How Media Manipulates Truth about Terrorism

Author(s): Daya Kishan Thussu

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 6 (Feb. 8-14, 1997), pp. 264-267
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4405068
Accessed: 11-02-2016 09:07 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political
Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 155.54.184.243 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:07:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

How Media Maniapulates
about Terrorism
Daya Kishan Thussu
The mainstream western media projects Islam as inimical to civilised
values. The demonising of Islam fits in well with the western
geo-political interests in arms and oil. Today, after the demise of
communiststates, when Islam is being seen as a security threat to the
west, the media in the Muslim world needs to devise ways and means
to reduce the dependency on western news sources.
HIZBOLLAH,Hamas,Mujaheddin- these
namesregularlyappearon editorialpages of
international newspapers and news
magazines and continue to dominate the
world's television screens and its airwaves.
Moreoften thannot the turban-clad,bearded
membersof theseorganisationsareportrayed
intheUS-dominatedwesternmediaas fanatic
terrorist groups bent upon destroying
everythingthat is dear to the 'liberal' west.
They figure prominentlyin any discussion
or debate about the Islamic world and
consequentlysuchwordsandphra,sesasjihad
and Allah-o-Akber have become part of
western lingo.
This article looks at the role of the
mainstreamwestern media in projectingan
image of Islam, one of the world's great
religions, as inimical to civilised values. As
a case study,thearticleanalysesthecoverage
in the mainstream western media of the
'Grapesof Wrath'- the Israeli invasion of
Lebanon between April 11 and 27.
The brutal bombardment of Lebanon,
condoned by Israel's friends in the White
House,claimedhundredsof lives, madehalf
a million people refugees and destroyedthe
infrastructure of a countrytryingdesperately
to rebuild after 15 years of civil war and
foreign invasion, in which Israel, among
others, played a crucial role.
The ostensible reason,loyally reproduced
in the mainstreamwestern media, was that
Israel, the supposeddove of west Asia, was
losing patience with Islamic 'terrorists'.As
always,Israelusedthe conceptof 'terrorism'
to dehumanise the Arabs and justify
aggressionandcolonial occupation.The real
reasons, which much of the world's media
tendedto ignore,were morecomplex, as this
article will strive to show.
Imagine the wrath of the westem world
had there been an Arab attackon Israel. As
on previousoccasions,Israelistateaggression
was portrayedin the western media as 'self-
defence' while Lebanese resistance to
occupation was labelled a. 'fundamentalist
terrorism'.
The barragebeganon April I l, coinciding
with the start of the Israeli election cam-
paign.Fromthe firstday, the coverage in the
westem media was characterisedby three
Truth
mainpoints:thatthe actionwas self-defence
in retaliationfor Hizbollah attacks; that it
was measuredand proportionate,and that it
was evidence of greatrestraint-Israelwould
be perfectlyjustified to strike much wider,
at Syria or Iran.
It was reportedon the cover of the London
Daily Telegraph the next day: "Israel
launched an air strike on a Hizbollah base
on the outskirts of Beirut yesterday in
retaliationfor terroristrocket attacks."
An 'analysis' piece headlined 'More than
force needed to beat Hizbollah' by the
newspaper'scorrespondentin Beiruttriedto
rationalise the bombing: "The action is
evidence of Israel's frustration at the
increasing boldness of the Shiite Hizbollah
movement." In the London Economist on
April 13, it ratedonly a mention,as 'Israeli
revenge' in a piece covering the election.
Most westernjournalists echoed the line
taken by the hawkish British defence
secretary,Michael Portillo, who was in Tel
Aviv at the time of Israeli blitzkrieg: "We
look to Israelalways to takemeasureswhich
are measuredand which are consideredand
which are proportionate.I think that Israel
is clearly facing a very substantialterrorist
threatfrom Hizbollah,which is designed to
underminethe peace process."
In fact, the Israeli 'reprisal' was totally
disproportionateto the so-called threatfrom
Hizbollah.Rangedagainstthe tiny groupof
Shiite guerrillas(estimated to be 500) was
the strongestmilitarymachinein west Asia.
Supersonic fighter jets, equipped with the
latestelectronicdevices, sharedthe 'surgical
strikes' with US-made Apache attack
helicopters.Thiswas followedby theartillery
barrage, along with 'pinpoint' airstrikes
against targets in Beirut.
But the reprisalhad to be justified in the
mediareports.Most westernnewspapersran
graphicsshowing 'how violence escalated',
looking at the events between.March 4 to
April I1. Almost all mentioned how
Hizbollah's rocket raids had killed Israeli
soldiers. However, while the number of
Israelis killed by Hizbollah rockets since
1982 in 14 years was just over a dozen,
Israeli military attackshave cost thousands
of Lebanese lives. Yet it is Israel that is
always projected as the aggrieved party,
despiteits recordin suppressinghumanrights
of millions of Palestinians.
As part of the justification of this latest
invasion, many newspaperslinked together
the activities of Palestinian militant group
Hamas and Hizbollah to imply that
Hizbollah's attacks were in some way a
continuationof suicide bombingsby Hamas,
which had claimed dozens of Israelilives in
early 1996. The usual case was being made
thatwhile the Arabsengage in terrorism,the
Israelis only retaliate.
The US presswerejustas activeto promote
theIsraeliversionofevents, as inNewsweek's,
April 22 issue, with only one page on the
invasion. It headlinedthe story with a quote
by a senior Israeli official, Uri Lubrani,"It
is just the beginning". The sub-heading
framed the issue: 'Israel strikes deep into
Lebanonto retaliateagainstHizbollah'.Then
came thejustification,"Aseriesof Hizbollah
attacks began more than a month ago. But
PrimeMinisterShimonPeresfacingelection
on May 29 held his fire in hopes that US-
brokereddiplomacy could ease the border
tensions and keep moribund peace talks
alive."
FourdaysaftertheIsraelionslaughtbegan,
the Wall Street Journal (Europe) editorial,
'Israel's Response in Kind' said: "Given
what Israel has endured, the response is
measuredandjustified." As with the rest of
the mainstream western media it blamed
Syria for the conflict. "Terroristswith no
concern for human life have placed their
arsenalsandstrategiccentresamidstcivilians,
leading to some of the gruesome footage
witnessed in recentdays. ... Israeliincursion
into Lebanon like the one currentlytaking
place,will bejustifiedas a legitimateresponse
to extremeprovocation."On April 16, it ran
a reporttryingtojustifyIsraeliaction,quoting
experts(almostall Americans)tojustify that
Israeli action did not violate international
law.
The Daily Telegraph, which, with a
circulationof morethanone million,remains
Britain's most widely read 'quality
newspaper'had gone furtherin its editorial
of April 15 to point to Israeli self-restraint:
"The logic of the situation would seem to
requirethat Israel attack Syria itself. Yet it
is easy to see why Mr Peres, the architect
of the peace agreementwiththePalestinians,
would balk at such a course." "A raid on
Iran",counselledtheconservativenewspaper,
"would cost less diplomatically,but would
be tangentialto the heartof the matter,which
is the attitude of Damascus."
As the bombardment continued, the
London Times ran an interview with Uri
Dromi, head of governmentpress office in
Israelunderthe headline 'Israelsees Iranas
next in line for punishment'. The report
beganthus:"TheIsraeligovernment'ssenior
spokesman said yesterday it was now a

264 Economic and Political Weekly February8. 1997

This content downloaded from 155.54.184.243 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:07:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
'working assumption' that a western-led
coalition, similar to the one which drove
Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991, would
launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran to
preventit obtaininga nuclearcapability."It
dwelt at length on how Israeli bombing of
Iraq'sOsiraknuclearreactorin 1981 made
the Arabworld a safer place. The articledid
not mention Israel's own nuclear arsenal.
On television, the coverage was
reminiscentof the 1991 US invasion of Iraq.
Following the example of their American
friends, the Israeli army showed videos of
laser guided weapons to demonstrate the
accuracy of their targeting. This uncritical
use of such videos was surprising,given the
admission by many journalists in various
memoirs and books written on Operation
Desert Storm, that they were duped by the
US militaryduringtheir slaughterof Iraqis.
Nevertheless all major TV networks,
including the BBC, faithfully broadcastthe
footage from the Israeli military videos to
show how clean the invasion was. And their
reporterson the groundfollowed up with the
stereotypical pictures of fanatic chest-
thumpingMuslims vowing revenge against
the Jewish enemy. As always, they failed to
presentanarticulateLebanesewho could put
acrosstheopposingviewpointin aconvincing
manner.
The attitudeof the media changed when
hi-techapparentlyfailed the Israelis,leading
to the massacresat a UN base in Qanawhich
killed more than 100 innocent refugees,
including dozens of women and children.
Israel's claim that faulty targeting was to
blame (it was aiming at a nearby Hizbollah
base) was later discounted by independent
observers.
The bias in coverage was evident in the
way this massacre was reported by many
western newspapers. Take the example of
the London Times (second largest selling
qualitynewspaperinBritainwithacirculation
of morethan600,000). This bastionof British
establishment- now owned by Australian-
born Rupert Murdoch - headlined the
massacrestory thus: 'Clinton leads call for
peaceafter97 die'. A line above the headline
said 'Attack on Lebanon will go on unless
Hizbollah calls cease-fire'.
The US media was even more apologetic
in its coverage. The Wall Street Journtal
headline about the Qana massacre tried to
put a gloss of normalityon it. 'Israeli shel-
ling of UN base kills dozens'. Newsweek's,
April 29 cover story on the massacrecalled
it "accidental killing" of 100 Lebanese
who had died "in the crossfire." The
cover of April 29 issue of its rival Time
magazineentitled 'Wrathand Blood - Israel
stands tough after a disastrous error', was
little more than an apologia for Israeli
terrorism.
The Dail) Telegraphjuxtaposed a banner
headline'Israelishells kill 94 refugees' with
Economic and Political Weekly February8, 1997
This content downloaded from 155.54.184.243 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:07:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
a quote in bold type from Peres - "We had
no choice but to defend our people and
soldiers". It again followed the standard
Israeli tactic of deflecting attention away
fromtheirown actions,by blamingtheSyrian
president Hafez-al-Assad for Hizbollah's
action.
The editorialon the massacreon April 19
said: "If the Israelis want to goad him into
action against Hizbollah - by making him
pay the price of his cynical games - they
shouldconcentratetheirfireon Syriantargets
and, if necessary. on Syria proper. Such
action would not only be strategicallyright,
but would also do much to restore Israel's
image as the David, ratherthan the Goliath
of the Levant."The fact that the Telegraph
is owned by the Canadian media mogul
ConradBlack who also owns the Jerusalem
Post - may have something to do with this
stridently sympathetic, pro-Tel Aviv line.
The Sunday Times, the most widely read
weekly broadsheetin Britain, selling over
a million copies every week, also sought to
divertblameaway fromIsrael.Inaneditorial
'The Wider Terror',in its April 21 edition
it said: "Hizbollah'spatronsand Lebanon's
power brokers bear a much heavier
responsibility.Iran'sAyatollahAli Khomeini
brandshis own country a terrorstate when
he urgesHizbollahto continueits campaign."
It continued:"ShouldIran,Iraqor any other
countrywhere Islamicfundamentalismhold
sway ever becomenuclearpowers,theworld
would move 'into a new age of terror."
That the editorial put both Iranand Iraq
in the same fundamentalistcampdespite the
factthattheyareswornenemiesandrepresent
two entirely different political ideologies
(Iraqis oneof themostsecularArabcountries)
demonstratesthatfacts can be sacrificedfor
propagandareasons.
WHATWAS MOSTLYIGNORED
As usual small lies were exposed in the
media - whether the Israeli military knew
thatthey were shelling the UN base or it was
a mistake. But the real issue, the change in
securityenvironmentinwest Asia,was hardly
discussed. Few western media outlets even
cared to mention that just days before its
invasion of Lebanon, Israel had signed a
military agreement with Turkey.
The agreement, which the Arab League
called "an act of aggression", gives Israel
access to Turkishair bases for the first time.
The agreementviolates the Organisationof
the Islamic Conference (OIC) resolution,
supportedby Ankara, stating that all OIC
members should abstain from any form of
military co-operation with Israel while it
continuedto occupy Arabland.Itgives Israel
domination from the Mediterraneanto the
Red Sea. By virtueof this pact,Tel Aviv has
vastly enhancedits operationalrange.Israel
can now not only strike at Syria, its most
formidablerival, fromtwo directions,it also
stands in easy reach of Iran. Now there is
talk of a US-Israeli 'defence alliance', the
goal of which would be "to meet common
threatsin the years to come", US president
Bill Clinton said. "US-Israeli strategic co-
operation", he promised, "will grow in
importance."
But for most westernjournaliststhis was
not the big story. In fact, Time, Newsweek
and the Economotist failed to even mention
the security deal in their coverage of the
attack.
Emboldened with this deal the Israeli
government'sideabehindinvadingLebanon
was that Rafiq Hariri,the Lebanese prime
minster,seeing thedestructionof his country,
wouldrushto Damascus,whichin turnwould
curb Hizbollah. The balance of power in
Lebanon was to be changed. It was an
opportunemoment.Iranand Syria hadbeen
isolated at the 29-nation anti-terrorism
summit in March, attendedby Clinton and
hostedinEgyptby presidentHosniMubarak.
For the first time, Arab leaders from
Morocco to the Gulf expressed solidarity
with Israel. King Husseinof Jordan,having
broken ties with Saddam Hussein's
governmentin Baghdadand signed a treaty
with Israel in 1994. was moving towards
Israel. For Peres it appearedto be the best
way to teach presidentAssad, the powerful
influencein Lebanonwherehe stillhas30,000
troops, a lesson.
Keento show Israelisthathe was a"tough"
leader, Peres timed the attack to make
electoralcapital out of it. He could counton
theformidablepro-Israelilobbiesin London,
Paris, New York and Washington - the
American-Israel public affairs committee
remains by far the most powerf4l foreign
policy pressure group in the US capital.
Clinton,the most pro-Jewishpresidentin US
history, denounced on March 5 the Hamas
suicide bombings in Israelas "desperateand
fanaticacts aimednotjust as killing innocent
people, including children, but killing the
growing prospects for peace in the Middle
East". In starkcontrast,his response to the
slaughter of the Lebanese women and
childrenwas notto condemntheperpetrators,
butmerely to call on 'all parties'for a cease-
fire.
Loyalty to Israel in the US cuts across
party lines, partly due to Zionist efforts to
portray Arabs as villains. Bob Dole, the
Republicanchallengerfor presidencytouted
the official line. "You have to keep in mind
it was all initiated by Hizbollah", he told
journalists,"Idon'tknowwhatotherrecourse
Israel had?"
Not surprisingly,Washingtondid every-
thing in its power to block the UN security
council condemning the Israeli invasion.
The US was the only countryto vote against
a resolution at the UN human rights
commission on April 23 deploring Israel's
265
attackson civilians in Lebanon and calling
for a halt to air raids.
Despite its violations of UN resolutions
and internationallaw in its routine attacks
on Arab lands, Israel has never been
characterised as a "rogue" nation or a
"terrorist"state the phrases routinely used
to refer to the enemies of Washington. In
July 1993, duringthe peace talksjust weeks
before thatfamous handshakeon the White
Houselawnson theOslo Accord, 'Operation
Accountability'madehundredsof thousands
of Lebanese civilians refugees.
Then, as in April 1996, the US blamed
Hizbollahfor"inciting"the Israelisandurged
"all sides" to exercise "restraint".Then, as
now, Israelipremisesframedthe issues, and
Israeli sources dominated coverage. Arab
views were largely marginalised.
As a commentatorwrote alterthe invasion
of Lebanon.inRthe Israeli daily Ha'aretz:
"We killed them with a kind of yuppie
efficiency.We believe withabsolutecertitude
thatrightnow, with the White House in our
hands,the Senate in our hands and the New
YorkTimes in our hands,the lives of others
do not count in the same way as our own."
DEMONISINGISLAM
Israeli efforts to project Islam as a threat
to the west have been well-supportedby the
western media, which continues to portray
Muslimsas fundamentalists. Thisdemonising
of one of the majorreligions with nearlyone
billion adherentsin the world has obvious
political overtones. Militant Islam is being
manufacturedby muchof the westernmedia
as the enemy of secular liberal democracy.
Ignoranceof Islam in the west leads to an
inabilityto recognisethe contributionof this
great religion to the development of the
modern world and provides fertile ground
for anti-Islamic propaganda.In American
society there is a deep-seated prejudice
againstIslam, which is often identified with
Arabterrorismand obscurantismand hence
perceivedas athreatto liberal,secularsociety.
That perceptionof Muslims was underlined
duringtheOklahomabombingin April 1995
which claimed 168 lives. This, the biggest
act of terrorism in the US, was initially
blamed on Islamic groups in the American
media without any evidence. As it turned
out, the outragewas carriedout by members
of the US far-right.
Muslim stereotypes are fixed in the
American popular culture by Hollywood.
Arnold Schwarzenegger in his hugely
successful film TrueLies, kills 80 terrorists,
all of them Arabs. The latest offering from
thatcitadelof globalpopularcultureto offend
Muslim sentimentsis ExecutiveDecision, a
film about Chechen Muslim terroristswho
kill innocent westerners and highjack an
aeroplane with the intention to crash it on
Washington.
Media images of Muslims as fanatic
aggressors pervade the non-Muslim world
266
This content downloaded from 155.54.184.243 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:07:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and especially the west. In Britain, the
symbolic burning of the novel, Satanic
Verses,by a small groupof the country'sone
millionMuslimswas focusedon by themedia
to reinforce the stereotype of Muslims as
bigots. In France, there is a cultural war
going on over the right of Muslim women
to wear Islamic dress. In Germanyand the
Balkans prejudice against the Turks is
widespread. And in Russia, Muslims are
seen, as witnessed during the Chechenya
conflict, as "drug pushers and bandits."
OrdinaryMuslimshavebecomethetargets
of this demonisationwhen in fact Muslims
have been worst sufferers in most recent
aggressions - in Bosnia, in Chechenya, in
lraqandin Somalia.Andyet, itistheMuslims
who get the blame. Just a day before the
Israeli invasion (April 10) the Wall Street
Jouirnlal(Europe) ran an editorial page
analysis, 'Rogue States want more thanjust
Israel'. The article argued, "...from a
geopolitical perspective, the Arab-Israeli
conflictis reallyonly a neighbourhoodbrawl,
a tactical weapon in a more ambitious
geopolitical war waged by several rogue
states:Iraq,Libya,SyriaandIran.They want
to underminewestern allies and interestsin
the Middle East, and eventually control its
oil resourcesand vulnerablesupply lines in
order to vanquish the Christianwest."
This line of argumenthasbecome standard
in the post-cold war world. Islamic
fundamentalismis projectedas thenew threat
to westerncivilisation, while other kinds of
fundamentalismsuch as Christian,Zionist
or Hindudo notreceivethesameopprobrium
in the internationalmedia.
One reason for this demonisation is the
fact thatIslamic world sits on threequarters
of the earth's known reservesof oil, crucial
to modern industrial societies. The
demonising of Islam fits in well with the
western geo-political interests in arms and
oil. It is no coincidence that the Arabworld
continues to be the biggest marketfor arms.
The west's global economic and strategic
interests are reflected in the way certain
areas and themes, such as Islamic
fundamentalism,areregularlycovered.There
is a clear distinction in the presentationof
the west's friendsand foes: e g, Israel 'good
guy', Iran 'bad guy'.
The reportingof events in countriessuch
as Iran,Iraqand Afghanistanshows this in
relationto the acknowledgedaims of the US
and its 'allies' in the post-cold war world.
And since the west dominates the
technological means of communications-
both hardwareand software - its message
becomes a global one.
Almost invariablyany story aboutIranin
the western media is about the excesses of
themullahrule.Beforethe Islamicrevolution
of 1979, Iranwas one of the linchpinsof US
policy in the Gulf. During the Shah's rule,
the country received a favourablepress in
the west. Even now, theShah is remembered
Economic and Political Weekly
tondly as a 'friend' of the west who bought
'stability' to an unstable region - a recent
BBC documentaryabout the Shah put the
best possible gloss on a man who was by
any standardsa very corrupt and ruthless
ruler.
But Iranunder an Islamic governmentis
unacceptableto the west because it refuses
to accept dictates from Washington and
therefore gets a bad press. For example, it
is impossible to find a positive story about
Iranin any western publication.In fact, few
people know - because the western media
would not tell them - that accordingto the
UN's 1994 Huinan: Developmnetnt Report,
Iran was among the top ten performersin
human development over the last three
decades. This was achieved despite the US
sanctionsand the huge debts incurredby the
eight-year-longwar against Iraq,aided and
abetted by the west.
Instead the image one gets of Iran is of
aggressive 'atomic Ayatollahs' bent upon
destroyingthe world.The coverageof Iran's
atomic programme, claiming that it is
developing the 'Islamic bomb', is a case in
point. Few people know, (again, because
internationalmediawould not tell them)that
the Vienna-based International Atomic
Energy Agency has said that its nuclear
programmewas forpeacefulpurposes.Unlike
Israel, with a nuclear arsenal of more than
200 warheads that never worries western
'experts', Iran is seen as posing a grave
danger to world peace, although the same
experts acknowledge thatit has yet to build
a bomb.
Justdays afterthe Israelibombardmentof
Lebanon stopped, the US state department
released a list of countries which it says
sponsorterrorism,namingIran,Syria,Cuba,
Iraq,Libya. North Korea and Sudan. Apart
from two 'communist' countriesCuba and
North Korea, the other five are Muslim
nations. Most media reports uncritically
quoted the state departmentposition, that
Iran was the main "state sponsor of
internationalterrorism",citing its alleged
supportforterroristgroupsfromNorthAfrica
to CentralAsia. And now to the chagrinof
his Europeanallies, Clinton has announced
thatthe US will punisheven non-American
companies trading with Iran.
Amongthe 'rogue'states,Iraqhasa special
place. The country was armed to the teeth
by both the west and the Soviet Union and
supportedin its efforts to scuttlethe Islamic
revolutionin Iran,which led to the firstGulf
war that claimed more than a million lives.
But when the Iraqidictatorrefusedto accept
the dictates of Washingtonthe media were
swung into action. Leadingup to the second
Gulf warof 1991, most of the westernmedia
did everything in their power to act as the
public relationsoutlets for the Pentagon,in
whatwas the world's firstmediawar.Rarely
were the.realwar aims discussed:permanent
military presence in the Gulf to control oil
February8, 1997
and the US agenda for the post-cold war
world.
Afghanistanis anotherkey example. The
Mujahideen 'freedom fighters', once the
heroes of the western media who fought
againstgodlesscommunismduringthedying
days of the cold war, are today's fanatic
'Islamic fundamentalists'.When the Soviet
troops were in Kabul, the world's media
outlets were inundatedwith reports, many
emanating from Islamabadand credited to
western diplomatic sources. Stories of the
heroicstruggleof the freedomfighters,who,
to anyone who looked carefully, were little
more than drug-pushers and mercenaries
financedby theCIA,dominatedthecoverage.
Since the Russians have left, coverage of
that hapless country is much reduced and
different in tone - the 'fundamentalists'
fighting over Afghanistanare now seen as
partof the general 'threat' posed by Islam
which is a key featureof the post-communist
world order.
Today Islam is being elevated not merely
as an ideological challenge thathas replaced
communism as the west's enemy but also
as a security threat. Indeed, the former
secretary-generalof NATO Willy Claes is
on recordas saying that Islam is as great a
threatto the west as communism once was.
AlreadyNATO has developedjoint military
strategy with countries like Israel, Egypt,
Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria to combat
'Islamic fundamentalism'.
A 'Cold War 11' is being waged against
Islam. There are conservative - and
increasinglyeven 'post-modern',post-Soviet
progressive voices in the west - which
underpinthose dangerousideas.The Islamic
worldtook particularexception to an article
by US politicalscientistSamuel Huntington,
publishedin the influentialjournal Foreign
Affairs in 1993. Entitled 'Clash of
Civilisations',it anticipateda worldin which
conflicts of cultures would dominate the
internationalscene. Huntington called on
western and 'westernised' nations to ally
againstthe new threat.Criticssaw his article
as a call for a new crusade against Islam,
an idea that received a favourable press in
the west, especially in the US.
MEDIAMONOPOLY
If this demonisation of Islam were only
meantfor a westernaudience it would have
posed less of a problem,since the west has
a long history of viewing Islam as a threat,
goingbackto thecrusades.Butthedistortions
in reportingdo not only impact on western
audiences. With the expansion of western
electronic empires, western media have
instant global reach through satellite and
cable technology. Western and, more
specifically, Anglo-American media
dominate the world's online services,
television, radio and printjournalism.
The bulk of internationaltelevision news
is disseminated through western news
organisations- both raw footage from TV
newsagencies such as Reuters Television,
WorldwideTelevisionNews andAPTV,and
completed reportsfrom satellite and cable-
based organisationssuch as CNN, Sky and
BBC. The Voice of America and the BBC
WorldService, with their various language
services, dominate the world'.*airwaves.
Of the world's four biggest iilcmrnational
news agencies - Associated Press. (Inited
Press hIternationial,Reuters and Agence
FraniicePresse, the first three are Anglo-
American, and between them the four
disseminate nearly 80 per cent of global
news. Despitehavinginternationalstaffthese
companies promote, consciously or
unconsciously, a western, and more
specifically, an Anglo-American, news
agenda.
Moreover, many southern newspapers
(virtually all major English-language
newspapers in India) and newsmagazines
proudly carry regular commentaries and
features from western newspapers and
magazines, thanks to syndication
arrangements. Thus western news
organisationswield greatinfluencein setting
and then building a global news agenda,
conforming to western interests.
As well as using the western press as the
source for their stories, many southern
journalists,especially those belongingto the
local elite media, mimic its language, news
values and styles, however inappropriate,
which are often inimical to understanding
the complex problems that beset southern
societies. Witness the coverage of Islamic
fundamentalismin non-Islamic world - in
Africa, LatinAmericaor India.When prime
ministerP V NarasimhaRao was visitingthe
US in 1994,IndiaTodayrana 20-page cover
story 'Pan-Islamic Fundamentalism -
Exporting Terror' on the so-called threat
from militant Islam that India faced.
But why has Islam allowed itself to be
demonised?Whycan'tthe Muslimsputtheir
case acrossprofessionallyandpersuasively?
Whilewesternmediahaveinternational reach
andinfluence,the mediain Islamiccountries
often lack credibilityeven within theirown
borders. Despite heavy doses of rhetoric
about Islamic solidarity and brotherhood,
most Arab governments oppose open and
informedmedia debate, with the result that
the westernperspectiveon world issues still
dominate.
Efforts to develop a pan-Islamic news
organisation have failed to deliver mainly
becausetheylackwhatwesternmediaenjoys,
namely international credibility. It is no
coincidencethatsomeof themorenoteworthy
Muslim publicationsoperate from London
and Paris rather than from Arab capitals,
where democratic debate and political
pluralismis discouragedby often autocratic
governments.
Sadly,muchof Islamicjournalismremains
obsessed with power politics and biased
towards ruling elites. There is a pressing
need to develop a 'public sphere' within
Islamic societies where issues of cultural,
political and economic significance can be
debated freely.
When the Israelis were pulverising
Lebanon,a memberof the ArabLeague, no
Arab government said anything beyond
platitudes. Indeed all the diplomatic work
was being done by the westerners.Hervede
Charette,the French foreign minister, was
the only foreign dignitaryto visit the Qana
camp. "We must, all of us, ask why it is that
for the past five decades we have watched
Israel violate our sovereignty, massacreour
civilians,humiliateoursoldiersandgenerals,
colonise our land,even as we makespeeches
and vow vengeance", asked the US-based
PalestinianwriterEdwardSaid in an article
fortheLondonGuardiant, while Israeliplanes
were bombing Lebanon.
A key task of journalism in the Muslim
world is to cultivate a sense of critical
awareness, sadly lacking in most of the
Islamic media. The need for such a change
is more pressing than ever before, at a time
when Islam is being projectedas the enemy
number I by the west - a tendency that is
likely to grow as the fight to control central
Asian oil escalates between western based
oil companies and the governments in
Moscow andthe newly independentMuslim
countries of central Asia.
An emphasis on pan-Islamicand indeed,
south-south news exchange, would help
reduce dependence on western news
sources and stop the vertical flow of
information - from north to south to a
horizontaland more democraticflow from
Asia to Africa, from Latin America to the
Arab world - thus counteracting western
propaganda.
However, this is a long-term goal and
needs a good deal of political will and a
critical understanding of how the media
systemswork,nationallyandinternationally.
There is another, perhaps simpler way to
deal with what Ayatollah Khomeini
characterisedas 'global arrogance', of the
west. In the final analysis, in a capitalist
society mediais a businessandlike any other
business it is driven by the profit motive.
Since most of the western media operatein
an increasingly competitive international
bazaar and survive by selling information,
would it not be more effective to exercise
the power of the consumer? Libraries in
manydevelopingcountriessubscribeto Time,
Newsweek,Economist,etc. Whyshouldpoor
countriesspend all thatmoney to read,what
is at worst, westernlies or at best, half-truths
or quartertruths?
In an age when Mahatma Gandhi has
become fashionableonce again,even among
the people responsiblefor assassinatinghim,
the good-old Gandhian idea - bahishkaar
(boycott)' should be evoked to teach the
western media a lesson.

economic and Political Weekly February8, 1997 267

This content downloaded from 155.54.184.243 on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:07:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions