Instead of trying to understand why a majority of the citizens of the State are inclining towards the far-right Republican traditions, the self-professed liberal media bigwigs freely throw about the tags of ‘racist’, ‘Islamophobist’ and ‘homophobe’- the conclusion being that now there is a distinct wall that entails a clear demarcation between ‘us’ and ‘them’, thinks Annesha Das Gupta.
Media from all over the world has been most emphatic in conceiving and reporting of the numerous activities performed by the extremist groups. And most of the times reportage by the mainstream media has been accused of melodrama, reeking of sensationalism and being fraught with idealisation of Western and European neoliberal front. Allegations spurted out by the critics tell of a mammoth effect on the demography of how in turn they will perceive the actions of terror and, as we know, the lives of those associated with the proceeding acts.
When talking about the radicalisation of religion and setting the ball in motion, we tend to think about the fraternity of Islam in particular. Ergo, people form different opinions about what the religion actually might or might not preach and what the affiliated community ultimately practices. And this creates fear, misinformation and prejudice, starting from the lower rungs of the society to the highest level of judiciary in a country.
ISIS has been known to publish stylised, glossy and exhaustive webzines to spread their own general beliefs. Other such organisations went as far as coming out with different male and female versions.
Now, this pertains to the everyday working class citizens who did not hold a gun or fall into the political and the religious rigmarole of the colonised nations. Sated in their bubble, they are nodding their heads along with the statements issued by the government officials or the print and electronic media. And again among these people live those who follow the trail of what the extremist organisations teach and act about. One may call this the budding of curiosity to discover the ‘actual truth’ or else the desire to know the ‘story of the other side’. ISIS has been known to publish stylised, glossy and exhaustive webzines to spread their own general beliefs. Other such organisations went as far as coming out with different male and female versions. Then one cannot of course leave behind the power that social media holds, as it is being constantly asserted by experts in this field – commissioned by a plethora of governments, think tanks, universities and the media. To cite their findings and analysis in this realm, we have to again mention the instances of online recruitments by fundamentalist groups by tapping into the keen utilisation of Twitter handles and Facebook accounts to seek out potential candidates.
The views are contrarian and so are the judgments.
Though one point is sufficiently clear – the media in its multifaceted manifestations is a very powerful tool. The hands to which it will presently belong can ultimately control and influence the human psyche considerably. And it is how different sets of people from either government or fundamentalist groups or private organisations are making use of the airwaves to propagate their own agendas.
The University of Twente summaries the Bullet hypothesis saying that the bullet is the ‘message’, the media being the one who shoots the ‘gun’ and the audience as the ‘recipient’ (and possibly someone who is unable to dodge the incoming impact) where the bullet is being injected. Calling the receiver as passive and the injector as active, it creates a unique model illustrating the points that has been echoed by a number of other journalists and academics.
Injecting The Bullet
The media analysts can consider the Bullet Theory of Mass Communication a passé, but it certainly does hold an incredible credit in this particular discourse. And more than certain, if we are going to maintain a narrative about how it is the mainstream media, which controls the actions and convictions of its targeted audience; as, acknowledged by the dissenters.
The University of Twente summaries the Bullet hypothesis saying that the bullet is the ‘message’, the media being the one who shoots the ‘gun’ and the audience as the ‘recipient’ (and possibly someone who is unable to dodge the incoming impact) where the bullet is being injected. Calling the receiver as passive and the injector as active, it creates a unique model illustrating the points that has been echoed by a number of other journalists and academics.
In Economic and Political Weekly’s 1997 issue came out a three paged article by Daya Kishan Thussu titled ‘How Media Manipulates Truth about Terrorism’ commenting on the prejudice reflected in the leading dailies of the U.S. while covering Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. A fact, now well known, that the former was substantially funded and backed by the western nations. He opines on how the media narrated a story that benefited the image of the West while simultaneously ostracising the Arab and the Gulf countries. “One reason for this demonisation” Thussu writes, “is the fact that Islamic world sits on three quarters of the earth’s known reserves of oil, crucial to modern states”. He goes to further add on the lacunae created by the hegemonic news organizations where “there is a clear distinction in the presentation of the West’s friends and foes” – articulating in short terms – “Israel’s ‘good guy’ and Iran’s ‘bad guy’”.
The culmination of the vying between the U.S. and their self-claimed enemy of the Islamic countries occurred with the advent of the infamous 9/11 and the destruction of the Twin towers. The edifice was unarguably the symbol of the Western power and influence and the demolition of such a sacred sight invariantly irked Washington to cease control over the lives of the Arab nations. It did not matter whether the regions were connected with the preceding event and forces or not. And more ironically, it did not affect them that Al-Qaeda and more specifically Bin Laden were the products of the same colonization of the United States that once drew its economic capitals from those so-called illegitimate zones and hubs of the terror. In Deconstructing Terrorist Violence by Ram Puniyani, the author unveiled the series of operations conducted and supported by the CIA in the interiors of Afghanistan, where the natives were coerced to cultivate opium by the Mujahidden and the sustenance of the terrorist activities. Hence stroking the curiosity of what might be the cause of such double standards.
And drawing in comparisons, we can try to figure out how the connotation of the word ‘terrorism’ evolved and where does it precociously stand now. Taryn Butler informs us about the ambiguity of the term in a crisp, roundabout statement – “One of the problems people face nowadays, though is defining terrorism. Before 9/11, there may have been a less stereotypical definition out there, but most Americans view a terrorist as being someone of Arab or Middle-Eastern descent, or a suicide bomber”.
Talking about American-bred terrorism and the West’s tendency to level the Muslim population as the real perpetrators of the crime Hamid Dabashi writing for Al Jazeera– quips, “Islam and Muslim have become metaphors for terrorism and barbarity and today, even the most ‘progressive’ Westerns use terms such as ‘jihad’, ‘jihadist’, or ‘fatwa’, when they want to refer to their own (Christian or Jewish) ‘fanatics’, as if no other term in English or other European languages can be found to label their own instances of terrorism”.
Shoaid Danyal mapping the coming about of the moniker of a proper ‘terrorist’ and acts of ‘terrorism’ sustains that initially the word had astonishingly procured its membership with the dawn of the French Revolution and is maintained by the upcoming revolutionaries of the movement who declared themselves as ‘non-state actors’ battling against the ‘state agents’. Danyal calls it a ‘value-neutral’ term-one that has been used by freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh who identified himself with the label and declared himself to be a ‘fighter against the autocratic regime of the British Raj’. A detailed account of the affiliation can be found in Singh’s the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association party manifesto.
When directing an article towards the moors of ‘terrorism’ and its ramifications, it will not be wise to avoid the concurrent scenario that the United States (the maestro of it all) is grappling with. And thus we play the ‘Trump Card’. From the ignorance of the much ‘eloquent’ American media to testing the platform of much hyped ‘refugee crisis’ and the ‘Muslim Ban’ in the ‘land of opportunities’.
Instead of trying to understand why a majority of the citizens of the State are inclining towards the far-right Republican traditions, the self-professed liberal media bigwigs freely throw about the tags of ‘racist’ , ‘Islamophobist’ and ‘homophobe’- the conclusion being that now there is a distinct wall that entails a clear demarcation between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
The buzzwords namely that of the elite liberal English-language media had and is still dominating the sphere of public opinions during and after the recent American elections –constructing a glass house where the Trump supporters are the caricatures while the adherents of Hillary as the rightful victors. And thus, it is no wonder the house was so easily fragile that it promptly shattered into incredulous pieces after the declarations of the final outcome. Instead of trying to understand why a majority of the citizens of the State are inclining towards the far-right Republican traditions, the self-professed liberal media bigwigs freely throw about the tags of ‘racist’ , ‘Islamophobist’ and ‘homophobe’- the conclusion being that now there is a distinct wall that entails a clear demarcation between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The ‘us’ being the populace who suffer from the saviour complex (and descend into straightforward bullying) and the ‘them’ being the mass who are envisaged as illiterate and shabby bigots who are more or less incorrigible.
On November 9th, 2016 Harvard Business Review published an interview with Leslie John, a Harvard Business School associate concentrating on behavioural sciences and human psychology. It is intriguing to note that on being asked the reasons behind Donald Trump’s win, she replied with a simple one-worded answer but one that was loaded in its many, many aspects – ‘Overconfidence’. And another observation that the interviewer Eben Harrell provides us with that caught my attention and can definitely be quoted here is – “It’s interesting that during the campaign many commentators scorned Trump supporters for having blind spots, yet it turns out that those commentators were prone to the same cognitive biases.”
The recent protests at the America’s JFK airport against the detaining of the Muslims and second generation American-Arabs by the local residents started a huge wave of vehement disagreement, which was both covered and disseminated in equal parts by the traditional as well as the new media.
It would be certainly easy to blame it all on Trump’s parochial views and the politics of the far right. Though the sheaf of documents structured a totally different collage of events, the same actions have been taken by the different governments of the States, time and again.
Rejection of Trump’s referendum to dissuade the visitors of the Middle-West by the Federal judges has definitely been lauded by the urban liberal elite across the continents. And surely it was laudable, though a person might wonder if it was the first incidence where the nation has taken up such steps or not. It would be certainly easy to blame it all on Trump’s parochial views and the politics of the far right. Though the sheaf of documents structured a totally different collage of events, the same actions have been taken by the different governments of the States, time and again.
On 19th November, 2001 after the historic attack in New York, the United Nations published a press release on their website where the then High Commissioner for Refugees “urged world governments and politicians to avoid falling into the trap of making unwarranted linkages, between refugees and terrorism”. Whereas years later, Russell Berman penning a report for The Atlantic magazine set out to correct the assumptions in the annals of the emigrants and the States – “Immigration of any kind has caused tension and in many cases outright hostility throughout U.S. history, and refugee crises are no exception”. He also dug out the stories where the citizens requested the then incumbent offices to veer the refugees “elsewhere if they didn’t think they’d be able to find jobs in their communities”. Berman accepts the awkwardness and insidiousness of the situation where the “terrorism-fueled fears (that) have prompted a rush of opposition to Syrian settlement is something else”.
Puniyani has recaptured the crude way in which the U.S. Government and Media celebrated and boasted of the elimination of Laden in his writings. Admonishing the then state of affairs so callously handled by the Obama administration, the author fumes over the unabashed violations of international human rights’ laws.
Passing The Judgement
Trump may be a person whose policies are severally inimical towards the minorities of not only his own nation but the ethnic groups of other regimes as well. Though in this respect, Barack Obama, a leader who has been held as immensely progressive by both the media and American citizens cannot be exempted from the onus of some of the orthodox and prejudiced steps that his cabinet has rolled out during his reign. The real surprise however was delivered by The Wire’s article dissecting on the social media trends and the visceral discriminations by Trump’s ban on the much marginalised Muslim populace in the States. Apparently, according to the news sites report that the initial “implementation” was that “of a Barack Obama administration proposal”.
A rarely circulated reality in the papers or on your screens is that the Muslim populations are the exacerbated victims of the fundamentalism done in the name of Islam. Butler puts up the message replying to the readers where “within Media, there is a separation placed between Muslims and ourselves, which represented by this ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality… who only want to disrupt the Western world and overthrow the United States Government”. Culling on other analysed speeches and statics she makes us remember what Obama announced after the assassination Osama bin Laden. The former President stated that it was actually the Late Laden who initiated the war and certainly not them. Butler thus points her fingers towards the media who she alleges of propagating the mentality of “‘them’ that is completely separate and different from ‘us’”.
Puniyani has recaptured the crude way in which the U.S. Government and Media celebrated and boasted of the elimination of Laden in his writings. Admonishing the then state of affairs so callously handled by the Obama administration, the author fumes over the unabashed violations of international human rights’ laws. “The manner of his killing reminds us as to who is the biggest violator of international law”, Ram suggest, “- a superpower, with its tentacles spread all over the world, itching to undertake actions all over the world, itching to undertake actions in the actions in the name of democracy and peace, but in reality protecting its interests of controlling oil wealth and maintaining global supremacy”.
The Hindu documents the foibles of journalism as well. Meena Menon shared in her 2013 article about the hardships faced by the Muslim community at Malegaon of the Maharashtra district and the place where a bomb blast took place back in 2006 taking away an approximated three-dozen lives with it. The piece articulated on the points of clear and deep-rooted prejudices toward the Muslims who are immediately accused of terror attacks after any event of such type that takes place in any part of the country. And in this aspect, the behaviour is not of much distinction than that has been meted out towards the American Muslims by their own counterparts. Menon takes care in chucking out a linear statement with its much-needed shades of unawareness about the atrocities performed against the Islam and its adherents –
“Malegaon has another reason to be concerned about the way it is portrayed in the mainstream media. The perception that it harbored terrorists was strengthened after arrests in the 2006 blasts case.” And it spectacularly links it to the Boston bombings “where everyone was talking of a dark-skinned person”.
Unfortunately, for the Brahmanical Media at home and the White Media abroad the actual criminals turned out to be the rightwing party and two Tsarnaev brothers (though Muslims, but with no distinct reference with the mainstream extremist organisations). And here we will try to expand the latter act by the two brothers, the many speculations on their radicalisation, the emergence of the act of ‘Lone Wolves’ and rigorous debating in the media about the scary dimensions of usage of the social networks by the fundamentalists.
Though the real shocker can be with the Glenn Greenwald’s opinions on the “Sham ‘terrorism expert’ industry” on Salon. He states in hard-hitting phrases on the lines of how the so-called researches in this field are playing a game of faux pas, keeping the irrational fear fostered by the Government and the public high to keep their wallets heavy and their prestige glittering.
The Alternate
Jason Burke refuted the ‘Lone Wolves’ theory and depicted a construction of the mentality and social conditioning of the Tsarnaev brothers who he labels as being nurtured in an environment that shimmered with the language of “anger, alienation and hurt” which they had naively pushed aside unquestioned and thus internalising the flow of nefarious culture, tainted in extreme violence, hatred and unjustifiable actions. Burke condemns those who coined them with such adjective of being ‘lonely’ as it is according to the writer is very much evident that the social media opened the floodgates where such personalities interacted with their ilk and ultimately resulted in the extended fuelling of unimpeded thoughts, brainwashed by far political influences that their yet young and impressionable minds were unable to keep in tandem with.
He styles and paraphrases his thesis renumbering the socialisation, which the young-adults receive from their immediate peers and family. The way in which they will be moulded is the ultimate paving of the path of their lives, Burke justifies. “If lone wolves do exist, they are extremely rare” the author tells his readers. “Even those individuals who do fulfil the commonly understood definition of the term, and operate entirely without contact or support from anyone else, still feel themselves to be part of a broader community” hence repacking the witnessing of his own conclusions and ones what he had earlier asserted.
Though the real shocker can be with the Glenn Greenwald’s opinions on the “Sham ‘terrorism expert’ industry” on Salon. He states in hard-hitting phrases on the lines of how the so-called researches in this field are playing a game of faux pas, keeping the irrational fear fostered by the Government and the public high to keep their wallets heavy and their prestige glittering. Though all that glitter is clearly not gold and we will get the same dose from Greenwald in the following citation –
“Many of the benefits for keeping Terrorism fear levels high are obvious. Private corporations suck up massive amounts of Homeland Security cash as long as the fear persists, while government officials in the National Security and Surveillance State can claim unlimited powers, and operate with unlimited security and no accountability”.
Glenn promises that the word “terrorism” holds such power that it can efficiently shun any discussion; make the rational well radical, keeping the voices to a bare minimum and trapeze with increasing velocity towards the end of an unwittingly scapegoat-ed religious minority.
According to Butler and Thussu, America has been successful in replacing the ghost of communism with their much-constructed reality of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’. With the former toning, “The United States now sees themselves as obligated to combat terrorism, whether wants them or not”. While it comes again to Greenwald to deliver the final shots by disillusioning the masses – “Islam terror, but never American Terror”.
Noam Chomsky already had his criticism for the ‘free speeches’ by the Western media regarding the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Even the video games are analysed by the specialists to be reflecting a mirror of the West and its philosophy were the ‘terrorists’ are either Arabs or Russians. The base of such battlefield constituted the backgrounds of the Pakistani towns or the airfields in the Serbian hinterlands. And such sights and formats certainly do not leave much to our imaginations on the type of power play that is being simulated in the virtual world. And so does the trials by the media of India as it coloured Ajamal Amir Kasab with the hues of villainy that urged the commoners to rise from their living rooms and devote their time in cussing the aforementioned person in every possible form. The judicial court be damned. And at least the police officer who told the media framing that Kasab demanded biriyani as his daily meals certainly thought so. While the Pakistan and India newspaper and television channels played the tug-of-war of who can blame and accuse the other in the long run, to the most.
According to Butler and Thussu, America has been successful in replacing the ghost of communism with their much-constructed reality of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’. With the former toning, “The United States now sees themselves as obligated to combat terrorism, whether wants them or not”. While it comes again to Greenwald to deliver the final shots by disillusioning the masses – “Islam terror, but never American Terror”.
A university student leisurely leafing through the pages of an International Relations textbook has a good chance of stumbling across this very relevant idiom, ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. Though the question that revolves in the curious minds can easily be summed up in the next few lines: Who are these men? Who are these terrorists? Who are these freedom fighters?
Image via www.boredpanda.com
