News and Construction of Us versus Them - Literature review Example

News and Construction of Us versus Them Lecturer India and Pakistan, Palestinians and Israel, black and white, Eastern and Western nations, indeed, these are just examples of various identities that have been established over time. Of most importance is the fact that news or media has largely contributed to the ‘us-them’ polarization among different nations which has continued to show the struggle among different oppositional forces in the current society. Notably, the ‘us-them’ polarization primarily reflects the continuation of specific oppositional ideologies the different groups establish and use for not only identifying but also placing themselves within a particular network of societal relations and structures. It is worth noting that this ideology did not start recently; it has been evident in various dimensions of lives including at political, social and cultural levels and also to some extent at the educational level. Indeed, the ideology has continued to gain popularity to some extent because of the power of media (Chouliaraki 2008). Many critiques have generally agreed to the fact that news from different media is powerful and influences large masses. However, in relation to this, it is important to consider the fact that there are forces behind what is given to the public. It is noted that what is reported in most cases is highly influenced by various factors and people; and as such, increasingly influencing the ‘us-them’ polarization in the society. Concerning the above, the paper seeks to critically assess how news has constructed a sense of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ between different nations. In doing so, it will point out various examples and theoretical perspectives. According to Lynch (2006), the media primarily reflects and expresses in various ways the changes that the society undergoes. In addition, they reflect changes that may occur in people’s minds during crises and societal breaks. As such, the author notes that the ideologies perpetuated by the news primarily monitor how people interpret their social world; and therefore, creating a social identity. Indeed, during the Soviet era where the news media was significantly used as ‘ideological weapon’ by the Communist Party. The weapon was used to put in to the legitimization of the authority and power of the party. It is significant noting that in this age the spirit of communism was being spread by the administration and as such, the government had spread the idea of ‘us’ in the society. Additionally, the government required the people to disregard capitalism bringing a further polarization between them and us. In simple words, the government used the media to foster a spirit of loyalty to communism and clearly emphasised the need to disregard countries that were not part of them (Johnson & Fahmy 2010). Of most importance to note is the fact that the government also required the media to use the word ‘we’ as a way of showing the country or region performed same activity simultaneously. Indeed, most newspaper spoke with one voice, that of the Communist Party; therefore demonstrating the overall consent of people by stressing the word ’us’. Notably, countries that were against communism were referred to as the ‘them’ and therefore, were considered as enemies. After the 2011 attack in US, the media clearly established an ‘us’ and ‘them’ picture; where ‘us’ indicated the Americans while’ them’ people from the Middle or Arad descents. Indeed, despite the fact that these descriptions did not entirely apply to the non-Americans; however, the news could not have helped but introduce them even to the Arabs who were living in the United States at that time. Popular mass media and culture in the country have created and increasingly sustained stereotypes of ‘evil Arabs’; primarily, they are considered terrorists. In most movies, cartoons and magazines stories, Arabs are painted negatively and it is generally believed among scholars that these images are mostly constructed not out of experience but collective memory. As such, one may argue that the news clearly paints the Americans (us) as the clean and good people while the Arabs countries (them) as the bad people or terrorists. More importantly in relation to the above, it is what is considered as a tool to generate and allow an ideology to dominate as seen in the case of the Soviet countries. In referring to the Arab countries as them, Nohrstedt & Ottosen (2004) argues that the U.S government has used the idea of the Arab countries as a common enemy to reinforce or drive a dominant system. Furthermore, it has used this ideology to organize survival strategies in the competitive society. The role of media concerning the above is primarily seen in perpetuating these beliefs among people. Resulting to the creation of aggression, fear, expulsion and aversion; reactions that heighten the ‘us versus them’ notion. Philo & Berry (2004) assert that the Americans have a history of selectively dehumanizing and demonizing others so as to preserve and acquire power and resources. Indeed, this to some extent explains the reasons as to why the media has been fervent in establishing this ideology given that; firstly, it is controlled by powerful people who are interested in generating more resources, and secondly, by feeding people with what they want to hear; as such contributing to its popularity. From a critical perspective, in relation to the above, one may readily argue that the elite in the society have a hand on what is in the media. Leading scholars, politicians and leaders command access to different forms of media through press conferences, press release, reports and meetings. More importantly, journalists will indeed seek to interview them and at the same time asking their opinions; as such they easily introduce them as new players or actors in news reports. On a light note, if the elite or such people are able to control the media, it is then safe to assume that there are more powerful than the media. However, on the other hand, the media have also some power given that they are able to control elite discourse in a way that ‘require’ the elite to rely on them to exercise their power. Primarily, media is an institution of dominance and power with respect not only to public but also to the power and elite institutions (Johnson & Fahmy 2010). Of most importance to note from the above examples is the fact that media has special access to people’s mind. Nevertheless, according to Nohrstedt & Ottosen (2004) this does not significantly refer to control. In fact, the public at large has the freedom to exercise their beliefs but on the other hand, as argues Johnson & Fahmy (2010) the media will always have a way to influence the public in believing what they write given that it commands a lot in the current society. One way that the media is able to influence the public especially in relation to the presented case is through the formation of models by the audiences. A model is considered as a mental representation of any experience that people may either read, witness or even participate. Notably, it is generally believed that any time people read news; they tend to form a new model of a particular incident they have read (Tomlinson 1999). As such, the media in a way take advantage of this and capture information that will lead the reader to form a model that will as per the reporters’ expectation. This indeed manipulates the kind of models the readers form. Therefore, if a newspaper clearly paints the Arabs countries as ‘them’ and terrorists and put pictures and images of the destructions that the terrorists have carried out in various countries including America, it is very likely that the reader will form a model that will generally perceive the Arabs as them, and consider themselves as ‘us’. Johnson & Fahmy (2010) agrees to the above and notes that in order to influence the structure of the models that the reader forms, the media primarily manipulates the information and may display it prominently through the headlines or screaming photographs that will captivate the reader. Still, it is worth noting that in case the media through the influence of the elite institutions do not want particular information to get the public, less of it will be displayed in the media, leading to less concern from the readers (Said 1980). In relation to the above, one may not discard the attitude as a form that the media targets while giving information. In a way, one may agree to the fact that media controls the attitude which eventually influences evaluation. For instance, the picture or model that the Americans have on the Arabs in a way contributed to the acceptance of war against countries such as Iran. Of importance to note in regard to this is that the model ensure that the government through the media justified its actions (Essed 1991). Indeed, as noted earlier, the media had already created negative images about the Muslim world together with their leaders before the government to actions against Iraq and its leaders at that time. It is the fact that there are various discursive means that basically suggest that negative assessments of ‘them’ which includes hyperbolic emphases on ‘bad’ behaviour and different rhetorical moves including comparisons and metaphors such as Saddam Hussein is Adolf Hitler, while ‘us’ as the victims while ‘them’ the evil doers. With the above, for instance, information or news that do not fit the above evaluation including the death of thousand of Iraq people as a result of the military actions of the US military will not be emphasised or to some extent be concealed. As Nohrstedt & Ottosen (2004) argue, the above example obviously shows that such ideologies of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ simply will lead to the mass supporting their leaders in actions that will result to ‘us’ being safe and powerful. On the other hand, it is important to note that some Arab countries have also formed the same attitude towards the Western countries. Us (Arabs) versus them (Western countries)’ in these countries has also be influenced and fuelled by the media. For instance, in one of the video that was widely circulated in the Arab’s media; that is, the burning of the US’s flag, most of the Muslim world took positively and increased their attacks on western oriented institutions. Repeated news on such incidences further create model that increasingly contribute to the construction of the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ spirit. As Van Teun (1997) asserts, persuasive power news is mostly effective if the reporting is as per the interest or consistent with the readers. In recent times, for instance, it is argued that nationalism affairs coverage depict an alignment of the media with the white elites. This is majorly seen in the third world countries that are said to be poor and largely depend on the west for aid. Indeed, it has been noted that west news create negative images of some countries especially from Africa and in rare cases are positive achievement emphasised in their news coverage. It is interesting to note that most Western countries prefer reports and information that confirm their stereotypes tailored to their expectations. As such, the elements of us versus them are highly propagated. In this case, the Western in a way consider them sophisticated while they attribute suffering and poverty to the Third World countries. Notably, most news tend to portray the notion of backward’ behaviour and polices of these nations and their leaders. Therefore, such notions highly contribute to justifications of military interventions, or other forms of Western colonialism. In conclusion, one may not but agree to the fact that the news as given by the media has greatly led to the growth of us versus them in the current world. The paper has critically evaluated ways the through which the media influences this ideology and equally enough it has given some examples in regard of the same. In a way, the media primarily understands its readers’ mind and as such provide information that is not as per the readers’ expectations but confirms what they believe. Equally enough, elite institutions have also played a role in establishing and maintaining this ideology in the society. References Chouliaraki, L 2008, The symbolic power of transnational media: Managing the visibility of suffering, Global Media and Communication, 4: 329-351 Essed, P 1991, Understanding Everyday Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Johnson, T.J. & Fahmy, S 2010, When blood becomes cheaper than a bottle of water: how viewers of Al-Jazeeras English-language website judge graphic images of conflict. Media, War & Conflict, 3: 43-66. Lynch, M 2006, Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, al-Jazeera, and Middle East Politics Today. New York: Columbia University Press. Nohrstedt, S.A. & Ottosen, R 2004, U.S. and the Others: Global Media Images on ‘The War on Terror’. Goteborg: Nordicom. Philo, G. & Berry, M 2004, Bad News from Israel, Glasgow University Media Group: London: Pluto Press Said, Edward W 1980, Iran and the press: whose holy war? Columbia Journalism Review,18(6): 23-33 Silverstone, R (2004) Media literacy and media civics, Media, Culture and Society 23(3): 440-9 Tomlinson, J 1999, Globalization and Culture, London: Sage. Van Teun, D 1997, Power and the news media. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1997. Read More