And you are grossly ignorant of how 'the media' really works. I advise you to take a class on basic communication.
I am entirely too aware of how the media works. I see the results of media manipulation in the various American wars, including the GWOT.
Perceptions cannot be imposed, even when there is a 'state media' like so many European countries and all of your petty dictatorships over there in the ME. Perceptions can only be formed and in their formations we require inputs from many sources, even from those who are hostile to us.
On the contrary, manipulation of public perception is the media's
raison d'etre. The entire business model of the media is based on advertising revenue. And the whole point of advertising is to mould public perceptions about a product.
There is a clear difference between a 'reporter' and a 'commentator'. The reporter should deal strictly in facts and nothing more. The commentator is allowed to express an opinion but that opinion should be based upon facts he received from the reporter.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Almost everybody, including our favorite Fox News, complain that the media does not report any more. It merely editorializes.
After 9/11, it is the duty of the reporters to include the religion of the terrorists. It is also the same requirement for the commentators in their opinions. If the US media is so biased, then where did all these muslim leaders came from? No one denied them print space. No one deny them broadcast minutes. No one shouted them down. The muslims are free to offer their own commentaries each man with his own version of "It is not Islam" or "It is forbidden in Islam". Practically to a man, each wasted no opportunity to point out US support for Israel as if somehow it justified the terrorist attack on US.
The Western media selectively showcased those Muslims who were shouting anti-American slogans. The Muslims who condemned and stood in solidarity with Americans were mostly sidelined by mainstream American media.
September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Top Muslim organizations in the United States were swift to condemn the attacks on 9/11 and called "upon Muslim Americans to come forward with their skills and resources to help alleviate the sufferings of the affected people and their families". Top organizations include: Islamic Society of North America, American Muslim Alliance, American Muslim Council, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Circle of North America, and the Shari'a Scholars Association of North America. In addition to massive monetary donations, many Islamic organizations launched blood drives and provided medical assistance, food, and residence for victims.
The fact that you continue to believe and promote this canard shatters your credibility in the matter. It also strengthens my point about Western media bias.
If there is a negative perception of muslims in the West, not just in the US, then may be it has something to do with all those muslims who carried signs calling for a bloody death to anyone who 'dissed' their religion? May be it has something to do with Salman Rushdie and the death sentence ordered upon the man by...er...a muslim? May be it has something to do with the very public murder of van Gogh for 'dissing' Islam in his B-rated film? Are the reporters and commentators forbidden to include these facts for fear of appearing to be 'biased' against muslims?
Reporters should report both sides of the story. They should also report that Muslim media also defended Salman Rushdie and Van Gogh. Not their acts, but their right to free speech.
By reporting only a black-and-white, simplistic view of these affairs, the Western reporters were pushing an agenda, not reporting the whole truth.
You blame US for contributing to our own perceived ignorance of many things outside US borders. It is about time you examine your own societies to see what could contribute to others' perceptions of yourselves.
We are quite aware of the problems inherent in Muslim societies. In every situation, people find what they look for. If you look for the good, you will find it. Similarly for the bad. I need not remind you of the many faults in Western society that cause so many social ills. That does not deny the many good things about Western society -- it simply means that everyone has room for improvement.
I fully conceded your point that Muslim media, especially Arab media, should be more self-critical. And I applaud the Western media for naming and shaming Muslim countries so they would be forced to clean up their act, under international glare. The medival misogyny of Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, the case of Mukhtaran Bibi and others are situations where the international coverage helped improve local society. My only beef with the Western media is that it should also show positive sides of the Muslim world to provide a more balanced image.
In the free West, the only way you can eliminate facts and opinions that can influence self created opinions is to violently suppress those facts and opinions else they can become 'bias'. Better get busy.
Allow me to spell out how the media affects everything. Media control guarantees which issues get coverage and which are silenced. It shapes public opinion which, in turn, shapes public policy.
In "free" Western Europe, it is perfectly admissible to criticize Islam or Christianity, but if anyone even dares to question any aspect of the Holocaust, they face jail time. The French headscarf law bans Muslim headscarfs, but allows Christian crosses and star-of-david pendants.
Indeed. The result, once again, reflects the effort. You are still confusing data points with trends.
