Is the Media an International Actor in its own Right - Literature review Example

Is the Media an International Actor in its own Right? Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction The media is a sensitive tool of communication that has the duty of playing an educational, informative, analytical and entertaining role to the society. This way, people are able to make informed decisions about democracy among other issues of public interest. The media also plays a vital role in exposing the evils of the society and also keeps the people at the helm of things in check. These include political and religious leaders who the public looks up to as their representatives. This way, the media has given democracy a new face by addressing critical issues that could have otherwise been ignored (Centre for Democracy and Governance, 1999, p. 1-5). However, Berger (2007, p. 14) brings a new perspective into the media story by putting it across clearly that the media is like a two-edged sword. It has the capability of both negative and positive influence on the society. The 21st century is an interesting one; with a million and one forms of media taking root all with the intention of providing the much-sought information. Due to its consistency, the media succeeds in poisoning the society’s mind in subtle ways like commercials and adverts. It also takes a humanitarian face in instances of natural catastrophes like floods, earthquakes and hurricanes among others. There have been major concerns about the impact of the media on the society as well as the driving force behind it. This case study seeks to address the question of whether the media is by any chance an international actor in its own right. Role and impact of the media in society According to Mitchell (2008), the media is indeed an international actor bearing in mind the events that took place in Iraq, which the American media chose to ignore. Many Iraq people lost their lives and property of a huge magnitude was destroyed. An American by the name Stephen Colbert unearthed this hypocrisy played by the media during a dinner at the White House for Correspondents. Without blinking an eye, Colbert attacked George Bush government by stating that the president is the overall decider and that the media only reports what he deems news (Mitchell, 2008). The case of Saddam Hussein is revisited and Colbert goes ahead to portray the media as a toothless dog. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were ever discovered even after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Failure to find these weapons put the media at loggerheads with the public and this rated the media performance lowly. The story died down as if the media never existed since there were no further investigations as to what had really caused the war since no WMD were found. The media instead took to applauding the president and Pentagon officials for finally nailing Saddam Hussein and even sending him to the gallows (Mitchell, 2008). The American media for instance has been seen to sleepwalk through vital events that would have averted the massive killings of Americans in Iraq. The Washington Post played a big role in supporting the war though they had vowed to withdraw their support until some conditions were met. The media’s failure to be sceptical on many statements issued by public figures is an indication that they are indeed international actors who are choreographed to deliver what appeals to those in power. Some media stations like the renowned Cable News Network (CNN) were compromised by high ranking officials and made to report news in their favour (Frohardtm & Temin, 2003). The head of CNN back then, Walter Isaacson attested to this by confirming that “big people” were calling in to dictate what would be broadcasted. The station would be accused of being “anti-American” and its correspondents were advised to be light on the matter. This way, the leaders managed to blindfold their democracy by limiting the freedom of the press; and by agreeing to be bullied the media lost its credibility. The media is meant to inform the masses without being biased or compromised and this is something that it has in many instances has failed to do (Frohardtm & Temin, 2003). According to Mitchell (2008), it is interesting to note that Pentagon had the audacity to ban the publishing of photos bearing coffins of Americans who had died in the war in Iraq. Their attempts to hide the real face of the war are not only disturbing but absurd and some of the media fraternity went ahead to display some of the less horrifying images. The United States media however only managed to show the softer faces of the war while media houses in Europe showed disturbing photos of dead and wounded people. According to Minear et al (1996, p. 1-2), the media is in a complex relationship with both the government and the humanitarian organisations. The media highlights crises and provokes the international community as well as the government to take action. There have been many instances where help has reached people in crisis out of a disaster that was highlighted by the media. The media therefore comes across as influential in many angles though their weight is yet to be felt in matters where government policies are concerned. Government officials have constantly graced newspaper covers and television screens but the question remains if it is for them doing the right thing or wanting to appear like they are doing something. According to various findings, the media is portrayed as an influencer rather than a formulator and this explains why many unworthy government policies pass unnoticed (Minear et al, 1996). Many people argue that the media has the capacity to distort policies though a considerable number disagree. There is a huge discrepancy in how the media reports some crisis in various countries, a good example being the 1992-1993 crisis in Somalia and in Southern Sudan (Minear et al, 1996). The Somalia story generated a lot of international concern and many humanitarian groups gathered in support of the badly battered nation. Southern Sudan was however not lucky enough to get this kind of response despite many years of crisis. This brings the big question on whether the media sleepwalked over the issues in Southern Sudan. It does not add up as to why there is such a huge discrepancy in the actions taken and one does not fail to ask where the media was at this crucial time. Other countries that have not benefited much from the media exposure are Rwanda, Bosnia, Zaire and Sarajevo. The fact that media policies remain the same in many of these countries further weighs the power of the media against the governments of the day. The media is further questioned by Minear (1996, p.4) on whether it is really a unitary actor or a body that is manipulated by events and those behind them. Minear (1996) also questions the role of the media: whether it is purely informative or entertaining. Various media houses are facing constant high-level competition due to the mushrooming media houses - and the most enticing headline sells. To make money in this era of global economic recession, some media houses could get compromised to air stories that command a larger following among their audience. In his book ‘The CNN Effect,’ Robinson (2002, P.7) portrays the media as a powerful tool that has influenced the making of policies in the past. With the media’s intensive coverage of news, policy makers were left with little choice but to address the issues that journalists highlighted in their line of duty. Journalists were seen as a freer group which could even challenge and criticise the governments of the day. This put the state and its people at loggerheads since it elicited reactions from the public thereby leading to a dawn of global consciousness. In the same breath, Robinson (2002, p.10) shows how policymakers react to journalists, not with the intention to rectify the situation but maybe just to save face or avoid further criticism. The media came out strongly to intervene in the crisis that took ground in Somalia and Iraq in the 1990s, an action that foreign policy experts condemned. They felt that the Fourth Estate was intruding by interfering with the process of enacting new policies in these volatile countries. The media may not be always right and for them to dictate the course that some foreign policies are supposed to take could be detrimental to the people and the state. They succeed to mount pressure on political leaders who in turn tend to do what is being highlighted just to be in the media’s good books. This may lead to the passing of wrong policies since the journalists could be out of context. The media can therefore be termed as an international actor in its effort to draw attention to issues affecting the masses and thus prompting humanitarian organisations as well as the government to act. Robinson (2002, p.12) further says that the media arouses reactions from the public and this gives the policy makers the much needed domestic support to intervene in the situation in question. In their book, ‘Framing Terrorism’, Norris et al (2003, p.43) highlight the plight of the media in the eyes of the government and the military. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States, tension was clear between the three powerful bodies as each tried to protect its interests. The media was doing its intensive duty of informing the world on what was taking place while the government was working hard to deny them access to vital news. The military was on standby for security reasons and this caused a collision thereby limiting the freedom of the press. The government has a hand in what is broadcast by the media and this is evidenced by their fear of the repercussions some news would generate. The media has a great influence on how wars are waged in many parts of the world since people tend to believe what they are fed with. The question of how the media portrays Britain and United states is addressed and there is evidence that their news is manipulated to create a positive coverage that does not highlight the conflicts. According to Blondel (2000, p.10), the media is constantly used in the role of democratisation but this can only happen if the media itself is pluralistic, responsible and economically independent. The media plays a major role in conflict resolution and this makes it powerful. It also plays a role in warfare technology and for this role the military loves to work with high tech media. The influence of the media on the military has however been questioned and it is perceived to happen at the military’s discretion. The media continues to play its role as an international actor and it would be right to say that many states have been replaced by the Fourth Estate. Both international and national conflicts are influenced by the media in a way and that is why some political actors such as non-governmental organisations and transnational companies have taken a centre stage in the media. According to Blondell (2000, p.16), international actors are viewed as more credible and this makes them newsworthy. Many journalists get out there in the field as they source for their stories and they claim to lean them on credibility and authority. This makes decision makers and other political elites and activists among their list of favourites for their media items. As such, this may rule out state leaders since the credibility of information lies with the decision makers. The media’s influence is evident and they have the power to command peaceful developments as well as violence since they have a great mobilising power (p.16). Ansar (2010) further shows how the media has failed as an international actor in his country, Pakistan. The media has an influential role that prompts reactions from various sectors that include the government, the military and the humanitarian organisations among others. In this case, Ansar feels that the media has failed as an international actor since nothing has changed in the volatile situation in the country. He blames the Pakistan media for failing to build a national consensus which could have alleviated the terrorist attacks. There have been bombings all over Pakistan in its religious centres such as shrines. Ansar feels that the media could have done more to influence actions that could have brought an end to these escalations of violence. The author feels that the media should have tried to establish the groups responsible for the attacks and whether they are internal or external forces. The media must therefore major in creating a perception among the masses as by doing so, it will be able to develop a perspective which leads to the formation of lasting resolutions which will save the country. Herman and Chomsky (1988, p. 1-5) paint a picture of the media as an international actor and one system that tries hard to fit individuals into the larger society. They adopt the use of systematic propaganda to meet the varying needs of different classes made up of the elite and the not so elite. Many countries of the world have limited the freedom of the media through censorship and this clearly indicates who their master is. Propaganda systems are formed in countries where censorship is prevalent thus limiting their broadcasting power. The elites therefore dominate the news arena and this leads to the media broadcasting only what has been filtered by these powerful people. The application of filters in such nations has led to the flooding of the local market with foreign prints that have nothing to do with what is happening locally. That was years back when people relied on a primary source for their news. With the growing cable news, rules have been reversed and now people are offered variety in terms of the news they watch on their televisions. Many top ranking media houses are owned by wealthy people and this at times leads to manipulation of news. This makes the media somewhat ineffective in its role as an international actor since some news maybe given little or no airtime. Hence, there is fluctuation in what issues attract a lot of international intervention and which ones do not due to issues such as propaganda and conflict of interests. According to Frohardt and Temin (2003), the media is indeed an international actor in its own right. Vulnerable societies are at the mercy of the media when it comes to repressive rules and conflict. They are the only ones with the capacity to highlight these issues, a move that will likely lead to international intervention. The media is all powerful when it comes to such issues since it can be manipulated to paint a different picture of the state in question. For instance, it can be used to ignite or end a conflict in a society or steer it towards a non-democratic rule. The media has in many cases caused conflict involuntarily through passive incitement. This revolves around unprofessional behaviour often depicted by some journalists or poor culture in media. They could however not be malicious but they create stereotypes from their method of reporting. The media as an international actor does not cause conflicts directly but rather feeds people with information that prompts them to react. It shapes people’s behaviour, thoughts and minds and this influences the perceptions that people have about various issues. The media has an international role of preventing conflict and this calls for a close examination into what the media feeds the people. The most influential media houses are those that have a wide exposure and face little competition. This creates monopoly in the field of broadcasting and the news they deliver, either positive or negative, has a great impact on its recipients. The more media outlets reach a great number of people, the more influential they are. This is because their materials are widely read and viewed and this is dictated by how strong their signals for both television and radio are (Frohardt and Temin, 2003). The wider the breadth of their distribution when it comes to print media also dictates on how media is able to influence the masses. State-owned media houses are the most manipulated sources of information since they must broadcast in the government’s best interests. Private outlets are thus more reliable since they broadcast independently without being influenced and this gives clarity and credibility to news. Media that is subjected to a larger community is more influential and in this sense a greater international actor since they broadcast using international standards. According to Frohardt and Temin (2003), this makes it hard for them to get compromised and thus give reliable news which prompt action and international intervention. The international picture created by the media on warfare is that it is okay for people to defend themselves in the eye of conflict. There is a general outlook that people must save themselves from their enemies first through self defence. This amounts to unrest and conflicts are likely to increase as each factor tries their best to counter the attacks from their enemies (p. 5-6). Conclusion The media is indeed an international actor in its own right according to the findings of this case study. The various explanations show how the media elicits intervention from the international community through the stories they air. According to this study, the role of the media as an international actor comes out clearly in cases where warfare has taken root in countries like Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, southern Sudan and Pakistan among others. However, the manipulation of the media by the elite and policy makers has made some of the coverage lose credibility due to bias. It is a disturbing fact that some crises in a region like Southern Sudan got little intervention from the international community while the Somali case was overdone. The Iraq war on the other hand was brought out as uncalled for since no weapons of mass destruction were ever recovered. Many people lost their lives as the media was compromised to air coverage that looked at demonising Iraq. The media is therefore an international actor in its own right as it uses its influence to provoke interventions from the government, the military and humanitarian organisations. References Ansar, A. (2010) View: The enemy and the role of the media. Daily Times, Berger, A. A. (2007) Media and Society: A Critical Perspective (2nd edition). Rowman & Littlefield, New York. Blondel, Y.I. (2000) Violent conflict and roles of the media. Department for Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University. Centre for Democracy and Governance (1999) The role of media in democracy: A strategic approach. Technical Publications Series, Washington D.C. Frohardt, M., & Temin, J. (2003) Use and abuse of media in vulnerable societies. A Special report, 110. United States Institute of Peace, Washington D.C. Herman, E.S., Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The political Economy of The Mass Media. New York: Pantheon. Minear, L., Scott, C., Weiss, T.G. (1996) The news media, civil war, and humanitarian Action. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc, New York. Mitchell, G. (2008) Iraq War, How the press failed on Iraq;. "So wrong for so long: How the press, the pundits, and the president, failed on Iraq,” Union Square Press. Norris, P., Kern, M., Just, M.R. (2003) Framing terrorism: The news media, the government and the public, Routledge Publishers, New York. Robinson, P. (2002) The CNN Effect: The myth of news, foreign policy and intervention, Routledge Publishers, New York. Read More

The case of Saddam Hussein is revisited and Colbert goes ahead to portray the media as a toothless dog. No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were ever discovered even after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Failure to find these weapons put the media at loggerheads with the public and this rated the media performance lowly. The story died down as if the media never existed since there were no further investigations as to what had really caused the war since no WMD were found. The media instead took to applauding the president and Pentagon officials for finally nailing Saddam Hussein and even sending him to the gallows (Mitchell, 2008).

The American media for instance has been seen to sleepwalk through vital events that would have averted the massive killings of Americans in Iraq. The Washington Post played a big role in supporting the war though they had vowed to withdraw their support until some conditions were met. The media’s failure to be sceptical on many statements issued by public figures is an indication that they are indeed international actors who are choreographed to deliver what appeals to those in power. Some media stations like the renowned Cable News Network (CNN) were compromised by high ranking officials and made to report news in their favour (Frohardtm & Temin, 2003).

The head of CNN back then, Walter Isaacson attested to this by confirming that “big people” were calling in to dictate what would be broadcasted. The station would be accused of being “anti-American” and its correspondents were advised to be light on the matter. This way, the leaders managed to blindfold their democracy by limiting the freedom of the press; and by agreeing to be bullied the media lost its credibility. The media is meant to inform the masses without being biased or compromised and this is something that it has in many instances has failed to do (Frohardtm & Temin, 2003).

According to Mitchell (2008), it is interesting to note that Pentagon had the audacity to ban the publishing of photos bearing coffins of Americans who had died in the war in Iraq. Their attempts to hide the real face of the war are not only disturbing but absurd and some of the media fraternity went ahead to display some of the less horrifying images. The United States media however only managed to show the softer faces of the war while media houses in Europe showed disturbing photos of dead and wounded people.

According to Minear et al (1996, p. 1-2), the media is in a complex relationship with both the government and the humanitarian organisations. The media highlights crises and provokes the international community as well as the government to take action. There have been many instances where help has reached people in crisis out of a disaster that was highlighted by the media. The media therefore comes across as influential in many angles though their weight is yet to be felt in matters where government policies are concerned.

Government officials have constantly graced newspaper covers and television screens but the question remains if it is for them doing the right thing or wanting to appear like they are doing something. According to various findings, the media is portrayed as an influencer rather than a formulator and this explains why many unworthy government policies pass unnoticed (Minear et al, 1996). Many people argue that the media has the capacity to distort policies though a considerable number disagree.

There is a huge discrepancy in how the media reports some crisis in various countries, a good example being the 1992-1993 crisis in Somalia and in Southern Sudan (Minear et al, 1996). The Somalia story generated a lot of international concern and many humanitarian groups gathered in support of the badly battered nation. Southern Sudan was however not lucky enough to get this kind of response despite many years of crisis. This brings the big question on whether the media sleepwalked over the issues in Southern Sudan.

It does not add up as to why there is such a huge discrepancy in the actions taken and one does not fail to ask where the media was at this crucial time.

Read More