Exclusion in the Media

I remember cruising the al-Jazeera English web site a few months ago, and finding a story that I was shocked not to have read in the Western media. Immediately following the shoe-throwing incident that you may all remember during a Bush press conference in Baghdad, the 'attacker' was imprisoned and allegedly tortured, breaking a bone during his stay in prison. That same day the story did receive some media coverage on CNN and Fox, but the story was very different. What was being reported was that the assailant had written a letter to the President asking for his forgiveness and pardon. Both stories are probably true, but how is it that such a development could have been totally overlooked in the Western media? I have developed a general impression of al-Jazeera being a less biased source of news than many American sources, CNN being the one that I use the most often. I find that foreign sources, such as the BBC and al-Jazeera have excellent US coverage, and international coverage that far outshines our domestic media.

Today I found myself on the VOA web site, the electronic incarnation of Radio Free Europe, which was founded in part by Dewitt Wallace. Obviously, this source shows a heavy pro-US bias, as it is funded and administered by the Federal Government with a recent focus on targeting Afghani, Iranian and Iraqi audiences. One of the top stories on the front page detailed the admission by a UN official that many of those employed by UNRWA schools in Gaza are members of Hamas. (click the post title for the article) The Unites States alone provides about one hundred million dollars per year in funding to the UNRWA, a substantial source of income for those living in the region. Following up, I performed a search on al-Jazeera and Google news to find coverage of the event from other media sources. To my surprise, I wasn't able to find anything about the issue in any foreign or US source. The only place that I was able to find a reference to the incident was on an Israeli web site, Aish.com. (I can't get the link thingie to work, so here's the url: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/mediaobjectivity/UNRWAs_Hamas_Employees.asp)

A few years ago I got my news exclusively from one or two sources, mostly CNN and MSNBC. I always had an assumption that the news was the news, and that any reputable media outlet provides a different version of the same truth. I've wised up a little bit since, but I have still yet to find any single news source that has broad enough coverage of the Middle East to be individually sufficient. I don't think there is one. I suppose that inherent in any media group is a shared perspective, and inherent in a particular perspective is the exclusion of others.

Internet Usage Statistics and the Developing World

Probably ten or fifteen times a day, each one of us utilizes a service like Google or Yahoo, which relies heavily on user input, as well as enormous quantities of usage statistics to make an automated educated guess as to the content that you are seeking. Further, many of these sites allow you to specify information about your geographical location and your areas of interest to provide better results, such as local news and focused sports coverage. Not only has the usage of these services increased, with people now using custom news feeds and homepages such as iGoogle, but the search engine and its services has started to find its way into places where you wouldn't expect it. Google now performs the search function for the Macalester web page and Macalester e-mail runs through the G-Mail system, for instance.

Because Internet services rely so heavily on user statistics, and because Internet access and usage varies so greatly around the world, I would expect the Internet to have an inherent bias against certain users. I investigated rates of Internet usage around the world, and I found some startling differences. (click on the post title for the usage statis) Internet penetration in the United States is almost 75%, versus just under eight percent for Arab countries. Even more shocking is the variance among these states. Although no Arab country comes even close to the North American rates of penetration, more affluent countries score much higher than the global average, with Kuwait scoring a 25% rate and the UAE scoring 35%, for instance. These countries tend to house most of the Arab media outlets that I have encountered in my surfing and that have been mentioned so far in the course. On the other hand, the West Bank comes in at only 8%, while only 0.13% of Iraqis are users, the lowest rate among Arab countries. These low usage rates seem to correlate with a lack of prominent media outlets for these countries.

It makes sense that the Arab countries with the most internal conflict and poverty would have the lowest rates of usage, and that less domestic investment would lead to fewer well-funded news agencies. That's the thing with the Internet, though. It doesn't take much to create an Internet wildfire. Take the Huffington Post or Craig's List, for example. Both of these were started by individuals with minimal capitol investment. If these web titans can be created by ordinary people with laptops and dedication, why isn't the same possible, albeit to a lesser extent, in these countries? That's where I think the Internet's inherent geographic bias comes in. Less users in these countries leads to low rates of representation in usage statistics. Without some critical mass of users scattered around the globe, Arab sources that could best benefit from Internet exposure are being left in the dust.

On a more positive note, Internet usage has grown much more rapidly in Arab countries than in North America in recent years. Although most of the growth in the region has occurred in more affluent states, usage grew by almost 200% in Iraq and 600% in Palestine between 2000 and 2007.

I can't help but think: 'What can I do about this?' That's the other thing about the Internet. It's very democratic. The more we access these sources, the more that others will be exposed to them. A few months ago I started visiting al-Jazeera regularly, and now it is my primary source of both domestic and international news. Perhaps if I keep at it, my choice will slowly work its way through the circuits and algorithms in a server in California, and be manifest as an Internet search result for somebody in a far off land. That's subtle change.

Joe the Plumber Does Israel

I remember seeing a tidbit on the Daily Show about Joe Wurzelbacher's ground-breaking reporting from Israel during the most recent clashes in Gaza. If that name sounds eerily familiar, it's because of his brief stint in the spotlight during the presidential campaign as “Joe the Plumber.”

To Americans, he was portrayed as the symbol of the downtrodden middle-class everyman. On camera during the interview, as he was escorted by Israeli public and military officials through the city of Sderot, he wore a gray “Springfield” tee-shirt. Perhaps this shirt was in reference to beautiful Springfield, Ohio, (I have family there) or perhaps it was in reference to generic small-town America as a whole (a la The Simpsons).

He interviews the mayor of the town, which saw the brunt of the Hamas bombardment due to its close proximity to Gaza, as he tours buildings that were struck by missiles. He speaks to one man whose living room had recently been decimated by a rocket. Joe mentions stories of children that have reverted to bed-wetting since the attacks as the camera pans to the resident's former toilet, shattered and blown into the side yard. It's all sort of strange.

Joe the plumber doesn't seem very well suited as a war correspondent, but one thing that he does accomplish in the segment is establish a symbolic link between Israel and the Middle-Americans that he claims to represent. He mingles with the teachers at a school that was nearly struck by a rocket and refers to one victim as “brother.” Through the window of a passing car, the camera shows a western-looking town that could just easily be mistaken for small-town America. It pans toward young Jewish schoolboys investigating the scene of the explosion. It is difficult not to be moved by the segment, which so deliberately tugs at the heartstrings. As you might expect, there is no mention of the people of Gaza, which lies less than a mile to the west, other than in reference to the rockets. At one point he goads the mayor, asking “How do people like that make you feel?”

As I watched the segment, I couldn't help but imagine what would have unfolded if Joe was a few minutes' walk to the West, across the wall and into Gaza. Would he have sympathized with the people? Would he suggest, as he did in this piece, that perhaps people would be more sympathetic and less quick to criticize if they understood what life is like in the war-torn area? Could he have established such connections between the small-town American way of life and that of the Palestinians? I can't begin to imagine. I'm still wondering how he ended up in Israel.

CAIRtv: CNN: Israel Broke Gaza Cease-Fire

Given the tone of the blog and the bewilderment that US news organizations are so blatantly pro-Israel, this CNN clip was a surprise. Rick Sanchez was trying to claim that maybe not is all and well with what is told to us and that perhaps the Palestinian legislator had truth between his total blame of Israel. After presenting this information to a fellow CNN reporter Jim Clancy, Clancy tries to give the normal, familiar Western point of view in which Israelis had a right to go attack and struggled almost not to say "pre-emptive".

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.

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.

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?

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".