Journalism, Mass Media and Communication - Essay Example

?Journalism, Mass Media and Communication The reality of journalism is that the process of simply communicating through spoken or written prose carries a definite bias. Language is a facility that mediates the society’s collective lived experiences. Normal people’s appraisals of those experiences are mirrored in their use of language. James Berlin, a rhetoric scholar, once commented that language is "never innocent" (Barnett and Reynolds, 2009). What he meant was that language cannot be perceived as being neutral. It will always be a mirror of the ideologies that are held by the individual that is using it. To speak, in essence, is to speak politically (Fowler, 1991). The occupation of journalism, though, holds a very different perspective about what language is which creates serious concerns for the people that read or watch the news. Most journalists conduct their jobs with hardly any concern being given to the importance of language to the consumer of the news. Most journalists sub-consciously or consciously accept the view of language as a clear channel through which word-ideas are effortlessly sent to a viewer or reader who then experiences reality as the words of the news article depicts them. Even today, references are made about the “post-9/11” and “pre-9/11” world. This shows that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had an enormous impact on the world as a whole. Following the attack, the then American president, George W. Bush, made use of words that would help in convincing the American public to support the American invasion of Afghanistan. Many of President Bush’s statements like “Whether we bring our foes to justice or justice to our foes, justice will be done”, were played many times in various news networks, thus allowing Americans to become familiar with this rhetoric (Streissguth, 2006). As has been noted by detractors of the war in previous essays, this ambiguous language permitted the president to frame the attackers as well as Osama bin Laden as both wrongdoers who had to be eliminated through military means, and was a precursor to his unmatched and highly criticized “War on Terror” (Pyszczynski, Solomon and Greenberg, 2003). It is a recognised fact that words affect human thought and limit the concepts that can be exchanged between people. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the American news media began determined to create an adequate response to the supposedly unprovoked attack. In order to comprehend why the American public started to believe that all Arab nations were anti-American, it is vital to evaluate the media tactics of American news outlets around that time. To some extent, American citizens of bygone as well as recent generations have always enjoyed a life of relatively more peace than is enjoyed by the citizens of other nations. Virtually every other nation in the world is well acquainted with the horrors of being invaded by other, more powerful states. While America had its navy bombarded at Pearl Harbour in the Second World War, the last time enemy elements actually invaded American territory in large numbers was in 1814. As such, the memory or threat of invasions is not a part of American myths or thoughts. Its tremendous arsenal of weapons has long allowed America to be able to enjoy peace even when other nations were constantly tested by ruthless neighbours. Instead of prompting a grateful disposition, this quality in the past stimulated self righteousness and self absorption on the part of American citizens. For example, America has in the past assumed the right to “bring enlightenment” to countries that it perceives as being ‘backwards’ or undeveloped. Even the comparative division of the world in terms of “first” or “third” world nations is an American creation. American news correspondents have confessed to being amazed when they compare how much more the rest of the world is aware of current world events to the fact that most Americans are only aware of what happens in America because they deem everything else as being ‘unimportant’ (Moeller, 2008). The terrorist attacks in New York, therefore, seriously jolted most Americans who suddenly woke up to the realisation that they were no longer a special nation, and were vulnerable to attacks from outside. It was understandable and natural for the media as well as the American public to demonstrate a “rally around the flag” reaction, by uniting behind President Bush’s actions. The media also had the challenging assignment of helping Americans to comprehend the events, as well as the war on terror that would soon be commenced. Owing to the fact that the White House, in America, controls the movement of all information when the nation is undergoing a crisis, opposition members in congress will restrain their differences with the President in public affairs, in order to give the impression of the country having an elite consensus. This is also supportive of the notion that the media be a constituent of this support group in order to rally the rest of the nation behind the rightful leader. It has been stated that through that through methods like priming, framing, and the ‘spiral of silence’ the news media can affect, prolong, and increase the timbre of the “rally around the flag” reaction long after it should naturally have disappeared. Few incidents have received the lengthy television news reporting that was given to the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. Live coverage was started by all news groups as soon as the first plane slammed into one of the towers. This reporting would pre-empt all other programming on the majority of television stations for days after that. Subsequent coverage would include repeated assessments of the events, theories about their causes, and allusions to the possibility of future attacks that would be even worse (Marshall, Bryan, Amsel, Suh, Cook and Nerisa, 2007). The news media affects the news by what they report as well as what they do not report. One of the most ‘hushed-up’ stories was about the collapse of the World Trade Centre Building 7, which was not hit by any plane. Following September 11, the major news media stations stirred fear by using war-like language when alluding to the plans of other terrorist networks to strike America. The stories in all the major American newspapers after the attacks showed an increase in the utilisation of attack-related words like "extremist," and "terrorism" (Esposito and Mogahed, 2008). The later years were to see words such as ‘waterboarding’ and "Guantanamo" become ordinary words that every citizen understood. By continuously speaking about the importance of ‘destroying terrorist networks’, the news media played a big role in convincing ordinary Americans to allow the government to infringe on human and civil rights. Terrorism became the new mantra. Manichean good v. evil notions were hyped. The fear and hate felt by the American public overwhelmed sanity and the reality of defending right over wrong. Even though the Bush administration made no clear statement that Iraq was linked somehow to the attacks on America, most Americans came to feel or sense that Iraq was somehow connected with Osama bin Laden. This might have been due to the constant subtle suggestions, innuendo, and the recurring use of the words “9/11” and “Iraq” and in the same sentence by different news media houses. This left a considerable segment of the American public with that false notion that Saddam Hussein was the bigger enemy; and by extension that no efforts should be spared in trying to correct this second problem. Along with this strong desire to be seen to be ‘correcting the problem’, came the fear of appearing unpatriotic. Even weathered newsmen and women were aware that appearing to challenge questionable policies introduced to fight terrorism would result in problems. Walter Isaacson, who was the CEO and chairman of CNN during the early 2000s stated in 2007, “There was a patriotic zeal and the Administration used it so that if you questioned anything you were made to feel that there was something wrong with that … one could almost say that there was a patriotism police which, you know, they’d be up there on the internet sort of examining anything a journalist would say, or somebody else would say as if it were treacherous… particularly right after 9/11 (Lasora, 2003). Another news anchor, Dan Rather, stated, “there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around the necks of others if they dissented … in some ways journalists feared that they would be neck-laced here. Now it is that fear that kept journalists from asking the most challenging of the tough questions” (Marshall, Bryant, Amsel, Suh, Cook and Neria, 2007). The mainstream news media also referred to those who challenged the official 9/11 narrative as “paranoid conspiracy theorists” (Cotter, 2010). For months after September 11, Americans were bombarded with conferences and speculations on the Quran, plane hijackings, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the terrorists groups, Afghanistan’s hideout caves, religious fanaticism, and the terrorist training camps. After this came speculations on Saddam Hussein’s supposed involvement with al-Qaeda. Even though no news media group was openly claiming that Saddam had participated in the terrorist attacks on America, the mere mention of his name in relation to the ‘axis of terror’ was enough to convince Americans that he was somehow involved and that what remained was to prove how he was involved. The few people who attempted to bring to the public’s awareness that America had been active in these lands even before 9/11 had their credibility questioned and objectives maligned in the public forum by the news media. This fact probably discouraged any serious attempts to stop the war machine from proceeding. Since then, the total number of warning and incidents associated with the war has left no room for any heretical thoughts. The effect of the word "terrorism" as portrayed by the mainstream media totally vilifies a population of diverse peoples. The sheer import attributed to the word reduces the importance of the supposed "terrorist" to the American mind set to point where it is felt that these characters have no right to defend themselves or even fight back against American invasion. Owing to the speculations of media commentators, many Americans feel that there exists a unbridgeable and vast divide between the West and Islam; and that Islam, at some significant level, presents a basic threat to Western civilization. Even more than ten years after the terrorist attacks, news media outlets keep using language that stirs the American public consciousness into a state of being hyper alert whenever near persons of Arab ancestry by stating that there may be thousands more subtle and unrecognisable "sleeper terrorists" in the nation, who are just waiting to start a "jihad" at any moment (Bartholomew and Evans, 2004). Many Arab American citizens have testified to feeling uncomfortable when in public due to the strange gazes they attract. One even spoke of people leaving an escalator the moment he stepped into it (Nussbaum, 2012). The American media coverage after the attacks of 9/11 produced a longer term effect than anyone might have imagined. It actually played a big role in the ultimate involvement of America in the Middle East, which does not show signs of ending soon. Journalists should always remember that by reporting on an incident, they become a part of the narrative by giving their viewpoint and affecting the public’s mentality whether they meant to do this or not. References Barnett, B. & Reynolds, A. (2009) Terrorism and the press, Peter Lang Publishing, New York. Bartholomew, R. E. & Evans, H. (2004) Panic attacks: media manipulation and mass delusion, Sutton Publishing Limited, London. Cotter, C. (2010) News talk: investigating the language of journalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Esposito, J. & Mogahed, D. (2008) Who speaks for Islam?: what a billion Muslims really think, Gallup Press, London. Fowler, R. (1991) Language in the news, Routledge, London. Lasora, D. (2003) ‘News media perpetuate few rumors about 9/11 crisis’, Newspaper Research Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 10-21. Marshall, R.D., Bryant, R.A., Amsel, L., Suh, E.J., Cook, J.M. & Neria, Y. (2007) ‘The psychology of ongoing threat’, American Psychologist, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 304-316. Moeller, S. (2008) Packaging terrorism, Blackwell Pub, New York. Nussbaum, M. (2012) The new religious intolerance: overcoming the politics of fear in an anxious age, Belknap Press, London. Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S. & Greenberg, J. (2003) ‘In the wake of 9/11: the psychology of terror’, American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 160, p. 1019. Streissguth, T. (2006) Media bias, Marshall Cavendish, London. Read More