- 09 Dec 2017 05:37
#14869337
My media critique will not simply deal with a critique of one particular article but rather a general critique of the mainstream Western media by relating relevant international issues to “how the issues raised in this Topic are raised in the media and popular culture” as mentioned in this exercise’s instructions. In particular I will focus on the main question posed in this exercise instructions which state “do you think that the media always fairly present the facts in a balanced or unbiased way? Do you think that there are times when the media tailor their stories to suit their audience/readers?”
To begin with I would like to address a particular mainstream media bias in relation to the current conflict in Syria. Australian barrister, James O’Neill, exposes five anomalies regarding US warplanes attack on a Syrian military base at Deir ez Zor on 17 September 2016 which occurred during the middle of a ceasefire that had been negotiated by Russia and the United States where the mainstream media failed to do its fair and impartial journalistic duty to report in an honest and balanced manner neglecting to report the full context of the strike (2017: 17-18).
1. “When the attack started the Russians attempted to contact the Americans via a hot line set up to avoid conflict such as this occurring . . . For more than 30 minutes however, the Americans refused to respond to the Russian calls.”
2. “At the time the attack was labelled a “mistake” and the Americans have repeated this excuse in a recently released official report. Yet as part of the hot line procedures to avoid such “mistakes” the Russians had asked the Americans to give the coordinates of where they planned to strike. The Americans have always refused to do so, until (this attack) when they gave the Russians the wrong coordinates.”
3. “According to Syrian intelligence, they intercepted electronic traffic between the Americans and the terrorists besieging Deir ez Zor. As soon as the American air strikes began, the terrorists also commenced an attack on Deir ez Zor. That is very unlikely to be a coincidence. No reporting of the Syrian intelligence has appeared in the Australian media.”
4. “The Australian government admitted that it took part in the “mistaken” attack. Quite how this occurred has not been disclosed.”
5. “The biggest failure of all is that not one main-stream media outlet, in print, on air or on TV, asked the obvious question: on what legal basis is Australia involved in Syria at all?”
The use of military force against another sovereign State is very restricted under the UN Charter as well pronounced through judicial pronouncements of the International Court of Justice. The American and Australian military interventions in Syria are not permitted under the UN Charter and neither do they have authorisation from the UN Security Council. The involvement of Iran and Russia in Syria can be justified since the Syrian regime invited their assistance in the conflict. No such invitations were offered to either the US or Australia. In fact Syria has made it clear on more than one occasion that the US and Australian militaries are not welcome in Syria.
It is thus quite clear when we or our allies breach international law it is not reported as violations of international law but if our adversaries do the breaches of international law they are clearly stated. International law breaches committed by our adversaries are particularly highlighted and emphasized by the mainstream media in the West so that their audience knows who the supposed villains are in international relations. So in essence the West is portrayed as upholding international norms and international law in mainstream media reporting. This selective reporting and conscious or unconscious bias dominate the Western mainstream media meaning if people want an alternative perspective or the other side’s view of the story in international conflicts they have to go to non-mainstream alternative media sources where their sense of patriotism through the motto “my country right or wrong” can be seriously challenged.
I have constantly argued throughout this course’s various Topics in regard to this media critique exercise that the mainstream media in the West operates more than just as the extended corporate arm of the established order. More particularly when it comes to international issues it can be argued that the mainstream media operates as a tool of promoting the policies of self-interest of the Western governments to preserve and maximize their power and influence on the global stage as per the realist’s theory of how and why nations behave on international relations issues. In Western liberal democracies where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are bedrocks of the political system international law and international relations are typically represented with an inherent pro-Western selective subtle bias. As commercial entities in a capitalist economic system that rely on profit to survive and expand in the marketplace the mainstream media seems to report what their consumers want to hear and need to hear rather than engage in pure objective ideal journalism.
As far as international issues being reported in the mainstream media are concerned as demonstrated by the allies’ Syrian airstrikes I mentioned above I would like to challenge my peers by reflecting on this question asked by a former Australian diplomat: “Is there one standard of morality for our friends and another for those we choose to demonize?” (Clark 2016).
References:
Clark, G. (2016) ‘Syria’s civil war and the bias in Western media’. The Japan Times 26 September 2016 Viewed 9 December 2017 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/20 ... itdnUqWZPY
O’Neill, J. (2017) ‘Alternative media must be defended – Australian media’s continuing failure over Syria’. 23(1) Australian Socialist 17-18.
To begin with I would like to address a particular mainstream media bias in relation to the current conflict in Syria. Australian barrister, James O’Neill, exposes five anomalies regarding US warplanes attack on a Syrian military base at Deir ez Zor on 17 September 2016 which occurred during the middle of a ceasefire that had been negotiated by Russia and the United States where the mainstream media failed to do its fair and impartial journalistic duty to report in an honest and balanced manner neglecting to report the full context of the strike (2017: 17-18).
1. “When the attack started the Russians attempted to contact the Americans via a hot line set up to avoid conflict such as this occurring . . . For more than 30 minutes however, the Americans refused to respond to the Russian calls.”
2. “At the time the attack was labelled a “mistake” and the Americans have repeated this excuse in a recently released official report. Yet as part of the hot line procedures to avoid such “mistakes” the Russians had asked the Americans to give the coordinates of where they planned to strike. The Americans have always refused to do so, until (this attack) when they gave the Russians the wrong coordinates.”
3. “According to Syrian intelligence, they intercepted electronic traffic between the Americans and the terrorists besieging Deir ez Zor. As soon as the American air strikes began, the terrorists also commenced an attack on Deir ez Zor. That is very unlikely to be a coincidence. No reporting of the Syrian intelligence has appeared in the Australian media.”
4. “The Australian government admitted that it took part in the “mistaken” attack. Quite how this occurred has not been disclosed.”
5. “The biggest failure of all is that not one main-stream media outlet, in print, on air or on TV, asked the obvious question: on what legal basis is Australia involved in Syria at all?”
The use of military force against another sovereign State is very restricted under the UN Charter as well pronounced through judicial pronouncements of the International Court of Justice. The American and Australian military interventions in Syria are not permitted under the UN Charter and neither do they have authorisation from the UN Security Council. The involvement of Iran and Russia in Syria can be justified since the Syrian regime invited their assistance in the conflict. No such invitations were offered to either the US or Australia. In fact Syria has made it clear on more than one occasion that the US and Australian militaries are not welcome in Syria.
It is thus quite clear when we or our allies breach international law it is not reported as violations of international law but if our adversaries do the breaches of international law they are clearly stated. International law breaches committed by our adversaries are particularly highlighted and emphasized by the mainstream media in the West so that their audience knows who the supposed villains are in international relations. So in essence the West is portrayed as upholding international norms and international law in mainstream media reporting. This selective reporting and conscious or unconscious bias dominate the Western mainstream media meaning if people want an alternative perspective or the other side’s view of the story in international conflicts they have to go to non-mainstream alternative media sources where their sense of patriotism through the motto “my country right or wrong” can be seriously challenged.
I have constantly argued throughout this course’s various Topics in regard to this media critique exercise that the mainstream media in the West operates more than just as the extended corporate arm of the established order. More particularly when it comes to international issues it can be argued that the mainstream media operates as a tool of promoting the policies of self-interest of the Western governments to preserve and maximize their power and influence on the global stage as per the realist’s theory of how and why nations behave on international relations issues. In Western liberal democracies where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are bedrocks of the political system international law and international relations are typically represented with an inherent pro-Western selective subtle bias. As commercial entities in a capitalist economic system that rely on profit to survive and expand in the marketplace the mainstream media seems to report what their consumers want to hear and need to hear rather than engage in pure objective ideal journalism.
As far as international issues being reported in the mainstream media are concerned as demonstrated by the allies’ Syrian airstrikes I mentioned above I would like to challenge my peers by reflecting on this question asked by a former Australian diplomat: “Is there one standard of morality for our friends and another for those we choose to demonize?” (Clark 2016).
References:
Clark, G. (2016) ‘Syria’s civil war and the bias in Western media’. The Japan Times 26 September 2016 Viewed 9 December 2017 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/20 ... itdnUqWZPY
O’Neill, J. (2017) ‘Alternative media must be defended – Australian media’s continuing failure over Syria’. 23(1) Australian Socialist 17-18.
- By Dr House
- By JohnRawls