Two standards and two choices
[Photo: Source]
Watched CNN's Wolf Blitzer having an interview with the ambassador of Syria to the USA, Imad Moustapha. He was asked about the Iran election, the protests and killings. Of course Iran and Syria have very good relations like USA and Israel.
Wolf Blitzer asked him if he condemns the killings and if now the relations between Syria and Iran would change, but the ambassador was evasive and turned the question to Wolf by asking, how come that Israel could kill more than 1000 people in Gaza and the US relations with Israel did not change? How come the Western media was being so focused on these events in Iran, but when Israel killed so many Palestinians during the Gaza War in 2008, that was not the case?
Well, that made me think. Does our media have double standards? Of course it does! And not only ours, it's every media. We could also say why the Syrian media extensively reports about Palestinian casualties and condemns Isreal, but does not focus as much on the killings of Iranians by their own regime. Double standards? I guess so. This has multiple reasons and I don't want to go into all that, because it could be a whole new post. Let's view the whole thing from another point.
I think we just don't buy everything the media says these days. That's why the internet became so big and more important than the TV in recent years (TV is dead.) We choose the source of our news, we read tweets and blogs to make up our minds. So, the ambassador was right about the media's double standard. But I guess he meant the old media, the news channels and news papers, who are mostly biased and unbalanced. I'm far from claiming netizens, and especially bloggers are journalists, but we do tell our opinion and we debate and we affect readers far more than the old media (at least that's my impression). That's people who put some effort in their blogging.
Suddenly everyone has something to say and to share. We are no more mere viewers. We are engaged. Besides blogs, we have forums, Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube and Wikipedia, sources where we can check, if someone is trying to sell us bullshit. And the mainstream media realized that and now they have i-reports, they're reading tweets and showing You-tube videos. They are totally clueless about how another universe (online) is thriving, while their profession is losing it's quality and influence. They are struggling to survive and unless they become more balanced and less biased and sensational, they will lose this battle. The future of the news is the internet.
Wolf Blitzer asked him if he condemns the killings and if now the relations between Syria and Iran would change, but the ambassador was evasive and turned the question to Wolf by asking, how come that Israel could kill more than 1000 people in Gaza and the US relations with Israel did not change? How come the Western media was being so focused on these events in Iran, but when Israel killed so many Palestinians during the Gaza War in 2008, that was not the case?
Well, that made me think. Does our media have double standards? Of course it does! And not only ours, it's every media. We could also say why the Syrian media extensively reports about Palestinian casualties and condemns Isreal, but does not focus as much on the killings of Iranians by their own regime. Double standards? I guess so. This has multiple reasons and I don't want to go into all that, because it could be a whole new post. Let's view the whole thing from another point.
I think we just don't buy everything the media says these days. That's why the internet became so big and more important than the TV in recent years (TV is dead.) We choose the source of our news, we read tweets and blogs to make up our minds. So, the ambassador was right about the media's double standard. But I guess he meant the old media, the news channels and news papers, who are mostly biased and unbalanced. I'm far from claiming netizens, and especially bloggers are journalists, but we do tell our opinion and we debate and we affect readers far more than the old media (at least that's my impression). That's people who put some effort in their blogging.
Suddenly everyone has something to say and to share. We are no more mere viewers. We are engaged. Besides blogs, we have forums, Facebook, Twitter, You-Tube and Wikipedia, sources where we can check, if someone is trying to sell us bullshit. And the mainstream media realized that and now they have i-reports, they're reading tweets and showing You-tube videos. They are totally clueless about how another universe (online) is thriving, while their profession is losing it's quality and influence. They are struggling to survive and unless they become more balanced and less biased and sensational, they will lose this battle. The future of the news is the internet.
6 KAFKAESQUE COMMENTS:
It's never gonna end, is it? :(
June 29, 2009 12:01 PM
@Nashe^, Nooo it won't, nooo it won't...
June 29, 2009 4:54 PM
The Internet is a great source of information if you know how to dig and double check things. You can get agreat glimpse into situations that regular media might miss or like with Iran we can see what the locals are saying. And we can see it without waiting for a news channel to do an interview. On top of that we don't have to worry that the translation or footage has been chopped and made to fit the network's agenda.
It's almost funny watching old media trying to jump on the social media bandwagon all late like this. It's like watching a child that's trying to learn how to walk. I don't know if they'll ever get it right.
Regardless, the influence of traditional media is fading as people realize that there are better sources of information.
June 29, 2009 6:12 PM
@Brad, yea, it's pretty pathetic when You-tube and Twitter become the primary source for a world event and the mainstream media doesn't find a way to report about it, but actually does what many times bloggers do: research the web. Like you said, they're pretty lost when it comes to Web 2.0
June 29, 2009 6:27 PM
By the way, I think Israel considers dead Palestinian civilians casualties of war and their own dead as victims because Israelis have an overall victim mentality. They think that the Palestinians are the aggressors who are trying to take what belongs to them. They're simply trying to defend it. So when they take civilian casualties they call them victims and there is public outcry. When Palestinian civilians are killed along with combatants it's considered collateral damage of protecting the nation. Honestly, I don't give a fuck about those Palestinians. And here's why. They're stupid. They're dumber than bricks. They're not going to beat Israel in 100 years or 1000 years. Not as long as Israel has a military advantage and no pissing and moaning on their part is ever going to change the US's stance, because we're against terrorism and that's what they do best. Them and their Hezbollah buddies. They need to give it up and accept the land they have left and just live with it.
June 30, 2009 4:23 AM
It's pretty fucked up in Gaza... I don't think this will ever be fully solved. They keep getting more and more kids and fill them with hate towards Israel. But Israel could also do better. Some wars and operations they started, have backfired, like in Lebanon, when they couldn't stop the rockets. Without USA, they are not capable to defend their country and it doesn't matter if they have the best weapons.
June 30, 2009 4:30 AM
Post a Kafkaesque comment!