Many third world and communist countries are known for their censorship in the media, ranging from television, radio, and the newspapers. Even with these shortcomings they still are able to present a side of an issue. The capitalistic world can dominate the networks of the media as well and also provide certain amounts of censorship with only one side of a view. The way the capitalistic world is able to dominate the media is by advertisement. Commercials and advertisements drive and pay for the expenses of the news reporting agency or any other media. A company will not sponsor a television network or a newspaper if their stories and ideas do not reflect that of the sponsor.
For example if a company is owned and operated mostly by Jews, that company may not appreciate a newspaper or a television station to report against them or point out that many mistakes, such as accidental bombings and killings of innocent by standers not only Philistines but Israelis as well, were caused by Jews. If that newspaper or television station reports against Jews or the supporters of Israel they will not be endorsed or sponsored by that Jewish company, and if that newspaper or television station does not receive any support they cannot publish anymore papers or broadcast their newscasts. In both cases important sides of an issue are either addressed or not. The western coverage of the peace negotiations between Arafat and President Clinton by the news media distorts and deletes facts only to ensure that Israel, the United States ally, will benefit. My latest readings of the Seattle Times and one of Tehran’s newspaper dealt with Mr. Arafat’s visit to the United States to speak with President Clinton in the White House about the Mid-East peace process.
The Term Paper on Time Warner Media Company World
Time Warner In 1989, the largest Media Corporation was formed. The integration of Time Inc. and Warner communications produced Time Warner, which in 1996 with the acquisition of Turner broadcasting, regained it's status from Disney as the largest media corporation in the world. The company right now, with over 200 subsidiaries world- wide, is becoming fully global with it's profits from the USA ...
Both papers presented facts and expanded as well on some of those facts. When reading the Seattle Times, the article’s title read, “peace deal with Arafat’, the title its self it’s letting us know that we have to deal with Mr. Arafat, that he must be a hard negotiator. The article discussed how Mr. Arafat did not accept or totally agree with President Clintons peace plan. The Times made it clear that President Clinton’s plan was detailed and accepted by both the United States and the Israelis.
The newspaper on several occasion said that, “Mr. Arafat seemed unwilling to cooperate with the United States and Israel.’ The first question that comes in to mind is why was there not a representative from Israel at the deliberations? How did the United States know what the Israelis exactly want? The answer is that before the peace plan was presented to Arafat, the Israelis first approved of it. Therefore there was no need for the Israelis to come and become involved on a personal level with Arafat. The pre-dealings with Israel also helped make Arafat look like he was the one who slowed down the peace process, even though he had a right to disagree, because the deal was in Israel’s favor rather than being fair to both sides.
The newspaper indeed state that the talks ended without an answer but that Mr. Arafat will try to end the violence. When reading Clinton’s proposal many items seemed vague and unclear. There were three points that were not agreed by Arafat: independent Palestine, control of East Jerusalem, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees. The newspaper tried to persuade that Israel is the innocent one and that all the problems seem to be just with one man.
The Seattle Times did not go into detail about the second and third points, they just said that Arafat did not agree with the terms. The newspaper tries to mask or hide away the real facts that the Arabs or Arafat are trying to create peace. The common belief is still that the Arabs/Palestinians are the ones who are actually retaliating. With these common beliefs in place the moment the issue of Israel and Mid-East peace comes up the opinion and belief always seems to be that, if the Palestinians would just cooperate there would be no problem. Lisa Lowe best describes this problem: “Multiculturism obscures the ways in which that aesthetic representation is not an analogue for the material position, means, or resources of those populations. This not so much a question of posing the figural against the literal or the metaphorical against an essential zed notion of the real as it is a revelation of an un dialectical confusion of historically differentiates spheres’ (pg 507).
The Essay on West Bank Arafat Israel Palestinian
ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER Silvan Shalom on Monday sought to soften Sunday's statement by Vice Premier Ehud Olmert that "killing (Arafat) is... one of the options" under consideration to effect Israel's decision to "remove" the Palestinian leader. "It (killing Arafat) is not the official policy of the Israeli government," Shalom told reporters Monday. "It was never before, and we don't speak about ...
Basically, the confusion or common belief is caused by the lack of knowledge of a particular issue on the part of the persons understanding of the actual issue. They are manipulating their ideological beliefs and making them believe that this what is really happening and masking and distorting other facts… Amazingly enough when reading from one of Tehran’s newspaper, the Hamshahri, the title was: “Discussions between Arafat and Clinton in Washington D. C have ended without a result.’ The use of words in the title was used to inform the readers that a great triumph was done by Arafat for rejecting parts of the deal.
The paper presented many different aspects than the Seattle Times. The article lets the readers know that Arafat rejected the proposed peace deal by Clinton for certain reasons. One reason was that Arafat discussed with many other Arab countries in the region to see if the deal sounded right. The other Arab countries disagreed and that is why Arafat did. Arafat decided to stick with his fellow Arabs and rejected that area of the deal. The newspaper also mentioned the same three reasons as above but in a little bit more detail.
For instance point number three in the Seattle Times did not say the right of return for how many people. Hamshahri let us know that it was for the right of return of 4 million refugees. The paper let us know that the Israeli settlements are in Palestinian territory and that they banished the residents out of the area so they can make the Israeli settlements. The paper also let the readers know that it is not Arafat’s fault for the failed discussion, but that he made an attempt to come and speak with Clinton, while the Israelis did not. Of the two newspapers the Seattle Times seemed to hide the facts, mainly the point that Israel was not present at the talks. In the whole article it did not mention once that Israel was not there.
The Term Paper on Israel Plo Peace Treaty
The Middle East has always been known as the Holy Land, the land of the Bible. For centuries, prophets have walked there, nations have collided and conquerors have come and gone. While Jews claim a three thousand-year-old attachment to this ancient land, Arabs also stake their devotion. In 1993, these two peoples, involved in a tragic conflict that has lasted more than half a century, saw the ...
The paper also did not give any reference as to how many refugees there were and if they would have it would be possible that they would write the number out so it does not stick out and grab attention. According to the Seattle Times editor, numbers are easier to read and comprehend that numbers that are written with words. For example 4, 000, 000 or four million. Which one stands out? Since this was a topic that did not help Israel or make Israel look bad there were not to many details. Reasons can range from the editors and the writers views on the subject and the advertisers views on the subject matter. The Hamshahri on the other hand was more detailed about discussion and statistics, even though the paper is government owned.
Since this was not a great victory for Israel, meaning that Israel would have surrender land, the paper tried its best to make Israel look bad, after all it is government owned. In both situations we the readers, in order to benefit and know the whole truth, it is required that we know both sides to the stories, so we are not brain washed in to believing only one side of an issue. Instead of reading and getting information from one source always try to find one more.
