I was recently watching the new Al Jazeera channel on sky and I stumbled across a programme called 'The Listening Post'. The programme was a discussion of the weeks events in the media from across the globe. One report that grabbed my attention was a story about a Lebanese news reporter who was caught on a microphone gloating about the assassination of parlimentarian Whalid Eido. Sawsen Darwish of NBN TV was caught off camera saying:
What I found really interesting about this news report is the fact that the event involving the assassination of Whalid Eido was covered from several different perspectives (these perspectives varying between each channel).
Moussa Srour (Broadcaster, Arab News Network) agues that Lebanese media is incredibly biased and segregated; many religious and political groups have their own programmes and TV broadcasts. This event exposed the highly factionalized Lebanese media where major political players are allowed to verbally attack each other, usually through TV channels they control.
For example, the pro-government channel Future TV covered the assassination by claiming that a new name had been added to the list of the nation's martyrs and that Eido was a 'hero' in the 'new battle for independence'.
In contrast to this Syria Satellite Television reported Eido's death, condemned the killing of innocent people but thier focus was the absolute denial of Syria's involvement in the assassination.
Darwish's slip-up has been well documented an widely spread across the internet (e.g. Youtube). Habib Battah (Editor, Journal of Middle Eastern Broadcasters) claims that Youtube and other forms of new media are one of the reasons that the 'slip up' has become a major event. He also claims that there was a plan to destabalize Lebanese society then it has come into fruition with these 'off-the-cuff' remarks such as the Darwish incident.
The London based newspaper Asharq Alawsat wrote that this type of media (the coverage of the remark by Darwish) is:
The newspaper Ya Libnan also wrote that dismissing Darwish,
But what does this all have to do with Graphics and Visual Communication? Lebanon has a unique ethnic make-up and the media refelcts this. Due to the fact that the media is governed by politics, religious views and sectarian struggle the content will be heavily affected. Our perspectives on issues can be influenced greatly by what we see and hear, and what if the propagated media is designed to make us think a certain way? Do words like 'martyr' and 'hero' change our perception?
"... what took them so long?"
What I found really interesting about this news report is the fact that the event involving the assassination of Whalid Eido was covered from several different perspectives (these perspectives varying between each channel).
Moussa Srour (Broadcaster, Arab News Network) agues that Lebanese media is incredibly biased and segregated; many religious and political groups have their own programmes and TV broadcasts. This event exposed the highly factionalized Lebanese media where major political players are allowed to verbally attack each other, usually through TV channels they control.
For example, the pro-government channel Future TV covered the assassination by claiming that a new name had been added to the list of the nation's martyrs and that Eido was a 'hero' in the 'new battle for independence'.
In contrast to this Syria Satellite Television reported Eido's death, condemned the killing of innocent people but thier focus was the absolute denial of Syria's involvement in the assassination.
Darwish's slip-up has been well documented an widely spread across the internet (e.g. Youtube). Habib Battah (Editor, Journal of Middle Eastern Broadcasters) claims that Youtube and other forms of new media are one of the reasons that the 'slip up' has become a major event. He also claims that there was a plan to destabalize Lebanese society then it has come into fruition with these 'off-the-cuff' remarks such as the Darwish incident.
The London based newspaper Asharq Alawsat wrote that this type of media (the coverage of the remark by Darwish) is:
"... not based on neutrality or a commitment to journalistic professionalism..." rather on "... bigotry and a commitment to a specific ideology and sect..." with their homeland being the least of their concerns
The newspaper Ya Libnan also wrote that dismissing Darwish,
"... does not solve the systematic problem... Darwish's sick perspective was not an isolated incident.... (could) very easily push Lebanon into civil war."
But what does this all have to do with Graphics and Visual Communication? Lebanon has a unique ethnic make-up and the media refelcts this. Due to the fact that the media is governed by politics, religious views and sectarian struggle the content will be heavily affected. Our perspectives on issues can be influenced greatly by what we see and hear, and what if the propagated media is designed to make us think a certain way? Do words like 'martyr' and 'hero' change our perception?
3 comments:
Words could easily be said to change our perception and influence us, but it is also important who says them.
Thanks for the comment... This is true and it also raises a further point of media responsibility. Do people believe everything they hear/ see in the media? In this case the TV channels are so factionalized that the audience for any particular channel will only watch due to a common religious/ political belief and therefore any comments are targeted to please this audience. They will believe what they hear becuase it doesn't conflict with their views. However, this is not a true reflection of life and do TV channels have the right to report with an opinion of an event?
Personally I think not, but if you consider all media (even in this country) you will always get some type of opinion. Newspapers are the ones that spring to mind. I guess its up to the viewer to be critical of all media and question which side of the fence the information is coming from.
Post a Comment