The Media Language of War - Article Example

Running Head: Language, Culture, and Communication Language, Culture, and Communication [Institute’s Language, Culture, and Communication TASK 4: THE MEDIA LANGUAGE OF WAR Following is the news article and picture taken from Nine News, dated September 16, 2009. War crimes in Gaza conflict: UN probe 14:09 AEST Wed Sep 16 2009 9 days 8 hours 50 minutes ago By John Heilprin A UN investigation has concluded that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, raising the prospect that officials may seek prosecution in the International Criminal Court. The probe led by former South African judge Richard Goldstone concluded that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity," during its December 27-January 18 military operations against Palestinian rocket squads in the Gaza Strip. In a 575-page report, Goldstone and three other investigators also found evidence "that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity." Goldstone said the probe, which included 188 interviews, a review of 10,000 documents and 12,000 photos and video, was completed only on Tuesday morning, just hours before the hastily called news conference. "There should be no impunity for international crimes that are committed," he said. "Its very important that justice should be done." Israel, which refused to cooperate with the investigation, said the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council that ordered it was biased. The investigators recommended that the UN Security Council require Israel to launch its own credible investigation into the conflict within three months. If that is not done, the investigators called on the council to refer the matter for action by the International Criminal Court prosecutor within six months. However, Israel does not accept the courts authority. The Palestinian group Hamas rules Gaza and has been accused by Israel of using human shields during the conflict, in which almost 1,400 Palestinians were killed - many of them civilians. "The mandate of the mission and the resolution establishing it prejudged the outcome of any investigation, gave legitimacy to the Hamas terrorist organisation and disregarded the deliberate Hamas strategy of using Palestinian civilians as cover for launching terrorist attacks," Israels Foreign Ministry said. Goldstone, who is Jewish and has strong ties to Israel, told reporters at UN headquarters that "to accuse me of being anti-Israel is ridiculous," anticipating such criticism. He said it was in the interest of both Israelis and Palestinians to establish the truth of what happened in the conflict. In a joint statement, nine Israeli human rights groups said the findings join a "long series of reports" indicating that Israeli and Hamas violated the laws of war. It called on the Israeli government to conduct an "independent and impartial investigation." "Notwithstanding its reservations, Israel will read the report carefully," the Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday of the UN report, noting that the military has examined more than 100 allegations regarding the conduct of its forces during the Gaza operation, resulting in 23 criminal investigations. Hamas officials were not immediately available for comment. The report said that Israels attacks in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble, amounted to war crimes. It found seven incidents in which civilians were shot while leaving their homes trying to run for safety, waving white flags and sometimes even following Israeli instructions, as well as the targeting of a mosque at prayer time, killing 15 people, were also war crimes. A "direct and intentional attack" on the Al Quds Hospital and an adjacent ambulance depot in Gaza City "may constitute war crimes," the report said. On the Palestinian side, the report found that armed groups firing rockets into southern Israel from Gaza failed to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population. "Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population," the report said. "These actions would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity." Investigators called on Israel to immediately allow people and goods across borders "for the recovery and reconstruction of housing and essential services and for the resumption of meaningful economic activity in the Gaza Strip." They also recommended that Israel ease up on fishing restrictions within 20 nautical miles from shore and allow farming to resume within the Gaza Strip "including within areas in the vicinity of the borders with Israel." This article is very well balanced in establishing a prejudice-free point of view. It does not side with one party and stays neutral. It is not biased and the writer has managed to create an impression of neutrality in his article. The main characters mentioned in the article are UN, South African judge Richard Goldstone, Israeli forces, and Hamas. Mr. Richard Goldstone has been quoted a few times and has emphasized on the fact that international crimes committed against humanity are not tolerable. Despite of being a Jew, Mr. Goldstone expressed his disapproval for the international crimes committed by Israel, as well as Hamas. The concept of transitivity is important in comprehending the point that the news report is trying to make. It is about who did what to whom. ‘Who’ could be the ‘active participant, thing, subject, or agent’. ‘What’ is the ‘process or the verb’. ‘Whom’ is the ‘passive participant, thing, object, or goal’. In this article, who denotes Mr. Richard Goldstone, Israel’s Foreign Ministry, and the human rights groups. What denotes the findings and things said by them. Whom denotes the war situation in the region and the civilians who are under threat. Positive judgement is applied to the active participants. No significant group has been excluded from the report. The image accompanying the news report is very relevant to its content. It shows smoke coming out from burnt buildings that were probably bombarded and resulted in a number of causalities. The article aimed to discourage any sort of international crime against humanity, irrespective of who committed it. The image reinforces the same impression, creating a psychological impact on its viewers and convincing them that international crimes are indeed inhuman. All aspects of linguistic structure; be it textual, lexical, phonological, semantic, syntactic, or pragmatic; are ideologically significant. The theory predicts and experience tells that some areas of the language are meant to imply certain social values through codes. Hence, these areas carry great significance. This article also does the job of conveying a social value through its linguistic structure. (Fowler R., 1991) TASK 5: MULTIMODAL SEMIOTICS Picture A: Picture B: Both the pictures show a fork, however they create different impressions in the viewers’ minds. While Picture A is symmetrical, Picture B is not. In Picture A, the first and foremost thing that a viewer notices is the fork. It has been placed in the centre, such that the background only helps in makign the fork more prominenet. Picture B, however, does not have the sme impact. Instead of the fork, the lightning and shade effect shown in the picture comes to prominence. Picture A would not be very engaging for a viewer as it is quite plain, whereas, Picture B is going to get more attention. Picture A merely represents the fork, but Picture B focuses how light and shade could be used on a fork to create an eye-catching image. TASK 6: THE SOCIAL SEMIOTICS OF MEDIA EVENTS News report A: Following is an extract from the online newspaper article published on September 22, 2009 in Sydney Morning Herald. Top general calls for more troops BOB WOODWARD September 22, 2009 WASHINGTON: The top US and NATO commander (participants) in Afghanistan has warned (material process) that he needs more forces within the next year (circumstance), stating (saying process) that without them the eight-year conflict will likely result in failure. (Goal) In a confidential assessment, obtained by The Washington Post (actor), General Stanley McChrystal says (saying process): Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term [next 12 months] - while Afghan security capacity matures (circumstance) - risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible. His assessment was sent to the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, on August 30 and is being reviewed (action process) by the US President, Barack Obama. (actor) General McChrystal concludes (saying process) on a note of muted optimism: While the situation is serious, success is still achievable. He describes an Afghan Government riddled with corruption and an international force (participants) undermined by tactics (circumstance) that alienate civilians. (Goal) He provides (action process) extensive new details about the Taliban insurgency, which he calls a muscular and sophisticated enemy that uses modern propaganda and systematically reaches into Afghanistans prisons (action process) to recruit members and plan operations. (Goal) General McChrystals assessment is one of several options the White House is considering. His plan could intensify a national debate in which leading Democratic lawmakers (participants) have expressed (saying process) reluctance about committing more troops to an increasingly unpopular war (circumstance). Mr Obama (actor) said last week that he would not decide whether to send more troops (goal) until he has absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be. The general makes clear that his call for more forces is predicated on the adoption of a strategy in which troops emphasise protecting Afghans rather than killing insurgents or controlling territory. The assessment offers an unsparing critique of the failings of the Afghan Government, contending that official corruption is as much of a threat as the insurgency to the mission of the International Security Assistance Force. The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of powerbrokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAFs own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government, General McChrystal says. The result has been a crisis of confidence among Afghans, he writes. Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents. General McChrystal warns that the Afghan prison system has become a sanctuary and base to conduct lethal operations against the Government and the coalition forces. The assessment says that Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents represent more than 2500 of the 14,500 inmates in the increasingly overcrowded Afghan Corrections System in which hardened, committed Islamists are indiscriminately mixed with petty criminals and sex offenders, and they are using the opportunity to radicalise and indoctrinate them. General McChrystal also warns that, in the short run, it is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase. He proposes speeding the growth of Afghan security forces. The existing goal is to expand the army from 92,000 to 134,000 by December 2011. He wants to move that deadline to October next year. Overall, he wants the Afghan army to grow to 240,000 and the police to 160,000, but he does not specify when those numbers could be reached. General McChrystal provides this conclusion about the enemy: The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of ISAF presence. Towards the end of his report, General McChrystal revisits his central theme: Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure. The Washington Post This article is about the decision of US and NATO commanders to call more troops to Afghanistan. The article covers General Stanley McChrystals’ view on the subject. The report written by General McChrystals was sent to the US Defence secretary, Robert Gates. It was also forwarded to the US President, Mr. Obama. The article also talks about the role of Afghan government and the Taliban insurgency in the country. The reaction from the White House, particularly from the Democratic lawmakers has been discussed too. The writer of this article, Mr. Bob Woodward did a good job at staying neutral and keeping the article free from media bias. Although, the content of the article could be seen as biased as it provides only one point of view, the writer was clever enough to use quotation marks and direct speech for the most part. For instance, …increasingly overcrowded Afghan Corrections System in which hardened, committed Islamists are indiscriminately mixed with petty criminals and sex offenders, and they are using the opportunity to radicalise and indoctrinate them…. the above mentioned lines give a pretty biased impression when using the term ‘Islamists’ with a negative connotation and is too generalised. However, the writer has used direct specch instead of indirect speech and has managed to keep himsel on the safe side. The consept of transitivity is very important here. It is about who did what to whom. ‘Who’ could be the ‘active participant, thing, subject, or agent’. ‘What’ is the ‘process or the verb’. ‘Whom’ is the ‘passive participant, thing, object, or goal’. ‘What’ also denotes the ‘circumstance, i.e. space and time’. In this article the US government officials play the who, what is the issue of calling more troops, whom denotes the Afghan civilians and the Taliban insurgency in a war (circumstance). General McChrystal, on whose point of view the news report is based upon, is the sayer and also attributed. It is quite plain to see that only one perspective has been emphasized or supported in the article. US government officials’ stance has been presented very clearly, whereas, the opinions of Afghan civilians and the Taliban insurgents have either been excluded or not focussed so much. This may create a very strong, yet, one sided image in the readers’ mind. News report B: The following article has been taken from The Australian, dated September 22, 2009. Troop surge vital for Afghanistan war: General Stanley McChrystal Brad Norington, Washington correspondent | September 22, 2009 THE top US military commander in Afghanistan has warned that the US-led NATO coalition risks losing the war unless there are fundamental changes in military strategy, including the addition of at least 10,000 more American troops. As Kevin Rudd yesterday all but ruled out any further military contribution from Australia, General Stanley McChrystal said the situation in Afghanistan was serious and the next 12 months would be decisive. "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term, while Afghan security capacity matures, risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," General McChrystal said in a bleak review of progress in Afghanistan sent to the Pentagon three weeks ago and leaked to The Washington Post yesterday. "We must do things dramatically differently - even uncomfortably differently - to change how we operate, and also how we think. "Our strategy cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces; our objective must be the population. "In the struggle to gain the support of the people, every action we take must enable this effort." The new counter-insurgency approach, focused on protecting the local Afghan population, could dictate the need for up to 45,000 more US troops, according to The New York Times. Over the past few months, the Taliban have strengthened their position, pushing further into the countrys south and east despite an increase in US troops that will reach 68,000 by the end of this year, after President Barack Obama approved an extra 21,000 since taking office. As a strong ally of the US, the Prime Minister increased troop numbers to a total of 1550 this year, but limited the additional deployment of 450 to training and security roles. Speaking in New York before scheduled talks with Mr Obama that will include the worsening military situation in Afghanistan, Mr Rudd yesterday baulked at increasing Australias military commitment to Oruzgan province. Declaring troop numbers were "about right", he said: "Lets be honest about this: this is a difficult, hard, and bloody war. "No one should pretend that its not. And its going to get harder. But that should not weaken our resolve or dim our vision as to why we are there in the first place." The 66-page report by General McChrystal, the US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, was leaked on the same day Mr Obama admitted he was sceptical about sending more troops without a clearer strategy. The dire warning adds to pressure on the President, as a majority of the American public no longer supports the war in Afghanistan amid heavy military casualties and doubts about the continued purpose of fighting. Public support in Australia has turned against the war effort as well, making Mr Rudds position increasingly difficult as he cannot nominate an end for local military involvement. Mr Rudd, interviewed on CNN, insisted that Australias commitment to the war remained as strong as ever, and he defended the military commitment by saying he had approved an increase of almost 50 per cent in troop numbers since Mr Obama came to office while other contributing nations eased off. He gave the "murderous" terrorist attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, as the prime reason for backing the NATO-led war effort. "Terrorists were enabled to train without interference in Afghanistan, which became like a free-range training farm for terrorists from all over the world. Lets never forget that point," the Prime Minister said. The Australian reported last month that General McChrystal wanted Canberra to lift restrictions on where Australian army troops could fight, allowing them to deploy routinely outside their base in Oruzgan province. Asked directly yesterday if he would agree to increase troop numbers, Mr Rudd said, "we believe that our current commitments about right" and urged other all countries to "put their shoulder to the wheel". He insisted that Australia was "absolutely" committed to the fight for the long term, which some analysts had estimated could run to a decade. General McChrystals report is currently being examined by Mr Obama and his national security team after it was handed to US Defence Secretary Robert Gates last month. He says that success is still achievable but warns repeatedly that defeat is likely without extra forces and a rapid counterinsurgency strategy. Although the US came to deny enemies the safe haven they had in 2001, according to General McChrystal they could now operate with relative impunity in the prisons. "There are more insurgents per square foot in corrections facilities than anywhere else in Afghanistan," he says. Mr Obama confirmed yesterday he was sceptical about sending further military forces into Afghanistan, especially when it came to putting soldiers in harms way. Both Mr Obama and Mr Rudd said they wanted to see further investigation of the re-election of President Hamid Karzai before making judgment about allegations that vote-rigging affected the result. The disputed election is further complicating the military involvement as governments question the legitimacy of Mr Karzais rule. For the past six months, the US-led troops have tried to shift the focus of the war effort by minimising civilian casualties and getting the faith of local communities to help stop the Taliban influencing local opinion. So far it has not worked. The US has suffered 764 casualties in the conflict, with the heaviest toll in the past two months. Australia has lost 11 soldiers. This article too is based on the same topic and mentions the same points. It talks about rising corruption in the Afghan government, which has resulted in loss of confidence. It also emphasizes on the need to call more troops in Afghanistan for the purpose of security of the civilians, rather than dealing with the Taliban insurgents. This article also emphasized on the disapproval from American and Australian public about the war in Afghanistan and hence, they are not in favour of sending more troops. References Sydney Morning Herald, Top general calls for more troops, September 22, 2009, , Accessed on September 25, 2009 The Australian, Troop surge vital for Afghan war, September 22, 2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26106925-31477,00.html, Accessed on September 25, 2009 John Heilprin, Nine News, War crimes in Gaza conflict: UN probe, September 16, 2009, < http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/863646/war-crimes-in-gaza-conflict-un-probe>, Accessed on September 25, 2009 Fork, Picture A, < http://www.leighwitchel.com/blog/images/fork1.jpg>, Accessed on September 26, 2009 Fork, Picture B, < http://blog.ricecracker.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/andre-kertesz_the_fork_1928_500px.jpg>, Accessed on September 26, 2009 Fowler R., 1991, Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the press, hapter 5, page 67 Read More