First of all, let me apologise for this post being sooooo way too long. The next one will be MUCH shorter, I promise.
I wanted to talk about the way the media (mainly the Internet, which is becoming extremely important nowadays) is portraying protests against the violence in Gaza, that have been happening in January.
I went on www.flikr.com and typed in "Gaza" to see what will pop up. And as I was browsing through the countless images, one in particular intrigued me. It was a photo of a pro-Palestinian rally in Amsterdam (http://flickr.com/photos/viory/3165131324/) and it made me think, what the world would have held from this photo before the attack on Gaza, if there had been a pro-Palestinian rally. My initial reflex was to think that some media, being very sensationalist, would label it to be a "pro-terrorist" or anti-American, or anti-Israeli rally - essentially "ANTI" being the crucial word. From what I've experienced from the media before the latest attacks on Gaza, was that the Palestinians were pro-terrorist, so the Israelis have a right to interfere, for it is for the best of all of us.
That photo made me want to compare how different media looked at rallies, so I did that. On one of the many blogs online, I found a very interesting interpretation of a pro-Palestinian rally happening in Chicago, on January 19th. The photo below is one of the two photos that were on the blog.
The blog is on the following link: http://amerisrael.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/for-those-curious-as-to-who-constitutes-the-radical-religious-left-in-america-visit-this-link-and-scroll-down-to-see-the-va.html .
If you read the text in the blog, it states that that was a "pro-terrorist" rally and that it was made by the religious left in the U.S., which I found very interesting and amusing (amusing, in a sarcastic way).
The blog re-creates the images that have been put forward by the media for so many years now - that all Muslims are terrorists, that any pro-Palestinian rally would automatically mean that it is pro-terrorist and anti-Israeli (which it does not have to be, even if it is a pro-Palestinian rally!), etc. And this blog just contributed to these arguments. It went even further, it claimed tha the "religious left" had "allied itself with Islamofascism".
My intuition tells me that the author of this blog does not even speak Arabic, in order to understand what those flags are saying. The image of the "terrorist" has become anyone who has a scarf around their face. That is the typical, uninformed, narrow-minded approach that has kept peace away from reaching Palestine/Israel. I think that, to a large extent, the unwillingness of foreign powers, and their lack of knowledge about the problems, has lead to the problems lasting since 1948. It is one of the world's longest-standing political issues, and if the UN had implemented its resolutions in the 40's and 60's the situation would probably look different now.
Anyhow... I am going on another tangent here (sorry for that).
The way that other media described the even is completely different. I will cite only two sites that I read, which talked about the same protest in Chicago:
http://chicagoist.com/2009/01/10/photo_gallery_another_pro-palestine.php?gallery0Pic=2#gallery
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/pro-palestinian-march-to-close-loop-streets.html
Both sites describe the rally as a "pro-Palestinian" rally and they state that there was another, pro-Israeli, rally that had happened a few days earlier.
What my point with this post is is that the media is very influential in the world with any issue, and so is with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For the first time, I was able to experience almost unanimous support for the people of Gaza/Palestine (well, with some rare exceptions, like the one mentioned above) that was not the case before. The perceptions of the Palestinians and Israelis are changing in the minds of people. Even in the U.S., which has been Israel's strongest ally, there are more and more voices raised against what Israel is doing. So, what I am trying to do is to comment on the positive change in the media. That is that here is, finally, both sides of the story presented. There were news about pro-Israeli rallies; they may not have gotten as much publicity as the pro-Palestinian ones, but they were still talked about. Finally, one can say that both rallies were "PRO" something, and not "ANTI" something, which used to be the case before. I, for one, was pleasantly surprised with the fact that the media is presenting both sides. Of course, it is taking sides as always, but the situation today is much better than it used to be.
Oh, and another thing - I found a really interesting video from the two rallies that left me thinking: What is the point of it? It was done by freedomfolks.com, whose motto is "fighting illegal immigration... one post at a time". It made me thing - what kind of authority do they have to post videos about pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian rallies? And if you watch the video on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWaVgB579U) it seems as if the Israelis are the calm, nice people while the Palestinians are the wild, loud ones. The fact that they spoke to Israeli supporters and with no one from the pro-Palestinian rally, just gives more subtle indication that the makers of the video are pro-Israeli. I jus thought about the legitimacy of who is posting "news" online... the same thing is with that blog. Who made it? Why? Who would read it? I personally hope not many people, but well...
That's all from me. Sorry it turned out to be so long - wasn't supposed to be. Didn't structure the whole thing very well! :S
Posts
What about the actual sources of these images. Two of them (in the center of your post) are more 'official' sites of news--and thus supposed to be neutral, whereas the other two are openly promoting an agenda. How should we evaluate information coming from these different kinds of sources—do they all have their place? How do we avoid just reading what we want to hear?
ReplyDeleteCertainly, there are media with their agenda and there are, as you said, more 'official' sites of news. Nevertheless, there is a lot of bias in pretty much all media, that have their different agendas. It is really hard nowadays to put a clear distinction on sources, just because there is so many 'media' floating around which have two opposing points of view. It is hard for someone to be able to make a well informed, valid argument for either side. And that is for media in general, not just the Israeli-Palestinian problem.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the only way of getting to hear both sides is actually looking for different sources, from different media, different places and different opinions.
The reason why I took the blog is partially because I wanted to see what individuals thought as well, besides the 'mainstream' media, and how they presented the issue. :)
But yes, there is definite and obvious difference between the sources of the images, that is true.
It is interesting that you posted these depictions of the media because while searching for my own sources to post, I found an article discussing the influence that the media has had on the international community’s view of the conflict in Gaza.
ReplyDeleteI most certainly agree with you that no matter what the perspective is, the media bears a strong responsibility in shaping our opinion of the news we receive. I also think it’s true that in the past, the media has largely had a pro-Israeli bias and a very stereotypical depiction of the Arab struggle—of course this is only speaking from the position of largely watching and reading news from the United States, Britain, or other Western countries. That is why it is interesting to see your point that the media is beginning to change its angle, which is also the topic of the article I mentioned before. This piece is entitled “A War of Words and Images” and I found it on the “Economist” website, usually a somewhat conservative or at least moderate news periodical (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=348984&story_id=12953839). It discusses how the media coverage of Israel’s offensive in Gaza has actually damaged international opinion of the Israelis, even in historically pro-Israel places, such as the United States.
It will be interesting to see if this kind of coverage will continue and spread to other issues in the Middle East or if the media will revert back to its biased ways. Of course, it always depends on the media source that we are examining, but is it possible for the industry as a whole to shift in its ways?
Oops-- for some reason I can't get the link to the economist to work... any suggestions? because it would be great if you could read the article as well.
ReplyDeleteHah - it's really interesting to see those Rasmussen figures, because they are completely different than the ones by Gallup! Gallup said that around 63% saw Israel favourably and 29% unfavourably. Either way, the numbers seem pretty high, but Rasmussen makes it seem much different... (oh, btw, the link worked!)
ReplyDeleteI'd recommend checking out the other post - it's very much related to media and the opinion of the American public about Israel and Palestine, though, it seems that Israel is definitely more favoured in the US than Palestine is... at least according to Gallup.
While I have seen some pretty ridiculous things on American TV and in American magazines, I find that the majority of this sensationalism is on shows like Maury, Dr. Phil and Tyra Banks' show. While I myself strongly prefer foreign media sources because they typically have more and more interesting "news", I think people do not give the American media as much credit as they deserve. Especially considering how clearly racist some of the media were in the video with Edward Said, I would say there have been significant steps forward since that time. Everything I said however is nullified if by "some media" you mean bloggers and some of the "news sources" with an agenda such as those at a few of the links you included. I have been searching LexisNexis for American newspaper (LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post) portrayals of the Gaza situation and have not found anything other than letters to the editor and op-eds that are noticeably biased. For example, the following LA Times article has both sides listed as "Pro".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.macalester.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T5964478281&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T5964098517&cisb=22_T5964478284&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&selRCNodeID=9&nodeStateId=101en_US,1&docsInCategory=12&csi=306910&docNo=4
I do agree with the importance in distinguishing between "pro" and "anti". This is important not only to see how the creators of the movement think of themselves, but also of how outsiders interpret it. When the focus of a rally is more internal (WE WANT FREEDOM FOR PALESTINE), it has a very different feel than an externally focused (WE WANT ISRAEL TO LEAVE). It may mean the same exact thing though it is portrayed in a different manner and may inspire different feelings.
Is this change in how we think, are we becoming more PC so we now have to say everything is "pro"? Or are these groups not anti? What are the implications of this?
Freedom Folks posting a commentary on the rally is indeed bizarre, but is instructive on how some perspectives come about in the blogosphere. One post reports on a NY Times story of a Somali immigrant to Minneapolis who returned to Somalia and took part in a terrorist attack there. (http://freedomfolks.com/?p=5730) With the title "Least Surprising News of the Day", the author includes a photo of protesters carrying signs that call for the "extermination" of those who defame Islam. The source of the photo, where it was taken, when, by whom, and what were the circumstances of the demonstration are not given, but it does carry the title "09-islamic-fascists".
ReplyDeleteThe one comment to the post seems to have read exactly what the poster intended to be communicated by the picture of angry Muslims and a story of immigrants being radicalized in like communities. Few words are needed for it to be clear to "everyone in the world with a functioning brain" that this is another example of the danger of the Other to the US. It is placed as obvious that together inside these borders immigrant groups aren't able to contribute to the US and only will feed each others' un-American fanaticism.
Xenophobia is used widely in blogs and also the conventional media to invoke Otherness and tie it to a threat. This image has been executed with greater regularity to link Islam with terror. As activist responses to the recent military violence in Gaza have been reported, many times these images of supporters of the Palestinians have been used to lead viewers to associations with rabid violence. Fixing those images to a domestic unknown does much to equate criticism of Israel's offensive in Gaza with terrorism, and that to immigrant communities. This is a troubling way to present news.