Adam Xiong
At first I wanted to research on the views of extraordinary rendition or in other words, the illegal kidnapping of suspected terrorist and sending them to foreign countries where it would be legal to torture them into giving the information even if they knew of nothing or were just ordinary people. However I came across the topic of America’s war crimes of the Iraqi war. Now I thought this was interesting so I looked up Articles of U.S. and the Iraqi war. The only problem was that when I searched this topic I only came upon articles of the casualties of U.S. Troops, through either suicide bombings or shootouts or just some random explosion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/world/middle east/11iraq.html?fta=y
In this article labeled “ Five American Soldiers Killed in Baghdad” written by Erica Goode and Richard A. Oppel Jr., New York Times Columnists, It talks about a suicide bomber conversing with a patrol unit when he detonates and kills 5 of them. The lone picture is of a body being carted away by Iraqi civilians.
The article was narrow, about half a page’s width wasnot too lengthy but still long enough. The rest of the article goes on to state other incidents where American Troops had died. Almost like a list, where you’re reading it repetitively, going down the row one by one. There were incidents such as, house bombs, rocket launchers, more suicide bombings, etc. The article didn’t have much meaning to it, just mainly pointing out that many Americans risk their lives everyday to keep America safe from terrorism. It’s mostly about U.S. casualties, which most articles on the war was and are like. This leads me to believe that the only meaningful news about the war is that each and everyday troops are dying for their country. Maybe these examples of patriotism helps stimulate the population to keep the war going and that we need to stop terrorism, where if we don’t, we become too paranoid that 9/11 will happen again. Or maybe many of us are thinking why are the troops there giving up there lives for god knows who? The New York Times’s article seems to be pretty neutral on the situation of whether or not the war is right. It simply just states the facts and that every day there seems to be more U.S. casualties. However these articles focuses a lot on the fact that American Troops are dying. Everyday and that they are being targeted more than ever. This alone tells us that a U.S. news paper, such as the New York Times, focuses much more on the side of America, where American Troops are being victimized, targeted, killed.
When I came across a clip on youtube labeled, “What the U.S. government doesn’t want you to see. Shock&awe” I was surprised to find a 30 minute documentary on war crimes of the United Sates. I followed the linked to a grassroots party satellite network.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uTwxAmWSk
http://www.deepdishtv.org/Series/Default.aspx?id=25
Now the grassroots party is not overly powerful and have an abundance of money at their disposal, which would sort of confirm Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s theory of the media being controlled by wealthy and powerful companies because there is not much information on this film if one was to google it. However this 2005 documentary itself was extremely powerful. There were stories, pictures, and footage of U.S. troops evacuating people out of their homes and using it for target practice with tanks, guns, and rocket launchers. There was a story of a man’s Son leaving for work and waiting for a cab when Americans shot him claiming he had a pistol and was shooting when he didn’t and was just trying to get to work. Another on the robbing of a New Paper workshop where their cash was stolen and the place was trashed, and troops raising their voice in at a woman activist trying to protest while he is telling her to shut up. One on a hospital where their only ambulance was shot multiple times, and searched, when they found nothing wrong inside they shot the driver anyway, this left the doctor with no ambulance to help victims in need. There are stories of elderly crippled men being detained and witnessed to be tortured, deprived of food, water, and a bathroom. Some stories of scandal such as American troops selling Iraqi oil to Iraqis for 500 dinars per liter a claiming it was from Kuwait. This documentary shows us the side of the war that no one really expects. All we ever hear about is the deaths of our people and that were there to make things better but, on the contrary Iraqis feel that they are as unsecured as ever with the Americans there. One guy said “This is about politics and interest, and the interests of America are above all. It’s all lies...the people are still helpless, because Saddam destroyed everything, he even crushed their soul. I’m not at all optimistic about the American Presence, I like the American people. God created us all to love one another. I believe very much in peace and love, but I don’t believe in the presence of the Americans. It's harmful to Iraq and to neighboring countries. It will create yet another base, and the future will show this was a crime against the entire Middle east.” Many Americans believe that we are only doing good in Iraq but in reality we haven’t improved on the situation much, if any at all. This other guy in the video said “Mr. bush lied to us. He said he will make Iraq the best country. He neither provided security or trust. All these people are unemployed, without income. We have no electricity, no water, no cars, lotting everywhere. I dare anyone to step out or drive around after dark. We have no gas, no petroleum...So where's the security he brought? “ Iraqis want the Americans to stop being the single policemen of the world right away. “Last comment, “The student has left, and the teacher has come. This is it. This summarizes everything. We the people are the Victims” I felt that when he says “student” he was referring to Saddam and when he says “teacher” he is referring to Americans. It’s sad to think that we feel we have done good to the world yet the people we tried to help categorize us with a dictator such as Saddam. This documentary was powerful in a sense. It raises the question of why we are/were in Iraq and if we are doing the right things. The film makers use real life experiences and Iraqis to tell us of the much darker side of things in the war. They tactically ordered the events to proved a powerful message, where they started with examples and experiences of war crimes, and then leads into the reactions of Iraqi citizens and their comments on their feelings. This gives the viewers full effect on the Iraqi’s point of view.
These two representation of the same topic, U.S. and the Iraqi War, are very different. The first one by The New York Times, represented American Troops as victims, where they are killed each and everyday fighting for their country, showing their patriotism. Thus giving americans a sense of pride in what there love ones are doing as well as concern for there safety. I believe that is the purpose for these types of news. It's like a form of propaganda that gets to you indirectly.The documentary however, represented America and it’s troops as antagonists, harming innocent people, often killing them, showing no respect for Iraqi’s and their properties, stealing and looting from them. The NY times seems to be focused on the point of view of America and that it really only matters about us, particularly in this article, although there were a few stories of Iraqi victims, the majority was on American casualties. Maybe this holds a stance on the fact that a fairly neutral Publishing company will stand for America because it is the American thing to do. On the other hand the documentary about Iraqi victim and corrupted American involvement seems to bring up the fact that maybe the war is wrong and that we shouldn’t be there. But then again this documentary only focuses on one side of the story, it only shows of what the Iraqi say and think, but does not show the same subject or story from the American’s point of view. The point being that whatever the subject maybe, the way one person sees it will always be different form another person standing across the street. Two different perspective looking at the same thing only to find it completely different. So where is the problem? The problem is that the media is being dictated somehow. We as Americans do not often get to see the side the documentary provides. However we often see the side the NY Times presents. So apparently Edward&Noam’s theory is correct. I don’t think so. See the NY Times has a fairly neutral stance on subjects, especially when it comes to politics. They have some liberal stances, and they have equally the same amount of republican stances.This doesn’t seem to fit the theory, if a highly wealthy and powerful company were to be in charge of the media wouldn’t it have a pretty strong stance on it’s politics? One would think so. So what really is the issue? The issue is that the government seems to have the power to dictate what the media shows by limiting its information. They can choose to give the media coverage of U.S. casualties or it can show you U.S. war crimes. The problem isn’t wealthy companies but corrupted politics and government which leads to media blackouts. People say we hear what we want to hear, but reality is, we hear what they allow us to hear.
At first I wanted to research on the views of extraordinary rendition or in other words, the illegal kidnapping of suspected terrorist and sending them to foreign countries where it would be legal to torture them into giving the information even if they knew of nothing or were just ordinary people. However I came across the topic of America’s war crimes of the Iraqi war. Now I thought this was interesting so I looked up Articles of U.S. and the Iraqi war. The only problem was that when I searched this topic I only came upon articles of the casualties of U.S. Troops, through either suicide bombings or shootouts or just some random explosion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/world/middle east/11iraq.html?fta=y
In this article labeled “ Five American Soldiers Killed in Baghdad” written by Erica Goode and Richard A. Oppel Jr., New York Times Columnists, It talks about a suicide bomber conversing with a patrol unit when he detonates and kills 5 of them. The lone picture is of a body being carted away by Iraqi civilians.
The article was narrow, about half a page’s width wasnot too lengthy but still long enough. The rest of the article goes on to state other incidents where American Troops had died. Almost like a list, where you’re reading it repetitively, going down the row one by one. There were incidents such as, house bombs, rocket launchers, more suicide bombings, etc. The article didn’t have much meaning to it, just mainly pointing out that many Americans risk their lives everyday to keep America safe from terrorism. It’s mostly about U.S. casualties, which most articles on the war was and are like. This leads me to believe that the only meaningful news about the war is that each and everyday troops are dying for their country. Maybe these examples of patriotism helps stimulate the population to keep the war going and that we need to stop terrorism, where if we don’t, we become too paranoid that 9/11 will happen again. Or maybe many of us are thinking why are the troops there giving up there lives for god knows who? The New York Times’s article seems to be pretty neutral on the situation of whether or not the war is right. It simply just states the facts and that every day there seems to be more U.S. casualties. However these articles focuses a lot on the fact that American Troops are dying. Everyday and that they are being targeted more than ever. This alone tells us that a U.S. news paper, such as the New York Times, focuses much more on the side of America, where American Troops are being victimized, targeted, killed.
When I came across a clip on youtube labeled, “What the U.S. government doesn’t want you to see. Shock&awe” I was surprised to find a 30 minute documentary on war crimes of the United Sates. I followed the linked to a grassroots party satellite network.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uTwxAmWSk
http://www.deepdishtv.org/Series/Default.aspx?id=25
Now the grassroots party is not overly powerful and have an abundance of money at their disposal, which would sort of confirm Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s theory of the media being controlled by wealthy and powerful companies because there is not much information on this film if one was to google it. However this 2005 documentary itself was extremely powerful. There were stories, pictures, and footage of U.S. troops evacuating people out of their homes and using it for target practice with tanks, guns, and rocket launchers. There was a story of a man’s Son leaving for work and waiting for a cab when Americans shot him claiming he had a pistol and was shooting when he didn’t and was just trying to get to work. Another on the robbing of a New Paper workshop where their cash was stolen and the place was trashed, and troops raising their voice in at a woman activist trying to protest while he is telling her to shut up. One on a hospital where their only ambulance was shot multiple times, and searched, when they found nothing wrong inside they shot the driver anyway, this left the doctor with no ambulance to help victims in need. There are stories of elderly crippled men being detained and witnessed to be tortured, deprived of food, water, and a bathroom. Some stories of scandal such as American troops selling Iraqi oil to Iraqis for 500 dinars per liter a claiming it was from Kuwait. This documentary shows us the side of the war that no one really expects. All we ever hear about is the deaths of our people and that were there to make things better but, on the contrary Iraqis feel that they are as unsecured as ever with the Americans there. One guy said “This is about politics and interest, and the interests of America are above all. It’s all lies...the people are still helpless, because Saddam destroyed everything, he even crushed their soul. I’m not at all optimistic about the American Presence, I like the American people. God created us all to love one another. I believe very much in peace and love, but I don’t believe in the presence of the Americans. It's harmful to Iraq and to neighboring countries. It will create yet another base, and the future will show this was a crime against the entire Middle east.” Many Americans believe that we are only doing good in Iraq but in reality we haven’t improved on the situation much, if any at all. This other guy in the video said “Mr. bush lied to us. He said he will make Iraq the best country. He neither provided security or trust. All these people are unemployed, without income. We have no electricity, no water, no cars, lotting everywhere. I dare anyone to step out or drive around after dark. We have no gas, no petroleum...So where's the security he brought? “ Iraqis want the Americans to stop being the single policemen of the world right away. “Last comment, “The student has left, and the teacher has come. This is it. This summarizes everything. We the people are the Victims” I felt that when he says “student” he was referring to Saddam and when he says “teacher” he is referring to Americans. It’s sad to think that we feel we have done good to the world yet the people we tried to help categorize us with a dictator such as Saddam. This documentary was powerful in a sense. It raises the question of why we are/were in Iraq and if we are doing the right things. The film makers use real life experiences and Iraqis to tell us of the much darker side of things in the war. They tactically ordered the events to proved a powerful message, where they started with examples and experiences of war crimes, and then leads into the reactions of Iraqi citizens and their comments on their feelings. This gives the viewers full effect on the Iraqi’s point of view.
These two representation of the same topic, U.S. and the Iraqi War, are very different. The first one by The New York Times, represented American Troops as victims, where they are killed each and everyday fighting for their country, showing their patriotism. Thus giving americans a sense of pride in what there love ones are doing as well as concern for there safety. I believe that is the purpose for these types of news. It's like a form of propaganda that gets to you indirectly.The documentary however, represented America and it’s troops as antagonists, harming innocent people, often killing them, showing no respect for Iraqi’s and their properties, stealing and looting from them. The NY times seems to be focused on the point of view of America and that it really only matters about us, particularly in this article, although there were a few stories of Iraqi victims, the majority was on American casualties. Maybe this holds a stance on the fact that a fairly neutral Publishing company will stand for America because it is the American thing to do. On the other hand the documentary about Iraqi victim and corrupted American involvement seems to bring up the fact that maybe the war is wrong and that we shouldn’t be there. But then again this documentary only focuses on one side of the story, it only shows of what the Iraqi say and think, but does not show the same subject or story from the American’s point of view. The point being that whatever the subject maybe, the way one person sees it will always be different form another person standing across the street. Two different perspective looking at the same thing only to find it completely different. So where is the problem? The problem is that the media is being dictated somehow. We as Americans do not often get to see the side the documentary provides. However we often see the side the NY Times presents. So apparently Edward&Noam’s theory is correct. I don’t think so. See the NY Times has a fairly neutral stance on subjects, especially when it comes to politics. They have some liberal stances, and they have equally the same amount of republican stances.This doesn’t seem to fit the theory, if a highly wealthy and powerful company were to be in charge of the media wouldn’t it have a pretty strong stance on it’s politics? One would think so. So what really is the issue? The issue is that the government seems to have the power to dictate what the media shows by limiting its information. They can choose to give the media coverage of U.S. casualties or it can show you U.S. war crimes. The problem isn’t wealthy companies but corrupted politics and government which leads to media blackouts. People say we hear what we want to hear, but reality is, we hear what they allow us to hear.
Your project was very impressive. I was thoroughly intrigued with the different view points of the two media outlets. And I agree that the media is controlled by subjectivity and selection and you can't get the full account of an issue, it seems, from one source. I think you made a huge point at the end too, that "people say we hear what we want to hear, but reality is, we hear what they allow us to hear" is a large concept to wrap ones head around. It brings to light a whole Big Brother montra that not too many will admit is present in society today.
ReplyDeleteThis project is very well-done given how difficult it must have been to find the opposing view. When looking for coverage of the war, it would be almost impossible to find an article with the viewpoint of a person living in Iraq. The little we do hear about the views of the Iraqui people are reported by Americans and are thus subject to the beliefs and opinions of the author. This just goes to show that unless you are a first-hand witness to something, what you are reading or seeing is not the whole truth. Each person has agency and chooses what to write, which portions of the story to include, what to film, and what to take a picture of.
ReplyDelete