This
was found circulating on the Internet. It offers an interesting alternative
view on the tragic events of September 11 and how the mainstream media plays a
paramount role ... We hope that our readers find this article interesting.
Martin Stone (Contributing Editor). martinstone@montrealtribune.com
===============================================
Oedipus In Manhattan
The Blind Report To The Blind
By Susan J. Douglas
Lucky for me, I
have smart friends. As several of us were mourning and trying to make
sense of the catastrophe of September 11 on the following Sunday, Carroll
Smith-Rosenberg, the feminist historian, said, "It's really like a Greek
tragedy, isn't it?"
We had been talking about aspects of the disaster rarely, if ever, mentioned
on the news channels: the role of American hubris, Americans' ignorance of why
we are so hated in other parts of the world, and the media's role in
perpetuating that blindness about our government's often brutal actions and
their tragic repercussions. So Carroll thought of Sophocles and, in the
process, offered a powerful framework, barely whispered elsewhere, for
thinking about how our blindered media have in turn helped blind the country.
But unlike Oedipus, who gouged his own eyes out in self-punishment for his
crimes, our dimness, inflicted by the media, may be the source, not the
result, of tragic consequences.
Left-liberal critics have been warning for years about the threats to
democracy posed by media mergers that concentrate the control over television,
movies and print media into fewer and fewer
conservative hands. In addition to severely delimiting the range of
political discourse on television (try to find the progressive equivalent of
The McLaughlin Group, Meet the Press or Fox News) they
emphasize entertainment that they hope will garner ratings, quality fare like
Temptation Island and Survivor. The assumption is that many Americans
are not interested in foreign affairs (which is true enough, but a
self-fulfilling prophecy), so why waste time and money on international news
when you've got Gary Condit right here at home?
Thus the networks have, over the years, shut down foreign bureaus, cut back
coverage and exasperated many decent journalists who feel it's madness for
Americans to be so willfully ignorant about
everything except the Madonna tour. The shutting down of foreign
bureaus has also reinforced ethnocentrism and institutional racism at the
networks—sure, you'd still have a bureau in London, but why have one in
Africa? Stories about foreign affairs, and especially stories about the
consequences of U.S. policy, have been deemed unprofitable and irrelevant.
As a result, how many Americans know about the deadly consequences of U.S.
economic sanctions that have been in place against Iraq since August 1990?
How frequently have the networks told viewers that medicines and materials for
water purification are included in these sanctions? Various
international agencies estimate that more than 1 million people have died as a
result of the sanctions, more than 600,000 of them children. The leading
cause of death of
children under five in Iraq is dehydration caused by diarrhea, with
malnutrition and pneumonia running closely behind.
But the networks have looked the other way, allowing Americans to bask in the
myth that we are a good and decent people led by a good and decent government.
Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli crisis has been equally superficial.
Most Americans know that the United States "supports" Israel.
Do they also know that bombs and missiles that kill Palestinians are often
U.S.-made? It is utterly forbidden in the newly patriotic, flag-lapeled
news media to even explore how U.S. policy may have gotten us to this tragic
pass in the road.
Journalists could actually be quite clear here: Nothing justifies these
horrific attacks, but we ignore anti-American hatred at our peril. Of
course, as we hear the phrase "wake-up call" ad nauseum,
we would like to think this catastrophe might be a wake-up call to the news
media, too, reminding them of the importance of coverage—and not just from
government sources—of international
affairs in this era of globalization. One would like to think that as a
global power we can no longer sit here, admiring our reflections in the
mirror, while actions done in our name immiserate
millions.
But I have bad news. Two days after the attacks, when the media gaze was
naturally elsewhere, the FCC, under Colin Powell's son Michael, took advantage
of the cover provided and initiated
proceedings to further solidify oligopoly control of the media. (For those of
you who haven't been following Michael Powell, he intends to do everything in
his power to shred the few pathetic
remains of media regulation.) First, the FCC (under Rupert Murdoch's
directive) is seeking to eliminate the rule that prohibits an entity from
owning a daily newspaper and a broadcast outlet in the same market. In
asking for comments on the proposed changes, the FCC suggested that the
Internet provides new diversity, so why not let someone own both a paper and a
TV station in the same town? It wondered, disingenuously, whether
"the rule continues to be necessary to protect a diversity of
viewpoints."
The very same day, the FCC announced that it would also review previously
established limits on the vertical and horizontal integration of cable
companies and the limits on how many subscribers a cable operator can serve.
Now I ask you, what kind of a sleazy, craven opportunist chooses this moment,
with the entire nation in shock and grief, to slip through the initial stages
of two
huge corporate giveaways?
With the help of the FCC, the media conglomerates have forced their news
divisions to make large profits, which in turn has prompted bureau closings,
staff cuts, the virtual elimination of
documentaries and investigative reporting, and verbal food-fights passing for
political discourse. Murdoch, who brings us right-wing propaganda under
the guise of reporting on Fox News, may soon be able to bring us even more
helpful commentary such as this offered by Bill O'Reilly about Afghanistan:
"The Afghans are responsible for the Taliban. We should not target
civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government,
they starve, period."
This is typical of what now passes for analysis of Middle East affairs.
Recommended homework assignment for O'Reilly: Watch the courageous documentary
Beyond the Veil reported by Saira Shah and aired on CNN, which gruesomely
documents what happens to people who defy the Taliban. For several years
feminists have circulated information and petitions about the inhumane
repression of women under the Taliban. But who cared? They were
only poor Muslim
women. Beyond the Veil has only aired twice, once at 11 p.m. on a
Saturday night, when it should be pre-empting everything from The Weakest Link
to Entertainment Tonight. This documentary does, of course, support in
many ways the administration's attacks on the Taliban. But it also shows
the enormous devastation already suffered by the civilian population and is a
powerful argument against the "bomb them back to rubble" and
"collateral damage" talk so favored by O'Reilly and friends.
But let's return to the FCC's speculation about the Internet now
relieving the government's obligation to preserve diversity in media
"markets." On the Net are accounts of anti-war demonstrations around
the country, anti-war petitions, media criticism pieces by
left-liberal writers, and pleas for moderation and understanding from
relatives of the victims, Afghani-Americans and international journalists.
We hear none of these voices on television, see no coverage of the
demonstrations, no evidence at all that there are millions of us, despite what
the polls say, opposed to air strikes, the killing of civilians, the
perpetuation of the cycle of violence.
We move between the cyber-world of peace and reconciliation, and the TV world
of war and vengeance. The Internet gives us a way to communicate with
each other that we didn't have before, but it also allows our hopes and fears
to be marginalized, stuck in a realm where we all talk to each other,
reiterating calls and responses within our own Greek chorus.
So here is our nation blinded, like Oedipus, reassured by our media
that hubris has no consequences, completely unable to see that character is
fate. It has been, at times, a crucial part of our national character to
have a free, active and critical press. When that is suppressed, it may
shape our relations with the rest of the world in deeply destructive ways.
In a sane world, the news media would do all it could in this time of
ignorance, hatred and insecurity to help the scales fall away from our eyes.
But my friend Carroll is right. The mainstream media are simply driving
the stakes further into our eyes.
