How the East views the World: As reflected by media coverage of the war on Syria - Research Paper Example

How the East views the World: As reflected by media coverage of the war on Syria Media plays a big role on how the general public perceives what’sgoing on around them and around the world. Media practitioners know in concept that they have certain obligations to tell the truth in the most unbiased way possible so that the people, who read their articles, listen to their programs or watch their shows will have a clear way to assess their situation. Fair and truthful broadcasting is ideal, however it can be difficult to attain, and to some extent, it is not yet realized because of certain restrictions imposed on the media practitioners either by the network themselves, by the government, or other institutions tasked to regulate it. How an issue is represented can affect the attitudes of the people and can be used as a tool for persuasion and/ or manipulation of views. Some of us here in the West have certain beliefs that were formed by the stereotypes presented to us on national TV and the news. Whenever we hear about the Middle East, especially for countries like Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria (among others) we immediately think about war and we label certain Islamic nations as terrorists. These thoughts are very racist and our media are learning to take balanced views of the region so as not to do more damage on the reputation of the innocents, albeit slowly. We know how people in the Middle East are presented to us, but it is also important to learn how the West is represented to those in the Middle East. What image is the media painting in the minds of the common people with regards to the U.S. and European countries? Do they represent the news as we present it here in our country? The purpose of this paper is to shed some light into how we (Westerners) are perceived in the (Middle) East by using articles about the war in Syria published by three different Media Networks: Aljazeera America, Tehran Times, and the Jerusalem Post. By comparing how they wrote about the action of the United States, the United Nations and other European countries with regards to the turmoil in Syria, we will be able take some insight on how we and our actions are viewed from their side. We will also factor in the backgrounds of the different networks and how this affects the way they represent the news. The networks’ backgrounds Aljazeera America1. A broadcast network owned by Quatar-based Al Jazeera Media Network, Aljazeera America is the expansion network of Aljazeera in the United States. They are affiliated with more than 70 Aljazeera bureaus around the world. Different from Aljazeera English and the Aljazeera that broadcasts from Qatar to other areas in the Arabic Peninsula, Aljazeera America is geared for the American audience and is devoted to broadcasting domestic as well as international news produced within U.S. shores but with the same tenacity and “fearlessness” as how the Aljazeera does it back in the Arabian Peninsula. Though they are new players in the States (launched just this August 20, 2013), they are already major competitors for ratings and airtime with major news agencies such as CNN, BBC, FOX NEWS, among others because of the coverage of their parent Qatar-based network during the wars on Afghanistan following the 9-11 terrorist attack, as well as the American troops’ deployment in Iraq, and Iran. Tehran Times2. This network started out in 1979 as a foreign-language publication that gives voice to the Islamic Revolution. It and its news agency, Mehr News Agency (MNA) is not owned by the government of Iran and thus they claim that their reporting is unbiased and more reflective of the “real” situation. Most contributors are from Iran and other Middle Eastern countries but they also have Americans and people of other nationalities as contributors. The Jerusalem Post3. Previously called the Palestine Bulletin, the Jerusalem Post was founded in 1932 and is still based in Jerusalem, Israel. From that time, there had been many shifts in the orientation of the newspaper. It was predominantly leftist, and then became more rightist during the 1980s. In its current management, it tries to be neutral and non-partisan and it has also expanded the forms of media that it utilizes in its broadcast. They now have a presence in the worldwide web as they stream some programs online, have blogs that tackle different issues, and host content on their independent website. Covering the war on Syria Many local and international networks have covered the events that are happening in Syria. International involvement was piqued when the attack on Damascus happened. There are many sides to the story presented but our focus would be on examining and analyzing how the West and the rest of the world was represented by those three papers and why they chose to use that framework and how this might affect the attitudes and perspectives of their intended audience. Aljazeera America. Since Aljazeera America is geared towards Americans and western readers in general, the perspective that they use is primarily Euro- or Western-centric. The tone that they use in covering the events happening in and around Syria is that of an observer. The active perspective is only assumed when the actors are from the West. There are more articles in the Aljazeera America website about the actions of the American government and the UN than the decisions and actions that would directly affect those that are caught between the battles. Take for example the article published online on September 07, 2013 ‘Obama takes case for Syria strikes to war-weary public’ – it focuses on AMERICA and the American Government, and assumes that the chemical weapons attack on Damascus was somehow a direct attack on the U.S. The other focus of this article is the people’s reaction to Obama’s plans to wage an attack on Syria and its government. It doesn’t really talk about how devastation the chemical attack was on the people of Damascus. The articles published on September 16, 2013 “UN: Evidence of Syrian chemical attack ‘indisputable’”, October 1, 2013 “Inspectors begin mission to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons” and the one published October 9, 2013 “Chemical weapons watchdog seeks Syria ceasefire” all took the side and experiences of the UN entourage that spearheaded the destruction and disarming of the chemical weapons and facilities that Syria allegedly has. They spoke about how cooperative Syria had been with regards to these international efforts but again, it de-emphasizes the people of Syria and turns the spotlight to the West who controls most of the UN and the implementation of these kinds of actions. It is not to say that what the UN did was wrong but, with regards to how the events were represented, Aljazeera America made is as though the story of the Syrian war is just for the West and affects only the West, and can be stopped only with the intervention of the West – which is all untrue. There was an article however that placed the spotlight back at the Arabian Peninsula and this was dated September 10, 2013 “Hezbollah rolls the dice in Syria” by Josh Wood. It talks about the tactical significance of having the Hezbollah forces fighting on the side of the Syrian government. It also talks about the impact of letting the rebels win and have their requests granted – spells doom for the Iranian Life Line and the Shia Crescent. Tehran Times. There is a stark contrast in how the articles from the Tehran Times tackle the Syrian unrest. If the heroes in the picture are the westerners in the perspective of Aljazeera America, they are the antagonists in the portrayal by the Tehran Times. The article published on October 06, 2013 “West trusts al-Queda more than me: Assad”, defends the president of Syria which was heavily criticized in the articles on Aljazeera America. The focus of the article published on October 18, 2013 “chemical weapons inspectors hail progress in Syria” celebrates the cooperation and support given by the Syrian government to the UN envoys. It emphasizes that the inspectors would not have finished according to plan if the Syrian government did not do its share and even extended help. In a recent article dated November 15, 2013 “Hezbollah will stay in Syria as long as needed: Nasrallah” highlighted that the terror that anti-Shia rebels are spreading and they would rather fight in Syria and continue fighting so that the terror would stop spreading to neighboring countries and stop from coming to Lebanon. Clearly, the focus is on what is happening on the Arabian Peninsula and what the people from both sides are experiencing instead of focusing on what the other countries that are not even remotely experiencing the battle are doing. Tehran times actually goes even further with the following articles: “Who benefits from the protraction of war in Syria” by K. Ziabari, “Western rationality before our eyes” by T. Meyssan and “In a war on Syria, everyone would lose except the extremists” by D. Ahmadzadeh. These articles condemn the meddling of the West and the international efforts from the UN. They point out that these actions are not for the people of Syria and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula but for the benefit of their own ulterior motives. The last article paints a clear picture that if other parties would continue to push themselves in they will also encounter losses and there will be no clear cut victories making the sacrifices of those who died in vain. The Jerusalem Post. The Jerusalem Post is not pro-West but it does not side with the Islamic brotherhood either. Their perspective on the Syrian war is grounded on its effect on Israel as a nation. Their focus is in the repercussions of war and the involvement of other countries to the national security of their state. This is clearly seen in the following articles: “Peri: Iran, not Syria, is Israel's biggest threat” by A. Gottlieb, “Elite Hezbollah fighters are spearheading battle in Syria, IDF commander warns” by H. Rome, and “Report: AIPAC to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama's Syria strike plan” by the jpost.com staff. For other stuff that does not directly concern Israel, they report it very neutrally and in a matter-of-fact manor. The details are presented without bias of emphasis on the characters and the views given are balanced as can be seen in the following articles: “Poll: Americans, Europeans oppose Western military intervention in Syria”, and “Russia denounces 'preconceived' UN findings on Syria's chemical weapons use” both dated September 18, 2013 and “UN report confirms sarin gas used in Syria chemical attack” by M. Shwayder. Deriving the view on westerners and the rest of the world from articles of the Syria war These questions then need to be asked and answered. Why did those news agencies depict their story in the way that they did? What were the factors that made them portray the truth with their particular biases? How does their representation of the World affect how their readers see the past and subsequent action of the nations and personas involved? Why did those news agencies depict their story in the way that they did? And what were the factors that made them portray the truth with their particular biases? The backgrounds of the different news agencies will reveal why they told their versions of the truth in the way that they did. Aljazeera America is targeted mainly for American readers and typically for the Western people and since its circulation is quite limited to the West, then they would surely focus on the laurels that the West and the rest of the world are having on the Syrian War. Their preference for western ideals and resolutions proposed by international organizations can also spring from it being based in the US. Press freedom is better in the US compared to the countries in the Arabian Peninsula but since they are new players and most Americans are still wounded from the 9/11 terrorist attacks and from the deaths of their countrymen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, they may be focusing their stories on “the good” effects of the West and the International efforts, so as not to sound as a dissident network on U.S. shores. On the other hand, they do not represent the reality well. Limited information is like no information at all. And though they do have occasional topics that focus on the actual war in Syria, the way it is packaged is so that it lessens the impact of these blotches in our human history. Tehran Times does their presentation that way also because of the same reasons. They are primarily available for people who are Arabs and that is why their focus is on the effects and the actions that directly involves the Islamic community. And though they say that they are independent of the government, they are pro- Islamic Revolution and the government of Iran is also pro- Islamic revolution and is actually borne because of it. So we see that somehow, the views expressed by Tehran Times are reflective of their government’s stand. The Islamic Revolution is also primarily anti-West, and that is why they do not applaud the efforts of the west and the international community but featured more prominently what the other Islamic brotherhood member states are doing and how they are ad will be affected by the outcome of this war in Syria. Reading their article, some do have valid points and somehow I think that the international community should not meddle too much on internal affairs and really makes me question the motives of the countries who do insist that external military intervention is the only way to solve the social unrest in Syria. But I do know that the action of the UN are driven by general consensus and they do consider the greater good instead of just the benefit of one country over the other. The tone of the Tehran Times is also reflective that they are pro-Assad government because they also don’t want the Shia-crescent to be broken. And Iran and Syria historically have a common enemy which is Israel that maybe is another reason why they presented their news in the manner that they did. Same can be said with regards to how the Jerusalem Post wrote their news. They wanted to be neutral but it can clearly be seen that they will put the interests of their targeted audience first – the interests of the Hebrews and Jews that regularly read their column. Israel has strong ties with the US and other countries that would like to take action against the Syrian government but the way they handled the articles about the contributions of the international community with regards to the war in Syria is very non-partisan and neutral, which is good because the readers just gets the facts and they are left with the task of making their own interpretations on the situation. How does their representation of the World affect how their readers see the past and subsequent action of the nations and personas involved? Media is very powerful as a shaper of opinions and attitudes of the general public. It is not often for the regular Joe to subscribe to 3-4 different news papers or watch the same number of news channels just so he can get the “real” truth. Well for those who read the Aljazeera America, they would probably believe that the west and the rest of the world are the “saviors” in Syria. For those who read Tehran Times, they would see the West and the rest of the world as busy-bodies that like to meddle in affairs that they should not be involved with in the first place. For those reading the Jerusalem Post, they would view the West and the rest of the World as either for or anti-Jews, and would only contextualize events depending on their significance to the Hebrews. But we all know that the views above are twisted and though only a few people can subscribe to that many newspapers or news channels, the world is teeming with different sources of information. It is the media’s responsibility to provide news in the most unbiased and unadulterated form yet it is the viewer’s responsibility to filter-out the information that he or she will believe out of the avalanche of information available. Works Cited Ahmadzadah, Davud. In war on Syria, everyone would lose except the extremists. Tehran Times. 08 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Chemical weapons watchdog seeks Syria ceasefire. Aljazeera America. 09 October 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Cunningham, Finian. U.S. war machine cranks up again. Tehran Times. 06 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Gottlieb, Amishai. Peri: Iran, not Syria, is Israel’s biggest threat. The Jerusalem Post. 09 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Hezbollah will stay in Syria for as long as needed: Nasrallah. Tehran Times. 15 November 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Inspectors begin mission to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. Aljazeera America. 1 October 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Meyssan, Thierry. Western rationality before our eyes. Tehran Times. 08 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Middle East desk. Chemical weapons inspectors hale progress in Syria. Tehran Times. 18 October 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Obama takes case for Syria strike to war-weary public. Aljazeera. 07 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Poll: Americans, Europeans oppose Western military intervention in Syria. The Jerusalem Post. 18 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Report: AIPA to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama’s Syria strike plan. The Jerusalem Post. 06 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Rome, Henry. Elite Hezbollah fighters are spearheading battle in Syria, IDF commander warns. The Jerusalem Post. 25 October 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Russia denounces ‘preconcieved’ UN findings on Syria’s weapons use. The Jerusalem Post. 18 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Shwayder, Maya. UN report confirms sarin gas used in Syria chemical attack. The Jerusalem Post. 16 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 West Trusts al-Qaeda more than me: Assad. Tehran Times. 06 October 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Wood, Josh. Hezbollah rolls the dice in Syria. Aljazeera. 10 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 UN: evidence of Syrian chemical attack ‘indisputable’. Aljazeera. 16 September 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Ziabari, K. Who benefits from the protraction of war in Syria? Tehran Times. 01 November 2013. Web. 20 November 2013 Read More