In class we have had alot of discussion concerning the media's influence in terrorist groups activities. Particularly we discussed how media can influence how the general public views the attack. The focus of a news article can increase the incentive of terrorists to use violence to get in the media. These media biases can help generate support in the population. Today there was an attack by a single gunman in Jerusalem. I am including two links; one to a story in the Jerusalem Post, and the other from Al Jezeera English. Comparing the two different stories shows different biases in the two organizations.
The first link, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546422275&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull , is tot he Jerusalem Post. This article focusses on the victims of the shooting. It talks of people crying, "Help Us, Help Us!" Further it describes students hiding under desks, a forceful police response that neutralized the terrorist. It also describes a small terrorist group in East Jerusalem, the Galilee Freedom Battalions - the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza. The focus of this report tries to downplay the capabilities of another attack and upplay the government response. The overall tone is condemning.
The second link, http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9D9C103A-8E02-45EF-A335-46DB5BAAF766.htm , contains a a very different perspective on the attack. Although the article starts by talking about the victims, a majority of the article seems to focus on the terrorist, his group and their motivations, as well as possible allies, or at least groups that agree with the tactics. This article even includes a section where they discuss the views of a faction of the population who blame Olmert for the attack, because of recent Israeli action in East Jerusalem. This article has a more understanding feel, and seems as though it would be a great propaganda tool for the group.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The media certainly playes an indespensible role in influcing terrorist group activities. Such publicity awarded to attacks such as todays, leads many to view these acts as heroic, which could lead them to act out in similar ways as well.
For a very long time I kept thinking that if the media stopped focusing on terrorist acts altogether, the number of such incidents would reduce dramatically. I realise that such an expectation was irrational for a number of reasons. For instance, if the american media stops focusing on a terrorist goup's activities, it will not necessarily stop the British or the French media from covering those incidents.
Because the media has such an impact on the general public, I think that they should report any given incident as objectively as possible. In the case of an issue as this, some biases seem the norm, but reading the drastically different perspective presented by the different sources poses a doubt to the credibility of the media. If we feel that we cannot expect the media to stay away from their biases, we should read the different sides presented, and draw own own conclusions from all of it.
There really is such a great difficulty with the media. Swati mentioned the idea of removing media coverage of terrorist attacks and I think she is dead on about the unpracticality of such an action. Of course there are instances, like the Virginia Tech shooter video, in which an exclusive might be given to a single news organization relative to such an attack. I know a lot of people were thoroughly upset with NBC for showing the video of the shooter because that was what he wanted. There's a lot of issues at hand there in general. First, giving into terrorist wants. It's hard to say whether or not it is okay to do what the terrorist wants and provide coverage for them. I don't know if a removal of most large media groups coverage of terrorist attacks would really make a difference. They still have their goals and they still want to send a message and it is still quite possible to get that message across without media attention, but maybe not as easily
Second, there is the matter of propriety. In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter video, propriety and respect for the victims and victims' families was called into question. There was a public outcry that showing such a video should not be presented because of the harm it would cause the families and victims.
Finally, there is a question of obligation for the news agencies. In the case of the Virginia Tech shooter video, I don't know that I really disagree with NBC for releasing the video. Their responsibility as a news agency is to present the news. This also means it should be as unbiased as possible. Now I don't know what NBC's motivation in releasing the video was, because it certainly could have been ratings, but news agencies do have an obligation to get news information out to the public and that is what they did. I suppose there can be their own wisdom in withholding pieces like the shooter's video because of the massive public outcry, but the public does have a right to know. If the public doesn't want to know, I guess that's a different story.
So the media and terrorism is an interesting relationship. I don't think we can remove media coverage from such things, so the best thing is for the media to be as unbiased as possible.
The media does have a large effect on how people view terrorist’s acts. I agree with Swati that the media should try to be more objective, but i think that is very unlikely. Both of these different reporting’s of the same story show the bias in the media. The news does have an obligation to report objectively, but it is hard for individuals in the media to remain completely objective. The media gets pressure from the public it serves to write things in the way that they want to hear them. Over all in theory the media should be neutral, but in practice that almost never happens.
In a neutral world, where humans are without emotions, truly objective media organization can be achieved. However, human being are incapable from completely detatching themselves from highly emotional events. The bias in both of these news articles show the complexity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and that is that the situation affects human beings on both sides. It brings sadness and misery to both sides. THerefore, it is okay that the jersalem post was more sympathetic to the jews who were slaughtered...as long as you read Al-Jazeera too, you can in some small way, achieve the balance you are looking for.
An acknowledged bias would be nice. I enjoy it when news organizations, or the individual correspondents at least acknowledge their biases. For example, even though I don't agree with everything Sean Hannity says, at least he admits he is biased and skewed to the right.
Post a Comment