"Bush ready to seize more power"
This is a headline you will never, ever see... unless you trawl around on the grubby underbelly of modern capitalism looking for dirt (hint: there's a lot). Yet I open up my newspaper and find "Putin ready to seize more power" nestled in the world pages, describing in sharp detail how Vladimir Putin is using the recent terrorist attacks in Beslan to shore up his own position in Russia.
Maybe it's just my memory, but I don't remember any equivalent newspaper articles three years ago, when the USA's administration used the attacks on New York to silence domestic critics (bringing the avalanching globalisation protests to a whimpering halt), say "you're with us or you're with the terrorists", and push through increased powers for the President. Oh, sure, such articles existed, I just don't recall seeing them in the Christchurch Press. The Listener was outstanding though, I have to say. However, even it didn't look at the broad patterns and say "oh, the US admimistration is using sympathy and fear to overwhelm opposition to it in military, economic, and political bids for power." No, we had to leave that to John Pilger (a man routinely vilified by mainstream media) and others: "The real story behind America's war"
This is the pattern I see over and over again: if our official allies are flexing their muscles and trying to stare everyone down, the mainstream media talk about their resolution and courage. If it's our official enemies, they'll be demonised, and if they're more or less neutral in our books, we might get some balanced coverage. Maybe. So, for example, I heard National Radio's morning host ask a Russian spokesperson if the slaughter of children in Beslan was related in any way to the slaughter of forty thousand of Chechen women and children by the Russian military. I've heard others question the validity of Russia's war on terrorism, asking if cracking down harder on the Chechens will do anything other than drive them to greater and more desperate acts of terrorism. All of this was within one week of the atrocity.
It's the sort of reporting that's needed. It suggests that terrorists are driven to extremes by the horrible things that have happened to them, and that there might atually be something that the powerful can do to stop producing terrorists. But it's not the sort of coverage we usually get. From September 2001, all I really remember is the phrase "why do they hate us?" repeated over and over again. I think it was even a headline at one stage, but the mainstream media managed to avoid even the obvious answers.
The reliance on press releases and official sources in our country's reporting on the US' war on terror means that, no matter how balanced and objective our reporters are, they're accurately reporting american propaganda. I recall, when the book reviewer was looking at Arundhati Roy's latest collection of essays, she mentioned how it had opened her eyes to the use of language in the media: "you know, calling them militants and the US 'security'". Linda Clark (the host) responded as if it were some sort fo revelation, and explained that they just use the same language as is in the press releases. not that it changed anything: listen to the news and you have two vocabularies; one for allies and one for enemies.
Enemies are warbands, insurgents, militants, terrorists, radicals, Islamists, or even radical Islamic insurgent militia; allies are security forces or peacekeepers. You will never hear National Radio refer to the foreign armies in Iraq as "occupiers", nor will you hear themr refer to their opposition as "the Iraqi resistance". You will never hear the interim Iraqi government referred to as a colonial government. You will never hear the mercenaries referred to as anything other than "security contractors".
Nobody has any trouble understanding that, during WW2, the Vichy government in France were Nazi puppets, and the people bombing them were the French resistance; national heroes. But for some reason, this sort of simple truth eludes many people who look at Iraq. I recall another interview about three weeks ago, in which the interviewer asked "why doesn't the new Iraqi government have much support from the populace?" The response was that Iraqis don't think the new government has enough power to bring an end to the violence. "Hello?" I thought, "does this guy know that many Iraqis see the government as a tool of the USA?" I actually got an answer later in the interview, when the guy was asked about the upcoming elections at the start of next year. He said that they would be an improvement because the process for selecting the current government was seen as undemocratic and controlled by the US. Wasn't that relevant to the first question? I'm confused. I became more confused when he said it could be difficult to carry out the elections because the Iraqis have no tradition of democracy. Obviously, though, they understand it enough to feel optimistic about the upcoming 'more democratic' elections.
In the words of Calvin, "sometimes I think adults just pretend to know what they're talking about."
Maybe it's just my memory, but I don't remember any equivalent newspaper articles three years ago, when the USA's administration used the attacks on New York to silence domestic critics (bringing the avalanching globalisation protests to a whimpering halt), say "you're with us or you're with the terrorists", and push through increased powers for the President. Oh, sure, such articles existed, I just don't recall seeing them in the Christchurch Press. The Listener was outstanding though, I have to say. However, even it didn't look at the broad patterns and say "oh, the US admimistration is using sympathy and fear to overwhelm opposition to it in military, economic, and political bids for power." No, we had to leave that to John Pilger (a man routinely vilified by mainstream media) and others: "The real story behind America's war"
This is the pattern I see over and over again: if our official allies are flexing their muscles and trying to stare everyone down, the mainstream media talk about their resolution and courage. If it's our official enemies, they'll be demonised, and if they're more or less neutral in our books, we might get some balanced coverage. Maybe. So, for example, I heard National Radio's morning host ask a Russian spokesperson if the slaughter of children in Beslan was related in any way to the slaughter of forty thousand of Chechen women and children by the Russian military. I've heard others question the validity of Russia's war on terrorism, asking if cracking down harder on the Chechens will do anything other than drive them to greater and more desperate acts of terrorism. All of this was within one week of the atrocity.
It's the sort of reporting that's needed. It suggests that terrorists are driven to extremes by the horrible things that have happened to them, and that there might atually be something that the powerful can do to stop producing terrorists. But it's not the sort of coverage we usually get. From September 2001, all I really remember is the phrase "why do they hate us?" repeated over and over again. I think it was even a headline at one stage, but the mainstream media managed to avoid even the obvious answers.
The reliance on press releases and official sources in our country's reporting on the US' war on terror means that, no matter how balanced and objective our reporters are, they're accurately reporting american propaganda. I recall, when the book reviewer was looking at Arundhati Roy's latest collection of essays, she mentioned how it had opened her eyes to the use of language in the media: "you know, calling them militants and the US 'security'". Linda Clark (the host) responded as if it were some sort fo revelation, and explained that they just use the same language as is in the press releases. not that it changed anything: listen to the news and you have two vocabularies; one for allies and one for enemies.
Enemies are warbands, insurgents, militants, terrorists, radicals, Islamists, or even radical Islamic insurgent militia; allies are security forces or peacekeepers. You will never hear National Radio refer to the foreign armies in Iraq as "occupiers", nor will you hear themr refer to their opposition as "the Iraqi resistance". You will never hear the interim Iraqi government referred to as a colonial government. You will never hear the mercenaries referred to as anything other than "security contractors".
Nobody has any trouble understanding that, during WW2, the Vichy government in France were Nazi puppets, and the people bombing them were the French resistance; national heroes. But for some reason, this sort of simple truth eludes many people who look at Iraq. I recall another interview about three weeks ago, in which the interviewer asked "why doesn't the new Iraqi government have much support from the populace?" The response was that Iraqis don't think the new government has enough power to bring an end to the violence. "Hello?" I thought, "does this guy know that many Iraqis see the government as a tool of the USA?" I actually got an answer later in the interview, when the guy was asked about the upcoming elections at the start of next year. He said that they would be an improvement because the process for selecting the current government was seen as undemocratic and controlled by the US. Wasn't that relevant to the first question? I'm confused. I became more confused when he said it could be difficult to carry out the elections because the Iraqis have no tradition of democracy. Obviously, though, they understand it enough to feel optimistic about the upcoming 'more democratic' elections.
In the words of Calvin, "sometimes I think adults just pretend to know what they're talking about."
posted by Leith at 2:23 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home