|
War
changes everything
Latest
headlines
in English and Arabic
 |
the view
from cairo |
|
|
by Tarek Atia |
Relative sophistication
April 25, 2003
| The head of the BBC has
spoken out against US coverage of the Iraq invasion, calling
American TV stations cowards for presenting just the Pentagon's view
of events.
 Greg
Dyke said America had "no news operation strong enough or brave
enough to stand up against" the White House and Pentagon,
reported the Independent.
Dyke also said that some
American networks "swapped impartiality for patriotism"
and "wrapped themselves in the American flag."
It's true the BBC didn't
quite do that, but its coverage of the invasion also seemed quite
inadequate for viewers who wanted to really know what was going
on.
And BBC presenters often had
that same smug -- sometimes even to the point of smiling -- attitude
while speaking of the most horrid of events.
This article in the Guardian
says as much, summing up the BBC's coverage of Iraq as being "fundamental[ly]
orientat[ed] ... towards UK and US forces."
I think it's just that the
BBC is perhaps a little more subtle about it. No flags for this
network, but a carefully nuanced way of presenting the news, so that
even the intelligent viewer is lulled into thinking things are being
presented impartially.
According to a British
friend, that quirk was
more reflective of the relative intelligence of the American and
British audiences. One had to be spoon-fed, while the other needed
to be convinced.
So where does that leave the
Arab audience?
Nowhere, argues this critique
of Arab state run TV from
Reuters.
While the US pro-war media has successfully guided public opinion,
despite the networks' equally obvious bias, the argument seems to be
that this kind of brainwash-formula can't work in the Arab world.
Or, at least, that it needs
to be more sophisticated to work. As one European diplomat quoted in
the article says, "I don't think local [Arab] television can be
improved to the extent that it becomes truly interesting for viewers
yet still manages to manipulate them... People know full well when
the state is trying to bamboozle them."
Why not? Isn't that what TV
in the West is all about? Or is it more about "the sophistication"
of not knowing who's trying to bamboozle you -- whether it be media
moguls, big business, lobby groups or governments -- but agreeing to
be bamboozled anyway.
Maybe the point is that no
one is happy about their media, no matter where they are. It's just a question
of different levels of tolerance.
Send
your comments to Tarek
Atia
|
