Media Manipulation

According to David Barstow and Robin Stein Writers of the article "Under Bush a New Age of Prepackaged  TV News" The Bush administration and other parts of the federal government had aggressively used a well- established tool of public relations, prepackaged ready-to-serve news had been delivered to TV stations around the nation. They say columnists were accepting payments from the government to write in support of administration policies.

This is interesting because normally a TV station would not accept pre-packaged news with out giving the name of the source which they left out the majority of the time during the Bush Administration. Also interesting is that these reports were all in support of important administrative objectives such as regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform, or less important objectives such as curbing childhood obesity or providing after-school tutoring. News television stations don't only provide Reports , they also have talk-shows that thrive on the importance of who they interview. Administration Officials would come on the show having known all the questions they would be asked as well as already prepared there "perfect" answer. This leaves little room for a truly objective conversation and news channel in general.  With government produced news segments there is a thin line between public relations and journalism. After the  stories have been put on television, sent to satellite and spread around the world; a government written, produce and influenced piece now can be called independent journalism.

This is not a new practice , presidents have been buying off networks to support their point of view for years. Interestingly enough President Bush in 2005 called for a clearer distinction between journalism and the government publicity efforts; saying "There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press" I guess this new prohibition did not apply to the government made TV news segments.

Hillary Clinton's Opinion of Al Jazeera

Americans are blind when it comes to good news; this is true according to Hillary Clinton. In the article “Sec. of State Hillary Clinton: Al Jazeera is ‘Real News’, U.S. Losing ‘Information War’” Clinton said “Al Jazeera has been the leader in that are literally changing people’s minds and attitudes. And like it or hate it, it is really effective”. She continued by saying “In fact viewership of al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners,” . Clinton said that ever since the Cold War news in America has never been the same or very informative “We have not really kept up with the times,” Clinton said.

Hillary Clinton also said that we are at war “We are in an information war and we cannot assume that this youth bulge that exists not just in the Middle East but in so many parts of the world really knows much about us. I mean we think they know us and reject us, I would argue the really don’t know very much about who we are,” This article was very interesting to me because here we have a woman who is deeply involved in politics and knows her stuff. The question that hit me after reading what Hillary Clinton said was why is nearly every other political figure and person in government is so against Al Jazeera? Especially when someone as educated and who has the political credibility of Hillary Clinton backing them up. And why won’t American cables give Al Jazeera a channel.

I did some research on this and found out why American cable systems won't carry the Al Jazeera Network in the article called “Why American Cable Systems Won't Carry the Al Jazeera Network”. The Article said it is because many cable companies agree with former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and feel that Al Jazeera is “a mouthpiece of al Qaeda” and “inexcusably biased,”. Most importantly many cable companies feel that if they do get a deal and are shown all over the U.S. all of the other American News shows would get canceled or at least they fear that because “Cable and satellite providers in the U.S. have received more than 40,000 e-mails from customers urging they carry Al Jazeera English, according to AJE managing director Al Anstey. The network’s website traffic shot up 2,500 percent in the wake of the ongoing revolts, with half of that originating in the U.S.”. Another reason that this article gives to why some cable providers don’t carry Al Jazeera is “largely because cable operators have no interest in carrying it”.

Arabic Stations Compete for Attention

Arabic Stations Compete for Attention

by Neil MacFarquhar

Against the backdrop of the real war, another battle was shaping amongst the Arabic-speaking world of television broadcasters for an audience addicted to news. During that time Aljazeera was the news station that dominated against the smaller and newer channels that were challenging its grip on Arab viewers. Aljazeera was a satellite station based in Qatar, and its broadcast had far more graphic pictures than any other network.

Many critics argued that Aljazeera was affecting the Arab’s public opinion to a degree never reached before. Sawsan Shair (as probably many others), said that when she wanted to drown out harsh reality she would tune into the pro-American Kuwait channel, but when she wanted her blood pressure to go up, she would then watch Aljazeera, because they always inserted their point of view.

Arabic networks were sympathetic to the Americans call of conflict of war for liberation. In the other hand, Aljazeera called it an invasion. They had fewer interviews if any with Iraqis happy to see Americans. Aljazeera reported that American officials “claim” while Iraqis officials “say”. Some viewers complained that Aljazeera rarely mentions Iraqi military casualties.

Then in the Aljazeera network if the anchor was interviewing a person and this person did not agree with their point of view, he would cut him off the air. An example given in the article was when a figure of Iraqi opposition tried to say that all the violence going on was a legacy of Saddam Hussein’s decades of tyranny. The general manager of Aljazeera said that they were not with or against any party or any country.

The Abu Dhabi TV was another satellite channel that sometimes got the latest news before Aljazeera, which made some viewers turn back and forth between both channels. The difference from Abu Dhabi TV and Aljazeera is that the anchor from Abu Dhabi TV rarely interrupts speakers and its promotional slogan is “On the Front Line” compared with Aljazeera’s “War in Iraq”.

The Western networks have largely avoided showing the gruesome scenes of Iraqi civilian casualties, focusing more on military hardware and analysis. However, Arab viewers particularly accused them for fielding many correspondents lacking any sense of religion.

            According to the article, the Aljazeera station comes under harsh criticism from Arab governments. In Syria, the government views Aljazeera as insufficiently antiwar. “They may speak Arabic, but they are not reporting from an Arab perspective that takes a clear stand against the war” said Buthaina Shaaban, director of foreign media at he Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The impact that these networks have in the Arab populations is huge. Arab viewers can be fiercely partisan. After watching pictures of their country being bombed, some Iraqis decide to return and fight despite their dislike of Saddam Hussein. Some Iraqis became overwhelmed by anger when they saw reports of civilians that were killed. In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Palestinians identify with the Iraqis because they too have been attacked with a vast arsenal of American-made weapons. In Ramallah, protesters chanted against a new Dubai-based network for reporting that reflected the initial American line that the Iraqi government was collapsing. The Arab networks mostly accepted the American military version of the events at first, but suspicions grew after word came out that some officials were killed but it proved untrue.