Monday 30 May 2011

The War You Don't See

Being the media literate, conscientious objector that I am, I was unhappy with the information being presented via the mainstream media in regards to the 'humanitarian intervention' in Libya and decided to do some research for myself. What I found was some very eye-opening reports including the creation of a new central bank and oil company by the rebels, that in 2009, Britain, France and other European states sold Libya over $470m worth of weapons, and that there is indeed civilian casualties being caused by the west’s' bombardments on the people they are supposed to be protecting. These news stories are as important and informative as the reports of injustices being committed by the Qaddafi regime being shown in the mainstream media, so why are these points of view being overshadowed?

Proffitt (2007, 66) suggests that "mainstream news coverage of previous wars demonstrated that the marketplace of ideas is indeed dominated by a corporate ideology, is encumbered by corporate censorship and has stunted public discussion. This is due to a handful of dominant multinational conglomerates owning the means of distributing information and having special interests in maintaining their current political and economic power." This conglomerate power can have hugely negative effects on what is available to the viewer, which is evident in recent coverage of the Libyan unrest. Views that may not support the status quo, or do not conform to the guidelines of the conglomerates such as the killing of innocent civilians by western forces are often silenced, marginalised, ridiculed and slandered in an effort to discredit their position and maintain the desired agenda held by media owners and politicians. This creates a detrimental narrowly defined range of viewpoints that rather than discovering and reporting the truth aim to exploit situations for financial and political gain, therefore hampering the idyllic notion of the media as watchdogs (Proffitt 2007, 69). Media collusion with the state and corporations are frightening and when its extent is revealed it should be taken seriously. It is important to note that we should not take everything at face value, and we should evaluate the media's role in each situation. However this is only possible if viewers are given all the facts.
 Not everyone is happy about western intervention
The Libyan government controls more of its' oil than any other nation on earth, as well as controlling its own finances. Schortgen Jr. (2011) noted "six months before the United States moved into Iraq the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil. Gaddafi made a similar bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and Euro and called on Arab and African national to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar." These facts along with the creation of a new central bank by the rebels and the implications it has on the control of the country's oil have gone largely unnoticed by the mainstream media, further suggesting that the media conglomerates have vested interests in the war and its outcome. This connection can be made by simply examining the relationship between mass media and big business, which to an extent are one and the same. Turrow (2009, 220) states "when a small number of huge firms exercise power over production, distribution, and exhibition, the democratic process is jeopardised. By examining the board of directors of these controlling media corporations it becomes quite clear as to their position, which in theory is supposed to be neutral and free from opinion. Media and oil companies often share board members, Sam Nunn; Co-Chairman of Chevron is also on the board of directors for GE who own NBC. J. Richard Munro the once CEO of Time-Warner has also held a place on the board for Exxon-Mobil. It is also impossible to ignore the far right wing position of the supposed 'fair and balanced' Fox News (News Corp.) CEO Rupert Murdoch and his ties with the Republican Party and the effect his networks have on marginalising any voice that disagrees with his position.

In order for a democratic society to succeed, citizens need to be able to make informed decisions based on diverse and freely accessible information (Proffitt 2007, 65). The relationship between politicians, big business and media owners needs to be addressed to end the media monopoly and allow a multiplicity of voices to be heard across all media industries.
The current focus of the media on the humanitarian issues in Libya allows the viewer to see one side of a multidimensional issue. It is important to step back and examine the media's role in the conflict and what vested interests it might have. The business and political elite know that the more information the public has, the more difficult it is for them to pursue agendas that may otherwise not be a cause for concern. We have to be aware and informed of the media's real role in society, to challenge those who seek our acceptance of their latest bloody adventure in someone else's country. That means, "Always challenging the official story, however patriotic that story may appear, however seductive and insidious it is. For propaganda relies on the media to aim its deceptions not at a far away country but at you at home. In this age of endless imperial war, the lives of countless men, women and children depend on the truth or their blood is on us. Those whose job it is to keep the record straight ought to be the voice of people, not power" (Pilger 2010).

Smoke Screen

As I watch Don Draper take a long draw of his Lucky Strike and gaze thoughtfully out of his high-rise window, I take the time to reflect on the effects that characters smoking on screen have on their viewers. Sure smoking is a foul smelling and short-sighted habit. Lately, however, the attack on smoking in the media has crossed the fuzzy line that differentiates moral enthusiasm from intolerant vilification. In the 21st century we are all well aware of the health implications that arise from smoking, thanks to a plethora of anti-smoking advertisment campaigns. But would a rating system for films and television shows like that in America be beneficial to the protection of youth? Or would too much censorship have an adverse effect on a problem that really calls for better parenting not fewer cigarettes? Furthermore, is it justifiable to censor smoking on screen? Or should it be left to the public to make bad choices for themselves?

Media plays a role in influencing society’s values and belief systems (Sternberg, 2011a). This is somewhat relative to the criticisms received by the AMC series Mad Men that has been accused of glamorizing smoking, which in turn is said to encourage viewers to smoke. The show depicts an assortment of beautiful people constantly lighting up in a time where cigarette smoke was only just being found to be harmful.
 
However the shows’ satirical view of the 1960’s Madison Avenue ad agency where heavy drinking and smoking is the norm, sexism and adultery are rife, and homophobic, racist and anti-Semitic comments are exchanged openly, is in itself a warning to seeing the past in too favourable light. This therefore suggests that although the characters do engage in what is viewed as undesirable behaviour by the anti-smoking groups, the show does not in anyway condone smoking, in fact they subtly ridicule such behaviours making a conscious effort to create awareness amongst viewers of the dangers of excessive smoking by playing up the obvious differences in attitudes from the 1960’s to today. This is evident in the pilot episode where Lucky Strike comes to Sterling Cooper looking for a new ad campaign in the wake of Readers Digest reporting that smoking leads to a variety of health issues. The idea of which is dismissed in a hearty laugh followed by an even heartier cough.
Characters smoking can communicate many things as suggested by James Cameron in this interview. Smoking may be used by the director to imply the character is passionate about the small things in life, It can mean that the character’s life span/ future does not matter, it can mean that the character values stylishness over health, or that the character does anything to fit in. Because anti-smoking groups have a short sighted negative view on smoking, that does not acknowledge the ability of smoking to communicate different character traits, it is therefore possible to suggest that anti smoking groups only want to consume media that they find agreeable; behaviour defined as selected exposure (Sternberg, 2011b). In their effort to enforce their idealistic view on the public, they could be seen to be marginalising the public’s freedom to consume media in the way it was intended, hindering the public’s choice to decide for themselves on the message being portrayed. This subversion of utilitarianism is hindering the greater good by limiting the power to choose, and forcing smokers on screen and off to conform to someone else’s ethical principles.
It can be argued further that the depiction of smoking on screen tempts those whose judgement is weakest, children. Studies suggest that smoking in movies has a direct link to children taking up smoking. It is easily justifiable then to regulate sales of cigarettes to children, which has been policy for years, but the need for a rating system on films is still inconclusive. Perhaps the strongest criticism of this approach is that it will create a forbidden fruit effect.  As a prominent Canadian tobacco control advocate put it, the attitude of young people to this approach might be “Ooh, this movie has sex, violence AND smoking. COOL!” (Pechmann, 1999). This suggests that education of the dangers of smoking as opposed to the regulation of the film industry may be a better method to preventing teen smoking.
If the glamorization of unhealthy habits is the real issue, why stop with smoking on screen? Obesity can be as dangerous as smoking but no one complains when your favourite movie star eats a chocolate bar, ‘Eating your diabetes sticks! Not around my kids!’ Sure smoking deserves a healthy level of criticism, but sanitizing films at the risk of losing artistic integrity is not the answer.