The PR of Terror

In this week's reserve reading, Tamar Liebes and Zohar Kampf explore the changing nature of media coverage on terrorism following the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington D.C. They argue that the media has essentially made celebrities of terrorists by shifting their coverage from the victims to the attackers.
CNN broadcasting an interview with Osama bin Laden was quoted by CBS News president Andrew Heyward as being comparable to "interviewing Adolf Hitler or Emperor Hirohito." Heyward must have forgotten that in 1938 Hitler was named Time Magazine's "Man of the Year." And why are our enemies always compared to Hitler? First Osama, then Saddam, Kim Jong Il. Admittedly not nice guys. But I don't think any of them can hold a candle to Hitler. Or are the incessant WWII references simply intented to draw a parallel between this war and the last just war fought by this country?
The main reason for the shift in coverage is the motive. Showing the effect terrorism has on the victims elicits feelings of sympathy and sadness from the audience. Showing the terrorist makes people feel scared. Is it just a coincidence that everytime a new bin Laden tape comes out, President Bush's poll numbers go up? I don't think so. He's just reminding people to be afraid. Keep the polulace afraid and they will do or believe anything. How else can you explain the outrageous claim that Saddam was going to unleash chamical weapons over major cities by means of UAVs? His military wouldn't have been able to hit Tel Aviv, much less New York. But people were willing to believe anything because they were scared.
James Madison said, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." Osama bin Laden is the modern incarnation of 1984's Emmanuel Goldstein. The "5 minute hate" begins whenever his latest tape is broadcast on CNN. Wasn't he our guy in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation? Oh, I must be mistaken. I forgot that Oceania was always at war with Eastasia.

Online Reporting of the Iraq War

The reserve reading for this week highlighted the dramatic spike in the number people going online to get their news about the situation in Iraq. Allen noted several reasons for this, including the immediacy of information, the chance to be exposed to a wider range of opinions, and the ability to comment on what was read. The relatively recent advent of broadband internet service, which gives individuals the ability to watch live streaming video, was also cited as a reason for this rise.
The vast majority of Americans get their news from television. It's difficult for CNN or MSNBC to give in-depth coverage of a story that has to be presented in 30 second clips for an American populace with an attention span the size of a pea. Rather than report on the entire length and breadth of an issue, only a brief overview can be given which results in the illusion of an informed citizenry, who in truth merely get headlines without any understanding of the context or nuance of a story. With an event as controversial as the Iraq War, many felt that they needed more than just headlines, especially if one of their loved ones was in the service. So they went online to expand their understanding of the situation.
While the news channels do ultimately inform, albeit minimally, it is often forgotten that their primary goal is to make money for the parent company. Unpopular or controversial stories and opinions are often avoided in favor of "safe" stories or pop culture crap that will keep the audience tuned in. CNN is perceived as having a liberal bent, FOX is conservative, and MSNBC just sucks. But despite small differences in the spin of a story (ie. "NSA domestic spying" vs. "terrorist surveillance program") all of the channels say pretty much the same thing. And when they do have a "debate" on a controversial issue, it's always a matchup like, "Today we have former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger here to talk about why the government is telling the truth about Iran vs. Some cock-eyed intern with a lisp to give the tin-foil hat conspiracy theory about a vast right-wing cabal bent on world domination." It's never an honest and open debate, and it become readily obvious that the news media as a whole are pushing a certain viewpoint and ideology.
In order to be exposed to differing viewpoints is one of the main reasons people go online for their news. During the run-up to the Iraq War, television news didn't bother to do any investigative reporting. If Bush said that Saddam had WMDs, it was taken as fact. Uranium from Niger, fact. Saddam hiding under your bed waiting to get you when you fell asleep, fact. (ok, so I made that last one up) My point is, TV news reported all of this as fact, and in the end it all was fiction. All the networks were apparently duped by a guy who says "nookular." I think trust waned for TV journalism. People wanted to know what was really happening. So they went online in order to get a broader perspective on the issues.

Cooler than a Polar Bear's Toenails

In class on Monday, we watched part of the Frontline documentary The Merchants of Cool. The film focused on what corporations have to do to keep up with ever-changing youth trends. Or, in the case of Sprite, become part of the trend itself. What amazed me most was the hyper-conglomeration of the market. Huge conglomerates like Disney and Viacom own 4 of the 5 companies that sell 90% of the music in this country...Honestly, I just don't care this week. Usually giant corporate conspiracies are right up my alley, but I'm trying to get my seminar paper done, and this just isn't on my radar right now. Yeah, so 5 companies own everything. We already know that. They have focus groups to find out what we want so that they can sell us something they already have prepackaged, but tell us it's actually what we want. The trendsetters don't care what's on MTV or what jeans are "so cool" right now. Do you think that kid in the gas mask gives a shit what Rupert Murdoch tells him is cool? Of course not. As soon as the marketing departments of these huge companies latch on to something and make it cool, it's not cool anymore. The gas mask kid will be on to something else. The media sells caricatures like the "midriff" and the goofy white guy, and the ghetto black kid, and people buy it. They believe that's how they're supposed to dress and act. You can't be cool unless you have the Ecko jeans and the Phat Farm hoodie, and some Lugz. Individuality through mass consumption--what kind of crazy shit is that? Whatever. Be yourself. Fuck what they say. That's what I say. Focker, out.