Dr Mohamed Kirat
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
The failure of mass communication theory to explain the practices of news organisations can be noticed during the coverage of wars and crises. Unlike normal circumstances, the coverage of wars and crises faces stakes and challenges, making the media part of the war itself. During war, principles such as freedom of the press and impartiality are not respected and journalism practice is completely different than it is otherwise. Very often, the news organisation sides with the position of its country during wars. Scholars who have studied press-government relationships have arguably failed to develop criteria and standards that explain the behaviour and practices of media organisations and journalists during wars. Yet it can be underscored that there are no differences in media behaviour during war and crises among different media and political systems. Dictatorships, democracies, developed and developing countries all become similar in using the media, public relations, psychological warfare, propaganda, manipulation, framing, and distortion as an integral part of the war itself.
Politics plays a major role in the media industry which plays a determining role in fabricating news through framing and representation that serve the ideological, political and economic objectives of the ruling power. Framing strategies are used by news media to serve the status-quo and the power elite by shaping public opinion through agenda setting and deciding what appears as news and how it is presented and which aspects of it are highlighted. Framing is a psychological process that does not impose different ideas on people, yet it makes them unconsciously believe and accept what it presents to them as reality.
News media don’t present the truth, but they present what they want people to think of as truth. Framing is inventing reality. It is brainwashing since it does not give the public and the audience a room for thinking, rather, it does all the thinking for them and tells them how they should react and feel about happenings and events. People consciously agree with what is being presented to them because they are psychologically convinced that what they receive is accurate. The framing technique is all about manipulating facts to make them support certain ideologies and certain set of objectives to maintain the status quo and serve the establishment. This is social constructivism which is the construction of ideologies and belief systems and this is how news media’s major purpose is served usually through the process of framing the news. People are constantly exposed to media that is full of biases due to framing techniques. Entrant argues: “Although the schemas and interpretations within the individuals’ minds arise from prior beliefs and interpersonal communication as well as from the media’s words and images, there is no escape from framing”. Framing is extremely used in times of conflicts, crises and wars. The news media because of the stakes and challenges at play have to secure their loyalty to the system by shaping public opinion favourable to what the government sees and views as right. News media constructs a reality that justifies all the decisions made by the decision makers. On the events of 9/11, the news media emphasised that America was a victim and it had to fight terrorism. Monahan asserts: “Several studies found that the initial mainstream media coverage, principally television, evoked a dominant frame that advanced the twin notions of American victimisation and the need for a militaristic hunt for justice”.
As expected, the United States began preparations for its war against Iraq long ago and further escalated its preparations after the events of 9/11 and its declaration of war on terrorism. Its accusations against Iraq ranged from maintaining relations with
Al Qaeda, having ties with Osama bin Laden, possessing weapons of mass destruction, even though United Nations inspection teams operating in Iraq for more than a decade failed to prove the allegations. The US media were not willing to play their watchdog role and failed to question and investigate the war allegations of American officials.
America justified its war on Iraq by claiming to establish democracy in this country and rid it of the “dictator” Saddam Hussein, and thus liberating the Iraqi people from the tyrant. The hidden agenda of the Americans in Iraq, however, had nothing to do with democracy and a lot to do with oil and American vital interests in the region. It can be concluded that in times of wars and crises alliances occur — whether hidden or apparent — between media and power, thus suggesting a search for an alternative to classical communication theories. The alternative that will explain the behaviour and practices of media during wars, conflicts and crises come under the name of “Government Press Coalition Theory”.
Regardless of the owner of the news organisation, and regardless of the political, economic and level of democracy and freedom in society, the institution of media is entirely in line with the government in times of wars, conflicts and crises. This is regardless of whether they are Western democracies, or developing nations, dictatorships or authoritarian regimes.
The news organisation surrenders completely to the ideology of the government in the process of manufacturing, gathering and disseminating the news, in order to fabricate, condition, and shape local and international public opinion in accordance with the interests and objectives of those who rule and govern.
The Peninsula
By Dr Mohamed Kirat
The failure of mass communication theory to explain the practices of news organisations can be noticed during the coverage of wars and crises. Unlike normal circumstances, the coverage of wars and crises faces stakes and challenges, making the media part of the war itself. During war, principles such as freedom of the press and impartiality are not respected and journalism practice is completely different than it is otherwise. Very often, the news organisation sides with the position of its country during wars. Scholars who have studied press-government relationships have arguably failed to develop criteria and standards that explain the behaviour and practices of media organisations and journalists during wars. Yet it can be underscored that there are no differences in media behaviour during war and crises among different media and political systems. Dictatorships, democracies, developed and developing countries all become similar in using the media, public relations, psychological warfare, propaganda, manipulation, framing, and distortion as an integral part of the war itself.
Politics plays a major role in the media industry which plays a determining role in fabricating news through framing and representation that serve the ideological, political and economic objectives of the ruling power. Framing strategies are used by news media to serve the status-quo and the power elite by shaping public opinion through agenda setting and deciding what appears as news and how it is presented and which aspects of it are highlighted. Framing is a psychological process that does not impose different ideas on people, yet it makes them unconsciously believe and accept what it presents to them as reality.
News media don’t present the truth, but they present what they want people to think of as truth. Framing is inventing reality. It is brainwashing since it does not give the public and the audience a room for thinking, rather, it does all the thinking for them and tells them how they should react and feel about happenings and events. People consciously agree with what is being presented to them because they are psychologically convinced that what they receive is accurate. The framing technique is all about manipulating facts to make them support certain ideologies and certain set of objectives to maintain the status quo and serve the establishment. This is social constructivism which is the construction of ideologies and belief systems and this is how news media’s major purpose is served usually through the process of framing the news. People are constantly exposed to media that is full of biases due to framing techniques. Entrant argues: “Although the schemas and interpretations within the individuals’ minds arise from prior beliefs and interpersonal communication as well as from the media’s words and images, there is no escape from framing”. Framing is extremely used in times of conflicts, crises and wars. The news media because of the stakes and challenges at play have to secure their loyalty to the system by shaping public opinion favourable to what the government sees and views as right. News media constructs a reality that justifies all the decisions made by the decision makers. On the events of 9/11, the news media emphasised that America was a victim and it had to fight terrorism. Monahan asserts: “Several studies found that the initial mainstream media coverage, principally television, evoked a dominant frame that advanced the twin notions of American victimisation and the need for a militaristic hunt for justice”.
As expected, the United States began preparations for its war against Iraq long ago and further escalated its preparations after the events of 9/11 and its declaration of war on terrorism. Its accusations against Iraq ranged from maintaining relations with
Al Qaeda, having ties with Osama bin Laden, possessing weapons of mass destruction, even though United Nations inspection teams operating in Iraq for more than a decade failed to prove the allegations. The US media were not willing to play their watchdog role and failed to question and investigate the war allegations of American officials.
America justified its war on Iraq by claiming to establish democracy in this country and rid it of the “dictator” Saddam Hussein, and thus liberating the Iraqi people from the tyrant. The hidden agenda of the Americans in Iraq, however, had nothing to do with democracy and a lot to do with oil and American vital interests in the region. It can be concluded that in times of wars and crises alliances occur — whether hidden or apparent — between media and power, thus suggesting a search for an alternative to classical communication theories. The alternative that will explain the behaviour and practices of media during wars, conflicts and crises come under the name of “Government Press Coalition Theory”.
Regardless of the owner of the news organisation, and regardless of the political, economic and level of democracy and freedom in society, the institution of media is entirely in line with the government in times of wars, conflicts and crises. This is regardless of whether they are Western democracies, or developing nations, dictatorships or authoritarian regimes.
The news organisation surrenders completely to the ideology of the government in the process of manufacturing, gathering and disseminating the news, in order to fabricate, condition, and shape local and international public opinion in accordance with the interests and objectives of those who rule and govern.
The Peninsula
