Opinion Editorials, November 2003, www.aljazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Istanbul: The Media's Selective Outrage
by Mike Whitney
Al-Jazeerah, 11/26/03
The bombings in Istanbul have re-awakened the
all-too-familiar feelings of fear
and revulsion that accompany a terrorist attack. It’s easy to wonder how al
Qaida can believe that they are generating support for their cause by such
horrific acts of brutality. It’s also easy to wonder why the media ignores
the broader context of these attacks. While the carnage and chaos are
covered in excruciating detail, the motivation of the terrorists and the
symbolic value of their targets are generally ignored. It’s impossible to
imagine that this is simply a matter of oversight. There’s no shortage of
bright minds in the media, and it’s unlikely that they can’t provide a
deeper level of analysis than what we are getting.
For example, none of the reporting on the bombings in
Turkey included the
obvious fact that the targets are symbols of oppression in the eyes of many
Muslims. (The British consulate was targeted for British involvement in
Iraq, and the Synagogue is perceived as symbolic of the Israeli occupation
in the West Bank and Gaza.) At the very least, the media should comment on
the symbolism of the attacks so that people can understand that terrorism
does not exist in a vacuum, but relates to a wider political dynamic. It’s
impossible to grasp the motivation behind these violent acts when we are not
given greater access to the surrounding facts. And, perhaps that is the
intention.
Like any other organization, the media must conform to
its mandate, which
is to say that it must represent the interests of ownership. In this case,
the omissions are an important part of the story because they leave the
viewer with the belief that the current wave of terrorism is precipitated by
entirely irrational forces. This is precisely the impression the media wants
to create. Just as the Bush Administration has tried to portray terrorists
as unreasoning, bloodthirsty fanatics, so, too, the media contributes to
this illusion by omitting anything that manifests a rationale to their
behavior. This includes a wide range of phenomena, including symbols of
their oppression or any reference to legitimate grievances. As a result,
what we see in the news is a carefully edited program that is intended to
shock and horrify, but never inform.
It’s not difficult to see how this abridging of the
news serves the
interests of those in power. Both Sharon and Bush can credit their entire
careers to successfully manipulating public opinion through demagoguery.
Apart from their uncanny ability to scare the public with phantoms of
shadowy terrorists, neither would last out the year in politics. As it is,
however, both are firmly established in their respective positions and
moving ahead decisively with their extreme agendas.
The bombings in Istanbul are a good example of the
media’s selective
outrage. The reporting uniformly emphasized the chaos, the suffering, the
carnage. Compare this to the coverage of “the year’s most catastrophic
event”, the needless death of some 9,000 plus innocent Iraqis in the illegal
invasion of their country. There was no footage, no reporting, no tales of
suffering fathers or bereaved mothers, nothing….absolute silence. The
message is unavoidably clear, if your death serves the interests of state
and advances the foreign policy objectives of the US, you’ll be boldly
featured on the 6 o’ clock news. If, however, you find yourself beneath a
500 lb American made bomb or in the path of a laser guided missal then
you’re out of luck. The major media want no part of those unfortunate souls
whose mere recognition poses a threat to US aggression. Besides, stories
about the innocent victims of the American war machine tend to have a
deleterious affect on public perceptions, and you can’t have the average
citizen challenging the foundational principles of foreign policy. It’s
better to leave the public in the dark, attached to their fantasies about
the benign affects of US influence in the world. It’s better to reiterate
the same tried and true story line that war equals liberation and that
occupation equals democracy.
We can see how the media is instrumental in promoting
this narrative,
and how it serves the interests of those in power. Without the fear-breeding
perspective of American media, George Bush would have a difficult time
selling his dichotomous world view to the public. By and large, American’s
are generally bright enough not to be duped by the Manichean vision of our
current president. Unfortunately, the media is promoting this “good vs.
evil” metaphor to justify the radical policies of the Administration. The
“us vs. them” strategy vindicates a plethora of activities that would
otherwise be dismissed as the crimes they are. Once the public accepts the
premise that we are on a religious crusade then the curtailing of civil
liberties, the increased power of the presidency and the invasion of non-
threatening sovereign nations is easily vindicated.
In essence, the War on Terror has been nothing more
than an elaborate
public relations campaign that was initiated to facilitate a continual state
of aggression and the systematic dismantling of American democracy. The
entire effort would collapse like a house of cards if the media was not
marching to the same drummer as the Administration. As always, a servile
press is the best friend of despots.
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03). |
 |