The Presence of Media in Peoples Everyday Lives Today - Essay Example

Introduction News stories from all parts of the globe will give us a picture of today’s modern life described by Hieber (1998) to be saddled with war and conflict. According to her, presently one sixth of the human race is occupied with both or either political or military fighting. (p.16) This was further substantiated by Manoff’s (1997) report to the United Sates Institute of Peace: Our century has been characterised by organised group violence on an extraordinary scale … the human race has seen fit to engage in something like 250 significant armed conflicts in the course of this century … over 110 million people have been killed, and many times that number wounded, crippled, and mutilated. The scale of this slaughter is something new in human history. Only 19 million people died in the 211 major conflicts of the Nineteenth Century; 7 million were killed in the Eighteenth, which was marked by a mere 55 significant wars. In fact, there have probably been as many casualties from mass violence in our century as in the rest of human history combined. (par. 1-2) Although these numbers represent faceless human bodies, they are still human bodies that we should care about and more importantly, these numbers imply a horrifying truth that we, the human race, should deal with our world today. Have we gone mad that instead of humanising the world with our technological progress, we are little by little annihilating the human race with our greed for power? And with all of this grotesqueness, where do news media come into picture? The great advances in technology have dramatically altered people’s lives. Modernization of war machines has heightened the onslaught of violence worldwide leaving the less powerful countries in more disadvantaged position, while, developments in information technology, have unnoticeably normalised the presence of media in people’s everyday lives today. With the growing incidence of conflicts and wars and with the increasing power of media in influencing the course of history today, scholars generally conceded that media is capable of taking on an important role in conflict situations. (Hieber, 1998, p. 16) In fact, data show that actually it is playing already a major role in conflict situations – either it instigates or provokes war and conflict, or it promotes resolution or reconciliation. To a former editor of the Ottawa Citizen and former chairman of Canada’s broadcasting and telecommunications regulatory body, Keith Spicer’s (2006) words: “The media have always played a major role in conflict and peace; it is only in the last ten years that the academic world and the journalistic world have recognized these theories (as cited in Collins, Fomotar, & Odumuyiwa, 2006, par. 4).” We are in the information age because today we all know that information, which media provides more speedily than any other medium, is power. With this information comes the hidden power of media to influence decisions, behaviours and actions that has in fact changed the course of history. As the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, told C. P. Scott, the editor of the Guardian, at the peak of World War I: “If the public knew the truth, the war would end tomorrow. But they don’t know and can’t know (as cited in Pilger, 1996, par. 19).” From these statements, we can sense that media can subvert itself. From these statements, we can also sense the dilemma that any journalist may have to confront with. In the first place what does society expect of media? What role should media take on in times of war and conflict? What motivates media to take on any of these two opposing roles? How can journalists be a positive force in bringing about peace to a war-torn world? When does a journalist become a true journalist? But, before going any further in the discussion, for the sake of this paper, news media is defined to differentiate it from mass media, because the latter is far broader than the former. According to Akin (2005), “news media include only the news industry. It is often used interchangeably with the ‘press’ or group of people who write and report the news (par.2).” And to distinguish it more from any other types of mass media, “news is technically facts and interpretation of facts, including editorial opinions, expressed by journalism professionals (par.3).” Although from a journalist point of view, not all facts can be news worthy. They need to be controversial to warrant readership. This becomes more evident with media conglomerates who basically monopolise the media industry. News can be transmitted through radio, television, or the internet, though research studies show that the impact of news vary in each channel especially regarding support for war. A comparative study of these channels led scholars to contend that “television has greater potential than print media to influence attitudes about war because of the drama inherent images and sounds that accompany war coverage (Vercelotti, 2004, p.6).” Researches conducted “from the period immediately before, during and after the Persian Gulf War in 1991… found that frequent viewers of television news were more likely to back the use of force against Iraq following Iraq’ invasion of Kuwait (Iyengar & Simon, 1993; Pan & Kosicki, 1991; Mcleod et al., 1994; Oliver, et al., 1994, as cited in Vercelotti, 2004, p.1).” Images from the war in Bosnia - most notably those of the Muslim detainees in the Bosnian Serb detention centre at Trnopolje in August 1992 and the pictures from the Sarajevo market bombing in February 1994 - have led to changes in the application of foreign policies that have had a direct bearing on the war. These examples suggest that television images, by prompting intervention from superior powers, certainly influence the course of wars, and may even lead to their conclusion. (Weaver, 1998, p.21) In addition, the use of sensational imagery in news reportage is also blamed as the reason that had driven the United States to its shameful participation in Somalia in 1992. On the contrary, when media did not fully report on the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 that claimed 800,000 lives gave the Western governments an alibi to ignore the crisis. (Akin, 2005, sec. 5, par. 2) News media: An Effective Propaganda Machine for War and Conflict The American film “Wag the Dog” directed by Barry Levinson – a sarcastic political spoof starred in by Robert DeNiro “as a Washington spinmaster who needs a war to distract public's attention from a sex scandal involving the President (New Line Cinema, 1998, p.1)” is a vivid description how media can be engineered to be powerfully manipulative and self-serving. It has clearly illustrated that news media can alter reality by concealing facts, by presenting half-truth and half lies, and worst by concocting stories. And with all the digital technologies at Media Company’s disposal, these lies get through the readers, listeners, and viewers as if these are the truths, thereby, accepting these as real. Furthermore, proper and strong political and military connections, and with sufficient economic power, media can be effectively used as a weapon for war. In fact, according to Vercelotti (2004): “news coverage, particularly television news coverage, of war can influence public opinion regarding war (p.1).” And until now, this negative role of news media remains unchanged. For example, to continuously fuel the Cold War, in 1960, through the Western media, President Kennedy declared that the world is threatened with the Soviet Union’s advancement in nuclear missile, but the truth was the opposite – it was actually the U.S. which was well advanced in missile development. (Pilger, 1996, par.20) In the same manner, in 1964, through the media which reported the concocted story that “Communist gunboats had attacked American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin off North Vietnam (par. 21)”, President Johnson was able to convince the U.S. Congress to legitimise American invasion of North Vietnam – the greatest bombing in history that has killed three million people (Ibid, par. 21) leaving a deep scar of shame and hate in American people. And also, during the Falklands War in 1982 ­ Margaret Thatcher's war ­ a plan put forward by Peru for a negotiated settlement with Argentina came close to success; how close the public never knew. On 13 May 1982, Edward Health told News at Ten that Argentina had requested three minor amendments to the peace plan. The amendments were so minor, said Heath, that they couldn't possible be rejected. But Thatcher rejected them, and the story died. “The media can make or break a peace process (Ngubane, 2003, as cited in Lundqvist, 2003, p.3)” just in the case of Liberia. According to Kraybill (1998): “Mediators and the media have an uneasy relationship: media can sabotage a sensitive negotiations process and mediators, in many journalists' eyes, are impossibly tight-lipped (p.24).” The abuse and misuse of news media in order to perpetuate one’s political agenda has been referred to by Debrix (2007) as the “tabloid geopolitics (p. 932),” which he explained “combines commonsensical textual explanations and spectacular maps to produce a sense of fear and inevitable danger that can lead … audiences to accept certain ‘truths’ that geopolitical experts seek to impose.” Guilty of this tabloid geopolitics are no other than the most powerful nations, especially the United States, that have so much to gain in warring nation-states. To promote conflict using media, fear has to be effectively instilled in people’s mind to force them into accepting the war justified. For example in the case of Rwanda, before the genocide, a private radio station was used to frighten the people by giving false report that there was an impending attack by a Tutsi militia on Hutus. This had been also the cases in Serbia and Georgia. (Frohardt and Temin, 2003, p.6) “Four strategies commonly used to create fear are: focus on past atrocities and a history of ethnic animosity; manipulation of myths, stereotypes, and identities to ‘dehumanize’; overemphasis on certain grievances or inequities; and a shift towards consistently negative reporting (Ibid).” As Frohardt and Temin (2003) put it: “By convincing people that conflict is inevitable, those manipulating the media create self-fulfilling prophecy (p.7).” Basically, media provides information. Media make people know what is happening around them, enabling them to relate with people in other parts of the world, and enabling them to respond and take appropriate actions, especially during critical times. With the great advancements in information technology, media has become regular part of people’s lives (especially in industrialized countries) more revealing, more influencing, and more encroaching. We are now in a media society age. “With modern information technology, it is very difficult to conceal the deeds and misdeeds of a regime. But the same technology also gives an enormous potential for manipulation of facts (Lundqvist, 2003, p.3). Whether or not media, generally mass media, play a positive role in society, the media power becomes more evident because it “reaches not only people’s homes, but also their minds, shaping their thoughts and sometimes their behaviour (Metzl, 1997, p. 15).” Ideally, journalist is believed to provide society with balance news and fearless views but with the rapid commercialisation of information resulting from advancement in information technology, competition in the media industry has become more stiff which sadly has driven journalists to sensationalise news in order to sell rather than bringing out the true story. In the Western news media there is a consensus that news is something unusual which departs from everyday life and is quantifiable. For example, the outbreak of war is news, but any fighting thereafter might not be. As the war continues, its newsworthiness depends on whether the news agency's home troops are involved, whether the troops of close allies are involved, how many casualties are reported, how photogenic the victims are, whether reporters have access to the fighting and information about it, and what other stories occur at the same time. Western news consists of events, not processes. This bias can result in news reports where events seem to have no context. (Akin, 2005, sec. 6, par. 2) With this, “media can also contribute to conflict involuntarily (Frohardt and Temin, 2003, p.2).” Observably, “the news media thrive on conflict… Conflict attracts viewers, listeners, and readers to the media; the greater the conflict the greater the audience, and large audiences are imperative to the financial success of media outlets (Akin, 2005, sec. 3, par. 8).” The life of media rests on the number of their readers, viewers and listeners. However, it should also be understood that “drawing a line between information and propaganda is a subtle art. This is most obvious in the middle of a conflict (Petren, 2003, p.5).” Furthermore, “impartiality, objectives, ethics, and reliability are complicated issues in a conflict zone (Ibid).” This in fact is a test of credibility and a reflection of value. As Carruther (2000) stated, “… news can never be value-free, from nobody’s point of view (p.206).” In short, coming to terms with what is news worthy, with what story should land the headline, with what should be in the inside page, and what should be the stand of the editorial, necessitates and at the same time imply value judgment. And the value that media and its journalists and broadcasters carry until now remains a debatable issue not only in the media world but also in the academic world. For example, Lord John Reith of the British Broadcasting Company (BBC), believes that “impartiality in broadcasting was a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was threatened. And this has held true ever since (as cited in Pilger, 1996, par.23).” This brings us to the understanding of the purpose and responsibilities of journalists, who in times of conflict and war are also victims not only of censorship and even killing. Journalists’ lives are said to be endangered whenever they cover crisis stories and that is when their values and integrity are tested. Journalists and Broadcasters: The Guardians of History The banner call of news media should be “the truth shall set us free,” especially in today’s world where “technology seems to have given us almost everything except truth (Pilger, 1996, par.3)” – the liberating truth. It is from this banner call, I believe, where the principle of impartiality in news reporting, emanated. Thus, it must be understood that news should be synonymous with truth. Any non-factual reporting should not be regarded as news but pure lies. It is only in standing by the truth that journalists and broadcasters could possibly be guardians of history. And reciprocally, it is in guarding history that journalists and broadcasters truly exercise their profession. Earlier we said that the power of news media comes from its very role to provide information. Yet it is also this power that which when media subverted negates the very purpose of journalism – that is to bring out the truth, because without the truth, history can never be written correctly which to me is an unforgivable crime to humanity. Looking back at the historical development of the human race, it was very evident that the progress that we are enjoying right now became possible because there are noble scientists, who despite persecution stood by their scientific discoveries, and there are noble historians who had chosen to write history correctly from which the next generation took most of its lessons. Now going back to the role of news media in war and conflict, could it be that the scale of war and conflict that resulted to loss of many lives and great damage to mother earth be avoided if news media have chosen not to succumb to manipulation to manipulate media power for war and conflict? Could it be possible that if journalists resisted tabloid geopolitics, military aggression of Western powers could have not succeeded? These of course are only hypothetical questions but should merit attention, yet I am very sure would trigger heated debate. Sometimes, when everything seems very complicated, it is worth trying to go back to the basics and the basic of journalism is no other than the frightening word to most (especially to governments which have imperialistic desires, and conglomerates that care much for their super gains) and that word is no other than the truth. As Pilger (1996) inspiringly stated: However, journalists working within the great media institutions can at least begin to dissect the myths and assumptions that influence everything they do, and begin clearing away the ideological rubble that buries so much real news and truth about the world. Journalists may not have the power of Murdoch or Birt, but they are not powerless. They might begin by seeing themselves as agents of people, not agents of power, as participants, not innocent bystanders. (par. 29) This statement affirms that journalists should remain faithful to their profession to be true journalists. “In their organisations they can challenge, and they can argue and, if necessary, they can resist. They could start by reclaiming the language that is so casually abused (Ibid, par. 30).” The most abused word today which almost justify all military interventions of the United states is no other than the word ‘terrorism’—this is chauvinistically applied to those who oppose the imperialistic interests of the Western powers and never to those who aggress nation-states, notably the United States. (Ibid, par.31) Paradoxically, violence and terrorism are used discriminately by the very powers which in fact promote and create these evils. And the very sad fact is, the world believes it. With the hope of correcting the negative practice of journalists – manipulating news to foster war and conflict, alternative models are being advocated: ‘peace journalism’ and ‘public journalism.’ Essentially, these models promote the belief that “journalists should use the power of the media to help resolve conflict rather than report it from a distance (Akin, 2005, sec. 6, par. 3)” and that journalists should fulfil their role first and foremost to the public and not to their employers. Towing the noble aim of news reporting or journalism is not easy and requires courage, wisdom and sacrifice, yet it is good to learn that there are those who chose to take this less-travelled road and triumphed with pride. The best write history's first draft. Ed Murrow, the great American reporter, repelled smear upon smear in his reporting of the McCarthy witch hunts. Martha Gellhorn reported the disaster of the Great Depression from the heartland of America. James Cameron broke the silence over the Korean War and described the atrocities on 'our side'. Morgan Philips Price, the Guardian's man in Moscow in 1917, was damned as a traitor for reporting the Allied invasion that did its best to strangle the Russian Revolution at birth. And there are many more like them. (Pilger, 1996, par.44) Conclusion Unarguably, news media is indeed powerful enough to influence the course of history, especially in this era of information age or others would prefer to call media society. This news media power becomes even more powerful in times of war and conflict. During these times, news media can either heat up or cool down war and conflict. Whichever way implies value judgment, which on the other hand implies the very dilemma of journalists today. This dilemma goes back to the very principle of news reporting which is impartiality to truth. However, the principle of impartiality to truth although could be explained easily or understood, in real politic it is not that simple and easy. It is actually a struggle between truth and lie, between good and evil, between conflict and peace. And this determines who the true journalist is. But reality check bites painfully. The supposed guardians of truth in times of war and conflict are the very actors subverting the truth. In fact, news media do not simply promote war and conflict but even create them. But advocates of peace journalism assert that media should intervene and help in facilitating peace. This brings to further question the extent to which journalists should get involved. To this, Weaver (1997) provides us the answer: There is a way in which the media in general … can play a part in preventing or influencing conflicts. That lies in producing fair and accurate reports that inform the audience. Otherwise the media can have no role in trying to prevent or stop conflicts, but only in fighting them on behalf of one side against another. And that is the job of the soldier, not the reporter. (p. 21) More than ever, what the humanity needs today is no other than the triumph of truth. It is only through this that humanity could be saved. Here comes the important role of news media. References Akin, Jennifer. (2005). Mass Media. The Conflict Resolution Information Source. Retrieved from http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/essay/mass_communication/ Carruther, Susan L. (2006). The Media at War. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Collins, Ginny, Fomotar, Marcel, and Odumuyiwa, Julia. (2006). Interview: Media’s role in peace and war. Peace and Conflict Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.monitor.upeace.org/printer.cfm?id_article=386. Debrix, Francois. (2007). Tabloid Imperialism: American geopolitical anxieties and the war on terror. Geography Compass, 1 (4), 932-945. Frohardt , Mark and Temin, Jonathan. (2003). Use and Abuse of Media in Vulnerable Societies. United States Institue of Peace. Special Report. 1-16. Retrieved from http://se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=ISN&fileid=EF337083-AA59-2FC4-979A-B17456BD551C&lng=en. Hieber, Loretta. (1998). Media as Intervention. Track Two, 17 (4), 16. Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ccr.uct.ac.za/archive/two/7_4/p16_intervention.html Kraybill, Ron. (1998). Unzipped. Track Two, 7 (4), 24. Retrieved from http://ccrweb.ccr.uct.ac.za/archive/two/7_4/p24_unzipped.html Lundqvist, Kristina. (2003). Media: A tool for peace or a weapon of war? New Route, 8 (2), 3. Retrieved from http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/nr200302.pdf. Manoff, Robert Karl. (1997). The Media's Role in Preventing and Moderating Conflict. United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved from http://ww.usip.org/virtualdiplomacy/publications/papers/manoff.html. Metzl, Jamie. (1997). Information Intervention. Foreign Affairs. 15. New Line Cinema. (1998). Synopsis: Wag the Dog. Retrieved from http://www.newline.com/properties/wagthedog.html Petren, Alice. (2003). Complexity the first victim in war. New Route, 8 (2), 4-5. Pilger, John. (1996). Feature Article: The hidden power of the media. Socialist Review, 200. Retrieved from: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr200/pilger.htm Verfcelotti, Timothy. (2004). Attracting Hawks or Creating Them? The Role of Television News in Building Support for War in Iraq. Prepared for delivery at the 2004 Annual Meeting at the Siouthern Political Science Association, 8-11 January. New Orleans, L.A. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/7/8/7/pages67878/p67878-1.php. Weaver, Tim. (1998). The end of war. Track Two, 7 (4), 21. Retrieved from: http://www.ccr.uct.ac.za/archive/two/7_4/p21_endofwar.html Read More