In the wake of this ever-globalizing world, our
conception of mass media’s role within politics, humanitarianism, economics and
the environment is constantly shifting. Many people equate the spread of
information and technology with the spread of democracy, culture and
innovation, but in my research I have settled on a different perspective. In
this paper I propose the premise that Western news coverage does not reflect true
reality and therefore misinforms the public.
There are numerous ways to illustrate my premise,
but I will begin with a few concepts cognitive psychologists use to describe
processes of judgment. As citizens of the West, we are constantly bombarded
with information: ads, texts, articles, memes, tweets, stats and gossip. Even
though we may feel like critical thinkers when it comes to this information, it
is empirically supported that media indeed influences cognition. As is
described in the textbook, Cognitive
Psychology: Applying the Science of the Mind, written by Bridget and
Gregory Robinson-Riegler, the media serves a huge role in encoding based
availability biases, two of which are: the availability heuristic, and the
representative heuristic (463-469). The availability heuristic describes how
“we base our estimates of likelihood or probability [of events], on the ease
with which we can think of examples.” For example, if American news stations,
when covering events in Israel, constantly display stories of Palestinian
jihadists attacking Israeli soldiers and people, while rarely exposing reciprocal
violence, viewers will unconsciously perceive the former as ubiquitous (465). The
second concept is the representative heuristic, “whereby we assess the degree
to which an object represents (is similar to) our basic idea (or stereotype) of
that object”(468). For example, before getting on an airplane we see a darker
man wearing a turban, we may automatically feel in danger. These stereotypes and
perceptions lining our cognitive processes are heavily, yet subtly, influenced
by mass media, generating subconscious misinformation effects.
A quintessential example of the promotion of these
biases can be seen with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as described in the
documentary, Peace, Propoganda and the
Promisedland (Jhally 2004). This documentary unveils the stark contrast in
media coverage over Israel’s occupation in Palestine between the U.S. and other
sources. It claims that executives of United States and Israel have combined forces
to ideologically plant the perception of an ‘innocent Israel’ in the minds of
the American public instead of exposing the egregious (not to mention illegal)
human rights crimes committed against the Palestinian people over the past 30
years. This victimized conception of Israel is maintained through subtle
language, omission of coverage over Palestinian tragedies, and intimidating journalists
who challenge these views. The documentary explains how real events travel
through institutional filters before reaching the public; these filters being: corporate
interest, political elites, Israeli public relations efforts, and watchdog
groups who harass journalists or editors to make ‘objective’ (aka pro-Israel)
claims in their reporting (Jhally 2004). At the heart of this issue lies the
question, who benefits from this skewed presentation of information? It is
obvious that political and economic heavyweights are misinforming the public to
abuse influence over the media to promote ulterior motives (oil, weapons) in
the Middle East.
The
misperception over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict reflects Edward Said’s
ideas with a concept he coined, “Orientalism”(Jhally 1998). In reality Israel
is a Judeo-Christian state in the middle of an Arab world, and in vouching for
Israel, the United States is vouching for ‘the west’ with the goal of
demonizing ‘the east’ to justify questionable actions against Arabs, against
Islam. In Said’s words, “Anti-Arab statements are almost officially sanctioned”(Jhally
1998). He believes the Western lens maintained by mass media distorts our
understanding of the Arab world to make it appear threatening, mysterious and synonymous
with terrorism. Said claims that there is no investigative reporting, only
repetition of government incentives; as a result of this skewed use of media,
the democratic majority, who is confident they are receiving unbiased
information, is being subliminally coerced into aligning ideologically against
the Arab world (Jhally 1998).
In reality, the Arab world is comprised of a
myriad of different cultures, ideologies and forms of religious adherence. As
Randy Culver describes in his article, Globalization,
Informatization and Communication, there is a tendency to equate “culture”
[and religion] with “nation [or region]”(431), instead of recognizing the
diversity within each nation. Media plays a key role in perpetuating these
misinformed, pejorative perceptions.
The concept of
Orientalism illustrates how mass media subverts intercultural understanding. Culture
is the lifeblood of a society. In ancient times, culture was transmitted through
oral tradition; in today’s world, culture is predominantly transmitted through
mass media, particularly in developed countries. This transmission occurs not
only reciprocally and generationally, but trans-nationally. In her chapter, Communication and Culture, Christine Ogan
articulates her ideas on cultural imperialism. She believes the United States
(the West) imposes their ideals on the rest of the world as a covert expression
of power (211-215).
It is a clear
fact that the United States dominates global media in all sectors, and the flow
of information is unilateral (Ogan 2002, Kulver). Media is supposed to promote democracy, but there is nothing
democratic about the spread of information. In the
words of William Hachten and James Scotton in their chapter, The Whole World is Watching: Impact of Great
News Events, “America’s local news has…become the world’s local news” (78).
Basically, Western media informs the globalizing world who and what is worth
covering. America, with all its technological and monetary resources commands
immeasurable influence on global perception of events. It is also no
coincidence that the United States represents the ideal for multinational
capitalism. It seems nowadays, this transmission, or rather inculcation of
culture unto less developed countries is truly an agenda aimed at integrating
every country into the ‘American Dream.’ In Ogan’s words,
“The focus on economic
development— generally under the umbrella of multinational capitalism—becomes
the guideline for every autonomous system, and economic interdependence
becomes the key to survival in the global system, while the strategies for
preserving important elements of the cultures of the
societies around the world have received much less attention”(213).
It is ironic,
that a country founded on ideals of individual liberty and diversity is now
imposing the very pressure our founding fathers sought to escape. Even more
ironic is the fact that we urge developing countries to join our ‘capitalist
program,’ with the hidden intention to maintain a monopoly, the antithesis of
capitalist dogma. I believe the government and mega-corporations, while paying
lip service to development, truly don’t want the 2/3rds world to
develop for the better.This is also made evident in the New York Times article,
U.S. Stands Alone on UNESCO Cultural
Issue, which describes the refusal of the Bush administration to sign a
treaty that would “protect and promote cultural diversity in the face of
cultural globalization” (Riding 2005). Clearly, cultural hegemonic discourse is
not compatible with promoting an informed public.
Despite the overwhelming evidence
aforementioned, some individuals view the role of media in a better light. Someone
who opposes my premise may
claim, as Christine Ogan does, “that objectivity in journalism is
impossible”(8-9); or they may agree with Randy Kulver, in that “media forms themselves are not passive entities,”(431) but rather a
voice for a particular perspective. They could mention, as is described in William Hatchen and James Scotton’s chapter, Public Diplomacy and Propaganda, that each
person can tune into their own version of the world with the flick of a knob,
change of a channel, or flip of a page (208). Their conclusion may lead them to
believe that what we have is not a function of misinformation, but a matter of
volition.
As consumers of media we do have
the choice to critically think about the information we receive, how we receive
it, from whom and whether or not we agree. As is stated in our constitution,
the right to information is synonymous with freedom of expression. Mass media should facilitate a global
dialogue to better inform all people.
It could be vehicle for cultural expression, promoting diversity and
democracy. The slanted nuances of language in media may not an imposition of
western ideals upon the world, but a promotion of a developmental ideal.
Another
point could be made that the United States’ media, although fallible like every
product of human creation, is the best current framework for providing
information to the public. One could say that many other countries deny their
citizens access to information altogether; even though we may have to seek a
second source, at least we have the freedom to do so.
While these
claims do present valid points, they fail to view the issue in context. The
real question behind this debate is, whose responsibility is it that the public
is exposed to balanced viewpoints in media? As is described in the UNESCO
report, Towards Knowledge Societies,
access to information, technology and communication is essential for the development
of any community (27-30). There is no doubt that access to fair, pluralistic,
unbiased media can be an amazing source of empowerment, but the evidence shows
the system of globalization is rigged towards the benefit of those in control. As a
result of a manipulating cognitive biases, imposing cultural imperialism,
widening the digital (and economic) divide, and ensuring the flow of
information is unilateral, the Western majority remains misinformed about
international realities.
Works Cited
Bridget and Gregory Robinson Riegler. Cognitive Psychology: Applying the Science
of the Mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon 3rd Ed, 2012. Print.
Hachten,William and James Scotton. “Public
Diplomacy and Propoganda.” The World News
Prism: Challenges of International Communication 8th ed. Whiley-Blackwell.
206-223. Print.
Hachten, William and James Scotton. “The Whole
World is Watching: Impact of Great News Events.” The World News Prism:
Challenges of International Communication 8th ed. Whiley-Blackwell.
77-92. Print.
Jhally, Sut, dir. On Orientalism: Edward Said. Media Education Foundation Production,
1998. Web. 17 Oct. 2012.
Jhally, Sut, dir. Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land:U.S. Media & the
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bathsheba Ratzkoff.
Media Education Foundation Production, 2004. Media Education Foundation Production. Web. 17 Oct. 2012.
Kulver, Randy. “Globalization, Informatization and
Intercultural Communication” Colonialization
and Globalization. 425-437. Print. S
Ogan, Christine. “Communication and Culture.” Global
Communication. Ed. Yahya r.
Kamalipour. Purdue University Calumet: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2002.
207-228. Print.
Riding, Alan. “U.S. Stands Alone On UNESCO
Cultural Issue.” New York Times. 13
October 2005, E:4. Print.
Towards
Knowledge Societies. Paris:
UNESCO. 27-30. 2005.
