How many of us actually know that the mainstream news channels that we are watching everyday is true, honest and reliable? In every news that you acknowledge and watch everyday, do you know the true context behind these news stories? In fact, on some news that we acquire, we saw and we heard was only just the an external base of the stories. In such implications, do we actually know that there is proportions of missing untold stories and angles thus lacking of background context too.
Do you realize that who is international justice now for world conflict? Where and who is the international criminal court that judges and decides for the world? And who owned all the majority well-known news channels that we usually watch? The news that we consume each and everyday are in fact were all filtered and control in bias by these mainstream channels. Indeed, all the news were reported are telling one side of the story only that only sides to their own benefits without any morality and honesty benchmark on reporting news ethics. ‘There are certain key features of the presentation of war on television that have emerged over the last decade of war reporting, which demonstrate the tendency to using entertainment formats: video/computer-game style images of surgical strikes by ‘intelligent’ weaponry; arresting graphics and pictures, and chat-show use of ‘experts’. As a result of this homogenisation of coverage of conflicts – bloodless and largely devoid of any real sense of death and destruction – the audience can be desensitised to the tragedy and horror of war’ (Thussu,2003)
Take for example, when we need to obtain the up-to-the-minute news, CNN and BBC News reporting channel will always be the first and foremost channel in mind. Nevertheless, these channels have in fact fascinated by the high tech reporting format, with ‘live’ war reporting in the media with ‘one-sided’ camera angle and the way of report resembles to the video-game format used to represent battle operations. Regularly, news were often reported upon the entertainment base, for instance, the war zone military ‘live’ news report. According to Zapotoczny (2009), the media was pleased that the commanders actually incorporated the media in its operations from the earliest planning stages. But, planning for the media in Operation Just Cause translated to keeping the media in the dark to ensure secrecy and then allowing a tightly controlled media pool in country after the start of hostilities. It is human’s instinct to have excitement and curiousity towards things that they haven’t seen or do and these news channels habitually take this prospect to report on ‘war and military’ live news report to attract audiences to watch and believe towards their reports. In an age of multiple 24-hour cable news networks together with satellite technology, the CNN effect will exert even greater pressures on the tension between the military’s desire to limit their exposure to combat and the media’s desire to be in the front lines. (Zapotoczny, 2009)
Do these channels actually indicates the real good and evil of the real absolute context in the news especially war? Do they often differentiate the perspective of who is us, who is them? Yet, the remedy of these implications is wholly obvious and conspicuous whereby the global west are conquering all the international news channels and turn out to be the justice for the international criminal court. They simply report news by exercising the word ‘us’ to generalize to the whole world audiences are alongside with them. How about ‘them’? Do the survivors and citizens in country of war wanted to distinctively discrete themselves to the world of ‘us against them’ and d0 all of them agree with the concurrent war seeing the civilian deaths, the ground of their homeland being destroy on devastation and their children to experience human face of war? Why do ‘us’ don’t find alternatives to the war? Things can definitely work out without war, negotiations with peace processes instead of cruel yet tough decision can work out definitely. Why shall ‘us’ to becomes the leader when it comes to a world international conflict? Why not to the opposition party to represent for the world? If ‘them’ were to lead and become the international justice, news reports might stand in a complete different perspectives in the contemporary world news.
Photo courtesy by: http://cpnagasaki.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/al-jazeera-journalists-quit-over-networks-biased-coverage/
Where are the conciliatory medias? Which media reports to conciliatory news now? While, Al Jazeera is media who presents conciliatory news and now represent every angle of news, no bias, true from the of the news context, voice for the voiceless and yet they have the ability to change the audiences mindset into a balance and fair mindset. Al Jazeera was formerly build in Middle East and which earlier uses Arabic language on news reporting, then in the year of 2006, Al Jazeera decided to start on reporting in English language news that can cater to the demand for international audiences in the name of Al Jazeera America. Thus, many reporters and journalist in Al Jazeera were formerly from the CNN and BBC News that move to work at here. For the reason of journalist found the journalism freedom and ethics on reporting news, where else news were written and reported in the previous employment were controlled and filtered. As reported that, the channels are all media filtered and loss of conscience to the conciliatory reports and only shows what the government incorporates with the media channels wants therefore hereby in Al Jazeera, they found freedom, unbiased and ethical journalism.
There are several critical consequences from reporting to a bias and controlled news whereby it deceits the understanding of the audiences from the distant war. Hence, controlled news reporting were always bias to their own decisions and acts hence, audiences were not exposed to the real and real ugly side of the war, for instance, bloodstream, cruelty on sacrificing survivors and destroying infrastructures in the country war. Yet, audiences were considered to be lied on the news as there are lack of background information were told by the reports. Consequently, by reporting implicated bias news will yet to discovered and differentiate by the audiences and particularly to the global south where they resolve to decline the news for they understand and able to distinguish the actuality of the background context. However, medias should have a conscience to practice on writing and publishing peace journalism where it can actually helps, consider and values the non-violent responses to conflict instead of hard decisions to game cooperation significantly hence not conflict.
el-Nawawy,Powers, M,S, 2010. A conciliatory medium in a conflict-driven environment?. Al-Jazeera English , [Online]. 6, 61-81. Available at: http://gmc.sagepub.com/content/6/1/61 [Accessed 05 November 2013].
Miles, H, 2005. The Inside Story of the Arab News Channel that is Challenging the West. Al-Jazeera , [Online]. 1, 1-56. Available at: http://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Gp0Kx76Ovc4C&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=al+jazeera&ots=ntVb1bhS2y&sig=pTlwcO9T7qoFYou2tpviAo-e9Fk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=al%20jazeera&f=false [Accessed 05 November 2013].
Thussu, Freedman, D.K, D, 2003. Reporting Conflict 24/7. War and the Media, [Online]. 1, 1-10. Available at: http://www.wzaponline.com/CNNEffect.pdf [Accessed 05 November 2013].
Zapotoczny, W.S , 2009. CNN Effect. Military Leadership, Philosophy, Strategy and Tactics, [Online]. 1, 1-4. Available at: http://www.wzaponline.com/CNNEffect.pdf [Accessed 05 November 2013].