Want to be an effective propaganda machine? There’s always the Big Lie. Blasting the audience with a repetition of a falsehood while eliminating or drowning out the truth will work, as was ably shown by Nazi Germany. There are alternative, more subtle means, though.
One possible way is to pass yourself off as a legitimate news agency and then tweak the stories. Ah, the devil is always in the details.
For your examination, I present al-Jazeera.
Now, I’m not normally an al-Jazeera reader. Mrs. Greyhawk led me down this path in her latest Dawn Patrol post. In the link, al-Jazeera trumpets that the American media is turning against American efforts in Iraq.
American media no longer accept Bushs war lies [sic]
In the story, al-Jazeera lists a collection of American newspaper stories published on or near Memorial Day that decried the current situation in Iraq. Mostly, the article is accurate in its painting of the stories. However, a couple of subtle touches jumped out at me.
The piece pointed to a column from June 2 by Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune. The original text reads as follows:
The dilemma the U.S. faces in fighting the insurgents is that military methods are not enough to solve the problem and may make it worse. If the movement is a reaction to the U.S. military presence, keeping American troops in Iraq amounts to fighting a fire with kerosene.
The al-Jazeera plays with it slightly:
“The dilemma the U.S. faces in fighting the (anti-occupation fighters) is that military methods are not enough to solve the problem and may make it worse. If the movement is a reaction to the U.S. military presence, keeping American troops in Iraq amounts to fighting a fire with kerosene. …
The edit there is obvious in comparison — “anti-occupation fighters” has been substituted for “insurgents” by al-Jazeera. Is this a minor detail? No, when one considers how al-Jazeera defines anti-occupation fighters. As this al-Jazeera poll page shows, the terrorist group Hezbollah is also classified as an anti-occupation movement. Yes, the same Hezbollah that supports the occupation of Lebanon by Syria and bloodily opposes the occupation of Israel by, well, Israel.
At least that change used a parenthetical notation to demonstrate an al-Jazeera edit. Now, for a more subtle tweak.
We then turn to what al-Jazeera introduces as “the most powerful denunciation … from an unlikely source.” That is how a June 1 piece by the editorial board of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is, admittedly fairly accurately, framed. The original opens with the following:
President Bush was among the 260,000 graves at Arlington National Cemetery when he said it. But it was clear Monday that the president was referring to the more than 1,650 Americans killed to date in Iraq when he said, “We must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives; by defeating the terrorists.”
Here is the supposed same piece from al-Jazeera:
“President Bush was among the 260,000 graves at Arlington National Cemetery when he said it. But it was clear Monday that the president was referring to the more than 1,650 Americans killed to date in Iraq when he said, ‘We must honour them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives; by defeating the “terrorists”.’
Note the difference? Without any journalistic acknowledgment of the edit, al-Jazeera inserted quote marks around the word “terrorists.” The reader is left to believe one of two things — either the original piece included the doubting quote marks or President Bush held up his two hands and gave the internationally-annoying insert-quote-marks hand gesture while speaking. The latter being obviously unlikey, al-Jazeera has managed to add even greater spin to the original piece.
I have utter faith in the ability of our mainstream media to grab hold of defeat from the jaws of victory and hold onto it tenaciously, given the opportunity. They’ve managed it before. If they are willing to let an opposing propaganda machine use them yet again, then that is one thing, disgusting though it may be. If they are willing to let the enemy play them in violation of the media’s own standards of journalism, well, then that is another. That is a media betraying its own country’s military efforts, their own progeny’s security and their very own professional integrity. What does that leave, people?
Nothing but a mindset.
My guess — the “American” mainstream media will continue to let such issues slide, and the al-Jazeera propaganda machine, which could be answered globally by an integrated effort, will continue to roll on and be painted as a “legitimate” alternative media source. Sometimes, really all too often, my life-long love of journalism is sickened by the modern state of the craft.
Comments
3 responses to “The Subtle Tricks of al Jazeera”
Our liberal media can’t quite figure out al-Jazeera. They love the 24 hour Bush bashing and Anti-America rhetoric that al-Jazeera puts out. PEDA even tried to advertise on al-Jazeera not realizing that al-Jazeera does not want our money and does not care about what PEDA, or any other American has to say.
I will say this much for al-Jazeera, I admire there tenacity and stick-to-it-ness. As far as America is concerned, al-Jazeera’s stance is stubbornly unwavering. Now if our own liberals could be that definitive.
Those are two pretty common changes in the international media, but what is worse is when American columnists do the same thing and refer to the “so-called war on terror.” The difference between the NYT and Al Jazeera gets harder to tell daily. In fact, I am willing to wager that if I send you the text of NYT article and an article from Al Jazeera, or any other terrorist sympathiser paper, you wouldn’t know who wrote which. Care to take me up on that Gunner?
Chad, I’ll pass on the challenge. As I thought about it, however, I must say it was tempting — kind of a “Pepsi Challenge” of the mainstream media. It’s an interesting notion, moreso than I initially thought, and one I may have to return to some time.