The Media: Goals and Values During War

I would like to discuss the values of Al Jazeera, the U.S. Media, and the U.S. Military during the Iraq war and what their goals were as mediators to the public. I was privileged to watch a documentary called The Control Room that gave me an excellent perspective of the media during war.

What I found interesting was how aggressive Al Jazeera was in capturing the reality of war from both sides and broadcasting it to the Middle East through photos, television, and newspaper articles. This photo is a perfect example of what was typically published on a daily basis.



As seen here, the reality of war was not only read about, but also seen. They valued reality and they had a mission to educate their people with whatever stimuli they could get.

In regards to the U.S. media, I found they were very reserved when it came to relaying information to the public. They were more concerned with how the information would be perceived and digested rather than getting every bit of footage out into the open. You can also tell there was a large amount of competition between the different U.S. news agencies by how staged and glamorous the presentations were. This allowed me to believe that money was also a definite underlying value as well as safety. Al Jazeera captured the war from every angle possible--their live presentations were out in the war zone--nothing was staged and their was no glamour.



As for the U.S. Military, they kept their information well intact. They would say what the media/public needed to hear, but just enough to keep everyone under control. They were very strategic in the type of information they would give out because they knew they were being watched by the enemy. By controlling the flow of information, they were able to protect their troops.

As you can see, all forms of media have their goals and are driven by very different values. If I were to present information to a broad range of individuals, I would personally take the side of the U.S. Media and the Military. There are boundaries when it comes to how much information should be exposed to the naked eye. The reality of war can be very gruesome and most human beings are not in position to digest this type of information without a context. I believe it is the journalist's responsibility to thoroughly analyze and edit the information before presenting it.

For more information on The Control Room, please refer to the link below:
www.noujaimfilms.com/controlroom/site/01.html

A Newspaper With a Twist

Newspapers are having a tough time these days--especially with all the free news that can be found online.

Joshua Karp is working on the first published paper that consists entirely of blogs.

There website http://www.theprintedblog.com/ will allow customers to pick and choose through numerous blogs depending on what is of interest to them.

Read, "Publisher Rethinks the Daily: It's Free and Printed and Has Blogs All Over," by Claire Cain Miller from the New York Times.

"Portraits of War: Unseen Pictures, Untold Stories"

I was asked as to whether or not the Durango Herald should run this photo?



Here is my stance on the issue--

What is it that keeps us from wanting to know and experience the truth about war?

“A review of six prominent U.S. newspapers and the nation’s two most popular newsmagazines during a recent six-month period found almost no pictures from the war zone of Americans killed in action." (James Rainey, LA Times) And get this, 559 soldiers were killed during that time frame!

You would think that we as Americans would want to know what is going on with our fellow countrymen who are shedding blood and tears for something they call freedom. We are no more free than those locked in a cage--we are trapped in our own ignorance.

Chris Hondros, a veteran war photographer mentioned, “There can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that. I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war.”

We need to understand what war is all about and the only way we can truly relate is through visualization. We can be told everyday what is going on in Iraq, but until we actually see what is going on, we will never understand.

“When the Star-Ledger and several other papers ran the Babbitt photo in November, their editors were lashed by some readers--who called them cruel, insensitive, even unpatriotic." (James Rainey, LA Times)

This is one of the reasons why the media has kept us so sheltered from the truth--human ignorance! As the old saying goes, "ignorance is bliss!"

Now, I understand that others have their opinions regarding this issue. "Dierdre Sargent, whose husband was deployed to Iraq, believes the photo is tacky, unprofessional, and completely unnecessary to publish." But again, ignorance is bliss! Her husband was just deployed--of course she would say this! She does not want to be reminded of the horrors of war.

"One camp has argued against publishing graphic images of U.S. casualities, saying the pictures hurt morale, aid the enemy, and intrude on the most intimate moments of human suffering." (James Rainey, LA Times)

This is a clear and valid point, but from whos perspective exactly? Why keep these intimate moments private? Why not allow America to be apart of these intimate moments?

We are the United States of America.

Every American and townsperson of Durango, Co. should be welcoming of any photo that shows up in our newspapers or magazines.

War photos define the reality of war, and it is time to move beyond ignorance--We are the unified people and we will fight this war together, whether it be physically or visually.

Technology and Children: Good or Bad?

Most would define technology as a means of gaining knowledge or accomplishing some sort of task (http://www.merriam-webster.com/) whether it be surfing the internet, listening to audio books, watching an online documentary, or making calls from a wireless blue-tooth device.

Technology provides many benefits as noted above, but when it comes to children, it has been more of a hazard than a benefit.

I would like to elaborate on the issue of video games and how they have been proven to cause violence and aggressive behavior.

An exerpt from the book, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology by Mark P. Zanna writes,

"Both experimental and correlational studies, on average, yield significant positive relations between exposure to violent video games and aggressive behavior with average effect sizes in the r + = 0.20 range" (Anderson and Bushman, 2001)

A study by Thomas A. Kooijmans at the Rochester Institute of Technology also finds that,

"During adolescence there is a general increase in the aggression (Lindemann, Harakka, & Keltikangas-Jaervinen, 1997). "This aggression combined with the exposure to violent media will reinforce and increase aggressive cognitions, affects and arousal. This interaction has a negative affect on the internal state, leading to increased aggression (Spear, 2000)."

As you can see, there is strong evidence that backs this distinct relationship.

The Columbine incident of 1999 is also a great example. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1295920.stm)

For more information, please follow this link:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2OHSgcuEU2YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA199&dq=%22Anderson%22+%22Effects+of+Violent+Video+Games+on+Aggressive+Behavior,+...%22+&ots=DOvnUDIO6O&sig=K3xtzTCP3yCReSWmU_Bx3FSYfLU#PPA205,M1