In a world that moves too fast, people often take in only headlines and move on. However, if you did that today from only one of the three examples below, you might have walked away with a totally different perspective. That’s why media literacy, taking in as many sources as possible, will help people arrive at a truth that works for them. Check out these examples and try this on your own! I dare you to look at three different sources (or more) on a news item and compare … and I don’t just mean reading the headlines. It’s time to dig deeper everyone! And, let me know your results! 🙂
If you have trouble reading the small print on the images, just click on them to see a larger copy!
The news that people watch, read, or listen to shapes their perception and over time has the potential to transform into a belief system. This post suggests that Americans suffer from a lack of media literacy skills and offers ways in which people can obtain and improve these skills in order to take in a healthy dose of media options. It will argue that what we perceive, we tend to believe.
This post discusses several relevant pieces of literature produced by scholars on the origins of perception and media bias.
In America, citizens have the right to exercise their media literacy skills to search for a vein of truth or a version they can live with. To accomplish this people must cut through the veneer in search of visceral content and that includes stories they may not agree with. But most people are too busy to digest multiple news sources and often feed on news outlets that resonate with their political, social, or environmental positions. So, instead of challenging their views, they merely reinforce them.
Pronin, Kennedy, and Butsch (2006) concluded that people are so confident in their own point of view that others appear biased. In other words, if a co-worker’s views are far from your own, he or she may appear biased to you. Data collected by scholars also suggested that a variety of factors cause perceived bias; for example, an affiliation with a particular political group will alter perception instead of the actual media coverage itself (Ariyanto, Hornsey, & Gallois, 2007; Kim & Pasadeos, 2007). Therefore, people on both sides of an issue will look at the same media story and see it as biased (Ariyanto, Hornsey, & Gallois, 2007; Kim & Pasdeos, 2007).
People unconsciously allow the media to build their perception and eventually manipulate their belief systems. So, how can people re-construct their personal views? Is it possible? I argue that people can change by supplementing their media mix. If individuals use one source like Fox News, but do not supplement it with other views their perception will be limited. The same could be said for those who take in a daily diet of only CNN or Al Jazeera. Aday, Livingston, and Hebert (2005) deduced from their research that during the lead up to the Iraq War, American networks barely mentioned the growing dissent in the US and worldwide that brought millions of people out to rallies and marches. In contrast, Al Jazeera devoted 6.7% of its airtime to the issue of dissent (Aday, Livingston, & Herbert, 2005). Would the Bush administration have sold the public on initiating the war if Americans had heard in greater detail about the worldwide and U.S. dissent on the news? Sadly, we will never know.
In sum, scholars have analyzed the origins of perception bias and concluded that people base their perception of events on the following:
1) what they watch, listen, or read,
2) which political party they affiliate with, and
3) a host of other factors.
In America, many people grew up with only three television networks and they still rely on these sources today. However, young people growing up with new technologies prefer a plethora of options and are ripe to learn how to use them. In that regard, media literacy advocates must continue to encourage people of all ages to vary their media mix to ensure more balance and a broader perspective.
This post discusses two videos that offer different views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In some cases, the mere topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can bring typically mild-mannered people to the brink of emotional distress. Some, especially Christians and Jews, feel that Israel has a God-given right to the land and to defend itself. For example, many of my friends and relatives feel that the Israelis did the right thing by attacking the Palestinians in December of 2008. I argue that if these people were to openly partake of a well-balanced media mix, they might begin to perceive the Israeli-Palestinian issue, as well as other issues, differently.
For example, what if people with strong views against the Palestinians were to watch shows like Focus on Gaza featured on Al Jazeera:
(Al Jazeera English, 2009).
Several of the comments on Al Jazeera’s Focus on Gaza website reveal how people can have an open, civil discussion about this conflict. I would like to highlight two of them:
“I am very thankful that Al Jazeera is investigating war crimes in Gaza. Please don’t stop. I am sure there must be hundreds of war crimes. Al Jazeera is making a difference in the World.” (Barnes, 2009).
Robert Barnes, United States
22/02/2009 (Gaza War Crimes)
and
“It’s interesting, at least from my perspective, that the Arabs and the Jews hate each [other] so much. I speak as a Jew myself when I say that we are sons and daughters of Abraham. There is no logical reason why we should fight. Yes, Israel has done horrible things to Palestinians. But on the flipside, Arabs are waging a war of hatred against Israel just for being a Jewish state. I read the paper everyday and everyday I am amazed at the hatred both sides have. This hate must stop for their to be peace.” (Aaron, 2009).
Aaron, United States
07/03/2009 (Arabs and Jews)
I am not suggesting a total new diet of news from Al Jazeera, but something from the opposite side or at least a different angle. After watching Al Jazeera and Fox News, some people might come up with thoughtful questions or insightful remarks that could lead to a dialogue similar to the one above. For example, the following YouTubevlogger provides a good example of using several forms of media and pausing to ask questions:
(Liberal Viewer, 2009).
Americans need to learn to flex their media literacy muscles. Our brains are in an atrophied state from taking in the same redundant sources. Even though it is painful to listen to something that one opposes or does not understand, we must open our minds, take a deep breath, and try. People who want to discuss these issues should start a blog, embed video comparisons, and add questions to see how other people think. In order to achieve balance, Americans must open their minds to new perspectives.
This post will discuss findings from two scholarly papers and explore why making the invisible visible could cause volatility for Palestinians and others.
Shani Orgad asserted that making the “invisible visible” in the 24-hour transnational news arena could actually “increase instability and amplify the volatility” of the people and the act it exposes (Orgad, 2008, p. 319). Orgad goes on to list several cases where the media visibility caused a negative reaction for formerly invisible people. Orgad suggests that people start to doubt themselves and sees this as a negative. I argue that this awkward stage of doubting oneself or one’s country is part of a growth process. Orgad substantiated this with the ‘rest of the story’ about France and the negative worldwide exposure it gained from the 2005 riots; as a result, France now has their own 24-hour transnational channel. Maybe this is because of the self-examination after the riots, maybe not.
To use Orgad’s (2008) illustration, transnational news is a “multi-faceted” mirror and sometimes reflects an image or side of a country that the leaders do not want others to see (p. 320). For people practicing their media literacy skills, this environment of multiple versions is ripe for gaining perspective and analyzing elements of various stories. In contrast, as Orgad (2008) points out, citizens may become cynical, lose faith in the news, and alienate themselves which therefore, could jeopardize democracy (p. 321). Orgad may have a point here, but this is clearly why America needs to educate and encourage it’s citizens about the media literacy movement.
To that end, Aday, Livingston, and Hebert’s (2005) research substantiated that the networks in their project all framed the Iraq War. These networks included ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox New Channel (FNC), and Al-Jazeera. Each network framed the story according to what they saw as the salient issue, but the reality for people honing their media literacy skills is: “what is covered and what is not” (Aday, Livingston, & Herbert, 2005, p. 11). CNN and FNC showed significantly more stories about battles, tactics, and strategy with a steady stream of military experts offering their opinions. However, the networks barely showed the dissent in the U.S. (one-fifth of Americans) or the “widespread elite opposition” around the world (Aday, Livingston, & Hebert, 2005, p. 11). In contrast, and as mentioned in an earlier post, Al-Jazeera spent 6.7% of their stories on the dissent topic (Aday, Livingston, & Hebert, 2005).
Interestingly, Al-Jazeera made the invisible visible. It covered the humanitarian side of the war, the civilian casualties, the bloody perspective. In an interesting twist, the scholars pointed out that “Al Jazeera did not air many stories on civilian casualties, contrary to conventional wisdom” (Aday, Livingston, & Hebert, 2005). So, why did Americans hear over-and-over again that Al-Jazeera is so unbalanced? Were people in America really watching Al-Jazeera or just sound-bites over-and-over again on CNN or FNC?
According to American journalist and FNC anchor, Brit Hume, the civilian casualties were “merely part of war and not deserving of significant coverage” (as cited in Aday, Livingston, Hebert, 2005, p. 12). I argue that if one of my loved ones were a victim, I would feel differently. It would be significant to me and I would want people to know. Networks that sanction providing a sanitized version of war are doing a disservice to mankind. The fact that the networks continue to highlight or low-light certain issues should provide scholars and people who believe in the need to educate the populace about the media literacy movement the fuel they need to move forward.
This post will introduce organizations like Just Vision, Zochrot, and Just World News that are sharing new perspectives on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict; and, it will look at Israeli newspaper articles that do the same.
Compassionate and courageous people worldwide voice concern about the plight of the Palestinians. They are willing to speak out, but their voices are often drowned out by the mainstream media. So, let me introduce you to some alternative sources,. There are places where you can get, in the words of Paul Harvey, “the rest of the story”; or, as I would say, a new perspective on the people involved or affected by the conflict.
First, one way to inform Americans about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is through entertainment in the form of documentaries or movies. An Israeli/Palestinian/North American/Brazilian production team made up of women created Encounter Point, a powerful documentary showing both sides of the conflict as they come together to resolve their issues through dialogue versus conflict (Avni, 2007). This diverse group of women formed a company called Just Vision and will be launching an online outreach program called Portraits. This venue will feature stories from courageous Israelis and Palestinians who are seeking peace and being ignored by the mainstream media (Just Vision, 2009). See below a 7-minute synopsis of Encounter Point, I believe you will be inspired to see the documentary in full after this tease:
Second, a controversial Israeli group of citizens who have tried to raise awareness of the Nakba–the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948 that included the destruction of hundreds of villages that produced approximately half a million Palestinian refugees. Their group has called themselves Zochrot which means “remembering” and their goal is to “commemorate, witness, acknowledge, and repair” the devastation inflicted on the Palestinians. Zochrot calls for equal rights for all the people of the land including the right for Palestinians to return to their homes. Here is a short four-minute video about the movement:
Third, blogger and veteran journalist, Helena Cobban, started a website called Just World News. Since 9/11/01, Cobban has traveled to eighteen countries and is regarded as an esteemed researcher. She has published seven books, the latest titled, Re-Engage! America and the World after Bush . In Cobban’s words her book , “shows how all U.S. citizens, not just those with advanced degrees in international relations, can start thinking about– and acting upon– the new kinds of challenge that face our country and the rest of the world today.” Check out the link above for the Engage! website and read more about her book and her fresh perspective based on interviews with people from around the world. Or, listen to one of her speeches at the Palestine Center in Washington, DC via the YouTube video below or visit their YouTube site.
Fourth, Ha’Aretz or “The Jerusalem Post”, both Israeli newspapers, are a good source for news. Some people consider Ha’Aretz to be more balanced and fair than newspapers in the United States. Ha’Aretz is known for not moderating their message boards allowing people the freedom to respond without interference. I am not privy to any studies that substantiate my fair and balanced claim, but that is a vein to probe for researchers who are concerned about the lack of balance offered in the U.S.
Back to the newspaper articles, Dalia Karpel wrote a compelling article for Ha’Aretz titled, “Do the Right Thing“ on 17 October 2008 about an Israeli soldier who defied his commander’s order to shoot innocent civilians back in 1956. Another illuminating article in “The Jerusalem Post” by Elana Maryles Sztokman titled, “Racism in the Name of Religion” discussed the prevalence of racism especially in religious schools in Israel. And lastly, an article in Ha’Aretz by Gideon Levy titled, “The Ebb, the Tide, the Sighs” highlighting how Israeli forces continued to attack Gaza’s fishermen even in the “safe zone” … the six-mile area the Israeli government has supposedly allowed them to fish in. Levy describes the incredible ordeal that Muhammad Masalah, a 19 year-old victim who was shot in the “safe zone” has had to face. The Palestinian Authority refused to pay for an Israeli hospital visit, so he had to endure a tenuous three-week cycle of obtaining permission to leave Gaza for treatment. Finally, Masalah and his mother were granted permission by the Interior Ministry of the State of Israel to leave Gaza for one day from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. By the time they cleared the Erez checkpoint and arrived at the hospital it was 4 pm. These are the stories that people need to hear in order to understand what is going on in the occupied territories.
In sum, for Americans and people worldwide to have a better understanding of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, we must search for more than one source of news. Supplements are a necessity, like Jewish Voice for Peace. I am sure that if someone reads this post and looks at the various views I have provided, they will walk away with a different perspective, if not several. And, I would hope that they would be curious enough to start doing some research on their own. That is what we call practicing media literacy. In order to have a more just and open world, we need to do a lot of practicing!
