Category: Media Bias

Introduction

The media have recently have taken an identity almost undistinguishable from entertainment or pop culture and marketing where news serve as “spices” that add up flavor to the whole serving, such as the Guardian Unlimited website where boxer Ricky Hatton shares a portion about improvements in the home care for elderly, and the US mall massacre losses billing against a £35,000 cocktail (2007), a Time website that features news headlines in a column of lines side by side with a full-colored Ford year-end celebration offers while featuring a Sharp television “business news” below (2007) while a November 23 boasted with the cover line “Style & Design” and on the center of the cover, “The Luxury Index: A Complete Guide to the Products, People and Places of 2007.”

Drawing on Roger Silverstone’s Why Study the Media? with the aim to introduce the themes or issues and to demonstrate the interrelation of issues and approaches, this essay shall try to present media issues, biases, and discourses over time. This paper will also draw upon Roland Barthes Mythologies as a newspaper columnist in France in the 1950s and prefigure materials found in British newspapers or color supplements today.

The paper will try to outline an understanding and analysis of media texts using the above materials including some additional data.

Discussion

Mythologies

Mythologies is a compilation of short journalistic articles on a variety of subjects written between 1954 and 1956 for the left-wing magazine Les Lettres Nouvelles. Calvet (1973 p.37) appoints it as belonging to Barthes’ “période journalistique”. The fifty-four texts are considered as opportunistic improvisations on relevant and up-to-the-minute issues more than carefully considered theoretical essays that provide the contemporary reader a panorama of the events and trends that took place in France during the 1950s. While the texts are considered local and belonging to the period, these still have relevance today.

The majority of the texts focus on various manifestations of mass culture, la culture de masse such as films, advertising, newspapers, and magazines, photographs, cars, children’s toys, popular pastimes – the mass culture, if not consumption. Barthes brokered the possibility of writing trivia of everyday life read with full of meanings (McNeill, 1996).

The book includes an important theoretical essay entitled “Le Mythe aujourd’hui”(Barthes: 1970 pp.193-247). It is an overall view and a theoretical or methodological tract positioned after the journalistic articles that expressed not only the chronological order in which they were written but also how Barthes wanted his readers to understand the text as a whole. “Le Mythe aujourd’hui” made explicit some shared interrogation of the meanings of the cultural artifacts and practices that surround peoples. That objects, gestures, and practices have a certain utilitarian function but are not resistant to the imposition of meaning (McNeill, 1996).

Barthes observed in the essay “Iconographie de l’abbé Pierre” (Barthes, 1970 pp.54-6) that the media’s attention on the abbé Pierre’s devotion and good works, strikingly symbolized by his haircut moves the attention away from investigating on the causes of homelessness and poverty. In most of the essays, Barthes presents neutral or innocent objects and then moves on to the social and historical conditions they obscure He is concerned with analyzing the myths popularly accepted in contemporary society.

Barthes found images, visual representations, and objects as symbols that have become the social messages as well as signifiers of idea or ideology so that there is the signified and the signifier forming the third entity “sign” where there is no telling them apart (Ogden, p 67). Barthes suggested that the image of a Negro saluting a French flag is a symbol of imperialism. At most, he inspected for semiology or semiotics laundry detergent commercials, gangster movies, wrestlers, as well as various forms of writing and claimed that the sign was embedded with social or cultural meaning. “It points out and it notifies, it makes us understand something and it imposes it on us… It postulates a kind of knowledge, a past, a memory, a comparative order of facts, ideas, decisions,” (p 117).

Why Study the Media

Silverstone’s Why Study the Media? is a proposal and a presentation of theories about the processes and influence of the media written in oral discourse that created delicacy where complexity and obscurity were the trends (Graham, 2007). Its five parts are: first presented experience, mediation, and technology where he advises the reader to view “media as a process of mediation” (p 13) where discourses of everyday life are processes that are classified thereby distinct and placed on judgment (p 12); the second laid out an analytical agenda of rhetoric, poetics, and erotics where the media plays the production of enchantment (p 29); the third provides concepts of the media process, experience and technology in a fashion as play, performance and consumption; fourth raised question about mediation in domestic, community and the global scene; and the fifth presents the media as a political economy (Graham, 2007).

Silverstone concludes that the media gears up, “towards a new media politics […] It is all about power, of course. At the end. The power the media have to set an agenda. The power they have to destroy one,” (p 143).

Media: Bias, Limitations, Issues

This is never surprising, however. In 1989, Newton proposed that practical limitations to neutrality are identified as the inability of journalists to report all available stories and facts, and the requirement that selected facts be linked into a coherent narrative (p 130). There is a lot of what may be considered as news happening every second, with the reporters writing about it, it becomes impossible to print or publish everything.

Newton posed that some bias is inevitable as there is the actual need to consider government influence, including overt and covert censorship making unbelievable media reports in many countries until today. Likewise, economic and business reasons result in a biased presentation due to ownership of the news source, the selection of staff, the preferences of an intended audience, as well as pressure from advertisers. The clout of politics or even affiliations arises from the ideological positions of media owners and journalists. And lastly, Newton (1989) positioned that space or air time available for reports, print media size, and deadlines, lead to incomplete and seemingly or blatantly biased stories (pp 130-155).

In another view where peoples organization are observed, Smith, McCarthy, McPhail, and Augustyn (2001, 1397) observed that while social movements often seek to draw attention to issues they deem important by organizing public demonstrations with the aim of attracting mass media coverage, only a small proportion of all public demonstrations receives media attention. They proposed that even when movements succeed at getting the attention of mass media outlets, reports portray protests that may undermine social movement agendas so that there is a need to engage in other forms of communication that affect public interpretations of mass media frames.

Likewise, in the view of Laden (2001), she argued that the sociosemiotic work of media represented by magazines extends way beyond their immediate or most apparent use-value. She singled out that their evocative power or the way consumer magazines authorize “aspired to,” not necessarily “given” states of affairs. Nevertheless, “consumer magazines for black South Africans have been strategically mobilized and (re)activated as part and parcel of the urban, middle-class repertoire of discursive and cultural dispositions initially derived from the nineteenth-century missionary enterprise in South Africa and a means of strategically transforming this repertoire “from below,” in keeping with the current needs and interests of many black South Africans,” (p 515).

The magazines were found to have provided its readers with efficient means of integrating and transforming oral traditions that include public debate, oral poetry and song, storytelling, and oral narrative so that “all received sources of African “cultural capital,” into literate modes of print culture and “urban ways of knowing,” consumer magazines for black South Africans also operate as participatory public forums enhanced by urban technologies,” (p 515).

Ogden (undated) basing on Barthes’ myths, observed on the other hand that the Doubleday Baseball “serves to anchor an ethnocentric message, maintained in various forms by the administration of professional baseball leagues, most notably the Major Leaguers,” (p 65). This resulted in what Ogden proposed as Major League baseball maintaining myths of game representation showing the moral fiber and social character of the United States.

Not going further, as mentioned already earlier, same things are seen on the Guardian website front page and Time magazine cover for November 2007. At most, while it was generally understood that media and information sought to provide what may be considered necessary for human existence or day-to-day living, has turned into forms of corporate catalogs that provide entertainment if not how people or individuals can or may get entertainment through its bigger and catchier ads, beside one-line news headlines about more important matters such as the US massacre, troubles in Sudan, Taliban update, and more deaths in Afghanistan.

In a more specific point, while the outrageously expensive £35,000 cocktail, in the end, become a butt of the joke for the author, its place as the top “Most read on Guardian Unlimited December 8” (2007) gives it a materialistic celebration that does not separate the news title and its publisher.

Conclusion

There is the delicate if not impossible delineation between media, representation of objects, materialism, and commercialism nowadays. Barthes is right to propose that everything seems to have evolved as a representation for class, part of society, and even separation of peoples, individuals, and identities. Silverstone, too, was right in his assumption about power and the strength that media owns in the process and even manufacture of information.

In outlining observable facts and mystic beyond what plain readers and media users may not be keen to know or ever learn, both authors have given an enlightening view of what social scientists may call conditioning and in the end, control of media over its reading or viewing populace.

Today, as the forms of media evolved to ever become faster, wilder, and more in-to-you to its subscribers, the dangers it poses over the segregation of individuals as it achieves to fool the viewer-consumer as “empowered” using his dollar or credit card is more uncontrollable.

While issues of larger importance become, as noted earlier, garnishing to the main menu of luxurious living, splendor, entertainment, and more spending for personal pleasure, people have swayed away from what really matters which the media should have brought in the first place.

What individuals are provided is information that goes directly to their wallet or bank account, using Silverstone’s “enchantment” methodology. The charm of empowerment becomes real while the consumer buys. And in the other end of the spectrum, the supposed recipient of “important” information is left as ignorant about the ability of his one pound to provide one decent meal to a starving family.

Other issues are all bound in the observations on Barthes and Silverstone. Issues that should have mattered as life and death or lives and deaths if economists and the media did not meet.

It may be true that at some point, as noted by Laden that the media has served its purpose, about lifting up an individual or a group, in her case Black Americans, this is just a portion of what the media may prove as philanthropic acts. At some points, it has helped some peoples change into moving to a better society, politically, or otherwise. But it all drums up to a point where a consumerist act is compromised. The more powerful give a little, then gets back monstrously for more.

Reference

Graham, Philip. (2007). “Review: Why Study the Media? (Roger Silverstone). Web.

Guardian Unlimited. (2007). Website Home page. Web.

Laden, Sonja (2001). “Making the Paper Speak Well, or, the Pace of Change in Consumer Magazines for Black South Africans.” Poetics Today – Volume 22, Number 2, pp. 515-548.

McNeal, Tony (1996). “Roland Barthes: Mythologies (1957)” Lectures. The University of Sunderland. Web.

Ogden, David C. (2007). “Major League Baseball and Myth Making: Roland Barthes’s Semiology and the Maintenance of Image.” NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture – Volume 15, Number 2, pp. 66-78.

Newton, K. (1989). “Media bias.” In Goodin, R Reeve, A. Liberal Neutrality. Routledge.

Ogden, David. “Major League Baseball and Myth Making: Roland Barthes’s Semiology and the Maintenance of Image.” Nine 15 no 2, pp 65-78.

Silverstone, Roger (2002). “Complicity and Collusion in the Mediation of Everyday Life.” New Literary History – Volume 33, Number 4, pp. 761-780.

Smith, Jackie, McCarthy, John D. (John David) 1940-, McPhail, Clark 1936-, Augustyn, Boguslaw (2001). “From Protest to Agenda Building: Description Bias in Media Coverage of Protest Events in Washington, D.C.” Social Forces – Volume 79, Number 4, pp. 1397-1423.

Time (2007). 2 AM.

As I read and listen and see what passes for news lately, from the Lewis “Scooter” Libby trial to the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales flap to the ginned-up acrimony between Senators Clinton and Obama, I get more than a little fed up with the griping and complaining among political commentators over bias in the media. Not because there is no bias in the media, but because that bias is not driven by political ideology, but by profit motive.

During the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton, the prevailing cry from liberal quarters was that the media leaned right. The American public was fed a steady diet of headlines focused on Clinton’s personal foibles involving women like Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and Gennifer Flowers. The highly public scrutiny of the Clinton White House, including events such as the Whitewater real estate deal, Vince Foster’s suicide, missing FBI files, and the president’s peccadilloes prompted then First Lady Hillary Clinton to famously claim that there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband.

In November of 2000, George Walker Bush won the presidency over Vice President Albert Arnold Gore Jr. in a controversial election that ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court. News coverage of that affair and the political firestorm it touched off dominated the news for obvious reasons, but there were other items that caught the attention of the media, such as the president’s frequent verbal gaffes, Attorney General John David Ashcroft’s decision to cover the bared breasts of statues in Justice Department buildings, and Vice President Richard Bruce Cheney’s association with federal contractor Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) Energy Services.

The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and our own military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq put the national focus on more serious issues for a while, but before long the emphasis was again on the miscues of the president and his administration. The simultaneous growing popularity of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, with George Bush as frequent foil, resulted in cries of an unfair liberal media bias.

Cry me a river, why don’t you. Both sides of our vaunted two-party system are more than adept at creating bogeymen around which to rally the support of the faithful, and the ever-lurking “media” is a favorite target. The media controls what we read, what we hear, and what we watch, and the ubiquitous but unspecific “they” are abusing that privilege by brainwashing us. How? Depends on the perspective of the accuser, but it’s always by unfairly espousing an opposing political point of view.

Both sides are wrong. The media is neither liberal nor conservative. The media is, however, desperate for attention, and it’s not political ideology that dictates what we’re offered in the guise of news on any particular day, but what will sell advertising. The media is not guilty of political bias; what it is guilty of is entertainment bias.

The saga of Anna Nicole Smith’s death and ongoing paternity issues of daughter Dannie Lynn Hope is a case in point of the irresistible draw of a salacious headline. Even more telling is ownership of the major news outlets. The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DCQ) (NYSE:DIS) owns ABC Television. CBS Corporation was owned and then spun out of entertainment conglomerate Viacom Inc., which owns a host of cable television properties such as Comedy Central, BET, MTV, VH1, Nickelodeon, Spike, and more, and maintains a close relationship with the Tiffany Network. General Electric (I’m a stockholder) may be better known as a manufacturer of jet engines and light bulbs, but its NBC Universal business unit is an entertainment powerhouse. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp’s Fox Entertainment, including Fox Broadcasting and Fox News, came into the world of television and news from Hollywood, their origins with movie studio 20th Century Fox.

The news units of these networks operate as part of a larger corporate strategy, and cross promotion of other properties is evident…practically every day. How else do you explain how American Idol, Survivor, 24, The Apprentice, and other television shows can lead and take up significant minutes of the evening news broadcasts? When American soldiers are fighting and dying abroad, when American workers are seeing more and more jobs shipped offshore, when so much of importance to Americans is happening at home and around the globe, how else can you explain the presence of Simon, Randy, and Paula on a supposedly serious news broadcast?

I guess it was to be expected. The advent of cable television, satellite television and radio, and the variety of content available over the Internet meant that the networks and print media found themselves competing for the public’s attention with hundreds of other broadcast channels and millions of pages of online content.

That means that a savvy editor, with a sense of what will draw viewers and readers, will naturally gravitate toward events that have a salacious or dramatic element. Discourses related to the complexities of Asian diplomacy and the delicate balance of competing socio-political influences in Japan, China, North and South Korea, and Indonesia is only remotely salable when the focus of attention is either imminent nuclear holocaust or Kim Jong Il’s bouffant.

The brands we’ve traditionally relied on to provide us with news are pieces of public companies, and responsible to stockholders to turn a profit quarter to quarter. The New York Times is no longer a newspaper whose motto is “All the News that’s Fit to Print,” it’s the New York Times Company, a $3.3 billion public corporation whose motto is “21st Century News, Information, Entertainment.”

Conservative pundits can whine that President Bush is the victim of liberal media bias, but as soon as the Democrats took control of Congress, Nancy Pelosi found herself the butt of jokes as she sat blinking behind the president during his state-of-the-union address. And whoever wins the presidency in 2008, Republican or Democrat, can expect to be treated with equal irreverence.

The information we receive from television news media has a direct impact on our lives, whether we acknowledge it or not. As our world constantly continues to change the media information we receive changes as well. We rely on the reporters and news anchors for much more than events and happenings; we also depend on their assessment of the world that we live in. Years ago the information we received on our nightly news was simply accepted as truth and not carefully monitored or checked. Now the media is being heavily scrutinized and news organization must not only monitor their words, but how each story is presented. Does the news story give an accurate and fair account of the event? Is each story balanced with both sides given an equal opportunity to tell their stories? There must be a public understanding that local and national news directly shapes our opinions, our purchasing choices, and our lives, but we must question whether the we receive is bias or not.

There are two obvious examples of unbalanced stories in the media. The first occurred a few years ago with Jonathan Jackson, son of the Reverend Jesse Jackson. In 1994 insufficient evidence existed to charge the younger Jackson as a suspect in a drug probe. The only evidence the media had was a federal affidavit, yet the San Francisco Examiner and other news organizations reported the story. However The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and the Chicago Sun Times did not report the story.

A second example was the overkill by the media of the unfortunate and untimely death of John F. Kennedy Jr. Reporters jumped on every angel of the story trying to beat on another out. Here is how major newspapers covered the crash trying to beat each other to the story:

• The New York Times wrote an obituary for Kennedy, Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and Lauren Bessette before their bodies were found.
• The Washington Post in the first two days of coverage ran 17 full-length stories with 39 photographs of JFK Jr. at different stages in his life.
• The New York Daily News had a 28 Page supplement in memory of Kennedy with 23 stories, 39 photos, three info-graphs, and an interview with Kennedy’s flight instructor.
• The Baltimore Sun recounted the “Kennedy Curse” and included a collection of quotes from the NAACP to a Martha’s Vineyard librarian.

So what caused some organizations to report the Jackson story on the little evidence they had and others to ignore it? And why did the media overrun coverage of the John F. Kennedy Jr. accident?

The purpose of this research is to study the organization of a newsroom and the ongoing decision making processes within the newsroom. The organization in this study will be a television news station, which will serve as an example of the types of decisions that are made in media organizations. This research will ask what information and events are considered newsworthy? Who determines what events are news, and what news should be reported to the public? Who makes the decisions as to what the public sees every night? In investigating these questions we can ultimately ask an underlying question; is there bias in the news we receive each night? If so how do reporters attempt to remove their own personal feelings from the stories they report and provide the viewer with a balanced story? Moreover, how do news directors, the people ultimately responsible for deciding what stories are aired every night do so? Does the information we receive account both sides of the story, or are we left to figure out the truth for ourselves? Is there an honest attempt by television media to discover the truth? These are questions this research will attempt to discover.

Media sources play a significant role due to the dissemination of essential and relevant information. Moreover, they have the power to convince and form public opinion about various phenomena. The Black Lives Matter movement has become one of the most significant public initiatives fighting for the rights of the black population, especially in the United States. One of the most recent instances when this movement received special coverage in media sources, was the murder of George Floyd by a policeman in 2020. After this incident, various sources of information paid particular attention to this movement. However, both a video source and an article in an online newspaper can represent this topic with a certain amount of bias, which can negatively affect its reliability and contribution to society.

The first media source that was selected for analysis in this work is an article by Buchanan et al. titled “Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History.” It was released by The New York Times in light of the events that occurred after the murder of George Floyd. The main focus of this medium is to provide information about the protests related to the Black Lives Matter movement that took place in the country. Particular attention was paid to the presentation of a significant amount of statistical data that proved that these events caused a great stir in society, and millions of people protested (Buchanan et al.). Moreover, the authors focus on changing demographics during these events and the difference in the number of white and people of color coming out to make changes.

The media source also highlights the impact of the pandemic on the increase in protests related to the murder of an innocent black man. Thus, the authors note that “with being home and not being able to do as much, that might be amplifying something that is already sort of critical, something that’s already a powerful catalyst” (Buchanan et al. para. 21). At the end, the article points out that despite the relatively rapid decline of the protests, the movement has left a contribution on legislation and police forces in many states of the country.

The second media source to be discussed in this essay is a video posted on the YouTube platform called “George Floyd: Black Lives Matter Protests go Global.” The video was uploaded to an online source by the BBC World Service channel. It, like the article, focuses on the increase in the number of protests after the death of George Floyd, which have become global. However, the main difference of this source is that it provides segments of interviews of real people who expressed their opinion about the arisen issues (“George Floyd: Black Lives Matter Protests go Global”). These individuals are people who felt fear and pain from what happened in America, which caused them to organize mass protests. The main themes of these initiatives were the opposition to racism, which is rooted in modern society, and the struggle for the rights of black people around the world.

The task of this research paper is to determine the amount of bias in the selected sources. First, it is worth noting that the information and data referred to by the authors of each medium contributed to the formation of the opinion. Hence, the article by Buchanan et al. did not show the characteristics of objectivity and bias since it relied heavily on statistical data. Despite the fact that this source mentioned the opinions and quotations of various researchers and professors, all of them did not express a critical personal opinion that could negatively form a negative idea of the topic presented. Thus, the effective maintenance of each expressed point of view contributed to limiting bias.

On the other hand, when watching the video “George Floyd: Black Lives Matter Protests go Global,” doubts arose about the objectivity and bias of this source. This opinion appears because unlike the previously discussed article, the authors chose a particular group of people to survey and provide an opinion. It is worth noting that the inclusion of the personal experience of black people who have faced racism has value and importance for conveying the main point of view of the video. At the same time, in order to limit objectivity, a possible solution would be to involve respondents from other ethnic and racial groups who also participated in organizing initiatives within the Black Lives Matter movement. This is because this problem concerns the whole society and requires recognition by all people, regardless of their nationality, culture, or race.

In conclusion, bias is a rather difficult aspect to limit, especially when it comes to media sources. To prevent the occurrence of this characteristic, it is essential to rely on various sources of information and statistically sound data, such as in the article “Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History.” Despite the fact that the experience of people who have encountered the problem themselves is crucial for covering the topic, this kind of choice can be perceived as biased.

Works Cited

Buchanan, Larry, et al. “Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History,” The New York Times, Web.

“George Floyd: Black Lives Matter Protests go Global.” YouTube, uploaded by BBC World Service, Web.

Introduction

Media bias, whether real or “perceived”, is so extensive it spawns an industry of sorts researching the different shades of bias and ideology that afflict industry. It is a problem nearly as old as the free press in America.

Media owners have never been reticent about promoting their own interests or the political ambitions of allies. Even in the era of the Founding Fathers, no less than the widely-respected and sagacious Benjamin Franklin thought nothing of writing under a pen name in a 1728 issue of the American Weekly Mercury that the government ought to print more paper money. Perhaps no one yet understood that doing so would be inflationary. Of course, Benjamin Franklin neglected to mention that the printing company he owned was in the running to get the job of printing the money if the plan was approved (Isaacson, 2004, 61).

In print and broadcast media, the proliferation of media choices was impelled in part by those who wished to propagate their own ideology in opposition to the sole entry in the city.

As to ideology, there is no lack of respectable content-analytical research (e.g., Weatherly, J. A. et al., 2007, 97) revealing that:

• Liberals are disproportionately represented in the ranks of American broadcast and press staff.
• They espouse more liberal views than the American public does with respect to such “hot button” issues as abortion, affirmative action, welfare reform, environmental activism, gun control and homosexuality.
• By and large, they are not reticent about letting their liberal views color news reporting.

The Open Hand Extended to Iran

On the occasion of the Iranian New Year, Mr. Obama released a videotaped greeting ostensibly addressed to the Iranian people. The message was couched in terms of a promise to negotiate an easing of trade sanctions Iran is still subject to if the implacably hostile nation could be more responsible in its foreign relations stance (Savin, 2009, 1).

Mr. Obama said he wished to directly participate in international talks with Iran over its nuclear activities. He praises the Iranian contributions to culture. But his main thrust was to ask the Iranian people for renewed exchanges amongst the peoples, for partnership and commerce in the hopes of ending the divisions in the world (Djang, 2009, 1).

The full text: “On the occasion of your new year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It’s a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It’s a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.”

The message was made on March 19 on the occasion of Nowruz or the Persian new year and was addressed to the “Islamic Republic of Iran”. He admonished them to respect “the common humanity that joins us together.”

This announcement was well received and supported by his cabinet who believed that there is a need for Iran to abandon its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon

This is also obviously an effort to re-open diplomatic channels, veer away from the hostility that had marked bilateral relations since the Iranian revolution of 1979, and reverse the Bush rhetoric that asked Iranians to rise up against their government.

American media has itself shown a kind of bias in not subjecting Mr. Obama to any criticism when he remained silent for an entire week after street demonstrations erupted in Iran. From all across the liberal, centrist and conservative spectrum of political ideology, the American press turned itself into spin masters for the positive turnaround in the recession now that a new President was in the saddle. Uncharacteristically, reporters became willing mouthpieces for each new policy initiative espoused by the new Administration. America remained under a cloud of sluggish economics and pessimism but you would not know it from headlines that blared, “Recession slowing down, only 650,000 more jobless last month!”

Farideh Farhi, a prominent commentator on Iran-US affairs, ( Informed Comment: Global Affairs believes the speech would do much to amend the prevent controversy in Iran. First and foremost it was the first speech out of Washington that was not openly trying to divide the people of Iran from its government. No more we love the people of Iran but hate their government taunts repeatedly brandished by the Bush Administration. Second, it was not trying to drive a wedge between the leaders of Iran. Third, he was committed to “engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect”. Farhi notes that this is the closest the US has come to rule out a military option.

Iranian Reaction

For its part Iran has been unwilling to reciprocate this stance. Iranian policy in reaction to the United States can be summarized by “extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”. This stance is not surprising in light of the hard-line stance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. At best the Tehran government claims it will cooperate in the event that President Obama’s stance is indeed honest.

While the President of Iran was skeptical at best, former Iranian vice president Mohammad Ali Abtahi was more optimistic he said;

Using the title of “Islamic republic of Iran” and (conveying) also congratulations to the Iran’s nation and leaders. Undoubtedly it is a historical opportunity. We can not ignore the importance of USA for Iran’s current situation. Undoubtedly we can not ignore trace of US leaders in all of Iran’s dossiers also at least in economical aspect by embargos which have imposed to Iran’s nation. Sending message for congratulation can be the most important political, economical and historical opportunity, today and after changing American government. Also ignoring that can make a situation for us more dangerous than Bush’s term because Obama can mobilize political leaders and public opinion against Iran. (Webnevesht)

More recently, it is clear that Mr. Ahmadinejad and the shadowy Guardian Council still show no inclination to meet the American initiative even partway, presumably out of fear that concessions will mean a more open, secular nation secure in its own right. To Western media and diplomatic circles, Iranian intransigence is clear from the prickly attitude toward criticism about the handling of protests following the Iranian Presidential elections this month (about which more is discussed in section D below).

Nor can we fault media for reporting how Mr. Ahmadinejad lashed back at President Obama for speaking up: “…I wonder why Mr. Obama, who has come with the slogan of change, has fallen into this trap, the same route that Mr. Bush took and experienced its ending… This will not have any result, except that the people will consider you similar to Bush.” (Cummins, 2009, 1). For the Iranian theocracy to try and influence American opinion by tarring Mr. Obama with the same brush used to blacken Mr. Bush in his time is bound to fail. The American body politic is instinctively resistant to undemocratic government, no matter what ideology, race or religion it represents.

From the viewpoint of the nuclear powers, it is doubtless a laudable goal to forestall development of the Iranian bomb. Nuclear weaponry quite simply adds to the instability of a region where terrorists run loose, where religion is used as an excuse to kill innocents and the prospect for conflict is always around the corner.

September 11 and the Tide of Public Opinion

The destruction of the Twin Towers in New York was a watershed in the history of American national security. For the first time, Muslim Arabs had not only succeeded with a hugely murderous terrorist attack, their confederates in al Queda gloated about it and made their satisfaction known to the world. The event was tectonic in impact. This complacently tolerant society now shifted towards fear and loathing towards those of Arab or Muslim identity who lived as their neighbors and colleagues at work. In defense, America permitted every infringement of privacy and civil liberties to the larger benefit of security for all. The United States also lashed out at enemies wherever they lived and sought to hide. Military action in Iraq and Afghanistan followed and lasted to this day.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the items of media coverage that provoked the most outrage were depictions of Palestinians and Arabs elsewhere celebrating the Twin Towers attack.

Decent folk everywhere responded with dismay and shock at the coverage of workers in the WTC falling to their deaths, some actually jumping off to escape what must have been fearsome fire and smoke.

The picture alongside made it clear to Americans that Arabs considered themselves at war with the U.S.A. Nor can the press escape responsibility for the distortions they create. The shot in the preceding page is captioned Palestinians when the reality is that the photographer captured two naïve boys and made them represent all Palestinians in the Holy City. This is akin to CNN spotlighting injury, destruction and, yes, death in the Gaza Strip while consistently choosing to ignore the many Jewish fatalities of Palestinian/Arab rocketry and ambushes.

The press can disavow bias and indeed, what they depict can objectively be accorded a truth that might salve their conscience for being such selective journalists. But reality is what readers and TV audiences perceive of the world media brings to their living rooms. In the classroom, students readily equated the celebrating Palestinians shot as “evidence” that the press immediate identified Arabs as the people responsible. for the Twin Towers tragedy.

The press can be claimed for ignorance and oversimplification. Not all Arabs are fundamentalist radicals/al Qaeda terrorists; Iranians are Persians technically of Aryan stock. But both races are Muslim anyway, they talk, hate and pray in similar fashion. So again, reality is blurred.

Similarly, not all Muslims are terrorist supporters. Or is it mere coincidence that terrorist camps or weapons caches have been found in the West Bank, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Muslim enclaves in the Philippines and Thailand? Is not media itself mistaken in automatically bringing up the fact that terrorist groups like al-Qaida are Muslim? Yes, their apologists claim that al-Qaida is made up of “thugs and gangsters whose actions are contradictions of everything that Muslims believe and practice” (Craig, 2001, E3). But can the American public be blamed for their perceptions when they occasionally see terrorist leaders quoting the Koran to justify annihilation of Jews and all other “non-believers”?

The Turbulent Aftermath of the Iranian Election of 2009

In general, the role of American media in the Iranian presidential elections held on June 12 has been frankly skeptical about the chances of free and fair elections in a society ruled by “theocracy”. The current tempestuous stand-off – incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared the winner by a 62.6% to 33.75% margin over opposition candidate Mr. Hossein Mousavi – may be characterized as a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, reportage in the run-up to the election tended to describe the campaign and polling as “turbulent” given the expectation of outsiders that Mr. Mousavi stood a good chance of unseating Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Such an adversarial attitude towards the incumbent is compounded of many factors. There is religion, first of all. To Americans whose Constitution so enshrines separation of church and state that schoolchildren learn nothing of religion in the classroom, it is utterly mystifying why any “Islamic Republic” would wish to rule the lives of its citizens and mete out justice according to the decidedly medieval rules of the Quran. Even Israel, founded eons ago based on a covenant with Yahweh and re-established in modern times as a haven for those fleeing religious persecution, is governed as a secular state.

Secondly, Iran and the U.S. have a history of bruised feelings. It was the Allies who installed Reza Pahlevi as “shah” at the conclusion of World War II. Successive U.S. Presidents stood by the Shah’s increasingly despotic rule because they needed a southern “bulwark” against Russian expansionism. It was therefore easy for the only focal point of resistance, religious authorities, to foment revolution, send the Shah into exile and provoke ill will against “The Great Satan” as a distraction from a backward economy. Two generations of American politicians cannot forget the huge embarrassment they suffered when Ayatollah Khomeini allowed the Islamic Revolutionary Guards to run rampant and hold the U.S. embassy in Tehran hostage for 444 days (Kinzer, 2008, 68).

While Iranians are not Arab, thirdly, they have sided with their fellow Muslims in rejecting Jews and the very existence of Israel. To an America steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions, support for the continued existence of the Holy Land is virtually non-negotiable. In fact, U.S. foreign policy in this respect has weakened slightly only when OPEC holds the world hostage to an oil embargo. On the part of Israel, there is no love lost for a nation that switched from secret ally during the time of Shah Pahlavi to the modern-day supplier of rockets to Hezbollah and Hamas. It does not help either that just under half of today’s Israeli population have vivid memories of being expelled by their Arab host nations when Israel won the War of Independence in 1949 and two other wars that followed (Aharoni, 2002, 1).

Exactly a fortnight after election day, reports on the situation in the ground have by no means been halted by the government’s decision to expel selected diplomats and foreign correspondents and order all the rest under virtual house arrest in their Tehran residences and hotels. Far too many opposition partisans act as willing sources for reporters burning the long-distance telephone lines; or else, they find ways to transmit pictures and video. And nobody in the Iranian high Council anticipated that, with street demonstrations effectively banned, Mr. Mousavi would put up his first-ever statement about the post-election situation on his own Web site.

This stance of the fearless political lone wolf defying a “repressive” government evokes images of Horatio at the bridge, Ulysses braving long odds to make it home to Penelope, the town sheriff in the old West staring down unsavory gunslingers and consequently plays well to American and European audiences. Reporters instinctively side with opposition politicians who dare to oppose dictatorships such as those of the imams in Iran, the junta in Burma, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, or Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua.

As it is, Western media must now rely on reports from those in opposition to the current Iranian government. Hence, even the fairly even-handed Wall Street Journal (Cummins, 2009, 1) makes use of smuggled-out photos as evidence of repression of First Amendment rights (see alongside and overleaf). The latest reportage below puts pictures of elements of the Iranian military and militia “above the fold” so as to highlight the heavy hand of a government intolerant of citizens exercising their right to free speech and expression of legitimate grievances.

Every single story in American and European wire services has given credence to the opposition claim that the elections were attended by “massive fraud.” WSJ editor Chip Cummins and the Associated Press paint a sordid picture with news copy like:

• “Iran Cracks Down on Mousavi Allies” to prepare the reader for details about a government repressing democratic rights.
• The situation is bluntly portrayed as “…domestic unrest — the worst since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago…” and “…government attempts to silence dissent,” an unforgivable political transgression to everyone in Western media.
• “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused President Barack Obama of meddling in Iran’s affairs”, at which a Western reader might wonder, “how can any right-thinking reader believe that an American leader half a world away (and struggling with economic problems to boot) has anything to gain by fomenting unrest for no good reason in Iran?”

• Reporters can be mercilessly biased in seizing on even minor sidelights to the situation in Iran. No one can say for sure how many have been killed, injured or arrested in the two weeks since election day but American media throws up its collective arms in mock horror at the revelation that 70 professors have been jailed just for daring to meet with Mr. Mousavi.
• News reports also gleefully seize on the fact that support for Mr. Ahmadinejad even within his own Parliament may have eroded, as witness Tehran newspapers stories that ”85 out of 290 members of parliament, including Speaker Ali Larijani” were notably absent from Mr. Ahmadinejad’s victory celebration.
• Iranian security forces are portrayed as trigger-happy and all too ready to wield clubs on even small gatherings. At the same time, they are held up for ridicule because “…eight members of the pro-government Basij militia (also scorned as “the baton-wielding rent-a-mob who are the clerical regime’s unofficial enforcers”) were killed and dozens more wounded by weapons and knives” (McDowall and Freeman, 2009).
• On Iranian state TV, Mr. Khamenei was reported as blustering at a meeting of senior parliamentarians that “Neither the system nor the people will give in to pressures at any price.” This was, of course, after he had already proclaimed the election results official while offering no proof to weaken opposition allegations of massive fraud.
• And Mr. Mousavi is, course, painted in a completely favorable light with news copy like, “…but he vowed to persevere with his election challenge despite the apparent attempt to isolate him from his supporters.”

Conclusions

The trickle of Persians and Arabs who have immigrated to the U.S.A. aside, there is no ignoring the cultural and religious antagonism that exists between America and certain Muslim nations. This sustains self-interest and bias on both sides even though one concedes there are media thought leaders who strive for evenhanded reporting without vitriolic comment.

References

Aharoni, A. (2002). The forced migration of Jews from Arab countries. Historical Society of Jews from Egypt website. Web.

Craig Jr., J. G. (2001). Distinctions and indifference, belief in media bias withstands evidence to the contrary. Pittsburgh Post – Gazette. Pittsburgh, Pa.: pg. E.3.

Cummins, C. (2009). Iran cracks down on Mousavi allies. Wall Street Journal News Roundup: Middle East News. Web.

Djang, J. (2009). A new year, a new beginning. Web.

Isaacson, W. (2004). Benjamin Franklin: An American life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Kinzer, S. (2008). Inside Iran’s fury. Smithsonian.

McDowall, A. & Freeman, C. (2009). Iran election: how a week of protest has changed Islamic state for ever. The UK Telegraph. Web.

Slavin, B. (2009). Obama sends Iran new year’s greeting. The Washington Times. Web.

Weatherly, J. A. et al. (2007) Perceptions of political bias in the headlines of two major news organizations. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12 (91): 97.

One of the most long standing conflicts has been the Middle East Crisis. The misunderstanding between Palestine and Israel has been one of the most covered media article in all the media houses of the world. International news are full of news of rocket launching both on civilians and army, casualties being rushed to hospitals, homesteads reduced to rubbles etc. however, there has been instances of bias in the broadcasting of these news. Several organizations have accused the Western Media for being bias in its reporting. This essay will therefore highlight the ways by which one can identify instances of bias and show how these techniques have been used by the American media to report the news of the Middle East Crisis.

Stereotypical instances of coverage in the news form a technique of bias. When covering a crime, a certain group of people, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc should not be believed or stereotyped to be the criminals. The real issue should be covered according to the unfolding the events. A good example of this in the United States Media coverage of the Middle East crisis comes in terms of criminalizing the Israeli forces. Most of the Media houses stereotype the Israeli forces as aggressive and merciless people who take all advantage in ensuring that they oppress the harmless women and children of the Palestinians decent (Katz, 2009).

A good example of this was shown in the way a photo journalist of the Associated Press portrayed the photo of Tuvia Grossman that was spread in many media houses. In this photo, an Israeli soldier was captured standing over a battered Grossman drenched in Blood. And the caption read, “An Israeli policeman and a Palestinian on the Temple Mount.” Although this picture was used all over the world giving a picture of Israelis as the aggressors, the truth is that the bartered student was of an American Jewish who had been dragged from a taxi by Arabs in Jerusalem and beaten then stabbed. The misrepresentation, unfortunately, portrayed the perpetrators as the victims and the victims as the perpetrators. This shows the stereotypical belief that all people who are attacked are Palestinians and those who attack are Israeli soldiers (Katz, 2009).

Using double standards during reporting can be used as a tool of framing. This is used by the media to create a certain inclination by the public towards a given topic. Double standards come in terms of reporting the same form of event in kinder words on one side of the characters while using harsher words on the other side of the same event (Fair, 2000). A good example of this in the US media was the reporting of the riots on October 13, 2000 (Katz, 2009). According to Katz, courtesy of CAMERA, an organization made to check on the fairness of the American media in the reporting on the issue of the Middle East Crisis, the headlines read that what the Palestinians were doing was protesting while Israelis rampaged.

This is what we term as using double standards. While the activity was the same – an attack on the enemies, the Israelis were said to rampage while the Palestinians were said to be protesting or demonstrating. This is meant to portray Israelis as aggressors and oppressors while the Palestinians are portrayed as people trying to fight for their rights.

Diction plays an important role in shaping of people’s perception of an issue. For example, use of heavily loaded words will create a certain feeling towards the subject in question. For example, use of inflammatory words will create a feeling of hatred and revenge towards a perpetrator of a given crime. This technique provides a very dangerous weapon with which the media can develop bias. This can be done through the use of certain vocabularies which create either a feeling of sympathy or create a feeling for action (Fair 2009). This has been very evident in the American media when reporting on issues concerning the Middle East Crisis.

When president carter visited the Middle East and met with most of the Arab heads in 2007, Fox news Network used a heavy language to portray that Palestinians were a group of people that were to be avoided. In an interview at the fox news hosted by Sean Hanity and Allan Colmes, the words used when trying to inquire from Steve Berman who was the guest whether president carter was a supporter of Hamas, were very negative. They referred to Hamas as terrorists, Islamic extremists, and many other negative adjectives that made Hamas look like a killer group. The media therefore used heavy words like terrorists and extreme Islamists to create a sense of negative attitude towards Hamas by the public (Rashmawi et al, 2008).

When reading a news article, is the context well portrayed? If the answer is no, then the writer of the news article is trying to create bias. A good news article should provide other relevant information that led to the event in question in an appropriate manner. An incidence should not be reported in a hanging manner that does not show the events that led to the rise of the same event. For example, when reporting a case of a judge sentencing one to life sentence, one should also show the crimes committed so as the sentence is justified (Fair, 2009). American media has shown bias in this method in several occasions.

Agwaral (2004) shows that the American media has always portrayed the issue of the Middle East crisis with bias. This he attribute to the fact that media houses avoid repetition of news in order to avoid redundancy which can lead to losing of clients. But the repercussions are detrimental. The public is likely to form negative attitude towards either Palestinians or Israelis if they actually don’t understand the root cause of the conflict. In most cases, the events have always been reported without including the root cause which is the main context that will allow one to understand the reason for certain action. This forms the cases of lack of context.

Commercialism of news causes the reduction of the weight of this matter in the American media houses. Most of them concentrate on trivial issues that carry no much significance at the place of important news like the Middle East crisis. According to Harper and Yantek (2001), for two decades, television news coverage has been brought under criticism over their emphasizing on trivial events like horse racing and beauty contest at the expense of more important national issues. This placement of news has a great impact on its importance to the public. Fair (2009) cites prominence featuring of a news article as important in the influence of the public opinion. Only articles in the front pages of a news paper and those that appear in the editorial are given priority by the readers. The same applies to lead stories on television and radio.

These issues mentioned above – entertainment and sports, force the issue of Middle East crisis reporting to take a back stage role and thus offer little impact on the audience.

According to the democratic theory, the media is obligated to act to the interest of the common citizen. A highly influential segment of the population is not supposed to offer information under the influence of their power that favors them because this weakens the democracy of the society (Snider, 2003). This influential group can as well be the media owners themselves. This shows that media owners can create bias according to their perception of the issue. In addition, they can be influenced by other segments of the society to air the news inclining on their side as long as the owners know that they stand a chance of benefiting by winning favor of this segment. For example, a media owner who favors a certain political party will be likely to air the news inclining on the views of the political party in favor.

Finally, the reporting of the Palestine/Israeli affair has been marred by bias which results from self censorship. This results from intimidation caused by the Hamas on both the domestic and foreign journalists (Balint, 2001). She attributes this to the taking of power of by the Palestinian authority where several local media were muzzled. Balint then says that this does not only occur on local media but also foreign media. They are forced to practice self censorship so as to protect their journalists in Palestine.

In conclusion, the coverage of the Middle East crisis has been marred with bias on both side of the affair. This comes as a result of the political inclination of the media owners, influence from influential segment of the society, and as a result of commercialism of news. Therefore, it will take the relevant bodies a little bit more effort in ensuring that they correct this media malpractice.

References:

Balint J.l., “Media Frightened into Self Censorship.” WorldNet Daily. 2001. Web.

Fair. How to Detect Bias in News Media. 2009. Web.

Katz, L., “Goliath is Jewish.” CAMERA. 2009. Web.

Harper, J. and Yantek, T., Media, Profit and Politics. Kent State University: Kent, 2003.

Rashmawi, J., Calderon, N., Maddox, S., Long, C., Hobbs, A., and Phillips, P. “US Media Bias, Human Rights, and the Hamas Government in Gaza.” Project Censored. 2009. Web.

Snider J.H., and Benjamin, I. “Does Media Ownership Affect Media Standards?” Annual Meeting of Midwest Political Science Association. 2003. Web.

Introduction

Media bias especially in political agenda is omnipresent. Partisan bias regarding politicians or political sentiments is observable in media (Schiffer, 2006). A meta-analysis of 59 quantitative studies has shown the existence media partisan attitude in political broadcasts (D’Alessio & Allen, 2000). However, the main potent of the partisan attitude of media must be such that it should be willful and influential and more importantly such bias must be sustainable rather than on an isolated incident. Therefore, the nature of the media bias has to be essentially discourse the political view among viewers and for a long period. Media bias has been widely studied through various quantitative analyses (D’Alessio & Allen, 2000; Schiffer, 2006). In this paper I will discuss the various aspects of bias, which has been, formed a part of the Lebanese media coverage, concentrating on two electronic media viz. Al Manar TV, and Future TV.

The media bias in Lebanon is present due to the deep-rooted political divide in the country. Here is a brief background of the divide. The fragmented Lebanese political scenario is an outcome after the assignation of the Rafiq Hariri in 2005. This political fragmentation has two groups – a pro-Syrian group following Hezbollah and allies anti-Syrian group. This segregation can also been found in the media scene in Lebanon with Al Manar TV being on the pro-Syrian side and Future TV favoring the anti-Syrian side. In this article, I will trace the biased and partial coverage of these two television stations in 2008. The elements of bias are dealt with the coverage of political programs and the nature of the partisans. Therefore, the main aim of the paper is to identify the elements of bias in the media coverage through an analysis of the media coverage of Al Manar and Future TV in 2008.

Types of Media Bias

Media bias is supposed to be of three types (D’Alessio & Allen, 2000). The first type is media acting as the gatekeeper. This bias actually makes the editors or writers to incorporate the stories, which they feel, should be viewed by viewers. The main purpose of this media is to filter what the media wants to discourse to people. The second type is the coverage bias, which is a codified measure of the issues, which received coverage in physical amount. This analysis is conducted regarding televisions through counting the time given to the coverage of a particular issue (D’Alessio & Allen, 2000). Therefore, in a case of political partisans, the coverage one side gets in one channel than the other is the measure of bias. The other is statement bias wherein the members of the media speak their own beliefs into the media discourse or text or pictorial description of the coverage. Statement bias are of two types, “favorable” or unfavorable” in nature. These can be identified through content analysis of the media coverage. For this research, statement and coverage bias study is important to understand the coverage of Future TV and Al Manar TV and the political message that preside over their discourse.

Methodology

The research uses quantitative research methodology. Bias research has been traditionally conducted as examined by D’Alessio and Allen’s meta-analysis (2000), covers one period. This paper too considers one period i.e. year 2008. Further, all the researches thus described use limited resources. So here, too the aim is to choose only two channels, which is compared, i.e. Al Manar and Future TV. Further most of the researches on political inclinations choose the opposing ideologies as in case of America and research is to count the number of times Democrat and Republicans are mentioned in on the net during the coverage. Then by using balance as a baseline they use the researchers declare towards which party the media houses are inclined. Here the aim will be to identify coverage bias in these channels, as it is relatively easier to measure this bias (D’Alessio & Allen, 2000). This research will study the language and the pictures in this television coverage. There are two methods here in measuring the coverage for TV, (a) “on-screen time” and (b) “lines of texts for network television” programs/news (D’Alessio & Allen, 2000, p. 145). In this research paper, the paper will consider both language and pictures. Here the paper will see which channels have used more anti-Syrian or pro-Syrian stance along with the number of pictures of Hezbollah or other party leaders covered in 2008. This will provide a clear understanding as to the nature of the bias of the Lebanese television.

Lebanese Media Bias

The bias of media coverage are understood through two parts, first is through quantifying the number of mentions of Hezbollah, Sayyad Nasrallah, and pro- or anti-Syrian sentiment in news or political talk shows. Further, here we will also quantify the number of times the speeches of Sayyad Nasrallah had been aired in any of the televisions and for the duration. This will help to identify the number of cases the biased programs or attitude towards any particular political party had been aired through any of the channels.

This section segregates the coverage as provided in the website of the two channels and the clippings available in YouTube. The coverage of the various pro-Hezbollah and anti-Hezbollah sentiments brought out through political talk shows or news clippings. We see that in 2008 the pro-Hezbollah clippings and news available in Al-Manar TV are 205 while that in Future TV is zero in number. This clearly shows a bias of both the television channels towards or against Hezbollah and its political views. The coverage of Future TV on the contrary portrayed a Hezbollah, which was destroying Lebanon through its hard-line Islamic view and international views. More directly Al-Manar showed 12 speeches of Sayyad Nasrallah in 2008 but Future TV showed only two such coverage. These figures are shown through the following table 1, which shows that number of coverage in news or political programs of the bias of both the channels towards or against Hezbollah.

Table 1¹

Exploring the reason for this bias can be traced to the ownership of the television channels, as media in Lebanon tend to follow the political inclination of its owners. For instance, Hezbollah owns Al-Manar and it operates to support the resistant movement of opposition of Hezbollah against Lebanon government while Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri owns Future TV, which shows the reason behind the channels’ anti-Hezbollah stance. The channel is broadcasted in Arabic and Hebrew the channel has a distinct Iranian/Shia character. The political inclination of Lebanese media becomes even more distinct after the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri and the anti-Syrian uprising in 2005. Thus, the channel takes an anti-Syrian, Sunni, and Friendly with the Western world stance. The political view is discoursed through visual and language of live coverage, news items, and talk shows, which echoed the political views regarding the protests swarming the streets. Presently the Lebanese television is divided into two sects the pro- Hezbollah, anti-government side, and the pro-government and anti-Hezbollah side. Al Manar belongs to the former sect while Future TV in the latter sect. as the Hariri and the Hezbollah are the two blocs in the divide; the two channels owned by the blocks are used as means of propaganda. This is proven through a wide coverage of Sayyad Nasrallah’s speeches in Al Manar TV in 2008.

In terms of coverage, Al Manar has broadcasted the speeches of Hezbollah general secretary in 2008 for 12 times all of which are more than 30 minutes in range. The complete speeches broadcasted through Al Manar shows the linkage of the television. Further Al Manar’s programming director Sheikh Nasir al-Akhda has stated that the television channel is going to “wage psychological warfare” and “promote the Islamic resistance.” (ADL, 2008)

Al-Manar broadcast a speech by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on March 24, 2008 on ending the forty-day mourning period of the Hezbollah martyr Imad Mughniyeh who is a Hezbollah military commander who was killed in February 2008 (Al-Manar, 2009). In his speech, Nasrallah firmly stated, “The Zionist entity can be wiped out of existence.” Nasrallah further showed the Zionist American influence in some media broadcast and spoke of the “bloody war of consciousness” which had to be waged in order to cleanse the media of the Israelis who have infiltrated the media. This clearly demonstrates that the in relation of Al-Manar is towards Hezbollah and its broadcast is based on a pro Hezbollah stand.

Further analyzing the language of the broadcast it must be observed the support for Hezbollah and its allies are direct and open. The Al Manar shows clips of promotions of hailing martyrs and speeches of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah, and demeaning the government. Al Manar broadcasts the Martys day on 11^th of November. In 2008 the coverage had statements made like: “The martyrs’ blood was never a sign of frustration or collapse. On the contrary, it has always been destined to draw the long path of resistance and jihad. Victories then came one after another, causing to the Israeli enemy the defeats it has never seen before.” (Al-Manar, 2009). These are distinctly the ideologies portrayed by Hezbollah through its ideologies. The coverage eulogizes the martyrdom of Hezbollah leaders and commanders like Sayyed Abbas Moussawi, Imad Moghniyyeh, Sheikh Ragheb Harb, et al.

Again, on considering the special interviews broadcasted by Future TV are interviews of political personality associated with the Future Party and/or the Hariri(s). The bias of Future TV towards the Hariri bloc can be demonstrated through the following list of people who had been broadcasted through the special interview section of Future TV: Saad Hariri, Basseil Fleihan, Bassem Sabeh, Nayla Mouawad, Dori Chamoun, Samir Jaajaa, Nazek Hariri, etc. Thus the range of interviewees (the list is not exhaustive) shows that most of the interviewees are from the Hariri bloc showing the channels’ political inclination.

The Islamic base of Al Manar can be found through the attire of the female newsreaders and correspondents with the women in scarf covering their head, while in case of Future TV the women are in western attire condoned by the Islamic. Further Future TV has shown a strong pro-Western stand with no anti-Zionist feeling by broadcasting an American Jewish political scientist Norman Finkelstein on 20 January 2008. The interview talks of how the Lebanese people have to make a choice between parties and be the judge of what is best for them. Future TV aired the interview of a captured Hezbollah terrorist from the BaalBek operations, which allegedly revealed all the lies of Hezbollah. In addition, in a broadcast of 25 January 2007Future TV showed a program, which revealed Hezbollah TV or Al Manar of all the lies that it has broadcasted.

Further another broadcast in Future TV showed a Hezbollah supporter removing the Lebanese flag and planting a Hezbollah flag (Future TV, 2009). Further Future TV always showed extremist picture of Hezbollah through their news coverage, which are considered nothing but propaganda clips (Cochrane, 2007). As the Future TV is known to be a Haririst propaganda machine, they use comments like “The Picture Say more than words” (YouTube, 2009). Further in February 2008 broadcast Future TV showed clippings of how Hezbollah supporters attacked Government supporters and the Lebanese army in February 2008 demonstrate the anti-Hezbollah coverage of Future TV while this incidence does not find mention in the coverage of Al Manar (YouTube, 2009).

The two media blocs led to the kindling of the nationalist sentiment of the Lebanese people which has also been observed in the people’s outward display (Cochrane, 2007). So if Al Manar covers an anti-government speech like those of Nasarollah, Future TV will not even mention it. On example of such an event was the February 14 demonstration of thousands of Lebanese gathered to pay solidarity to the assassinated Hariri was covered fully by Future TV, but found only sparing coverage in Al Manar. Further the Lebanese media has also been accused of using clips out of political speeches which are unrelated to demonstrate their point of view (Cochrane, 2007).there exists extreme rivalry between Al Manar and Future TV which extends from guests in talk shows to promo propaganda clippings.

This has been identified through the following: “Indeed, by watching either of the channels one can quickly ascertain the channel’s political allegiance. On Al Manar new promo clips are aired almost weekly, ranging from montages hailing ‘martyrs’ from the July War with Israel to highlights of Hizbullah’s military capabilities, to music videos that depict Southern Lebanon, support for the Lebanese army, commemorating the dead, and Hizbullah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah. Al Manar’s selection of news also reflects its political orientation and viewership, giving extra attention to issues in Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa (predominantly Shia reas), Palestine, Syria and Iran. On Future TV, montages praising Rafik Hariri’s legacy are regularly shown along with promos promoting the March 14^th movement. In terms of news Future focuses on Lebanese issues, albeit with less focus on the South, and gives more airspace to Sunni issues and political backers such as Saudi Arabia.” (Cochrane, 2007, p. 6).

These bitter rivalry and all the apparent denials was removed with Hezbollah destroying the Future TV station in Beirut. Following this destruction Future TV was shut down and a civil war broke out in 2008 in Lebanon. This demonstrated the differences in the ideological warfare between two political parties, which ultimately led to sectarianism, and then war. This demonstrates the politically split personality of the Lebanese media. From the above study, it is apparent that the political rivalries in Lebanon found a peaceful mean of retaliation with media as a propaganda machine. But with Hezbollah destroying Future TV, a violent civil war inevitable because the sectarianism coverage of the televisions had ignited a feeling of hatred and impatience.

Works Cited

ADL. (2008). Al-Manar: Hezbollah Television. Web.

Al-Manar. (2009). Al-Manar TV. Web.

Cochrane, P. (2007). Lebanon’s Media Sectarianism. Arab, Media and Society , 1-13.

D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2000). Media Bias in Presidential Elections: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Communication (Autumn) , 133-156.

Future TV. (2009). Future Television. Web.

Schiffer, A. J. (2006). Assessing Partisan Bias in Political News:The Case(s) of Local Senate Election Coverage. Political Communication, 23 , 23–39.

YouTube. (2009, ). YouTube. Web.

Footnotes

1. Source: Al Manar TV website, Future TV website and YouTube.

The phenomenon of media bias has always dominated journalism issues around the world. Media bias “occurs when media outlets systematically emphasize one particular point of view in a way that contravenes the standards of professional journalism” (Sheppard 89). Media bias is dominated by several factions including conservative, liberal, mainstream, and corporate media. Several organizations have come forward with the view of combating biases in the media by scrutinizing biased news reporting.

Media bias can occur in several forms. For instance, bias can be manifested when certain current events are not reported by the media. There are no definite patterns of media bias but trends indicate that liberal bias is the most common practice in journalism. This paper explores how media is biased using a news article that exemplifies bias in mass media.

The addressed news’ article addresses the differences between the presidential candidatures of both Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina. The article is titled “Clinton-30 Days, 8 Press Questions; Fiorina- 8 Days, 322 Press Questions” and it appears on the “Breibart News” website. According to the article, Clinton announced her presidential bid 30 days ago but she has had ‘lukewarm’ engagement with the media.

On the other hand, her competitor Fiorina announced her candidature 8 days ago but she has had ‘good’ interactions with the media (Swoyer 1). The brief article has obvious bias towards Clinton while it favors the actions of her rival. The bias in this article is aimed at discrediting mainstream media’s coverage of Clinton’s campaign while praising the conservative actions of the GOP presidential candidate.

This article presents media bias in a number of ways. First, the article’s headline announces the candidates’ appearance statistics as if they have a significant impact on the quality of their campaigns. It is important to note that these statistics do not reflect the suitability of any of the two candidates. However, the author of this article reports the matter in a manner that influences the readers’ opinions about the two presidential candidates. Another bias is evident through the author’s attempt to show that Clinton’s actions are abnormal.

The author points out that Clinton has set the record for “the longest running presidential candidate” with the lowest instances of media interaction in her first thirty days of campaigning (Swoyer 1). The liberal bias is evident when the article quotes Fiorina saying that unlike Hilary Clinton, her campaign is transparent as indicated through her openness to the media. The author does not attempt to present Clinton’s side of the story and this is an obvious bias against the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate.

This article has a significant impact on public opinion as indicated through the various comments that are made by its readers. First, the use of numbers in the article’s title makes the public think that Fiorina’s high numbers indicate that she is ‘winning’. Consequently, the readers who support Clinton are made to think that their candidate of choice is failing at something. The article also hints at the complexity and secrecy of the Democratic Party’s candidate whilst presenting a new face of the GOP as a transparent political outfit.

Traditionally, the popular public opinion is that the conservative GOP is the secretive political outfit while the Democrats are transparent (Lee 28). However, this article attempts to sway the popular public opinion using press-interaction statistics of the two candidates. The greatest bias in this news article is aimed at insinuating that Hilary Clinton is hiding something thereby swaying public opinion towards this line of thinking.

Works Cited

Lee, Martin. Unreliable sources: A guide to detecting bias in news media, New Jersey: Lyle Stuart, 2011. Print.

Sheppard, Si. The Partisan Press: A history of media bias in the United States, New York: McFarland, 2007. Print.

Swoyer, Alex. “Clinton-30 Days, 8 Press Questions; Fiorina- 8 Days, 322 Press Questions.” Breibart. Breibart News, 2015. Web.