OPINION & EDITORIAL
Media coverage favors U.S. interests
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- Irrational fears fuel crime focus (March 26, 2008)
- Revolution deep in the hearts, minds of Americans (March 12, 2008)
- Obama's corporate crush (March 5, 2008)
- Every human deserves humanity (February 27, 2008)
Related Stories:
- United States should follow China's diplomatic example (March 1, 2007)
- U.S. media places higher value on Americans' lives than foreigners' (February 22, 2006)
- America, treat Russia with some respect (December 5, 2007)
- The myth of the liberal media (September 29, 2003)
- U.S. terrorism rampant in Middle East (October 18, 2007)
by Kyle Szarzynski
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The American media — like its Russian and Chinese counterparts — carry the notion that its government, even when mistaken, operates as an inherently altruistic entity. The United States is always assumed to be using its massive power for the international good, even when the outcome is something as bloody and brutal as the occupation of Iraq. The typical liberal reporter will posit: “I may object to the mishandling of the war, but not for a second do I doubt we are trying to improve the situation for these Iraqis. I mean, we overthrew Saddam, and he was a real bastard!”a
Of course, this is utter nonsense — just ask the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi public what they think of the occupation. (Here’s a hint: A Washington Post poll showed that 82 percent oppose the presence of the U.S. military in their country.) Saddam has always been a bastard, but he was our bastard throughout the 1980s, receiving billions in military aid even as he gassed the very Kurds who are now supposedly so precious to the Bush administration. Not only does the media refuse to challenge the stated rationale for any U.S. foreign policy decision, but even worse, they serve as a propaganda organ for even the most hypocritical and abusive of government behavior.
Take the tendentious and selective coverage of victims of human rights abuses. The most recent wave of repression in Tibet has been given more than generous coverage by all the major networks, exposing Communist brutality in all its sordid details. High school students are being shot, Buddhist monks imprisoned, demonstrations violently dispersed; thanks to The New York Times and Fox News, these and other atrocities are now in the popular consciousness of America. The cause of a free Tibet — a just one, to be sure — has become America’s cause.
And it has been for some time. The fact that everyone is aware of the plight of the Tibetan people is quite remarkable; Americans aren’t exactly known for a scholarly knowledge of international affairs. This is a testament to the consistent intensity of the media’s condemnation of China’s ongoing cultural genocide in a territory it unjustly occupies.
Contrast this with the situation in Palestine. The 41-year-old military occupation of the West Bank, destruction of Palestinian civil society, expropriation of natural resources and ongoing growth of settlements, is barely acknowledged by mainstream news sources, let alone condemned for the viscous colonialism the policies constitute. The codified oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories has garnered almost universal charges of “apartheid,” with the exception of the United States. It is an accusation endorsed by both Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu (actually, the latter contends the word “apartheid” doesn’t go far enough). Even the very term rarely — if ever — makes its way onto CNN.
As the late scholar Edward Said exposed in his much-celebrated publication “Orientalism,” the popular media does a stellar job in “highly exaggerated stereotyping and belligerent hostility” in portraying Arabs — Palestinians in particular. If Americans are conditioned to view Arabs as red-eyed, bearded, terrorist fanatics — even as Israel’s own religious fanaticism and more entrenched racism rampage unchecked by Brian Williams — popular support for Israel suddenly becomes explicable.
How are we to account for the wildly disparate coverage of two comparable situations? It’s really quite simple: The news corporations exist to serve power. Thus, the victims of an American enemy (China) are valued enough to be lavished with front-page sympathy, while those of an American client-state (Israel) are relegated to obscurity or even demonization.
Both depictions justify U.S. policy, which includes annually heaping billions onto the Israeli military and heaping billions more onto our own forces of aggression to check Chinese ambition. Both bolster the U.S. image as a reluctant superpower forced to engage in world affairs only to tame the ever-riotous forces of malevolence.
Similarly, Americans never hear of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe and his violent subjugation of trade unionism and other dissident movements. Why? Because he acts with the unwitting yet munificent support of the American taxpayer as a pro-American stabilizing force in a region rocked by socialist populism.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s execution of the occasional journalist is common knowledge to anyone who subjects himself or herself to the nightly news. Why? Precisely because Mr. Putin rivals American power.
The Kurds were sidelined during the 1980s; after the Gulf War they became a vulnerable people, courageous in their fight against an ostentatious despot. The women of Afghanistan were forgotten when the mujahedeen were at war with the Soviets; after Sept. 11 they became the “cause celebre” of both CNN and the Bush administration.
The subservience of the media may keep Americans ignorant of many crucial international happenings, but the notion of a complacent press has certainly penetrated the popular consciousness. I am reminded of Stephen Colbert’s courageous and humorous speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, when he sardonically lauded the press for ignoring important issues: “We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out.” I agree with the latter half of that statement.
Kyle Szarzynski (kszarzynski@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 1:52am):
Kyle justifiably criticizes Israel, directly or indirectly. Ignorant responses unjustifiably bash Kyle, always directly. That's what always happens.
This time, let's see if we can focus on what Kyle's overall message is.
My guess is that will not happen.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 4:30am):
But you must admit, his smug sense of constantly attacking an international issue -- as a campus press editorial staff member -- raises questions about the futile nature of liberalism in general.
Your column sucked today.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 4:40am):
jesus christ, you cannot write without mentioning israel.
kyle. i know you read this. PLEASE write ONE article without mentioning israel/palestine/WHATEVER YOU CALL IT. PLEASE! stop discrediting yourself by being so singleminded. we are over it.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 5:03am):
"Kyle justifiably criticizes Israel, directly or indirectly...let's see if we can focus on what Kyle's overall message is."
1:52, I think we should focus on criticizing you for a second. Your attempt at steering the direction of these responses is absolutely hypocritical. While this argument does criticize Israel, that is not "Kyle's overall message." This article speaks to the coverage of US-media and how it tends to portray events in the same light that the US government wants it to be portrayed. Please, when attempting to take the high road, also take a road that makes some sense.
As to the article, there are valid points, but the comparison between Israel and China is infantile. While I agree with you about the injustices caused by the Israelis and Americans support of them, the differing histories behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Chinese-Tibetan conflict are too big to merit comparison.
My overall problem with your ideology, Kyle, is that you lack a fundamental understanding of international politics. You chastise the US government for not actually wanting to help the world and condemn it for ignoring the problems that countries we support face. You need to understand the political reality and strategic importance of having international allies. While I agree that the US does ignore problems with governments in nations such as Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, etc., the US needs these allies to mantain its power. And while you refuse to believe it, and you of course have that right, America does have a (relatively) benevolent international agenda. If it takes looking over our shoulder a little bit to maintain our power (in place of say the Russians holding on to complete international influence), it is a good thing. I understand and sympathize with some of your thoughts and criticisms of Democracy but as Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government...except all the others."
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 6:41am):
Although 82% of Iraqis don't like the American military presence in the first place, a majority of Iraqis oppose an Obama-style immediate withdrawal from their sovereign nation.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 9:57am):
"raises questions about the futile nature of liberalism in general."
I would agree with you that liberalism has been shooting itself in the foot for the past several decades. HOWEVER, to call Kyle "liberal" is devoid of any understanding of ideology or politics, and is merely an extension of irrational red scare and cold war thinking. Socialism is fundamentally different from liberalism, rather than just a "more liberal" extension from the Democratic Party. It's like saying that fascism is merely an extension of conservatism.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 10:36am):
Use a little historical relativism when denigrating the morality of American foreign policy. It is easy to dismiss it as terrible by looking at who we choose to support and what they may be doing but you need to understand that the ends sometimes really do justify means and that this has real world implications.
In the past, world hegemonies have used their power to capture, enslave, overtake, and kill others. I know your answer will be that we use our hegemonic influence to economically rape smaller nations, but we do so in such a way that does take the "others" into account. That is unprecedented in world history.
Just understand that there are many, many people out there still with Hitler-like ambitions (although I can understand why someone growing up in post-Cold War America might not empathize) who want world power for powers sake. That is not America. America, serves, through her foreign policy, to do anything it can to maintain its power so that those who want to achieve world domination and suppress others in doing so, cannot. The lessons of WWII are not past us and American hegemony and foreign policy (although certainly lacking, recently, in ANY sort of strategic intelligence) does not lack as much in morality as it may seem and that your portray.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 11:03am):
There were probably some good media outlets in Venezuela until your boy Chavez shut them down Kyle.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 11:58am):
I predict a minimum of 25 comments attacking Kyle for daring to mention to Israel even though it is only a piece of evidence supporting his argument and not the argument itself.
As usual well written and well argued. Not that the substance of it will be addressed in the comments.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 11:59am):
So you think that the Palis will make peace with the "monkeys and pigs" they claim should all be killed?
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 12:11pm):
China's repression of the Tibetans provokes Kyle to write an article which focuses on ...Israel. You can be sure that if the Tibetans were dedicated to the destruction of Israel and were launching rockets into Israeli cities and bombing pizza parlors and school buses, Kyle would be love in with the Tibetans.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 12:22pm):
no..really kyle..tell us how you REALLY feel about israel.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 1:54pm):
"the comparison between Israel and China is infantile."
Right. The most obvious problem with this comparison is that China subjugates its people under a totalitarian government, whereas Israel largely repects rights and freedom.
A more apt comparison is China and Palistine, but even that is not accurate because the theocratic despots of the Middle east are far more oppressive (Hamas, Fatah, Hezbolla, Iran, etc.) than China currently is.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 1:56pm):
The Pali's prophet says: "The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: 'Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'
***
Does not sounds like a religion of peace to me.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 3:43pm):
"As usual well written and well argued. Not that the substance of it will be addressed in the comments."
God this is such a typical idiotic response to a well written article by Kyle. First off, YOUR comment is not addressing the substance. Second, few put forth that Kyle's pieces arent well written or well argued, they are. The problem is not how it is argued, but the argument in itself. Third, Kyle did not "dare to mention Israel," he purposefully put in 3 full paragraphs about Israel because he knows its a sensitive topic and that it will attract attention. Kyle is smart about this and succesful, his articles always have the most amount of comment activity. Kyle is a good publicist, he understands that by attacking a sensitive issue over and over more attention will be brought to his cause and ideology. Unfortunately he tries too hard to fit Israel in to his pieces and the result is what is in todays paper.
So that is my theory why Kyle so often mentions Israel. Of course the real reason is that he probably recently took a class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and feels like an expert now...
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 3:47pm):
"I know your answer will be that we use our hegemonic influence to economically rape smaller nations, but we do so in such a way that does take the "others" into account."
Say what? On the contrary. Free trade is NOT rape. Also, the idea the America is hegemonic is bizarre. Look at Iraq, where we allow Islamic theocrats to be voted into office - the very ideology we are at war with - and in Palistine where we give money for "humanitarian" purposes which props up the terrorist organizations and gives moral legitimacy to these groups and people who voted them in. And Iran, where we continue to do nothing about their support and killing of U.S. troops in Iraq, and killing in Palistine, Lebanon, etc.
Hegemony? Where?
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 6:20pm):
How can you attack this "substance." This is a garbage article, by a garbage writer. Go read a book you arrogant hippie.
Anonymous (April 2, 2008 @ 9:26pm):
I haven't liked Kyle since he stated that he was rooting for me to be killed in Iraq.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
