It Takes A Pulitzer Prize To Reveal The Truth

Today, I remembered one article that completely changed my views about the media. And trust me, I have always wanted to work in the media industry and to be honest for a long time I tried to turn a blind eye to its deficiencies. While studying Mass Media at university, I realized that my approach was wrong. David Barstow’s article was one of my biggest breakthroughs in understanding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html?scp=1&sq=Barstow,%20David.%20"Behind%20TV%20Analysts,%20Pentagon's%20Hidden%20Hand."%20The%20New%20York%20Times.%2020%20Apr.%202008.%20Web.%2005%20Dec.%202009&st=cse

Barstow investigative piece sufficiently describes how easily the public opinion is swayed by people that should represent objective sources, mainly military officials, who were appointed as impartial analysts. However this rather innocent fairy-tale turned out to be a farce for deceiving the audience. The supposed impartial officers were taken on paid trips to Iraq where they were given lectures by Pentagon officials, who dictated them what should be reported and how. Or they were shown only representative sites and places or ‘detention camps’ which is another euphemism for prisons. What is alarming in this case is, that the news networks had no idea who are they dealing with. Moreover they did not care.

It fascinates me how easily it was for the Pentagon officials to get colored and honored military officials to echo implemented reports from their Iraq trips. Pentagon in my opinion serves as a corporate engine for fabricating news, experts and even the news anchors. And this article shows, how Pentagon applied very ingenious and elaborate actions, to diminish the possibility of diverse opinion among their own people.

Almost a compulsory reading for everyone, amazing work has been done by David Barstow – Pulitzer Prize winner of 2008.

Source:
Barstow, David. "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand." The New York Times. 20 Apr. 2008. Web. 12 Sep. 2009

Picture:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/19/washington/20generals_span.jpg

When Torture Is Not Torture And Terrorists Are Not Terrorists

When looking at the problem of cleansed language, which means words lacking political charge or emotional characteristics or easier they are euphemisms, in her article Tortured Language,

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20091006.html

Joanne Mariner gives the perfect examples that the media tend to use when reporting on military actions. More importantly, whenever we choose to use language that provides us political neutrality, the meaning of the action shifts. Consequently, the reporters pose bias on these topics. This is how torture is not longer called torture, but ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’. (Mariner, 2009) Can you feel the shift in its meaning? And there are more and more examples Mariner refers to.

What is egregious and concerns me the most is far not the concrete choice of the words, but the decision of media agencies and broadcasting companies. After all they are the ones that swore to provide fair and balanced news or that is what the majority of people believe in and take the media’s words as unquestionable basis of information. The utilization of deceptive words only brings the wrong picture to the society. No wonder that the majority of Americans supported George W. Bush in his second term, if they didn’t have the slightest clue about Iraq and the practices of the soldiers.
One of the best examples Mariner (2009) states is The New York Times referral to ‘harsh interrogation methods’ used under former President Bush in Iraq. Nevertheless, among these harsh interrogation techniques was a clearly states the practice of ‘water boarding’. Even if water boarding was used against terrorists it does not justify calling it other than torture. For instance a Japanese officer was sentenced to 15 years after practicing this technique on American citizen in 1947 and it was widely recognized by US and the rest of the world as a torture. (Mariner, 2009) If it was clear then, why did The New York Times refuse to call it the same?

Source:
Mariner J., Tortured Language, Find Law, Oct 6, 2009

Recommended readings:
Cohen-Almagor R., The Limits of Objective Reporting, Journal of Language and Politics (2008) p. 147-149

Picture:
http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/bush_waterboarding.jpg