Issue: Media policy or handling of information

Don’t trust the media

In general, whenever Israelis did not like being confronted by what the press reported about actions by the Israeli army, the answer was quick: ‘don’t believe the press’. That became apparent when the Israelis had gathered up more than 1000 Palestinians and after blindfolding them, started to put numbers on their underarms. Immediately the news went around the world that they were acting like the Nazis did towards the Jews when taking them into the concentration camps.

Objectivity through differences of opinions

According to the ‘foot soldier’ CNN was biased towards the Palestinians. The claim was made because that network showed apparently always the plight of Palestinians, but never the horrific impact of a suicide bomber. Of interest is that the rest of the world thinks the opposite of CNN as being American influenced and extremely biased towards Israel.

Images not words count

Since images create a more powerful hold over the mind than what soft spoken words and reflections can ever achieve, especially if spoken by an outsider not knowing really what is going on in the Middle East, there was no way of countering effectively this thesis of the press as not being to be trusted.

Media control and manipulation

Of interest is that in Genoa Berlusconi acted already as media director for what took place on and off that particular political stage.

That linkage to the media is crucial for understanding the 11^th of September and what reinforces since then the replacement of politics by a construed system of justification resulting out of the term ‘terrorism’.

In particular, J. Baudrillard has spoken about the media over exaggerating at symbolic level the meanings of certain key actions as if they alone are capable of transforming the political landscape and thereby human reality. (see J. Baudrillard, “Der Geist des Terrorisms – das symbolische Kalkuel des Opfertods and der Krieg” , Lettre International, Heft 55, IV/2001, p. 11 – 14).

Continuity of war and violence

Baudrillard explains that the seizure of the media by these kind of events make possible the symbolic victory of terrorism over our lives. It allows for the domination of certain key and new images making possible the ‘continuity of war by replacing politics with other means’. Such a politics based on permanent war was inconceivable until now.

Coverage of war

Most indicative for this trend of replacing ‘politics by war’ is what media policy is being implemented, so that the world population can follow a pre-selected coverage of events. Quite often this coverage feeds into well-established networks following their own codes and more specifically decoding methods of any incoming and outgoing information.

Influencing public opinion

Consequently it becomes crucial to any stake or power holder when undertaking actions in violation of human norms to control the media, since information determines already the sequence of events. The need for control of information intensifies once not only handled by the media in general, but by specific networks using the Internet.

Commentary

Crucial is furthermore once information becomes accessible to a larger audience, how these events are, if at all, then commented upon. The aim is then no longer just to steer the discussion in some meaningful direction, but to use the media as part of the overall negotiation game linked with setting preconditions and terms of agreement. That alters then the role of the media in providing and making available information about current and past affairs.

Europe without a world voice

The very fact that Europe is succumbing to an unchecked media policy, as demonstrated fully by Berlusconi and Co. due to a monopoly of media power, proves to be unbearable especially in cases like the crisis in the Middle East. For it leaves the European voice with regards to world affairs in too weak a position, if heard at all. Once close to irrelevance, then there is no longer any sense in monitoring how public opinion and practical judgment are shaped about political consequences of decisions taken. That means, no debate and learning process accompanies the media process, thus no questions are asked because of a lack in background information.

All that implies media policy without research cannot demand to be substantial, when it comes to handling information stemming especially out of conflicting reports about crucial events e.g. what took place in Jenin.

Power of the media

This deplorable state of affairs leaves too many important views with regards to the conflict between Palestinian and Israeli people unheard. Here then the absence of a plurality of media channels becomes an act of irresponsibility in view of atrocities committed, but no means to challenge all these ‘bad practices’. Without the general public being involved in a peace process, it means but a poverty of constructive solutions will keep everyone exposed to still further going violence.

Need for news

In brief, the basic need to be informed in a proper way about events, in order to understand them, exists because so far this has not been done in any satisfactory way. Interesting is, however, the usage of terms like ‘breaking news’ ‘current news’ as if the location of news in time is crucial to distinguish between what sells as something newsworthy and what it may take to really understand the situation. There is little done in the way of leaving behind sensationalism linked to exaggerating upon trivial matters as if this is news already. Many important contradictions are not even heard as news clippings are but brief, at the most ten minutes or even less.

Flight from reality

If this need for news – information being validated as knowledge – is not satisfied, then people will feel simply over demanded by the ‘sequence of events’. They will respond by not listening or even worse take refuge in mythological thoughts e.g. linking information flood to the need to escape on a new arche- Noah as idea of survival. In light of the flood of information these and other events provoke, many call for some kind of information and knowledge management so as to facilitate a new kind of communication based on computer literacy. Yet without substantial debate that would mean by definition more exclusion rather than inclusion since politics has yet to come to terms with the issues of the Information Society.

Information in relation to real affairs

It should be noted that the intensity of information is not merely a result of modern communication possibilities, but also due to people becoming deeply worried about the state of affairs in this world. Once events touch upon core issues, it leaves many more people with sleepless nights and a constant feeling of no longer knowing how to respond in simple human terms to things having gone way out of control.

Handling of Media

Israel may regret one day of having mishandled the press so openly that even on CNN it is was shown on how first two armored vehicles threatened and intimidated the press waiting for Secretary of State Powell to arrive in Ramallah where Arafat was confined, and then even shot at them.

The absolute clamping down of the press meant that even major news agencies like the BBC had to rely heavily upon material supplied by the Israeli army services. That was highly criticized by those who believe in the independence of the press and the need to verify own sources before passing on information to the general public.

What events in April tell is that rights of the free press are so weak, that the Israeli side will control almost every move. The army will not allow any press to go into the areas of combat and prevent direct coverage of events of special controversial character e.g. what happened in Jenin. This matter is becoming more problematic as the incursion extends itself over weeks and over all Palestinian towns.

Resume

Already those supporting Sharon and, therefore, a specific cause of Israeli countered criticism of official policies leading to actions in the direction of ever more severe retaliations with the argument, but ‘don’t believe what the press writes and reports’. These pro-Israel voices continue to uphold a wide spread belief that the press is only on the side of the Palestinians and thereby misrepresents the cause of Israel. Little do they seem to acknowledge the vast coverage given to Israel’s view nor do they seem to honor efforts by papers like the International Herald Tribune to have always pro and counter arguments being presented, so as to avoid the impression that only one side of the argument is being upheld by the paper.

As a matter of fact, this criticism of the press underlines quite another danger, namely the potential loss of democracy if there is no free, that is independent press allowing for different viewpoints to be expressed.

Yet even CNN was attacked during March as being biased in coverage of Palestinian suffrages, but not Israeli’s calamities following another suicidal attack. This viewpoint of Israelis is all the more astonishing since almost everyone else thinks immediately of CNN as being only pro-Israel.

But the role of the media has changed as well especially since the 11^th of September. It has become involved in symbolic gestures as demonstrated by searching for the authenticity or not of Bin Laden tapes that were censored by US officials due to fearing they contain secret messages to all terrorists.

If this demonstrates anything, then that the press has a responsibility to the public and this in turn can be interpreted from time to time quite differently. At all times it means the press is involved in claims and counter claims.

Good press works with even apparently trivial details and checks them for their newsworthiness. For sometimes things can become crucial, that is by picking up small leads, there can erupt suddenly big news e.g. the Watergate cover-up by the Nixon administration and which in the end lead to Nixon being forced to step down.

More specifically, coverage of the Palestine – Israel conflict has all the marks of public opinion being played with and subsequently judgments as much as sympathies sway from one side to the other.

As in all cases of war, it reflects deliberate attempts to infiltrate world public opinion so as to appear justified in one’s actions while weakening the case of the other side.

By the end of April, the public does not know anymore how such claims and counter claims could be validated other than taking side with either Israel or Palestine. For the conflict has escalated in the meantime so much, that it has become increasingly difficult to remain neutral.

At the same time, this leads to lowering the desire for any substantial debate on how the outside world should react to what is going on in the Middle East. In the end, Israel or Palestinians may well accuse the rest of the world for not having undertaken anything substantial to secure the peace process.

Due to the exclusion of the press once the Israeli army started the incursion, the public knows indeed very little. Only a mere fraction of what is going on has become known. That makes judging events that much more difficult.

Still, as the month of April approaches its end, an intensive battle is being waged to have public opinion on one’s side. This is underscored by the war of words being waged much more directly. Political leaders seize also every opportunity to contain the media. Sharon believes the media should only give the nation pride and hope.

Already at the world summit in Genoa Berlusconi demonstrated his grip on the media: press conferences meant the politicians present had no translators to understand as to what was said in Italian. Furthermore there were allowed only photographers; news agencies received complementary to those images taken the text written by Berlusconi personally. The media is the message.

Israel and the Arabic world are covered very differently. The Israeli army does the filming and no independent sources are allowed. The problem is that once the BBC accepts the film takes, it repeats merely the official version of the Israeli government.

On the Arabic side, it is said that media coverage has erased all differences with everyone in the Arabic world following events as if the Israeli incursion is their 11^th of September.

One wonders what will happen at the various other levels of media communication. There are some well known sources such as the New York Times, Indymedia (with coverage from both sides and from the grass root level) or what can be obtained directly in the way of information from either the Israeli government or from the Palestinian Authority.

People do visit those websites and feel that this confirms their viewpoints they have already prior to informing themselves. They do it to just collect information before passing them on via the Internet.

All that does not make yet any meaningful communication with the possibility of following up questions. The sources of information remain also obscure or at least difficult to validate. Bits and pieces only make sense from a specific angle or perception.

Indicative of what is happening also inside of Israel is that there are reports that reporters, writers and editors of Ha’aretz “have been deluged with abuse and threats” (Jackson Diehl, “Ha’aretz – Speaking out in Israel, International Herald Tribune, April 19, 2002). He points out: “media everywhere have a hard time maintaining a healthy independence from government during times of crisis and war, but in Israel the pressure is crushing.“ There a claustrophobically inclined society has degraded into believing that only ‘brute force’ is the effective answer to the suicide bombings. Ha’aretz (to be found under www.haaretzdaily.com) attempts to remain critical by tough reporting and caring what happens to the other side.

Opinion of the foot soldier

This lack of belief in the press prevailing in Israel, as expressed by the foot soldier in March, precluded in the form of justification how the Israeli Defensive Forces treated the press during the incursion in April. Once shut out, the army provided itself the footage to major newscasters, including the BBC, something violating the freedom of the press. No matter what governments, politics and people wish to convey and be known , the independence of the press has to be upheld at all times. Such a press follows the need to validate itself the sources of information.

^ Top

« Issue: Corruption and Financial Aid | Issue: Cultural Differences »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation