Critical Review of Three Seminar Readings - Essay Example

? Critical Review of Three Seminar Readings Introduction War has always been a source of intrigue and curiosity for centuries of human existence. Conflicts and violence, although has a bitter taste of pain and hatred, ultimately steers the human mind to ask as to why such events transpired, the underlying reasons for struggles, the conduct of war and results of battles. Curiosity has a seemingly insatiable appetite and the media organizations of today have evolved to a level of technical sophistication that this appetite is almost instantly quenched (or temporarily satisfied) – a development taken advantaged off by policy makers, politicians and even terrorists for propaganda. However, propaganda warfare is not a new tactic. In fact, Sun Tzu in his “Art of War” (6th Century BC) taught that an essential part of conducting warfare involves deceiving the enemy thus putting him into a disadvantage, ironically but logically, by making him believe that he is in a more advantageous form or position. Critique Indeed, this has been an essential part in the conduct of the cold war wherein Two-time Pulitzer Prize awardee Walter Lippmann argued that their side dwell on what is true and morally upright whilst on the enemy’s was mere propaganda. Well, though most conflicts are seen as a brutal show of force, an equal and sometimes bigger of this plays out using propagandas. As such, even wars are used by politicians and even terrorists to advance their own agendas. Hence, whether willingly or unwillingly, the technical sophistication of mass media has made it probably the most effective conduit for advancing these agendas; and both Bush and Bin Laden has greatly capitalized on this. Thus, Kellner’s critique of US broadcasting networks on his “Media Propaganda and Spectacle in the War on Iraq: a Critique of U.S. broadcasting network” offers to expose the sins of commission as well as the sins of omission committed by the various networks and taken advantaged of by President George W. Bush. As such, the author launched into an immense rhetoric of lashes against the administration’s ploy to use the War on Iraq through the various US media outfits in an effort to cement itself as the ultimate harbinger of good. In effect, this has set the stage to launch various theatrics such as “the coalition of the willing”, preemptive strikes and surgical bombings. The author painted a stark picture of a Bush Jr.-driven invasion that seem to be based on the desire to wrap up what his daddy had started and reinforce the United States position as the resident global watch dog (Kellner 2004, p. 330). Of course such an invasion cannot be crafted overnight and against the backdrop of the 9-11 terror attack in late 2001, the architects of war got busy in 2002 to drum up the assault on Iraqi soil. Indeed, war is an ugly business but one cannot argue that though it brings forth economic damages, it can also be profitable for some. Back in the old days, it is the victor that seemingly solely benefits as they thrive from the spoils of war. Nowadays, one does not need for a war’s conclusion but from war itself comes the golden opportunity for media mileage and political leverage. Hence, the exploitation of these opportunities at the expense of Iraq and her people seem to be the center of the paper. Indeed, the facts were stated fully to support the allegations in this paper. However, it would seem that only one side of the story was covered. A quick review of the references used would indicate an inclination on the need to assert the wrongful acts committed during the incursion. There are indeed various areas of concern that may have been committed in this discourse. In effect, the discourse has seemingly singled out President George W. Bush against Saddam Hussein hence bringing about Manicheanism, wherein Bush seems to have been demonized in the critique. The paper likewise went about to decontextualize violence putting heavy emphasis on the attacks made and painting it as irrational while at the same time neglecting the reasons for such actions. Thus, the critique fell into the same trap that has befallen the US broadcasting big shots, most notably Fox news. These are some examples of follies to be avoided when covering violence espoused by Professor Johan Galtung that journalists and media men would do well to take heed (Schechter, 2001). Of course the US was not alone in this endeavor. Although mentioned in the foregoing critique, the British were relegated to the back seat with the grandstanding of Bush. However, Tony Blair did was not the main ingredient in Poole’s discourse but the British media itself. Likewise, his discourse went beyond Iraq, Saddam and Bin Laden but was more of an appeal to have equal representation for the Muslims (Poole 2003). As such, the appeal for fairness espoused on this paper was able to somehow seep into the general approach of the critique for the British media. Furthermore, unlike Fox and its other US counterparts, the British media such as BBC was able to offer a more balanced view of the war (that is compared to US standards of course). However, one of the emerging concerns is the rise of Islamophobia. Not surprisingly though, the terror attacks have been caused by Muslim extremists and the Iraq war have effectively been played out as a West versus Muslim battle royale. Furthermore, Savory (Introduction to Islamic Civilization, 127) alleges that the West has somehow regarded Islam’s existence like a general discomfort. Again, it was the media that provided the valuable conduit that transferred the fear being fanned by the terrorist strikes and the war to the British people. Consequently, the war on terror has been viewed by many as a war on Islam. This train of thought has generated much hate and fear. As mentioned, this was compounded by the media and has contributed to the increase in the bottomlines of media outfits. Fortunately, Poole’s critique was informative of the perils of a possible spread of a hate culture that is easily accessible through the mass media. The effects of September 11 and the War in Iraq on British Newspaper coverage have effectively highlighted the possible lapse of the British into a culture of racism. However, it fails to provide alternatives that can be applied easily to avert such a situation. But, it cannot be denied that these are the news that brings in money and the hype of the time demands for such a manner of news writing. The problems is that matters of public interest have been muddled with those of interests for private capitalists and that is a menace to a society’s morality (Poole 2003). Finally, we have the discourse on Television Agora and Agarophobia Post September 11showed the original “shock and awe” delivered by the terrorists on September 11, 2001 on the heart of economic and military affluence of the United States. The paper presented a general denial on the part of Americans wherein most just lay transfixed on their television sets looking at the unimaginable horror that practically made the bombing of Pearl Harbor a holiday. Although the central players are clear, the reaction paper made an earnest attempt to avoid Manicheanism and has not really espoused the difference between the good guys and the bad guys (Schechter 2001). The author was also able to consider much of the needed information from the politicians involved, the different eye witnesses and even that of the victims and their families. In essence, it had been quite easy given the cooperative aura generated by the common fear and anger of the Americans generated by the terrorist attack. Thus, it was easier to get views and opinions as those involved had one or two things to say and gave their opinions freely when opportunities arose. However, news casting and news writing has ganged up on the topic that unintentionally helped the terrorists accomplish their key goals which are to be known worldwide which they acquired to the media mileage attributed to them and to sow fears on the West as news are pounded on every Tom, Dick and Harry through various agents be it the television, radio or even the internet. These persons are generally attention seekers and thrive well under the limelight. This is basically where they get their much needed identity and the massive broadcasting of their acts of terrorism has gained them recognition not just with their enemies but on supporters and possible financiers alike (Nacos 2007). Conclusion War, violence, terror or conflicts are all bad news. However, it is the bad news that perks the human mind and generates curiosity. Though many would argue that it is the pain and suffering that is highlighted in these types of news, it is the nagging curiosity that gives these news media mileage. Hence, each of these articles have effectively espoused the utilization and maximization of various media outfits to milk in as much money from these news. However, they are often unmindful of the consequences of their actions and it is fair to say that the critiques have been very effective in exposing the excesses of the various networks in question. It is fortunate that the critiques were able to avoid the journalism folly of being unable to investigate the causes of such a rise of the media coverage and the force it generated (Schechter 2001) to influence various ideologies, perceptions and even ways of life. After the terrorist attack and the war on Iraq, the world will probably be forever changed as security has been feverishly beefed up and a general sense of insecurity envelopes the free world. Terrorists can strike almost anytime. They just need to be fortunate just once to be able to sow fear again whereas authorities must be consistently on guard. It is not an easy task for the soldiers that fight, for the families who lost their loved ones and for the general population who were afraid – on one end of another terror attack and on the other for possible unfair, racist treatment. At the middle of all these are the media outfits that make money whether they are mindful of the consequences or not. In the end, these critiques are meant to rouse the general’s public of understanding the possible pitfalls of the media and caution the media companies against using these unfortunate incidents in our history to fatten their purses and portray the players as a caricature of raving lunatics and fearful peons. References  Cottle, S 2002, ‘Television agora and agoraphobia post-september 11’, In Zelizer, B & Allan, S (eds) Journalism After September 11. Routledge, London. Jaspal, R & & Cinnirella, M 2010, ‘Coping with potentially incompatible identities: accounts of religious, ethnic and sexual identities from British Pakistani men who identify as Muslim and gay’, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 849-870. Kellner, D 2004, 'Media propaganda and spectacle in the war on iraq: a critique of u.s. broadcasting networks' in cultural studies’, Critical Methodologies, vol. 4, pp. 329-338. Nacos, B 2007, Mass mediated terrorism, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Poole, E 2006, ‘The effects of september 11 and the war in iraq on british newspaper coverage’, In Poole, E. (ed) Muslims and the News Media, pp.89-102. Tauris, London. Schechter, D 2001, ‘Covering violence: How should media handle conflict’, [Online] Available at: http://www.peace.ca/coveringviolence.htm Read More