There has been quite a bit on discussion on this blog about the position of the media on the struggle in Gaza. After watching this video, I had several conflicting thoughts as to its responsibility as a piece of media. First of all, it is obviously an unprofessional, which shows in many ways—Not only does it broadcast several mistakes, one being an obvious slip up by calling Palestine Pakistan, but it also exhibits blatant biases, calling anyone crazy who doesn’t believe in a two state solution with a shared Jerusalem. Furthermore, it is in many ways tactless, and is at times offensive by simplifying this extremely complex conflict.
With this said, however, we must question the responsibility this video assumes. Does this person feel that he is fulfilling a duty as an informer or is it simply a means of expression, and if the latter, does that excuse its faults? It is also interesting to consider how many people watch and accept this video as a reliable news source.
Another note I wanted to point out is the significance of the producer using his dog as a subject while delivering the briefing. He admits that the conflict is so convoluted and tragic that many times it is easier to just detach oneself, in this case by viewing a harmless and friendly object in the midst of news on grief and destruction. Is it irresponsible of the man behind the camera to enable and even encourage this detachment or is he merely mocking our physical distance in America from the conflict and how most of the public usually reacts to this kind of news. One must question how much it differs from the somber newscaster on any broadcast news station who delivers a briefing on the Israeli offensive in Gaza and then after a commercial break, greets viewers once again with a bubbly smile. I don’t have many answers but was interested in hearing all of your opinions.
Posts
When I watched it the first time and I was rather amused by the fact that an advertisement was featured at the bottom of the screen - it said "Support Israeli Troops" and there was a link beneath. Now, I do not know if it was one of the random advertisements that YouTube puts up or was it the author of the video but it gave me a biased impression from the very start. And it would have been a HUGE coincidence if it was a random advert that they put.
ReplyDeleteEither way, I do agree that it's good to question what real media is today. Almost 100,000 have watched that video, and some of the comments I've read say that it has great facts (does it?!) and that people would use it for assignments for school ("I am totally using this for a project in my english class about the conflict. amazing.") It brings to mind the question of how much influence these random videos have - how many people are going to watch a video like this, which is relatively balanced, and make a standpoint about Israel-Palestine. Or, what if they watch a video which is clearly biased and against either Israel or Palestine? Will they just neglect it and move on? Are all people going to do that? I don't think so. With YouTube and Blogs people have more power in their own hands - people are easily swayed one way or another, and it's an immense responsibility on the side of the authors as to what they put online. Nevertheless, they often neglect it for "sensationalism" or "entertainment".
I just found the video to be ridiculous. My perception of the video and the fact that the author was filming a dog the entire time, was almost as if he was mocking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Making it seem almost as trivial as a dog playing around. Something that is there all the time, an "everyday occurrence" that really has nothing to do with us. It's "them" who have the problems.
I don't know. I am afraid I didn't answer any of your questions, sorry for that.. :)