Dr King hat in einem Interview mit dem BBC Journalisten Bob McKenzie im Jahre 1964 den ersten Afro-Amerikansichen Präsidenten "in weniger als 40 Jahren" vorrausgesagt.
GOBAMA!
Erste Ansprache des 44. US Präsidenten Obama:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/obama_inauguration/7840646.stm
King Interview BBC Website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7838851.stm
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Burning Man / Der Standard
So etwas wie eine Fata Morgana
Mein literarischer Reisebericht über Burning Man nachzulesen in voller Länge im Standard / Album in der Serie Mein Amerika:
„See you there“ rief man sich bei der Abfahrt vom Parkareal zu. Obwohl wir uns immer noch nicht richtig vorstellen konnten, was uns erwartete, spürten wir Vorfreude auf das Unbekannte. Am meisten aber das seltsam-wunderbare Gefühl, an etwas Besonderem teilzuhaben.
Am Nachmittag erreichten wir einen kleinen Ort namens Gerlach, der eine letzte Gelegenheit bot, um den Tank aufzufüllen. Die öffentlichen Toiletten waren eine Vorwarnung auf die Reihen stinkender Klokabinen, die uns für die nächste Woche nicht erspart bleiben würden. Black Rock City, unser Endziel, war so etwas wie eine Fata Morgana. Es war auf keiner Karte zu finden, weil besagte Stadt sich nur einmal im Jahr aus den Zelten und Wohnmobilen ihrer tausenden Burning Man Pilger formierte. Vor uns eine Kolonne, die irgendwo in der Ferne nach rechts abbog. So ähnlich, stellten wir uns vor, musste die Stimmung beim Konzert der Stones in Altamont gewesen sein...
Unsere Ankunft wurde von einem Sandsturm verschluckt, der einer allerletzten Warnung an jene glich, die zudem Alkalistaub in Ohren und Nase nicht leiden konnten. Das Atmen fiel schwer. Leute, vermummt in Tüchern irrten auf ihren Fahrrädern umher. Platzanweiser in roten Perücken, Badehosen und Stiefeln schienen wie ein Fels in der Brandung. Ein Mädchen tauchte aus dem Nichts auf und verteilte Mundschutzmasken.
Der nächste Morgen präsentierte sich in einem tiefblauen Himmel ohne Wolken. Aus den Tiefen des RVs unseres Nachbarn kletterte ein Mann aus San Franzisko, der, bekleidet mit nur einem Bärenfell-Lendenschurz, uns zur Begrüßung, einem nach dem anderen herzlich umarmte. Er wünschte uns „crazyness, love and peace“ und machte sich auf zum Communal Washing Workshop. Wenn man von ihm auf Woodstock schließen konnte, haben wir vielleicht nicht allzu viel verpasst.
Vor zwanzig Jahren, als sich das ursprüngliche Event einer brennenden Statue zur Sonnwendfeier am Baker Beach (San Franzisko) so großer Beliebtheit erfreute, daß es die Aufmerksamkeit die Behörden weckte, wurde es kurzerhand in die Wüste verlegt. Damals, erzählte uns ein Burner-Veteran, ging es hier noch zu wie im wilden Westen. Leute rasten mit ihren Autos, einige schossen sogar mit Feuerwaffen durch die Gegend. Nun sei alles sehr kommerziell geworden. Schwer zu glauben inmitten eines Szenarios, das an Priscilla und Mad Max erinnerte.
Wir schlossen weitere Bekanntschaften - mit einem aus dem Gefängnis entlassenen Musiker aus Idaho, der mit seiner Freundin drei Jahre zuvor einen Frisörladen überfallen hatte.
Nicht zu vergessen jener Typ, der sein Bemühen am stillen Örtchen den Wartenden draußen durch ein Megaphon mitteilte...
Der Standard, 10/11. Jänner 2009
www.derstandard.at/Literatur
Mein literarischer Reisebericht über Burning Man nachzulesen in voller Länge im Standard / Album in der Serie Mein Amerika:
„See you there“ rief man sich bei der Abfahrt vom Parkareal zu. Obwohl wir uns immer noch nicht richtig vorstellen konnten, was uns erwartete, spürten wir Vorfreude auf das Unbekannte. Am meisten aber das seltsam-wunderbare Gefühl, an etwas Besonderem teilzuhaben.
Am Nachmittag erreichten wir einen kleinen Ort namens Gerlach, der eine letzte Gelegenheit bot, um den Tank aufzufüllen. Die öffentlichen Toiletten waren eine Vorwarnung auf die Reihen stinkender Klokabinen, die uns für die nächste Woche nicht erspart bleiben würden. Black Rock City, unser Endziel, war so etwas wie eine Fata Morgana. Es war auf keiner Karte zu finden, weil besagte Stadt sich nur einmal im Jahr aus den Zelten und Wohnmobilen ihrer tausenden Burning Man Pilger formierte. Vor uns eine Kolonne, die irgendwo in der Ferne nach rechts abbog. So ähnlich, stellten wir uns vor, musste die Stimmung beim Konzert der Stones in Altamont gewesen sein...
Unsere Ankunft wurde von einem Sandsturm verschluckt, der einer allerletzten Warnung an jene glich, die zudem Alkalistaub in Ohren und Nase nicht leiden konnten. Das Atmen fiel schwer. Leute, vermummt in Tüchern irrten auf ihren Fahrrädern umher. Platzanweiser in roten Perücken, Badehosen und Stiefeln schienen wie ein Fels in der Brandung. Ein Mädchen tauchte aus dem Nichts auf und verteilte Mundschutzmasken.
Der nächste Morgen präsentierte sich in einem tiefblauen Himmel ohne Wolken. Aus den Tiefen des RVs unseres Nachbarn kletterte ein Mann aus San Franzisko, der, bekleidet mit nur einem Bärenfell-Lendenschurz, uns zur Begrüßung, einem nach dem anderen herzlich umarmte. Er wünschte uns „crazyness, love and peace“ und machte sich auf zum Communal Washing Workshop. Wenn man von ihm auf Woodstock schließen konnte, haben wir vielleicht nicht allzu viel verpasst.
Vor zwanzig Jahren, als sich das ursprüngliche Event einer brennenden Statue zur Sonnwendfeier am Baker Beach (San Franzisko) so großer Beliebtheit erfreute, daß es die Aufmerksamkeit die Behörden weckte, wurde es kurzerhand in die Wüste verlegt. Damals, erzählte uns ein Burner-Veteran, ging es hier noch zu wie im wilden Westen. Leute rasten mit ihren Autos, einige schossen sogar mit Feuerwaffen durch die Gegend. Nun sei alles sehr kommerziell geworden. Schwer zu glauben inmitten eines Szenarios, das an Priscilla und Mad Max erinnerte.
Wir schlossen weitere Bekanntschaften - mit einem aus dem Gefängnis entlassenen Musiker aus Idaho, der mit seiner Freundin drei Jahre zuvor einen Frisörladen überfallen hatte.
Nicht zu vergessen jener Typ, der sein Bemühen am stillen Örtchen den Wartenden draußen durch ein Megaphon mitteilte...
Der Standard, 10/11. Jänner 2009
www.derstandard.at/Literatur
Friday, January 9, 2009
Bonobo-Style: Sex for Peace
Ethologist Dr. Frans B. M. de Waal has studied the Bonobo (a chimpanzee species related the closest to human beings) and made some interesting observation with regards to their sexual and social behaviour. Some of his most interesting discoveries he has put together in an essay – from which the excerpts are below. That might give the human species some incentive to learn from their ancestors about how to resolve a conflict or better not to start one in the first place...
The Bonobo is one of the last large mammals to be found by science. The creature was discovered in 1929 in a Belgian colonial museum, far from its lush African habitat.
The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression.
My own interest in Bonobos came not from an inherent fascination with their charms but from research on aggressive behavior in primates. I was particularly intrigued with the aftermath of conflict. After two chimpanzees have fought, for instance, they may come together for a hug and mouth-to-mouth kiss. Assuming that such reunions serve to restore peace and harmony, I labeled them reconciliations.
For my study, which began in 1983, I chose the San Diego Zoo. At the time, it housed the world's largest captive Bonobo colony--10 members divided into three groups. I spent entire days in front of the enclosure with a video camera, which was switched on at feeding time. As soon as a caretaker approached the enclosure with food, the males would develop erections. Even before the food was thrown into the area, the Bonobos would be inviting each other for sex: males would invite females, and females would invite males and other females.
The diversity of erotic contacts in Bonobos includes sporadic oral sex, massage of another individual's genitals and intense tongue-kissing. Lest this leave the impression of a pathologically oversexed species, I must add, based on hundreds of hours of watching Bonobos, that their sexual activity is rather casual and relaxed. It appears to be a completely natural part of their group life. Like people, bonobos engage in sex only occasionally, not continuously. Furthermore, with the average copulation lasting 13 seconds, sexual contact in Bonobos is rather quick by human standards.
That sex is connected to feeding, and even appears to make food sharing possible, has been observed not only in zoos but also in the wild. Nancy Thompson-Handler, then at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, saw Bonobos in Zaire's Lomako Forest engage in sex after they had entered trees loaded with ripe figs or when one among them had captured a prey animal, such as a small forest duiker. The flurry of sexual contacts would last for five to 10 minutes, after which the apes would settle down to consume the food.
One explanation for the sexual activity at feeding time could be that excitement over food translates into sexual arousal. This idea may be partly true. Yet another motivation is probably the real cause: competition. There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the Bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one Bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two Bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But Bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, Bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.
During reconciliations, Bonobos use the same sexual repertoire as they do during feeding time. Based on an analysis of many such incidents, my study yielded the first solid evidence for sexual behavior as a mechanism to overcome aggression. Not that this function is absent in other animals--or in humans, for that matter--but the art of sexual reconciliation may well have reached its evolutionary peak in the Bonobo. For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among Bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs.
Sex, it turned out, is the key to the social life of the bonobo.
Unfortunately the Bonobo has now become an endangered species. He is only to be found in the rainforest of the Republic of Congo.
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
(Originally published in the March 1995 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, pp. 82-88)
The Bonobo is one of the last large mammals to be found by science. The creature was discovered in 1929 in a Belgian colonial museum, far from its lush African habitat.
The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression.
My own interest in Bonobos came not from an inherent fascination with their charms but from research on aggressive behavior in primates. I was particularly intrigued with the aftermath of conflict. After two chimpanzees have fought, for instance, they may come together for a hug and mouth-to-mouth kiss. Assuming that such reunions serve to restore peace and harmony, I labeled them reconciliations.
For my study, which began in 1983, I chose the San Diego Zoo. At the time, it housed the world's largest captive Bonobo colony--10 members divided into three groups. I spent entire days in front of the enclosure with a video camera, which was switched on at feeding time. As soon as a caretaker approached the enclosure with food, the males would develop erections. Even before the food was thrown into the area, the Bonobos would be inviting each other for sex: males would invite females, and females would invite males and other females.
The diversity of erotic contacts in Bonobos includes sporadic oral sex, massage of another individual's genitals and intense tongue-kissing. Lest this leave the impression of a pathologically oversexed species, I must add, based on hundreds of hours of watching Bonobos, that their sexual activity is rather casual and relaxed. It appears to be a completely natural part of their group life. Like people, bonobos engage in sex only occasionally, not continuously. Furthermore, with the average copulation lasting 13 seconds, sexual contact in Bonobos is rather quick by human standards.
That sex is connected to feeding, and even appears to make food sharing possible, has been observed not only in zoos but also in the wild. Nancy Thompson-Handler, then at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, saw Bonobos in Zaire's Lomako Forest engage in sex after they had entered trees loaded with ripe figs or when one among them had captured a prey animal, such as a small forest duiker. The flurry of sexual contacts would last for five to 10 minutes, after which the apes would settle down to consume the food.
One explanation for the sexual activity at feeding time could be that excitement over food translates into sexual arousal. This idea may be partly true. Yet another motivation is probably the real cause: competition. There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the Bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one Bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two Bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But Bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, Bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.
During reconciliations, Bonobos use the same sexual repertoire as they do during feeding time. Based on an analysis of many such incidents, my study yielded the first solid evidence for sexual behavior as a mechanism to overcome aggression. Not that this function is absent in other animals--or in humans, for that matter--but the art of sexual reconciliation may well have reached its evolutionary peak in the Bonobo. For these animals, sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Given its peacemaking and appeasement functions, it is not surprising that sex among Bonobos occurs in so many different partner combinations, including between juveniles and adults. The need for peaceful coexistence is obviously not restricted to adult heterosexual pairs.
Sex, it turned out, is the key to the social life of the bonobo.
Unfortunately the Bonobo has now become an endangered species. He is only to be found in the rainforest of the Republic of Congo.
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
(Originally published in the March 1995 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, pp. 82-88)
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Gaza
Dem Interview mit dem derzeitigen Hamas-Führer Osama Hamdan nach zu urteilen stehen die Zeichen für eine friedliche Lösung nicht nur schlecht sondern sind bis auf weiteres keine Option.
Damit wird auch jede Chance zum Schutz der Bevölkerung in Gaza erstickt, die Hamas vor einigen Tagen noch zum verstärkten Mut und Widerstand aufrief.
Beide Seiten waren sich von Anfang an über die Tatsache im Klaren, dass dieser Krieg auf Kosten der Bevölkerung geführt wird. Mindestens im selben Ausmaß erschreckend ist, wie genau Hamdan über die Anzahl der Toten Bescheid weiß und diese minutiös untereilt in Zivilisten, Kämpfer und Kinder auf dem verbalen Silbertablett präsentiert. Israel wird seine Hartnäckigkeit und Unmenschlichkeit vorgeworfen - wo bleibt die Barmherzigkeit der Hamas gegenüber ihres eigenen Fleisch und Bluts? Die Reportagen und Berichte aus der Kriegszone (insgesamt ein Blutbad, das über alles menschlich akzeptable weit hinausgeht) lassen jedoch immer wieder dieselben grundlegenden Fragen offen:
Welches Interesse sollte Israel daran haben, seine Raketen grundlos auf Zivilisten werfen - nur aus schierer Blutrünstigkeit?
Wurde in der ganzen Berichterstattung jemals ein Hamas-Kämpfer gezeigt (außer dem Blut und dem Schutt, die Selbstmord-Attentäter in Israel hinterlassen haben)?
Wo bleiben die Beweise, daß Hamas ihre Waffen tatsächlich in Moscheen und privaten Häusern versteckt, wie Israel behauptet, und damit die Bevölkerung in Gaza zu menschlichen Schutzschildern macht?
Die Doppelmoral der Hamas, die zu keinem absehbaren Ende für das Leiden ihrer Leute führen kann (gleichzeitig zum Kampf zu rufen und die fehlende (medizinische) Hilfe beklagen)?
Würde es nach einer Beendung der Blockaden wirklich Frieden geben oder würde es überhaupt Frieden geben, wenn Hamas Israel weiterhin nicht anerkennt?
Man kennt den Standpunkt beider Seiten, man verurteilt die Angriffe, man verlangt einen Waffenstillstand. Nach der Zerstörung eines Schulgebäudes in Gaza wird eine unabhängige Untersuchung verlangt, die hoffentlich beide Seiten zur gerechten Verantwortung ziehen wird.
Wenn für den Irak-Krieg sinnvoller Weise eine Untersuchung verlangt wurde, um die Behauptung der Busch-Administration zu widerlegen oder zu bestätigen, so sollte das auch hier geschehen.
Für diesen Konflikt gibt es keinen anderen Weg als Frieden - der im Namen eines jeden Gottes ist. Die Waffen müssen ein für allemal niedergelegt werden. Und vor allem der Hass, der sich mit jedem Tag verdoppelt und die Hoffnung auf eine friedliche Zukunft auch auf internationaler Ebene dahinschwinden sieht.
Bei soviel Mißbrauch und Leid in seinem Namen hat sich besagter Gott vielleicht sogar schon selbst gekreuzigt.
"Mehr Gründe für den Widerstand" (Der Standard, 7. Jänner 2009)
Damit wird auch jede Chance zum Schutz der Bevölkerung in Gaza erstickt, die Hamas vor einigen Tagen noch zum verstärkten Mut und Widerstand aufrief.
Beide Seiten waren sich von Anfang an über die Tatsache im Klaren, dass dieser Krieg auf Kosten der Bevölkerung geführt wird. Mindestens im selben Ausmaß erschreckend ist, wie genau Hamdan über die Anzahl der Toten Bescheid weiß und diese minutiös untereilt in Zivilisten, Kämpfer und Kinder auf dem verbalen Silbertablett präsentiert. Israel wird seine Hartnäckigkeit und Unmenschlichkeit vorgeworfen - wo bleibt die Barmherzigkeit der Hamas gegenüber ihres eigenen Fleisch und Bluts? Die Reportagen und Berichte aus der Kriegszone (insgesamt ein Blutbad, das über alles menschlich akzeptable weit hinausgeht) lassen jedoch immer wieder dieselben grundlegenden Fragen offen:
Welches Interesse sollte Israel daran haben, seine Raketen grundlos auf Zivilisten werfen - nur aus schierer Blutrünstigkeit?
Wurde in der ganzen Berichterstattung jemals ein Hamas-Kämpfer gezeigt (außer dem Blut und dem Schutt, die Selbstmord-Attentäter in Israel hinterlassen haben)?
Wo bleiben die Beweise, daß Hamas ihre Waffen tatsächlich in Moscheen und privaten Häusern versteckt, wie Israel behauptet, und damit die Bevölkerung in Gaza zu menschlichen Schutzschildern macht?
Die Doppelmoral der Hamas, die zu keinem absehbaren Ende für das Leiden ihrer Leute führen kann (gleichzeitig zum Kampf zu rufen und die fehlende (medizinische) Hilfe beklagen)?
Würde es nach einer Beendung der Blockaden wirklich Frieden geben oder würde es überhaupt Frieden geben, wenn Hamas Israel weiterhin nicht anerkennt?
Man kennt den Standpunkt beider Seiten, man verurteilt die Angriffe, man verlangt einen Waffenstillstand. Nach der Zerstörung eines Schulgebäudes in Gaza wird eine unabhängige Untersuchung verlangt, die hoffentlich beide Seiten zur gerechten Verantwortung ziehen wird.
Wenn für den Irak-Krieg sinnvoller Weise eine Untersuchung verlangt wurde, um die Behauptung der Busch-Administration zu widerlegen oder zu bestätigen, so sollte das auch hier geschehen.
Für diesen Konflikt gibt es keinen anderen Weg als Frieden - der im Namen eines jeden Gottes ist. Die Waffen müssen ein für allemal niedergelegt werden. Und vor allem der Hass, der sich mit jedem Tag verdoppelt und die Hoffnung auf eine friedliche Zukunft auch auf internationaler Ebene dahinschwinden sieht.
Bei soviel Mißbrauch und Leid in seinem Namen hat sich besagter Gott vielleicht sogar schon selbst gekreuzigt.
"Mehr Gründe für den Widerstand" (Der Standard, 7. Jänner 2009)
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
NBC news vs Aljezeera news vs ABC news
Aljazeera News (English) published a piece by freelance journalist and media analyst, Habib Battah, based in Beirut and New York.
The piece analyzes news reports on the war on Gaza comparing the (biased pro-Israel) US media to the Arab news media.
Battah made a few interesting observations on how a US newspaper for example juxtaposed the images of a Palestinian woman who just lost her children and an Israeli woman being distressed by the fighting; how the media avoided the exact figures of dead Palestinians in its reports; how it dedicates a relative small amount of air time to the war on Gaza.
And that overall the Palestinian side is given much less voice as featured in Aljazeera news for instance.
Similar things were already witnessed and criticized during the war on Iraq.
One point in terms of news value is pretty obvious however: of course for the Arab media the only current news item is the war on Gaza. On the other hand nobody has yet dared to question if the daily flood of injured and dead people, children as preferred victims, should be truly regarded as the yardstick for accurate quality reporting.
A rather delicate and complicated matter is the comparison of the two women on the front page. What Battah consciously or subconsciously states is that the one suffers less than the other. Without doubt it is much easier to portray the dead and their weeping community members than mental distress. It might well be that the Palestinian woman suffers „more“ than the other but how does one measure „suffering“? Whose suffering is worth more?
It would have been interesting to read in Battah’s article how many times the Arab media portray suffering Israelis on their front page or feature their side in a broadcast news item.
Appreciating his sober news reality check his report left a question unanswered: Are we really talking about human beings here or just about Israelis and Palestinians? Not only that – do we really mean it?
How valid or justified are arguments about victims and offenders without having ever experienced being either of them?
Also worth your while is browsing through the many answers from the international blogger community following Battah’s article.
In response to one of them talking about the interpretation of „objective“ (meaning biased) reporting in a democratic country I would like to say the following: isn’t it great for us (living in relatively protected and free countries) to have a choice of zapping through various channels and reading (or skimming through) at least through two papers every day to form our own opinion on issues. Being equipped with this choice it is almost our duty not to rely on anybody or a sole source of information!
Another blogger, from the US, Bob Hogan commented on the propaganda machine in his own country: ...“pro-Israel propaganda (is) not different from Al-Qaeda’s anti-American propaganda“.
One should seriously try to evaluate first before starting to judge. Most of the so called ordinary people all over the world (let’s take the the average 9-5 working US citizen or the barely educated women in the Middle-East) obviously believe what they hear and see on TV or read in the paper. That is matter of fact. And most of the people who are not engaged in the media or who are self-confessed news junkies will rarely question the bias of the media. What reason could they possibly think of to do so. A good proof for that was the „surprise-effect“ after Michael Moore's documentary on 9/11 came into the mainstream cinemas.
Battah’s comment on sound bites being reinforced by pundits is another interesting observation. It makes aware about the „dangers“ of only relying to broadcast media in those events. Naturally you get sound bites and expert opinions that ideally try to cover both sides of the story. But in the end the broadcast media is what it is: a fast moving medium, not an instrument providing aid and relief.
The benefit of getting the news from a (quality) daily paper is that it takes time to absorb and process the given information. How many words hysterically shouted at you by foreign correspondents wrapped in a bullet proof jacket and helmet in their sixty second reports really stick in one’s memory longer than a few minutes after hearing it?
While Aljazeera has a few journalists in the war zone about eight foreigns journalists are desperately waiting at the border for permission to get in. All of them eager to feed their readers and viewers with more (verbal) images of suffering people equivalent to publishing any fresh sordid detail of a celebrity couple divorce.
A great deal of this war is carried out via the media and both sides, Israel and Palestine/Hamas, are very well aware of that. Even more than the televised War on Iraq, the War on Gaza is fought by the media. Where is the voice of the Hamas leaders - that also is missing on Aljazeera news. All they have said so far is to retaliate the bombings on the Israeli community worldwide (indicating a rather dull and even more suffering ahead of us in the future).
There has always been bias in war reporting and documentation. Anybody who read Susan Sontag for example knows about how bodies in the Crimean War got dragged from the actual battle field to different surroundings for a „better picture". Although this meant distorting reality for writing history.
Battah’s conclusion on the indirect war of Western vs Arab media reads as follows: „ While American analysts map out Israel's strategy, Arab broadcasters are drawing their own maps, plotting the expanding range of Hamas rockets, and predicting a strengthened hand for opposition to Israel, rather than a weakened one."
So, how much of the daily news are actually propaganda? This question might be best covered by Aljazeera's great program Listening Post.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/20091585448204690.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/05/israel-palestine-gaza-attacks1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/world/middleeast/06mideast.html?_r=1&hp
The piece analyzes news reports on the war on Gaza comparing the (biased pro-Israel) US media to the Arab news media.
Battah made a few interesting observations on how a US newspaper for example juxtaposed the images of a Palestinian woman who just lost her children and an Israeli woman being distressed by the fighting; how the media avoided the exact figures of dead Palestinians in its reports; how it dedicates a relative small amount of air time to the war on Gaza.
And that overall the Palestinian side is given much less voice as featured in Aljazeera news for instance.
Similar things were already witnessed and criticized during the war on Iraq.
One point in terms of news value is pretty obvious however: of course for the Arab media the only current news item is the war on Gaza. On the other hand nobody has yet dared to question if the daily flood of injured and dead people, children as preferred victims, should be truly regarded as the yardstick for accurate quality reporting.
A rather delicate and complicated matter is the comparison of the two women on the front page. What Battah consciously or subconsciously states is that the one suffers less than the other. Without doubt it is much easier to portray the dead and their weeping community members than mental distress. It might well be that the Palestinian woman suffers „more“ than the other but how does one measure „suffering“? Whose suffering is worth more?
It would have been interesting to read in Battah’s article how many times the Arab media portray suffering Israelis on their front page or feature their side in a broadcast news item.
Appreciating his sober news reality check his report left a question unanswered: Are we really talking about human beings here or just about Israelis and Palestinians? Not only that – do we really mean it?
How valid or justified are arguments about victims and offenders without having ever experienced being either of them?
Also worth your while is browsing through the many answers from the international blogger community following Battah’s article.
In response to one of them talking about the interpretation of „objective“ (meaning biased) reporting in a democratic country I would like to say the following: isn’t it great for us (living in relatively protected and free countries) to have a choice of zapping through various channels and reading (or skimming through) at least through two papers every day to form our own opinion on issues. Being equipped with this choice it is almost our duty not to rely on anybody or a sole source of information!
Another blogger, from the US, Bob Hogan commented on the propaganda machine in his own country: ...“pro-Israel propaganda (is) not different from Al-Qaeda’s anti-American propaganda“.
One should seriously try to evaluate first before starting to judge. Most of the so called ordinary people all over the world (let’s take the the average 9-5 working US citizen or the barely educated women in the Middle-East) obviously believe what they hear and see on TV or read in the paper. That is matter of fact. And most of the people who are not engaged in the media or who are self-confessed news junkies will rarely question the bias of the media. What reason could they possibly think of to do so. A good proof for that was the „surprise-effect“ after Michael Moore's documentary on 9/11 came into the mainstream cinemas.
Battah’s comment on sound bites being reinforced by pundits is another interesting observation. It makes aware about the „dangers“ of only relying to broadcast media in those events. Naturally you get sound bites and expert opinions that ideally try to cover both sides of the story. But in the end the broadcast media is what it is: a fast moving medium, not an instrument providing aid and relief.
The benefit of getting the news from a (quality) daily paper is that it takes time to absorb and process the given information. How many words hysterically shouted at you by foreign correspondents wrapped in a bullet proof jacket and helmet in their sixty second reports really stick in one’s memory longer than a few minutes after hearing it?
While Aljazeera has a few journalists in the war zone about eight foreigns journalists are desperately waiting at the border for permission to get in. All of them eager to feed their readers and viewers with more (verbal) images of suffering people equivalent to publishing any fresh sordid detail of a celebrity couple divorce.
A great deal of this war is carried out via the media and both sides, Israel and Palestine/Hamas, are very well aware of that. Even more than the televised War on Iraq, the War on Gaza is fought by the media. Where is the voice of the Hamas leaders - that also is missing on Aljazeera news. All they have said so far is to retaliate the bombings on the Israeli community worldwide (indicating a rather dull and even more suffering ahead of us in the future).
There has always been bias in war reporting and documentation. Anybody who read Susan Sontag for example knows about how bodies in the Crimean War got dragged from the actual battle field to different surroundings for a „better picture". Although this meant distorting reality for writing history.
Battah’s conclusion on the indirect war of Western vs Arab media reads as follows: „ While American analysts map out Israel's strategy, Arab broadcasters are drawing their own maps, plotting the expanding range of Hamas rockets, and predicting a strengthened hand for opposition to Israel, rather than a weakened one."
So, how much of the daily news are actually propaganda? This question might be best covered by Aljazeera's great program Listening Post.
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/20091585448204690.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/05/israel-palestine-gaza-attacks1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/world/middleeast/06mideast.html?_r=1&hp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
