An epic event that occurred in the 2003 Iraq war was the embedding of journalists with military forces. Tumber (2005, p.371) in his chapter ‘Journalism and the war in Iraq’ notes that unlike the 1982 conflict in the Falklands where the journalists were embedded by accident with the British Task force, in 2003 the US Department of Defense in consultation with news organisations deliberately embedded journalists with various parts of the military. Although on paper this may seem, encouraging and significant to the progress of Journalism, and as acknowledging Journalism as an official entity and factor in war, whether this is a positive step for Journalism and its functions in reality is highly debateable. The Iraq war has been the most dangerous war for journalists. This disparity between how things are intended to work on paper and what actually happens is more apparent now than ever before. Why is it getting more dangerous for journalists, when the media seems to be having a positive impact on war? For example the presence of media has been a factor that established the need for precision weapons. How come NATO forces, though they are clearly more powerful on the battlefield and though they possess better technology, seem to be losing the battle on the internet? This essay seeks to answer these questions and explain certain elements that are at play in relation to the fourth estate and its role in war. In doing so it will also seek to provide an insight into a likely future of war reporting, given the existing trends and challenges faced.
There is no doubt that the 2003 Iraq war has been the most hostile war for journalists. The August 2004 news release by the INSI (International News safety Institute) reported 50 personnel killed either by hostilities or ‘friendly-fire’ accidents, the CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists reported 17 journalists killed in the first six weeks (Tumber 2005, p. 374). “Figures from the IFJ show that the levels of killings of journalists in Gulf War II were unprecedented” (Tumber 2005, p. 375). Tumber (2005, pp.375-376) further writes that apart from the killings journalists faced a slew of injustices. They received threats, experienced expulsions and detentions, and even had their equipment confiscated from them. This was not just confined to Iraq and the war zone, in fact in there were reports of journalists in Madrid and Cairo being attacked while covering anti-war protests (IFJ, 2003a cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 375). According to John Simpson of the BBC, who is the world affairs editor and who was injured in a ‘friendly fire’ incident, the death of many journalists was because of what he expressed as the ‘ultimate act of censorship’. Simpson believed the system of embedding journalists meant that the journalists that were operating independently of the British and American troops were now potential targets (Tumber and Palmer, 2004 cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 376). Why was it that the media were being treated in such a way given the functional purpose they were serving in war? Tumber (2005, p. 371) notes that after the Vietnam War, governments as well as militaries have acknowledged the power of the media and have thus sought to ‘control’ and ‘manage’ media through different methods. The Vietnam War led to the belief that television had somehow ‘lost the war’, which in turn led to the notion that stricter controls over the media were necessary to contain information in a bid to win the hearts and minds of the public. It was this attitude that was the biggest factor in creating an extremely hostile situation for journalists in the Iraq war.
Moeller (2004, p. 72) in her chapter ‘A Moral Imagination’ writes that the American presidents in the 1950s and 1960s were consumed with not ‘losing’ countries to communism on their watch. Zelizer (2004, p. 119) in her chapter ‘When war is reduced to a photograph’ proclaims that the Vietnam War, was the war that introduced to the world the graphic images of war. This was a major factor that contributed to the awareness that was gained through the Vietnam War - that the media had tremendous power to influence the human psyche. The American presidents who were dedicated to not losing countries to communism and ultimately the Vietnam war that in many ways liberated the potential of war reporting, although it collided with the government’s agenda. Robinson (2004, p. 108) in his chapter ‘US media-state relations conclude that although the media has consistently been deferential to government positions during times of crisis and war, the media have faced and still continue to face regular attacks for being too critical of the wartime/crisis policies of the US government. Often this is done by claiming that the new media technology is affecting the balance of power between the media and the state. An example Robinson uses is the Vietnam War which was fought by the US at a time when television ownership had become widespread among in the US. Thus many sought to explain this military failure of the US defeat and having to withdraw with the term “Vietnam syndrome”, wherein domestic population were not able to tolerate casualties, at least in part due to ‘graphic and decontextualized television news coverage. President Richard Nixon argued “The Vietnam War was complicated by factors that never before occurred in America’s conduct of a war . . . More than ever before, television showed the terrible human suffering and sacrifice of war. Whatever the intention behind such relentless and literal reporting of the war, the result was a serious demoralization of the home front, raising the question whether America would ever again be able to fight an enemy abroad with unity and strength of purpose at home” (Nixon, 1978, cited in Robinson, 2004, p. 108). Carruthers (2004, p. 159) in her chapter ‘Tribalism and tribulation’ refers to the popular notion of the media “power without responsibility” which has been overused, putting to rest charges against American journalists in Vietnam who were criticised for abandoning objectivity, fuelling anti-war partisanship, and for showing no restraint in making available extremely graphic footage that showed what modern weapons could do to human flesh (Hallin, 1989, cited in Carruthers, 2004, p. 159). Although this notion is no longer prevalent, it was a popular notion, which provided a base for governments to consider heavy impositions on the media when it came to war reporting. Thus it is not hard to imagine why journalists were treated in such an insensitive and inhuman fashion in the 2003 Iraq war, despite the fact that they serve a very important function.
The 2003 Iraq war has seen shocking treatment of journalists. Tumber (2005, p. 375) sheds light on the unexplained killings of the seven journalists who were killed by the coalition forces in Basra and Baghdad in four separate incidents and how this brought upon unprecedented anger among journalists all around the world. Phillip Knightly (2003) in fact called the war in Iraq one ‘when journalists seemed to become a target’ (Knightly, 2003, cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 375). One of the most widely covered in the war in Iraq relating to media personnel was the deaths of the journalists at the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. On the 8th of April 2003 a Reuters cameraperson and a Spanish TV camera person was killed, along with for others wounded when the US troops fired on a Palestine Hotel which was the base for most of the western media in Baghdad. On that very day an Al-Jazeera cameraperson also died when the TV station’s office in the city was hit by a bomb. On that very day Abu-Dhabi TV was also hit, indicating that on that day, either purposely or by accident, all the main media headquarters both Western and Arab was attacked by the US military (Tumber and Palmer, 2004 cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 377). Therefore the media had literally come under fire by the military, this kind of attitude has left a lot to be desired but more importantly, it is vital to see the consequences that will result with this approach towards the media. Much research has been done and a lot written about what the long term implications would be on wars, government, democracy, society and even the human race as a whole given the present challenges war reporting is facing, this essay focuses more on the immediate consequences that are manifesting itself in the present reality and situation. Is this attitude and strategy beneficial for the US governments and its objectives in Iraq? Are these actions advantageous to the US government and military, and their image in the eyes of the world? These are the more pressing questions that are presenting itself at the moment and need to be answered immediately. America has acknowledged in various levels that the present war is not about territories or battlefields, but rather about winning the hearts and minds of the people.
The horrific mistreatment of journalists is setting the objectives of America back. While they seem to be largely in control of the war on the battlefields, they are losing the war on the internet. During times of war it is one opponent against the other vying for crucial positions, resources, etc. The past century has made it clearer now than ever before that propaganda is another important wing of war. It is now army, navy, air and propaganda. There are even wings of the military set up for this specific purpose. People are the most important ‘resource’ in this war, their mindsets are the most ‘crucial positions’ in this age, and the two opponents are vying for them, and America it seems is falling behind. The popular notion that a shocking number of people truly believe is that America went into Iraq for oil. Rampton and Stauber (2003) write in detail about disparities between facts and widely believed false notions. Rampton and Stauber (2003, p. 4) points out the most Americans did believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom was for a noble cause and this did include the 300,000 soldiers who risked their lives. These soldiers risked their lives truly believed that they were doing so to make the world a better place and a safer place for themselves and their loved ones. It is the mistreatment of journalists by the US forces that is helping extremists win the propaganda war. There are many aspects as to how this phenomenon has mechanised itself so successfully. The first aspect is that the current policy the US and NATO forces have with the media. Taylor (2006, p. 64) in his essay ‘Journalism under Fire: The Reporting of War and International Crisis’ sheds light on this pointing out that the official Anglo-American policy is to never discuss military events especially those involving special forces. It is thus kept out of the media even long after their deployment has ended. This was the reason there was only patchy coverage of the war against the Al-Quaeda movement in Afghanistan. This policy sometimes makes it hard to counter propaganda from extremists as the nature of this propaganda prompts questions that may not be answered due to this policy, leading the public to think it is true. This has resulted in putting the NATO forces on the back foot in the realm of propaganda thus creating a void in the media that is constantly attempted to be fed extremist propaganda in its place. Tumber (2005, p. 370) refers to Nik Gowing the main presenter and BBC world journalist who has constantly stressed upon how new technologies is blurring the distinction between the media and private citizen. In this age camcorders, digital cameras and computers enable a large number of people to capture events and this causes concerns not only for government but also for news organizations. Security forces’ finding it increasingly harder to ‘hide’ their activities is having an impact on military doctrine, strategy and practice. On the flipside governments too are facing a new propaganda war against terrorist and guerrilla groups who are using this situation, and who now have the capability to manipulate and spread images. This has resulted in broadcasters facing an incredible challenge in deciding which images to broadcast and which images to leave out, especially when they receive images that have come from unverifiable and unknown sources. What is even more challenging for broadcasters is correcting the impact of these faked images and unreliable reports simply because it can be immensely tricky and secondly because it puts the broadcaster in a very vulnerable position, causing the public and the government to question its credibility and reliability, it may even hold the prospect of facing legal action (Gowing, 2004, cited in Tumber, 2005, p. 371). Therefore broadcasters are facing tremendous challenges not just from the NATO forces and their respective governments but also from the terrorist groups. Sadly they have not been able to face these challenges with much success lately. Taylor (2006, p. 63) mentions the importance of the mass media, reiterating that the public opinion and public knowledge of countries faraway including wars and international crises are heavily dependent on them. This dependence has been widely entrusted by the public on the media without much understanding of how and under what circumstances the media work. Taylor also points out that at this crucial time after September 11, 2001 and during ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ the media has been at best confused, failing to understand in context and in relating to the complexities of this ‘new kind of war’. Thus looking at War Reporting in lieu of the present situation we can see that the present environment is not conducive struggling between the danger of being blown up and the danger of being a major instrument in a plant for propaganda, but we can also see that in lieu of these challenges faced, War Reporting is falling short and unable to rise to these new challenges. The media is not a bolt on to society in fact it is one of the four pillars used in building a democracy and serves an innately vital function. Just as a building with four pillars relies equally on each of them to hold it up, a democracy relies on the media, just as much as it relies on the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, it relies on the press. Taylor (2006, pp. 63-64) the media’s inaction to find new competitive techniques to cope with the challenges it faces along with the new forms of media and ‘citizen journalism’ is contributing to the way the world is reported, distorted and misreported at present. The degree to which these developments either help or hinder an informed public may be critical for democracy to continue to exist. Taylor (2006, p. 64) links the relationship between war, conflict and the mass media and points out how important it is to be aware of these relationships as it the essence of being an informed democratic citizen, which is essential in turn for democracy. Taylor argues that every democratic citizen not only has a right but also a responsibility to participate in political life. In order to do this it is essential that they have full and accurate information as well as a clear understanding of the issues involved. A citizen can only truly make an informed decision of what foreign policies, made by the government on behalf of its citizens, he/she wishes to endorse/oppose and ultimately it is this decision that ascertains life or death consequences. It is literally a matter of life and death. Therefore the role played by the news media in this democratic process is a highly significant one and is of utter importance.
The present mechanism is making terrorist propaganda extremely attractive, and the attitude taken towards the war reporting after the Vietnam War is a major contributor to this. When democratic nations treat its press with utter disregard creating an environment that is not conducive for the press to serve its purpose the mechanics of democracy itself changes and the void that is left does get filled by destructive propaganda simply because today there is so much propaganda just waiting to get into the system. Tumber (2005, p. 378) urges that there is no doubt that the public will suffer from the lack of reliable information. The consequences will be devastating with propaganda influencing voting citizens of a democracy. Vigilance and determination in the face of adversity is the key for the press to fight to continue to play its role in the process, but in facets like war reporting it will not be able to fight alone, it will need the assistance of the other three pillars – the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. It will need people in the democracy as well as its governments to understand just how important the media is, if they are to keep their freedoms.
Reference list
Allan, S (2005), Journalism: Critical Issues, Open University Press, London.
Allan, S & Zelizer, B (2004), Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime, Routledge, London.
Bell, M (1995), In Harm’s Way, Hamish Hamilton, London.
Cottle, S (2006), News, Public Relations and Power, Sage, London.
Rampton, S & Stauber, J (2003), Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq, Robinson, London.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Enterprise Journalism with reference to the Shoemaker and Reese model.
The degree to which enterprise Journalism is being shunned today is shocking. In researching for this topic, it is evident that the mechanism of today’s Journalism and the environment in which it exists, is not only diminishing enterprise Journalism but is suffocating it to such an extent that it may soon stop existing. Davies (2008, p. 73) points out that the news produced in the present circumstances can be effective and reliable to its readers only if the outside suppliers of news are giving an effective and reliable account. The consequences will change the nature of Journalism itself and have considerable impact on what democracy will be described as. Events, issues and news that are in line with media routines have a much greater chance of being covered than those that are not in line with such routines. Therefore such realities as news that is not in the reporters beat, issues and events where there is no good footage available may go unreported (Shoemaker and Reese 1996, p. 265). This essay is intended to describe how the mechanism and environment in which Journalism exists, is one that suffocates it of truth.
It is first essential that we look at enterprise Journalism. There are certain innate realities faced by enterprise Journalism simply because of its nature, very little or nothing can be done about these realities. Enterprise Journalism is usually done on grass root levels and therefore may not merit enough interest from the masses. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 270) concluded that the larger the area covered by a medium more its contents would be required to be standardized. Given the varying interests and tastes of the people messages must also be broadened along with geographic area, and therefore the content is unlikely to take chances and make innovations. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) also describes in detail the deep impact the ideology of the ruling elite in the influence of media content in chapter 9 ‘The influence of ideology‘, this will be discussed a little later but it is also further summarized and theorized in chapter 11, where Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 270) ascertain that factors like cultural significance, a better political system and a higher economy causes one country to appear more in the less privileged countries’ mass media. Therefore a significant factor for establishing the criteria for newsworthiness is economic political and cultural significance. This comes in the way of enterprise Journalism as grass root news sources and other unconventional news sources may be overlooked in the effort to cover more significant countries. Enterprise Journalism therefore is something that is posed by a lot of challenges inherent to its nature, but to add to this it faces many more overwhelming external challenges that have systematically established themselves in stages and spheres in the media to create an hostile environment and system. Therefore we need to look at some of these seemingly overwhelming challenges and more importantly who it is that is most responsible for this dire situation.
To understand these factors and the functional way in which it manifests itself, let us begin with the more apparent factors that keep Journalists from pursuing sources they would want and rather make due with what is more readily available. Today there seems to be a change in the ethics in Journalism with editors wanting to give the people what they want rather than what they need to be aware off. Hallin (1996, p.254) in his chapter ‘Commercialism and professionalism in the American news media’ discusses whether this kind of attitude could lead to a decline of public life or an age of multiple voices and more democracy. Hallin (1996, p.247) reviews the recent changes and explains them through two schools of thought, the readership theory and the stockholder theory. The readership theory claims that as a response to the decline in newspaper readership the Journalists must give the ‘customers’ what they want. The stockholder theory indicates that since the trend of ‘public’ ownership has become the norm with the selling of stocks, the media can be treated as any business for the sole purpose of profit. Another factor that restricts enterprise Journalism is the fact that they are not given the opportunity to go to places where they would be able to find unconventional sources as Davies (2008, p.56) explains that in present times it is common that budding Journalists after a Journalism degree are filled with hopes and enthusiasm of how they are going to impact society and use their unique creativity to make the masses aware, only to end up in a production line in a news factory chained to a keyboard working out trivia and clichés to fill the newspaper. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.161) suggests that the present trends question the top-down organization structure as it is extremely restricting Journalists and the traditional freedom they have had and needed for Journalism. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.145) resound the fact that the economic objectives of the company are intensified by the stockholder form of ownership, and that the resulting larger firms tend to take fewer risks than the smaller ones. This is a negative thing for enterprise Journalism, which by nature needs to invest in creative ideas of Journalists. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.267) also ascertained that according to the present model, middle level media personnel like editors pay more attention to the organization’s goals and thereby necessarily the business side of the organization, than reporters who care more for their sources thereby bringing about constant conflict between editors and reporters. Therefore when there is a conflict between an organization’s need to make profits and its editorial routine an editor who controls both may make the argument to side with the business side of the organization claiming it is more immediate. Given that economic factors take precedence over ethical factors it becomes largely about satisfying consumer needs. This results in a pattern as Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.269) conclude that with a media organization striving to promote itself within a target audience, the more they become tuned and prominently reflect content that are of interest to that particular target audience. This further develops into a pattern wherein programming that attracts the right audience for the advertisers are produced and preferred and programming that does not attract the right audience may be abandoned.
The justifications for the manifestations of these patterns are not solely economic but the time factor is also as significant. A major reason that enterprise Journalism is fast diminishing is simply because there is no time for it in today’s production process of news. There are so many readily available sources and coupled with the fact that Journalists are not given enough time to practically do any investigating or checking even on how much of the information handed to them is true. As Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.262) points out that readily available sources like corporations may result in Journalists favoring them as sources as Journalists are racing against time. This will result in favoring certain types of sources over a period of time. Davies (2008, p.69) illuminates the danger of this situation explaining that for all Journalists these days the sole imperative is not getting an accurate insight into a given story but rather the only concern they can possibly be worried about is to file their stories as immediately as possible, as the present situation demands so. Therefore they spend very less time with their work and much less time if any at all on checking out the accuracy of the information or the legitimacy of the source, this is exactly the kind of environment where rapid repackaging takes place. Davies (2008, p.64) also illustrates that ascertaining truth is one of the primary functions of Journalism, arguing that the object of Journalism itself is truth and central to this objective is the function of checking thereby by taking time away we are taking truth away as well. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, pp.268-269) reflect that sources with economic and political power have the potential to influence the news in a system where Journalists bank on readily available sources, these sources generally hire regular staff exclusively to get information to the media quickly. The media is thus dominated by “official” sources, that influence and involve themselves in issues rather than events. Journalists are also expected to provide the same amount of news on a slow news day and because of an increasing dependence on public relations practitioners may revert to accepting their news rather than come up with enterprising stories. A shocking piece of research by Davies (2008, pp.52-53) gives us an insight into the level at which these readily available sources influence news content and the amount of it that makes the news. What Davies did was commission specialist researchers from the department of Journalism at Cardiff University to take four prestigious newspapers and sample the stories that made it as news. The researchers found that 60% of the stories that made the news was completely or to a large degree out of wire copy and PR material, while 20% of clearly showed elements of wire copy where material had been added, they were unable to ascertain the source of about 8% of the material leaving only 12% of the news, that was actually produced by the reporters. Another elusive reason that enterprise Journalism is diminishing is because Journalists cover events more than they do issues, as this more easily justified given the nature of issues and events, furthermore cover events has in itself been made a routine (Shoemaker and Reese 1996, p.266).
The extent to which enterprise Journalism is being diminished makes it apparent that there are more forces at play than mere economical factors and time constraints. There are other less noticeable yet more prominent factors that challenge enterprise Journalism. The environment that Journalists have to work with discourage enterprise Journalism. Ownership is quite an influential factor in the creation of this environment whether it is negative or positive towards enterprise Journalism. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.166) observed that media scholars had paid close attention to many companies being owned by one person or one entity and concluded that absentee owners tend not to take an aggressive news approach or a strict editorial policy, which resulted in the community interests taking a back seat to corporate and economic factors. McNair (1998, p.24) lists three ways in which ownership dominance influences the working of the media. He notes that the first category is done through economic measures in quite a direct way by disregarding unwanted or inconvenient stories. The second category is done through political means, pointing out that even the governments of the most liberal countries impose laws and censoring measures on the media in a bid to regulate the media and sometimes even intimidate them. The third category that is used as a means to dominate the media is cultural where the Journalists recruited or promoted to influential positions are from a minority and privileged sector of society and have come to form value systems that in line with the ideologies of the dominant groups of society namely the economic, political and cultural elites. This is the kind of environment where enterprise Journalism goes from being hard to nearly impossible. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.169) says that for an organization to establish and maintain control it is essential for the organization to socialize its workers to the routines and in cases of handling situations that have not yet been manipulated into a convenient set of routines then the organization enforces the reporter to act and maybe even think in a certain way. This is done through reinforcement and a reward system while there may even be cases where those that do not comply are either demoted or fired. Given that the control is established through reinforcement both positive and negative, it influences a reporter at a very deep level and he may also feel like changing his ideology because he honestly feels that’s the ‘truth’. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.265) arrives at a number of conclusions that link reporters from the routines, which are significant to enterprise Journalism. They point out that the longer an individual works for an organization that much more socialized is the individual to the policies of that organization. They also point out that the more a reporter adapt to the routines of the organization the more their work is likely to be used which actually changes what Journalism is and what its function is. They also came up with the hypothesis that the more a reporter incorporates the routines of the organization and as part of his work the more professional he is thought of by his co-workers. Venturing a little bit deeper, leads us into another set of factors that form a bridge between all these factors and the final set. It is the organization that hires a Journalist, what is the basis of this selection process Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.264) found that some employers preferred those with majors in Journalism, while other employers wanted those with majors in liberal arts, more specifically American studies. They also ascertained those who had different “communication” college degrees produced different content than those who had other majors. Another important attribute that in the present system they highlighted is that the role Journalists see themselves in largely impacts the content they produce. Therefore whether they see themselves as disseminating information or interpreting to the masses what others do, or as adversaries to the powerful, it will express itself in their content, thus if these roles are defined to them by the owners and the organization, it is that entity that has a large influence on the content. The most serious danger right now to enterprise Journalism is from what Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.266) call “pack Journalism”, which is the causes different Journalists to share their ideas looking mainly for each other’s confirmation about news judgments and to observe each other, this is mainly due to editors that question the coverage of a story that is different from another news organizations coverage of that story. Therefore the more Journalists read each others story and depend on their counterparts for confirmation, the harder it is going to be for a Journalist to take up a story that would be enterprising.
Finally the last set of factors that it leads up to deals with how this situation came about, in spite of the fact that Journalism in theory was meant to combat these exact patterns in society. One could say it is lack of vigilance and that may have played a role in some part, but it takes a lot to put the way such a prominent field as Journalism functions in exactly the opposite direction it set out. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) establish the most influential factor is the economic and political elite that subtly brought about a system that insulates them and ensures that things stay they way they are. This coupled with the quickly changing kind of ownership of media organizations create a strong shell that forms a concrete basis so that spheres in the between not only stay the same but also continue to move in the direction it is currently moving. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) illuminates the fact that ultimately it is the owner that has the power in a media organization even though it flows down in parts to those below him. They also shed light on the fact that a large percentage of news comes from governmental and business sources, or what is termed as “official” channels. Individual sources, which are essential for enterprise Journalism have little access or knowledge of dealing with the media. They also examine how minorities are underrepresented, and conclude that the more a minority has acculturated to the majority the better his/her prospects and socio-economic level is. They mention that there are more people with high status than low status jobs in television characters. They note that in an elite medium there are less or no workers similar to its general population. They point out that the more a country’s government faces criticism from the media the more the media is tried to be controlled by the government.
Therefore enterprise Journalism is fast moving towards extinction and the challenges it faces are huge and at a deep level, to survive it would have to face the richest and the most powerful, not to mention them that make the laws. It is very likely that if it does not survive then there will have to be a new definition of democracy that the then media can be a fourth estate too, I do not see the media being a fourth estate to what we now define as democracy, if enterprise Journalism is lost forever.
Reference list
Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (1996), Mass Media and Society, Arnold, London.
Davies, N (2008), Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda, Chatto & Windus, London.
McNair, B (1998), The sociology of Journalism, Arnold, London.
Schlesinger, P (1978), Putting ‘reality’ together BBC News, Constable, London.
Shoemaker, P & Reese, S (1996), Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on
Mass Media Content, Longman, New York.
Sunstein, C (2001), ‘Exposure To Other View Points is Vital to Democracy’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Viewed 27 October 2008,.
It is first essential that we look at enterprise Journalism. There are certain innate realities faced by enterprise Journalism simply because of its nature, very little or nothing can be done about these realities. Enterprise Journalism is usually done on grass root levels and therefore may not merit enough interest from the masses. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 270) concluded that the larger the area covered by a medium more its contents would be required to be standardized. Given the varying interests and tastes of the people messages must also be broadened along with geographic area, and therefore the content is unlikely to take chances and make innovations. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) also describes in detail the deep impact the ideology of the ruling elite in the influence of media content in chapter 9 ‘The influence of ideology‘, this will be discussed a little later but it is also further summarized and theorized in chapter 11, where Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p. 270) ascertain that factors like cultural significance, a better political system and a higher economy causes one country to appear more in the less privileged countries’ mass media. Therefore a significant factor for establishing the criteria for newsworthiness is economic political and cultural significance. This comes in the way of enterprise Journalism as grass root news sources and other unconventional news sources may be overlooked in the effort to cover more significant countries. Enterprise Journalism therefore is something that is posed by a lot of challenges inherent to its nature, but to add to this it faces many more overwhelming external challenges that have systematically established themselves in stages and spheres in the media to create an hostile environment and system. Therefore we need to look at some of these seemingly overwhelming challenges and more importantly who it is that is most responsible for this dire situation.
To understand these factors and the functional way in which it manifests itself, let us begin with the more apparent factors that keep Journalists from pursuing sources they would want and rather make due with what is more readily available. Today there seems to be a change in the ethics in Journalism with editors wanting to give the people what they want rather than what they need to be aware off. Hallin (1996, p.254) in his chapter ‘Commercialism and professionalism in the American news media’ discusses whether this kind of attitude could lead to a decline of public life or an age of multiple voices and more democracy. Hallin (1996, p.247) reviews the recent changes and explains them through two schools of thought, the readership theory and the stockholder theory. The readership theory claims that as a response to the decline in newspaper readership the Journalists must give the ‘customers’ what they want. The stockholder theory indicates that since the trend of ‘public’ ownership has become the norm with the selling of stocks, the media can be treated as any business for the sole purpose of profit. Another factor that restricts enterprise Journalism is the fact that they are not given the opportunity to go to places where they would be able to find unconventional sources as Davies (2008, p.56) explains that in present times it is common that budding Journalists after a Journalism degree are filled with hopes and enthusiasm of how they are going to impact society and use their unique creativity to make the masses aware, only to end up in a production line in a news factory chained to a keyboard working out trivia and clichés to fill the newspaper. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.161) suggests that the present trends question the top-down organization structure as it is extremely restricting Journalists and the traditional freedom they have had and needed for Journalism. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.145) resound the fact that the economic objectives of the company are intensified by the stockholder form of ownership, and that the resulting larger firms tend to take fewer risks than the smaller ones. This is a negative thing for enterprise Journalism, which by nature needs to invest in creative ideas of Journalists. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.267) also ascertained that according to the present model, middle level media personnel like editors pay more attention to the organization’s goals and thereby necessarily the business side of the organization, than reporters who care more for their sources thereby bringing about constant conflict between editors and reporters. Therefore when there is a conflict between an organization’s need to make profits and its editorial routine an editor who controls both may make the argument to side with the business side of the organization claiming it is more immediate. Given that economic factors take precedence over ethical factors it becomes largely about satisfying consumer needs. This results in a pattern as Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.269) conclude that with a media organization striving to promote itself within a target audience, the more they become tuned and prominently reflect content that are of interest to that particular target audience. This further develops into a pattern wherein programming that attracts the right audience for the advertisers are produced and preferred and programming that does not attract the right audience may be abandoned.
The justifications for the manifestations of these patterns are not solely economic but the time factor is also as significant. A major reason that enterprise Journalism is fast diminishing is simply because there is no time for it in today’s production process of news. There are so many readily available sources and coupled with the fact that Journalists are not given enough time to practically do any investigating or checking even on how much of the information handed to them is true. As Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.262) points out that readily available sources like corporations may result in Journalists favoring them as sources as Journalists are racing against time. This will result in favoring certain types of sources over a period of time. Davies (2008, p.69) illuminates the danger of this situation explaining that for all Journalists these days the sole imperative is not getting an accurate insight into a given story but rather the only concern they can possibly be worried about is to file their stories as immediately as possible, as the present situation demands so. Therefore they spend very less time with their work and much less time if any at all on checking out the accuracy of the information or the legitimacy of the source, this is exactly the kind of environment where rapid repackaging takes place. Davies (2008, p.64) also illustrates that ascertaining truth is one of the primary functions of Journalism, arguing that the object of Journalism itself is truth and central to this objective is the function of checking thereby by taking time away we are taking truth away as well. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, pp.268-269) reflect that sources with economic and political power have the potential to influence the news in a system where Journalists bank on readily available sources, these sources generally hire regular staff exclusively to get information to the media quickly. The media is thus dominated by “official” sources, that influence and involve themselves in issues rather than events. Journalists are also expected to provide the same amount of news on a slow news day and because of an increasing dependence on public relations practitioners may revert to accepting their news rather than come up with enterprising stories. A shocking piece of research by Davies (2008, pp.52-53) gives us an insight into the level at which these readily available sources influence news content and the amount of it that makes the news. What Davies did was commission specialist researchers from the department of Journalism at Cardiff University to take four prestigious newspapers and sample the stories that made it as news. The researchers found that 60% of the stories that made the news was completely or to a large degree out of wire copy and PR material, while 20% of clearly showed elements of wire copy where material had been added, they were unable to ascertain the source of about 8% of the material leaving only 12% of the news, that was actually produced by the reporters. Another elusive reason that enterprise Journalism is diminishing is because Journalists cover events more than they do issues, as this more easily justified given the nature of issues and events, furthermore cover events has in itself been made a routine (Shoemaker and Reese 1996, p.266).
The extent to which enterprise Journalism is being diminished makes it apparent that there are more forces at play than mere economical factors and time constraints. There are other less noticeable yet more prominent factors that challenge enterprise Journalism. The environment that Journalists have to work with discourage enterprise Journalism. Ownership is quite an influential factor in the creation of this environment whether it is negative or positive towards enterprise Journalism. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.166) observed that media scholars had paid close attention to many companies being owned by one person or one entity and concluded that absentee owners tend not to take an aggressive news approach or a strict editorial policy, which resulted in the community interests taking a back seat to corporate and economic factors. McNair (1998, p.24) lists three ways in which ownership dominance influences the working of the media. He notes that the first category is done through economic measures in quite a direct way by disregarding unwanted or inconvenient stories. The second category is done through political means, pointing out that even the governments of the most liberal countries impose laws and censoring measures on the media in a bid to regulate the media and sometimes even intimidate them. The third category that is used as a means to dominate the media is cultural where the Journalists recruited or promoted to influential positions are from a minority and privileged sector of society and have come to form value systems that in line with the ideologies of the dominant groups of society namely the economic, political and cultural elites. This is the kind of environment where enterprise Journalism goes from being hard to nearly impossible. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.169) says that for an organization to establish and maintain control it is essential for the organization to socialize its workers to the routines and in cases of handling situations that have not yet been manipulated into a convenient set of routines then the organization enforces the reporter to act and maybe even think in a certain way. This is done through reinforcement and a reward system while there may even be cases where those that do not comply are either demoted or fired. Given that the control is established through reinforcement both positive and negative, it influences a reporter at a very deep level and he may also feel like changing his ideology because he honestly feels that’s the ‘truth’. Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.265) arrives at a number of conclusions that link reporters from the routines, which are significant to enterprise Journalism. They point out that the longer an individual works for an organization that much more socialized is the individual to the policies of that organization. They also point out that the more a reporter adapt to the routines of the organization the more their work is likely to be used which actually changes what Journalism is and what its function is. They also came up with the hypothesis that the more a reporter incorporates the routines of the organization and as part of his work the more professional he is thought of by his co-workers. Venturing a little bit deeper, leads us into another set of factors that form a bridge between all these factors and the final set. It is the organization that hires a Journalist, what is the basis of this selection process Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.264) found that some employers preferred those with majors in Journalism, while other employers wanted those with majors in liberal arts, more specifically American studies. They also ascertained those who had different “communication” college degrees produced different content than those who had other majors. Another important attribute that in the present system they highlighted is that the role Journalists see themselves in largely impacts the content they produce. Therefore whether they see themselves as disseminating information or interpreting to the masses what others do, or as adversaries to the powerful, it will express itself in their content, thus if these roles are defined to them by the owners and the organization, it is that entity that has a large influence on the content. The most serious danger right now to enterprise Journalism is from what Shoemaker and Reese (1996, p.266) call “pack Journalism”, which is the causes different Journalists to share their ideas looking mainly for each other’s confirmation about news judgments and to observe each other, this is mainly due to editors that question the coverage of a story that is different from another news organizations coverage of that story. Therefore the more Journalists read each others story and depend on their counterparts for confirmation, the harder it is going to be for a Journalist to take up a story that would be enterprising.
Finally the last set of factors that it leads up to deals with how this situation came about, in spite of the fact that Journalism in theory was meant to combat these exact patterns in society. One could say it is lack of vigilance and that may have played a role in some part, but it takes a lot to put the way such a prominent field as Journalism functions in exactly the opposite direction it set out. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) establish the most influential factor is the economic and political elite that subtly brought about a system that insulates them and ensures that things stay they way they are. This coupled with the quickly changing kind of ownership of media organizations create a strong shell that forms a concrete basis so that spheres in the between not only stay the same but also continue to move in the direction it is currently moving. Shoemaker and Reese (1996) illuminates the fact that ultimately it is the owner that has the power in a media organization even though it flows down in parts to those below him. They also shed light on the fact that a large percentage of news comes from governmental and business sources, or what is termed as “official” channels. Individual sources, which are essential for enterprise Journalism have little access or knowledge of dealing with the media. They also examine how minorities are underrepresented, and conclude that the more a minority has acculturated to the majority the better his/her prospects and socio-economic level is. They mention that there are more people with high status than low status jobs in television characters. They note that in an elite medium there are less or no workers similar to its general population. They point out that the more a country’s government faces criticism from the media the more the media is tried to be controlled by the government.
Therefore enterprise Journalism is fast moving towards extinction and the challenges it faces are huge and at a deep level, to survive it would have to face the richest and the most powerful, not to mention them that make the laws. It is very likely that if it does not survive then there will have to be a new definition of democracy that the then media can be a fourth estate too, I do not see the media being a fourth estate to what we now define as democracy, if enterprise Journalism is lost forever.
Reference list
Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (1996), Mass Media and Society, Arnold, London.
Davies, N (2008), Flat Earth News: An Award-winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda, Chatto & Windus, London.
McNair, B (1998), The sociology of Journalism, Arnold, London.
Schlesinger, P (1978), Putting ‘reality’ together BBC News, Constable, London.
Shoemaker, P & Reese, S (1996), Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on
Mass Media Content, Longman, New York.
Sunstein, C (2001), ‘Exposure To Other View Points is Vital to Democracy’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Viewed 27 October 2008,
We have nothing to Fear but Fear Itself.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself. These words by Franklin D Roosevelt in an inaugural address during The Great Depression hold as good today as they did then, a time when terror has become the sole weapon of the unjust. I write this in the recent bomb blasts in my home city Bangalore, a place I believe is one of the most peaceful places to live in on God's green earth. Just like anything else to put an end to terrorism it is vital that we understand it, its dynamics, its weapons, its weak points and what would be the best policy and plan of action for accomplishing the job at hand.
A good start would be at looking at the factors involved which would essentially be the answers to those 5 universal questions…. Who?, To whom?, With what?, Why?, What effect? (Which), and How (to solve)? Therefore the factors involved are 1) the terrorists, 2) the people they wish to terrorize, 3) Fear, 4) To promote radical ideas, 5) The outcome and 6) The government/administration/people.
As it is vital that we understand the nature of terrorism, it will also help us gain some insight into its dynamics. First unlike war where the attack is to large degree on soldiers and others in the war, the people intended to be attacked by terrorists are civilians, innocent civilians without arms to defend themselves. While war in itself is too harsh for the human psyche at most times it is widely acknowledged as necessary most of the time, and so there has always been an element of honour and respect, for example war is first declared before it starts, the civilians are usually given a chance to get out of harm’s way, messengers and ambassadors are spared etc. Terrorism on the other hand is below all this, there is no element of honour, terrorism essentially involves "cheap shots" and playing dirty. There is no declaration before an attack, there are various declarations after the attack, and they depend largely on the element of surprise and catching defenceless people of guard. The fact that these terrorists have to stoop to such levels is testament that these people believe that they don't stand a chance in a fair fight; they cannot choose to declare or go to war because they know that in such a case they will lose and so must resort to these measures. It is evident thus that they believe Fear is their only weapon and their only way is scaring their way into a victory. Thus these people place a lot of emphasis on fear. Fear which we discussed was one of the factors is not only a factor for us, the people trying to be terrorized but also a factor for them as well since they are putting a lot of emphasis on it and it is in fact fear that has caused them to choose such a cowardice means of combat rather than a face to face war. It is tragic that a woman lost her life yesterday in the serial bomb blasts in Bangalore 9 bombs exploded in a matter of 20 minutes in various parts of the city. The amount of lives that were lost was 1, while 19 were injured, again let me remind you there were 9 bombs that exploded in 9 different places. Given the facts of the evidence or if you read almost any article in the newspaper or the internet or see any TV report you will see that the evidence, the location of the bombs, the time it happened etc was not to kill or injure but rather mainly to instill fear, If you think the reason behind this is because terrorists are compassionate, think again, these terrorists care not for their own lives and are willing to blow it up literarily as long as it blows up the lives of others as well, The reason behind this is again fear, fear of retaliation. Terrorists are afraid of a strong retaliation as this means they lose their elements of surprise and may have to fight people with arms rather than spring surprise attacks on innocent defenceless civilians. It is essentially because of this that they choose terrorism and not military combat as they understand that they're odds with an army are very poor. Terror organizations from the Middle East have said that the world trade centre of New York was chosen rather than other targets as it might've elicited too much of a retaliation. Now there are bombs being planted and found in plenty all over India, the reason is these bombs are planted without detonators, I mean really to have to be so badly faced against such odds that you have to plant bombs without detonators cause you are afraid of the reaction if they would burst, in an effort to bring fear, that's pathetic. What are the citizens of the country now supposed to feel fear out of compassion to these utterly vain attempts?
Therefore now let us look at the outcome. While the bomb blasts on the US embassy in the last decade was something that did cause concern, it was of good outcome and success for the terrorists, but 9/11 was what one would think as they're biggest failure! To us it was a priceless loss of innocent citizens, where there can be no recompensation, but to them who have no care or concern for anything human much less human life it was an utter failure since all they really care about is the reaction, that ideally for them should be -ok we'll back off and listen and be ruled by you, just don't kill us like this. Thankfully the reaction they got was nothing like it, rather what they ended up with was alarming as far as their cause is concerned simply because it purged all they're safe havens something they strongly believed would never happen. Thus rather than ending up with more territory and power to control they lost most of that which they had and are staring at complete extinction. Therefore 9/11 was they're biggest failure as they got that equation of "enough lives and damage to cause fear but not enough to bring about an aggressive response" completely wrong! A mistake it looks like they are going to pay for by possible extinction of the whole network. This was a shock as terrorism also involves propaganda to the locals for new recruits, and for this it is essential for them to portray that the odds are with them something that they did in Afghanistan when they claimed that all the technology in America could never match to the advantage they had of the terrain and knowledge of the terrain in Afghanistan. This proved to be false and a lie, and possibly a fatal injury to the morale and claims that the Terrorists possessed. The turn in the story has not only not taken the way they hoped it would but also turned drastically in the way they really did not want it to and did not even consider a possibility, they're backs now are against the wall and we can see it in the level of aggression. Previous to 9/11 and even in the first years of the war they were very aggressive and even boasted at how strong they're network is and how it is no match for the "white devil". Now it is more of an appeal to the world that the "white devil" is truly a devil and must be defeated and so please do what it requires for them to be defeated. The odds are truly stacked against the terrorists and the reason is simply because of the path they have chosen to take. They have put too much emphasis on fear, they have banked on it unconditionally and they're faith in its power has failed them now that they have no control of people through fear; it is time for them to fear. The big bully's biggest fear is that he wouldn't be feared. They're ways have not worked and they are looking at the end. This reinstates once again that the ways of the civilized to be more powerful than the ways of the barbarian, as had they resorted to the pen rather than the sword, fought for their causes through media or journalistic or other civilized means rather than blindly bank on fear and the sword they would have increased their chances multifold.
The reason we as civilized people have such an advantage and the reason choosing the barbaric way of life puts one drastically against the current and the odds is because we as citizens have a right and a responsibility and use it. When we are threatened in the way we are by terrorists we have a right to say we will not be afraid that is in fact our responsibility to say that we are not threatened and by doing so we do not condone their behaviour. When this happens in the global way that it has been happening they are faced with the end. We have a responsibility to boldly ask and demand for our rights and our freedoms! This is the only way we can escape from tyranny and thus we must maintain our freedom vigilantly, because the tyrants don't suddenly come upon us, they sneak up on us, like Hitler sneaked up on Germany, like the Taliban and the Al Qaeda sneaked up on the Afghanistan people. The Afghanistan people and their culture before the Taliban were very hospitable. They are a deeply hospitable people they found it hard to assertive. The Taliban sneaked upon them, assuming a Robin Hood type, take from the rich Soviets and give to the poor kind of disguise and then take from America and give to the poor kind of disguise. Today this lie is totally cleared as they see who really gives to them and who robs from them. But the terrorists sneaked up on them, and they refused to see it till it was too late. We must defend our freedom at all costs and this we must do vigilantly. Freedom is not free and we need to resist tyranny and we need to be brave and we need to face fear so that the tides turn cause really fear is all they have. I have always been very proud of the Bangalore attitude, a photo in the Times Of India showed a group of Bangaloreans in a mall standing a little away from a member of a bomb squad trying to dismantle a bomb and filming it with their mobile phones, instead of getting the hell out of there as fast as they could, its an image like that, that causes a terrorist to fear when he/she sees it. We must be vigilant and brave. It took the death of 2751 people to deal with the situation in Afghanistan, had it been done when the US embassy was targeted it could've been avoided. This is why it is essential for us to be vigilant and intolerant to these methods because what is at stake is human life the more we become intolerant to these methods the smaller the margin of error become in that equation of "enough to cause fear but not enough to provoke retaliation". We must strive to close the gap and bring the status quo to any attempt to cause fear is enough to take action. So that they're backs are really to the wall. What is at stake here is innocent human life and we have nothing to fear.
A good start would be at looking at the factors involved which would essentially be the answers to those 5 universal questions…. Who?, To whom?, With what?, Why?, What effect? (Which), and How (to solve)? Therefore the factors involved are 1) the terrorists, 2) the people they wish to terrorize, 3) Fear, 4) To promote radical ideas, 5) The outcome and 6) The government/administration/people.
As it is vital that we understand the nature of terrorism, it will also help us gain some insight into its dynamics. First unlike war where the attack is to large degree on soldiers and others in the war, the people intended to be attacked by terrorists are civilians, innocent civilians without arms to defend themselves. While war in itself is too harsh for the human psyche at most times it is widely acknowledged as necessary most of the time, and so there has always been an element of honour and respect, for example war is first declared before it starts, the civilians are usually given a chance to get out of harm’s way, messengers and ambassadors are spared etc. Terrorism on the other hand is below all this, there is no element of honour, terrorism essentially involves "cheap shots" and playing dirty. There is no declaration before an attack, there are various declarations after the attack, and they depend largely on the element of surprise and catching defenceless people of guard. The fact that these terrorists have to stoop to such levels is testament that these people believe that they don't stand a chance in a fair fight; they cannot choose to declare or go to war because they know that in such a case they will lose and so must resort to these measures. It is evident thus that they believe Fear is their only weapon and their only way is scaring their way into a victory. Thus these people place a lot of emphasis on fear. Fear which we discussed was one of the factors is not only a factor for us, the people trying to be terrorized but also a factor for them as well since they are putting a lot of emphasis on it and it is in fact fear that has caused them to choose such a cowardice means of combat rather than a face to face war. It is tragic that a woman lost her life yesterday in the serial bomb blasts in Bangalore 9 bombs exploded in a matter of 20 minutes in various parts of the city. The amount of lives that were lost was 1, while 19 were injured, again let me remind you there were 9 bombs that exploded in 9 different places. Given the facts of the evidence or if you read almost any article in the newspaper or the internet or see any TV report you will see that the evidence, the location of the bombs, the time it happened etc was not to kill or injure but rather mainly to instill fear, If you think the reason behind this is because terrorists are compassionate, think again, these terrorists care not for their own lives and are willing to blow it up literarily as long as it blows up the lives of others as well, The reason behind this is again fear, fear of retaliation. Terrorists are afraid of a strong retaliation as this means they lose their elements of surprise and may have to fight people with arms rather than spring surprise attacks on innocent defenceless civilians. It is essentially because of this that they choose terrorism and not military combat as they understand that they're odds with an army are very poor. Terror organizations from the Middle East have said that the world trade centre of New York was chosen rather than other targets as it might've elicited too much of a retaliation. Now there are bombs being planted and found in plenty all over India, the reason is these bombs are planted without detonators, I mean really to have to be so badly faced against such odds that you have to plant bombs without detonators cause you are afraid of the reaction if they would burst, in an effort to bring fear, that's pathetic. What are the citizens of the country now supposed to feel fear out of compassion to these utterly vain attempts?
Therefore now let us look at the outcome. While the bomb blasts on the US embassy in the last decade was something that did cause concern, it was of good outcome and success for the terrorists, but 9/11 was what one would think as they're biggest failure! To us it was a priceless loss of innocent citizens, where there can be no recompensation, but to them who have no care or concern for anything human much less human life it was an utter failure since all they really care about is the reaction, that ideally for them should be -ok we'll back off and listen and be ruled by you, just don't kill us like this. Thankfully the reaction they got was nothing like it, rather what they ended up with was alarming as far as their cause is concerned simply because it purged all they're safe havens something they strongly believed would never happen. Thus rather than ending up with more territory and power to control they lost most of that which they had and are staring at complete extinction. Therefore 9/11 was they're biggest failure as they got that equation of "enough lives and damage to cause fear but not enough to bring about an aggressive response" completely wrong! A mistake it looks like they are going to pay for by possible extinction of the whole network. This was a shock as terrorism also involves propaganda to the locals for new recruits, and for this it is essential for them to portray that the odds are with them something that they did in Afghanistan when they claimed that all the technology in America could never match to the advantage they had of the terrain and knowledge of the terrain in Afghanistan. This proved to be false and a lie, and possibly a fatal injury to the morale and claims that the Terrorists possessed. The turn in the story has not only not taken the way they hoped it would but also turned drastically in the way they really did not want it to and did not even consider a possibility, they're backs now are against the wall and we can see it in the level of aggression. Previous to 9/11 and even in the first years of the war they were very aggressive and even boasted at how strong they're network is and how it is no match for the "white devil". Now it is more of an appeal to the world that the "white devil" is truly a devil and must be defeated and so please do what it requires for them to be defeated. The odds are truly stacked against the terrorists and the reason is simply because of the path they have chosen to take. They have put too much emphasis on fear, they have banked on it unconditionally and they're faith in its power has failed them now that they have no control of people through fear; it is time for them to fear. The big bully's biggest fear is that he wouldn't be feared. They're ways have not worked and they are looking at the end. This reinstates once again that the ways of the civilized to be more powerful than the ways of the barbarian, as had they resorted to the pen rather than the sword, fought for their causes through media or journalistic or other civilized means rather than blindly bank on fear and the sword they would have increased their chances multifold.
The reason we as civilized people have such an advantage and the reason choosing the barbaric way of life puts one drastically against the current and the odds is because we as citizens have a right and a responsibility and use it. When we are threatened in the way we are by terrorists we have a right to say we will not be afraid that is in fact our responsibility to say that we are not threatened and by doing so we do not condone their behaviour. When this happens in the global way that it has been happening they are faced with the end. We have a responsibility to boldly ask and demand for our rights and our freedoms! This is the only way we can escape from tyranny and thus we must maintain our freedom vigilantly, because the tyrants don't suddenly come upon us, they sneak up on us, like Hitler sneaked up on Germany, like the Taliban and the Al Qaeda sneaked up on the Afghanistan people. The Afghanistan people and their culture before the Taliban were very hospitable. They are a deeply hospitable people they found it hard to assertive. The Taliban sneaked upon them, assuming a Robin Hood type, take from the rich Soviets and give to the poor kind of disguise and then take from America and give to the poor kind of disguise. Today this lie is totally cleared as they see who really gives to them and who robs from them. But the terrorists sneaked up on them, and they refused to see it till it was too late. We must defend our freedom at all costs and this we must do vigilantly. Freedom is not free and we need to resist tyranny and we need to be brave and we need to face fear so that the tides turn cause really fear is all they have. I have always been very proud of the Bangalore attitude, a photo in the Times Of India showed a group of Bangaloreans in a mall standing a little away from a member of a bomb squad trying to dismantle a bomb and filming it with their mobile phones, instead of getting the hell out of there as fast as they could, its an image like that, that causes a terrorist to fear when he/she sees it. We must be vigilant and brave. It took the death of 2751 people to deal with the situation in Afghanistan, had it been done when the US embassy was targeted it could've been avoided. This is why it is essential for us to be vigilant and intolerant to these methods because what is at stake is human life the more we become intolerant to these methods the smaller the margin of error become in that equation of "enough to cause fear but not enough to provoke retaliation". We must strive to close the gap and bring the status quo to any attempt to cause fear is enough to take action. So that they're backs are really to the wall. What is at stake here is innocent human life and we have nothing to fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)