While the United Sates likes to portray itself as the land of truth and justice and an American way that means equality for all people, the media today does play the role of a democratic society. The media has repeatedly manipulated the audience to believe in them. The media today should be portraying a balanced coverage and should not be privileging one side. Throughout the many years of coverage that the media has provided the world the consistent which have grow to benefit a dominant reading. The media has an unbalanced and unethical approach to the war in Iraq because of the consistent use of government propaganda, jingoism, unjustifiable means and tainting the facts. Australians have been subjected to biased media coverage on the role of the coalition forces in Iraq in recent weeks.
There has been much controversy regards to Australia’s role in the Iraq conflict and the legitimacy of coalition actions, as there are three nations acting rather than the United Nations. Journalist, Janet Albrechtsen, from ‘The Australian (Appendix 1) ‘ writes about the legality of the war in Iraq. The opening sentences of this article sets the editorial’s tone. “This war is legal. This is the law.” Throughout the article, Albrechtsen refers to resolutions and articles to position the readers that what the United States is in the best interests of the people of Iraq and the rest of the world. Missing from this article is the opposing side of the story, the editorial avoids the reality that this war will kill many civilian, destroy vast areas which will impede Iraq society when the war ceases (rebuilding of infrastructures) and signal the loss of many significant historical treasures.
The Essay on Media War Iraq People
In spite of all the freedom, technology, and human rights that some of the countries posses in this new era, the debating on media thought control and media filter is still floating around with some supporters and others opposing this fact. Although the argument by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman was developed quite some time ago, but I believe this argument is still strongly valid at our time. ...
This editorial is nothing other than a vessel of government propaganda. This is proven be the consistency of repeated words such as ‘peace’, ‘justice’ and even the word ‘security’ to position the reader to believe that this war is to provide peace, justice and restore security instead of destruction and harm. As Michael Frank sings, “you can bomb a place to pieces, but you can’t bomb a place to peace.” Maybe the first question that Albrechtsen should be asking is why does America not have to destroy their weapons of mass destruction? This is the rights, the rights of the people. Justifying the war through legal means is unjustifiable, even for the media. “Wow… sounds like we ” re gonna all end up in paradise! !” This quote from a political cartoon published in ‘The Australian’ newspaper (Appendix 2) is a classic example of cheque book journalism in the media.
In this cartoon the media taints the facts so that they can manipulate the reader to believe their side of the story. The cartoonist has strategically placed the text in order to create a double meaning. The first reading, or dominant reading, shows that the young girl has heard what George Bush has said and believes that it will give their country a better and brighter future, or that they will end up in ‘paradise’. The second reading, or alternative reading, shows that the parents have heard what the young girl has said and portray the word paradise as “heaven.” This political cartoon is a satirical look at the propaganda that the coalition forces use to influence the innocent civilians of Iraq. In the ideals of truth and justice everything becomes a game. The media’s jingoistic attitude toward the war in Iraq has been privileged in ‘The Sunday Mail’ (Appendix 3).
With cover stories’ and images that depict nothing other than how America is domination the war, the media provides the readers with a one way artillery barrage. In the article “Firestorm on the horizons of hell,” the overuse of military weapons and the destruction of buildings is used to sensationalism American war tactics. Throughout the article America states repeatedly there advanced weapons and precision aiming fighter jets. The media depicts this war as nothing other than a game.
The Term Paper on Arguments For War In Iraq pros
Arguments for War in Iraq (Pros) Military activity of the United States in Iraq, supported by armed forces of the UK and Spain, was initiated in March 2003, after a number of sanctions and political doctrines from the side of President G.W. Bush. In April 2003 united forces took over Baghdad and appointed a civil administrator Paul Bremer to control Iraq, as former ruler of the country Saddam ...
The media uses jingoism to position readers to believe that the war will be over quickly and will also not kill many civilians. This is an unbalanced approach to the war in Iraq because of the pro war stance that is upheld throughout the article. In the ideals of truth and justice everything should be serious and not a game. Through the media, the idea of “precision bombing” has been sold and resold Australia wide. This internet article ‘When Precision Bombing Isn’t’ (Appendix 4) provides readers with an insight of what has really happened in Iraq. Throughout the article, figures of casualties and civilians have been stated to provide readers with information that the media has not stated.
This article shows the ‘other side of the story’. Precision bombing is not as accurate as told through the media. In many occasions, the bomb has failed to hit its target and has landed in areas where civilians have been killed or injured. One incident is when the United States ‘precision’ air-to-surface missile struck a passenger bus on the Iraq side of the Syrian border.
Five people were killed and ten wounded. Another instance where the military’s weapons failed was when other ‘guided’ weapons have downed ‘allied’ aircrafts and killed ‘friendly’ troops. The media needs to get away from naming the artillery used as ‘precise’ and even ‘surgical’ because, as stated in this article, these ‘guided’ weapons are not as accurate as the media has portrayed them to be. The media needs to step back and start to look at the cold hard facts that lay right in front of them. As quoted from the article “the U. S.
military and media strive, again, to present a vision of combat as bloodless and antiseptic… ” The use of ‘precision bombs’ is not helping the civilians in Iraq nor the readers of the world. The media needs to stop, think, then write both sides of the story, preferably the truth. F/A-18 Super Hornet, Apache helicopters, Tornado GR 4 bombers, F-15 Strike Eagles, F-117 Night Hawk Fighters… sound familiar? This is because the media has plastered these words all through newspapers, television programs and the internet. The media uses these words to manipulate audiences to believe ‘it is in their best interest to go to war’.
The Essay on The Gulf War Iraq Kuwait Iraqi
Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait so as to enhance his power base in the region. Such aggression had to be counted with the full force of the UN led primarily by the USA. The Gulf War was a classic case of good versus evil. Is this an accurate assessment of the Gulf War? The second Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 with an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and ended on March 3, 1991 when Iraq accepted a cease- ...
The war in Iraq has been sensationalized, yet leaving many gaps and silences. When the eyes cannot be there to see and the ears cannot be there to hear, the trust of the people is that the media will give a fair and justifiable coverage. The media has an unbalanced and unethical approach to the war in Iraq because of the consistent use of government propaganda, jingoism, unjustifiable means and tainting the facts. The people of the world have the right to be able to hear the truth, freely. This freedom in precious…
It comes at a cost. It should not be bought, but most times it is. The cost is great. To be bought is a hard task. The truth is always there, yet a lie is always easier to tell. The media abuses the right to know the truth and not tell it.
The media needs to rethink its coverage and stop privileging one side.
