As per our post yesterday about the role of the media when covering asymmetric conflicts between democracies and terror organizations we’d like to highlight some recent research and reporting on these issues, namely, the recent report, The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media As A Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict by Marvin Kalb, Senior Fellow, Shorenstein Center, and Carol Saivetz, at Harvard University. Here’s the abstract:

“Based on content analysis of global media and interviews with many diplomats and journalists, this paper describes the trajectory of the media from objective observer to fiery advocate, becoming in fact a weapon of modern warfare. The paper also shows how an open society, Israel, is victimized by its own openness and how a closed sect, Hezbollah, can retain almost total control of the daily message of journalism and propaganda.” Full Report here.

This is not only an Israeli/Arab conflict issue. As the US led global War on Terror has illustrated over the last 6 years, many democratic countries are confronted by these same issues. Terror groups are able to set the media agenda by perpetrating spectacular acts of terrorism which play well for TV, as well as post their gruesome exploits on the internet for all to see, and the media unwittingly provides them a global platform. Meanwhile, these same groups restrict all access to their inner dysfunctions and coercive ideological controls, as illustrated in Kalb’s report.

In our case, the media is able to scrutinize Israel because we value and uphold freedom of the press. They deconstruct our every failing and debate because they can, and at the same time treat our autocratic neighbors and terror utilizing enemies with a different standard because they must. This is not an accusation, to be fair the media tries to get the story right, but it is foolish to believe that the media can remain objective when covering asymmetric conflicts and conflicts between open and closed societies. The media either provides an invaluable platform for terror groups without any of the uncomfortable scrutiny, as they work under the threat of violence or even worse for journalists, denial of access, or they create a perception of the open society as being weak and confused because it speaks with multiple voices and cannot hide its warts.

However, in the name of fairness and objectivity they give equal weight, and essentially equal credibility, to both sides, which creates a false moral equivalency. Essentially, the terror group can stay on message, even if it is a false and wildly misleading message, and because they are given an entire side of the story, an entire side of the television screen, and the open society has many messages and many voices, the terror group’s message shapes the debate because it is consistent and is given equal coverage and cannot be challenged from within.

We know this post raises many more questions then we have time or space to address, but let us know what you think. We will continue to explore these questions and try and push the debate on media coverage of asymmetric warfare between open societies and terror groups, as this may be one of the greatest media challenges of the 21st century.

Like

Unlike

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.