It was refreshing to note a big organization not following script. Yet, in the bigger context, does this mean anything? Obviously, even though there were other media references to maybe find fault in Israel, the US generally ignored it. The whole clip brings up questions about what is blame and fault about the conflict. News organizations want to be "objective" about who is to blame for things; making things black and white for viewers yet at the end of at segment, Sanchez even admits to the America wanting to know "who is right" without taking in the subtleties.
In deeply invested, emotionally charged, historically unlineated situations, who is right? It does not seem that there can be a right and wrong. Americans want to know the answer to the question though. I think that is part of the reason why we side so heavily with one side and not the other; Israel gave their side with convincing evidence to make it seem they are right. Palestinians never got into the fray in the right manner to influence their "right" and ended up being "wrong".
I was suspicious given the apparent edits made by this clip and did some quick research. It is put up by CAIR which stands for Council for American Islamic Relations. I did a quick search for the organization. CAIR’s website is very clean and gives a good image of the organization with tons of quotes from US congressmen giving their support. While searching for them on Google News, they seem to have a dual identity; that of an activist group on the behalf of Muslims and that of a hated, biased group by more conservation sections of the media.
One Blogger writes:
Many will say this is extreme, yet this scenario is exactly what the Council of American and Islamic Relations (CAIR) prescribes to do during their monthly board meetings. CAIR has people assigned to dig up dirt on anyone who publicly opposes them. Win the PR campaign and you win the war.There is even a thing called "CAIR Watch" out there. I am wondering if these right wingers have any truth in them as well. Given the clip, it was very well done to give a certain message: Look! Even CNN thinks that Israel is wrong! CAIR does know how to do PR. The clip was effective and to the point. Yet, does that make them a terrorist supporting group? If this was any other ethnic group, would there be this intense loathing for that organization?
Does this tactic work? It has for years, but I played the same game with CAIR as they have with others. The only difference is that by my rules you obtain the truth. CAIR ignores the truth. I got “into their minds” by using their own tactics against them. Ultimately they made serious mistakes. It will cost them and they know it. I have encouraged CAIR to sue me, but they will not. Why? Because they know I have evidence mounting against them every day. They have no idea who within CAIR has or is continuing to assist me in obtaining inside intelligence. By my making a statement like I have in this paragraph against CAIR, you can be assured I have first-hand intelligence proving this if and when the time comes.
I do not think if there was an CAAR (Council for American Asian Relations) that there would be the same suspicions as there is for CAIR. It makes me think if there are different types of "Othering" and emotional responses to various types. It seems like Islam is very contentious and seen as a violent threat while other groups are not as hostile and "mangeable".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiyyp9cZdY0
ReplyDeleteI think that there is an overall distrust of Islamic organizations, not because it is warranted, but because fear of Muslims seems to be so deeply embedded in our everyday conscience. Practically on a daily basis, I know that I see some pretty horrible representations of Muslims in the mass media, and admittedly, there is a bias. And yet, at the same time, I think it's important to keep in mind that all representations are biased. As much as we like to enshrine ideas like "journalistic integrity" or "objectivity," in reality they don't exist. So, finally, in response to your video posting, I've posted a slightly longer, but nonetheless interesting video on media bias. It's definitely key to note that the video was made by a Canadian action group that seems particularly vested in United States political issues. I'll close with the question "Who should we trust for our news, if corporate media is clearly so biased?"
Jon, that youtube video is rather interesting. The end piece on the deaths of the six Palestinian boys was particularly poignant and drove home the fact that US media is biased because of various reasons. However, I would like to modify your question and remove "corporate media." Simply, who should we trust for our news, at all? Especially if one views "truth" as a subjective construction, dependent upon one's views.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think we can "trust" the media if we take it with a grain of salt and look at a wide variety of sources. One of the major problems, however, is this process is labor intensive, although it has become easier with the internet. Knowing biases, knowing that the "Israel lobby" is prominent in the US, all help frame what we take out of the news and how we perceive the conflict.
Relating Jon's comment, my own perceptions and the original post, I found the anchor's quotations of other press rather interesting. Although I did find it odd that he referred to the Guardian as "questionable." I also thought that the use of the "Palestinian legislator" as a legitimizing force in the idea that Israel started the conflict itself was interesting. The anchor, and CNN, were not claiming Israel broke the ceasefire. Instead, they, as good journalists, were following up on the statement from a Palestinian legislator that Israel broke the ceasefire. Although this was backed up through other journalists, Israel was simply targeted Hamas in Gaza because of "imminent security reasons," thus legitimizing their actions in the eyes of many Americans.
I,too, think we should trust the media, but take it with a HUGE grain of salt. For example, it is important to know who is funding the news organization. Obviously, an organization is not going to heavily critic Israeli actions if it means that all of it's funding will be pulled. The same goes for any story that may cause strife within media management. This, among other issues, present a biased view on stories, but by checking different sources, like Natasha suggests, and like the anchor on CNN does on air. However, it is a little concerning that they were fact-checking something that happened two months ago.
ReplyDeleteI think that the "who to trust" question is indeed a tough one, and I really think that the only solution is to to get as broad of a sampling of the media, both seemingly unbiased and clearly biased. I think that there are a number of different truths and narratives, each equally legitimate, and that these different perceptions are as important as the facts themselves. It makes me think of the "Who's Afraid of Hamas TV" article that we read in class. Perhaps if we were more open to these radical perspectives we would have a better understanding for the emotions that are fueling this crisis.
ReplyDeleteLiving in the United States, it is difficult to sympathize with many of the emotions on either side of the issue. Nationalism, in its strictest definition, is a very foreign concept to us. Many of our families are relatively recent arrivals, and constant uprooting and in-migration gives us a sense of detachment from the landscape. Maybe more Americans would have a greater respect for the intricacies of the issue if they had a broader sampling from all ends of the spectrum.