "Second Front"

Having access to information during wartime is crucial for the media as this creates the transparency and accountability of both sides during the conflict. Without the presence of a neutral mediator the atrocities which were seen in wars of the past will be repeated, while the presence of a respectable media ensures that information is provided to the rest of the world. In the long run this allows for those responsible to be held accountable for their actions and limit senseless destruction and actions against the civilian population.
However, not all responsibility for incomplete and misleading coverage of the war rests with the military. Journalists themselves failed to cope with their own technology. Instant news puts additional burdens on journalists to introduce their craft into the process. Journalism is the act of choosing from competing information that which most accurately and completely reflects an event. This includes editing for balance and accuracy. It means presenting information in context, relating it to other facts and events.

"we can do it"

During world War II , the United States used the rosie the rivetor poster to entice women into working in the 1940s. The picture conveys rosie with her sleeves rolled up to 3/4 length with muscles, a red bandana and a blue jean button-up. Rosie the Rivetor wasnt a real person, but she conveyed to the women in this period that "we can do it". This enabled women to think they they were able to do what the men were able to do. also to get more women working in the factories. This was a powerful propaganda weapon to encourage women to fill-in for the men while they were fighting World War II at war working really hard.
Women were to take on the roles of men and do factory work. rather than their usual task that were cosidered a women job such as staying at home and taking care of the children and the family, cleaning up the home and having the food ready after a hard long day for the hardworking men.
Prior to World War II women werent able to work in factories or do the "Mans Job" it was frowwned upon. Women were viewed as weak and dainty. This ws the big opportunity so they can prove theirselves since the men were hard at work.