Now showing: (1 to 10 of 58) of all notes tagged with media-conflict-power | show yours
Sort options:
newest first |
oldest first |
group by author
Recent tags:
women
violent
sub-culture
sociology
communication
media
mass
politics
panics
moral
panic
bbfc
violence
horror
censorship
journalism
self-regulation
online
cyberspace
context
Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media
Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media is written by David Edwards and David Cromwell, who write together for website ‘Media Lens’ – a current affairs based site which describes itself as ‘correcting the distorted vision of the corporate media’. They explain ‘Media Lens is a response based on our conviction that mainstream newspapers and broadcasters provide a profoundly distorted picture of our world. We are convinced that the increasingly centralised, corporate nature of the media means that it acts as a de facto propaganda system for corporate and other establishment interests’. It is no surprise then that this book looks to expose the biases and vested interests within mainstream media publications, the pair focus their writing around the claimed ‘impartial’ corporations – namely the BBC, and newspapers such as the Independent etc.
The book becomes a rather intense read from the first few pages. It becomes apparent very quickly (and perhaps ironically) that the writers have a clear agenda. The first chapter of the book lays down a rough overview of what’s to come, opening with the sentence ‘Even the word ‘Media’ is problematic’, it suggests that ‘corporate powers’ control the output of media organisations. They explain their key concept.
‘News organisations would have us believe that they transmit information in a similarly neutral, natural way… Yet consider two salient facts: 1) much of contemporary world is dominated by giant, multinational corporations; 2) the media system reporting on that world is itself made up of giant corporations’.
This implies that the ‘giant’ media ‘corporations’ cannot truly report ‘impartially’ because of the effecting factors of the ‘multinational corporations’ which fund them and also the possible economic and trade effects negative reports about a certain ‘multinational corporation’ may have on that publisher. The suggestion is that this is highly influenced by, the need to make money for shareholders in media corporations and also the interests of large shareholders.
Although this is a simple concept, Edwards and Cromwell believe if effects almost everything in mainstream media, and they reexamine and refer back to it throughout the book.
Following the opening chapter the book then splits into nine separate chapters which each focus in on a significant case study, these include Iraq (both wars), Afghanistan, East Timor, Haiti and Kosovo, as well as climate change. Although each case study examines the facts unique to those events, the overall theory seems to suggest that any negative actions by westerners usually have minimal significance placed on them within media coverage so to reduce the effects on western lead ‘multinational corporations’. Within these chapters the pair also present new ‘evidence’ through communications ‘media lens’ has had with authors and journalists, in order to support their claims.
The book then, essentially, begins to round up its evidence and the final chapter ‘seals the deal’ as much as to leave the reader with a very clear message. When reading this book, at times it can feel somewhat aggressive – asif you are being bombarded with proof, statements and exposure to significant viewpoints. However, the profound effect this has is to create a compelling (if intense) read. Through this powerful delivery you cannot help but open your eyes and ears to the ideas Edwards and Cromwell propose, and in that sense the book succeeds in exactly what their aim was – I will struggle to read the Independent (or watch BBC etc) in future without questioning it’s agenda.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Review
This book discusses the media coverage of the Vietnamese War and highlights how controversial it was, considering it being one of the first to be broadcast to the public on television and the lack of censorship and control the government had over the media.
The book is split into two parts, the newspaper reports and the televised side of things. The first part covers from the early 1960s to mid 60s (1961-1965) and the second part focusses on the latter (1965-1973). The text is written in chronological order and Hallin does really well to show and explain the shift of views and support of media reporters as well as public view.
In the first part he uses several extracts from newspapers to back up the way in which media and government would not always correspond and highlights the start of the controversial censorship battle. He goes on to argue that even when the media were unable to get hold of any important information at some point there would always be a leak and there would information found that had just been ignored.
In part two its aimed at the television reporting, this is largely about Hallin arguing that the government and politicians thought people were being influenced by the news reporting and media in their living rooms, however he explains that it was actually the opposite way round. The media went with the consensus of the public, as soon as the public became negative towards the war the news became more critical.
There is an introduction to a diagram which Hallin uses to understand the journalists reporting, this is divided into three sections; Sphere of Consensus, Sphere of Legitimate Controversy and Sphere of Deviance.
Sphere of Consensus – “within this region journalists do not feel compelled either to present opposing views or to remain disinterested observers”
Sphere of Legitimate – the main region according to Hallin, “objectivity and balance reign as the supreme journalistic virtues”
Sphere of Deviance - “plays the role of exposing, condemning, or excluding from the public agenda those who violate or challenge the political consensus”
Hallin also covers the way in which journalists and broadcaster are conducted and withheld today, there is a better relationship with government and ways of stopping certain information when reporting on war to keep it in the public's favour.
In conclusion, Hallin argued that people are led to believe that there was no censorship whilst this war occurred which is not wrong however the reports and images which were shown were to an extent self-censored by the reporters and the newspapers, in order to show support towards the war. It was when the political controversy came about when reporters started “retaliating”, with the government having no control over what reporters then decided to reveal, the media went alongside the public's thoughts – media influences people, people influence media!
I found this book of great interest and would recommend it to others there are concepts which are challenged and explanations into why we have certain censorship in place. As well as recognising that reporters see a lot more than the public and become one of the soldiers in respect.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Media Power: A Sociological Introduction Review
'Media Power: A sociological introduction' is a indepth look at the social influence of the media from writer and lecturer of Sociology at University College Cork, Ciaran McCullagh. McCullagh's past publications highlight his interest in the origins and causes of crime. It then may not be surprising that this book, although setting out to analyse the overall influence of the media on the public sphere, takes on the question of whether violence in the media increases violence in society.
McCullagh describes the media as the “cultural epicentre” of the world and throughout the text, he always attempts to give a fair balanced view through theory and actual research for the advantages and disadvantages of the mass media. Providing a context in the opening chapter he looks at how in the past, the media in the forms of comic books, radio and cinema have been looked at with an old fashioned approach. McCullagh mocks how in the beginning of the 20th Century dark cinema's were feared to promote immoral behaviour and how the introduction of newspapers in the 18th Century was expected to cause the political system to crumble.
Chapter two looks at the matter of media bias, selectivity of issues and the framing of them. “symbol handlers” or the editors of media McCullagh argues, are now the definers of the audience's social reality. He raises the issue of a instant global media, where stories from the Middle East are as a familiar reality as inner city violence, yet the audience is still distant to both stories. McCullagh also discusses the issue of 'framing' of a story, the argument that mass media not only provides the information to a story but provides us with a perspective on it. This in turn leads on to the interesting discussions of chapters three and four, which look in depth at the effect of media organisations and their effect on society. McCullagh cites Golding and Murdock to introduce the issue of mass media owners power. “'Different ways of financing and organising cultural production have traceable consequences for the range of discourses and representations in the public domain'” But McCullagh summarises that it is audience's that are changing the way media, especially news is produced, moving from a role to inform its audience they now increasingly have to entertain their audience.
Chapter five approaches the future in new forms of media, such as reality T.V and the internet and asks if it has made us more free or hindered its audience. McCullagh here consideres both sides of the argument for the internet, that everyday people have been given a voice but also that the nature of the media means that the internet will inevitably focus on consumption. In a similar sort of tone, McCullagh concludes the book in Chapter eight by considering the future of the media in society. One of his major concerns is for the future of public service broadcasts, which McCullagh says will come under even more threat from 'globalisation and conglomerisation'
Tags: media-conflict-power
Media Conflict and Power
Brian McNair’s ‘Journalism and Democracy’ critically examines and assesses the political media against four criteria: quantitative, quality, critical scrutiny and access with the intention 'to map the public sphere'. The book combines textual analysis and interviews with political journalists, media managers, editors, presenters and documentary makers in an investigation into the crisis of the public sphere.
McNair tackles this seemingly complex topic by using sub headings throughout, the inclusion of tables to arrange research figures and data also provide a visual representation of his main points; this, on a personal note, makes it easier to digest and understand.
Due to the common consensus that the ‘dumbing down’ of the public sphere is directly correlated to the quality of political journalism, this book argues for a substitute evaluation of ‘today’s’ public sphere and its contribution to the political process. It could be suggested that McNair’s assertive tone assists in his persuasion and although he asks questions it is clear that he knows the answers. On opening, McNair gives the reader an insight into the ‘crisis’ and its causes, it could be suggested that these causes form the backbone of the moral of the book, whereby on page 178 McNair proposes questions for the political media of the future to avoid and potentially overcome these.
Chapter two continues by revealing the three standard markets for both Print and Broadcasting journalism: The elite (e.g. the Observer), The mid-market (e.g. Daily Mail) and The populars (e.g. The Sun). McNair proposes that these markets are merging. On one side, it is argued that education levels have improved, consequently suggesting that more people can read mid-market and elite, conversely, cheaper prices have enabled such markets to be more accessible to the public. The increase in public accessibility has broadened the public sphere, however, in relation to the criteria, this does not necessarily mean that the quality has improved. Therefore “a new vernacular is taking shape.”
Due to technological advances, McNair discusses how the Internet and satellite/ cable could be responsible for further public access. On page 36 he explores the range of channels that audiences are offered in the UK, these include parliamentary coverage channels, such as the Parliamentary Channel later taken over by BBC Parliament. This public service is described as making the political public sphere larger and denser.
While others argue that the case of ‘dumbing down’ is responsible for the destruction of the public sphere, it is here that McNair suggests an opposing view. He believes that the proliferation of political information has had an adverse effect on what audiences actually want. Now more accessible than ever, audiences are somewhat uninterested in political media.
The book still persists with arguments for and against the view of ‘dumbing down’ politics in the media, and later in the book the demonisation of political public relations is discussed.
In relation to earlier arguments regarding education levels, McNair opposes the counter argument that spin-doctors simplify all information, which could suggest that a lot of journalists cover news in inappropriate ways as McNair discusses in relation to the Daily Telegraph. As accessibility to a range of media increases, McNair states that audiences use politics to ‘fill space’ – and due to the ‘crisis of public communication’ the political public sphere is tarnished.
The concept of the political public sphere is one that I personally did not fully understand and therefore, I found this book a useful read.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Book Review: PR! A Social History of Spin
PR! A History of Spin, studies the changes through history of Public Relations through both Stewart Ewan personal experiences and knowledge and examples through time. He critically analyses and explains the theory behind spin and how it brought about changes in Public Relations, and the reception of this by the public through time.
The book is opened with an interview with Edward Bernays, someone who Ewan obviously holds in high respect calling him '... one of the most influential pioneers of American Public Relations . . . left a deep mark on the configuration of our world.' Discussing the uses of mass media, using visual symbols and the meaning of public relations and how the public perceived it.
Showing examples of Spin and how the techniques and conventions work that he had talked about previously, Ewen goes on to tell of an experiment that him and his class did to see whether they could get a news reporter to write a positive article about their class. This leads in to the beginning of 'Progressive Politics' and ‘‘the truth of an idea''.
Not only does he use his own personal research but he also delves in to the studies of many other theorists including Edward Bernays, Gustave Le Bon and Walter Lipmann. Discussing the ''Public Agenda'' and introduction of social surveys and changes in the classes. Also showing the early importance of newspapers, and how this was influenced by the 'status' that early readers of newspapers were given, causing many early PR people to begin their careers here.
Next he goes on to talk about the importance of publicity and one of the first PR campaigns by a company; 'AT&T' and the importance of what Vail did, introducing the ''user friendly interface'. Stating the importance of the phone and newspaper in shaping the terms of public interaction, and how the public witnessed the new consumerist way of life.
Later in the book it talks about PR and democracy and the introduction of propaganda specialists, and the mistrust between the public and PR, how it differed from time to time and how things had to be re-packaged and brought out in different ways to attract new audiences.
''Demographics is a powerful tool of divide and rule. To combat it we need to rediscover a sense of social connectedness.''
Finally at the end of the book saying how the media techniques need to be learnt to eradicate the distinctions between '.... publicist and citizen, author and reader...'
''It can enlarge the circle of who is permitted- and who will be able - to interpret and make sense of the world.''
Although the book only goes up to around 1950 it provides a good insight into examples, techniques and conventions of early spin and PR, of which most can still be seen today.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Review
This book critically analyses the way in which conflict in Northern Ireland was represented within the media, paying particular attention to the BBC’s coverage. Liz Curtis explores the affect the media had in terms of convincing the public into believing bias interpretations of the conflict. The book mainly focuses on the government’s role in manipulating stories to suit their agenda, and highlights the corruption involving both political parties and the army.
Curtis begins by discussing the initial disagreements between the government and the media over coverage of the conflict in Ulster. This resulted from the media’s balanced depiction of events, which at times, created a negative picture of the british army and government. This inevitably triggered political figures to demand that all news stories from the war zones are filtered and censored. She states how the Tory party believed that the government was losing the ‘propaganda war’ and that drastic measures needed to be employed. “if the media did not voluntarily restrain themselves, they said, ‘patriotic censorship’ should be imposed” (Curtis, L. 1984). This eventually led to high levels of self-censorship due to continuing government interference. Details of the army’s training techniques in terms of dealing with the media are also explored, which suggests a development in the government’s ability to manipulate the media rather than censor it. “The press properly handled is potentially one of the governments strongest weapons” (Curtis, L. 1984).
It proceeds, to examine how the government managed to take a hold of the media by placing regulations and planting stories for the passive public audience. The government’s deep relations with the British army are expressed within subjects such as “psychological warfare activities, including poster campaigns by local units, planting of stories in the media, and straightforward press relations” (Curtis, L. 1984). She compares these ‘Psyops’ (which “involve exploiting every possible difference in the enemy camp” (Curtis, L. 1984) with similar operations carried out by the US government during war in Vietnam, concluding that it is far easier for the army to express government propaganda in an area that is much more accessible. Like Vietnam, the government faced the difficulty of arousing passion for the war among ordinary people, which Curtis expresses through detailed accounts of psychological operations and political propaganda within the armed forces during this conflict.
The book offers historical accounts of major events, such as assassinations and political plots, including detailed arguments and opinions as to why these events may have occurred and how they were portrayed within the media. Curtis discusses how the media coverage heavily supported the British army, ignoring many contrasting eyewitness accounts of events, such as ‘bloody Sunday’. This demonstrated the extent of which the media had been influenced by army officials and the government’s control over military operations. There is much detail concerning how accounts of certain events were either delayed or totally ignored. This includes allegations of the British army torturing enemy suspects, which had appeared in the Irish press long before it finally reached 'The Sunday Times' in the UK.
She then analyses how the British Army were potentially supplying doctored information to the media, which included accusations in relation to certain events, which supported their reasoning for fighting a war. The press tend to immediately accuse the IRA for carrying out assassinations, stressing that the army and police are the victims. If they couldn't point the finger at the IRA, suspicious deaths would often be described as 'misfortune'. Therefore leading the media to create a false depiction of the events to the British public, which had become a regular occurrence due to the corruption surrounding the conflict in Ireland. Although the newspapers were responsible for publicising this propaganda, it could be argued that the television companies had the most efficient emotional impact, through their use of suggestive imagery. “Television provided a convenient scapegoat and diversion” (Curtis, L. 1984). This suggests that the government were using television broadcasts as a tool for persuading the masses into believing heavily manipulated information. “The bbc was more influential than parliament, the press, trade unions, the civil service, the monarchy and the church” (Curtis, L. 1984).
With a variation of reliable sources, carefully chosen quotes, detailed historical accounts and logical opinion, this book excellently exposes corruption within the British media, suggesting an autonomous governmental control over the publicised depictions of events in Northern Ireland.
References
Curtis, L. 1984. Ireland: The Propaganda War: The British Media and the ‘Battle for Hearts and Minds.London, Uk: Pluto Press. P.8, 9, 12, 228.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Don't trust the papers!
Or the Prime Minister for that matter...
This books tone will be familiar to anyone who has watched Outfoxed or Any documentary about how Tony Blair became the golden child of New Labour.
It Outlines how the public's general assumption that the press is there to weed every hole in the leader of the country is totally incorrect. And in fact they often work together and have a symbiotic relationship, for example the role of The Sun and other Murdock papers in causing the general sway in opinion away from the Conservatives and towards New Labour in the late 90's.
As well as the Rise of PR in importance for political figures as the public were granted more and more access to actual parliamentary events.
It creates a slightly worrying insight that will leave you wondering if anything you hear (even the detrimental) might not be manipulated by those on-top for some other cause. (An example mentioned is that of bad news being used strategically to draw away attention from a different issue, or using an unrelated massive issue to slip bad news out unnoticed.
Highly recommended for anyone who has to write an essay on this subject, or someone who just wants to feel superior to 95% of the population and feel they know the backstage goings on.
Rory.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Review: 'We Keep America On Top Of The World'
Daniel H. Hallin’s, ‘We Keep America On Top Of The World’ contains a series of essays that contribute to an extensive and in-depth exploration into what is considered to be ‘the most important means of mass communication today’, television. More specifically, it looks into television journalism and its uncertain relationship with the government and the American viewing public.
Before touching on the essays, Hallin starts by giving clear insight into Jürgen Habermas’ concept of the public sphere. He recognises it as a useful tool in the understanding of American journalism and its existence within the ‘democracy’ of America. Chapter 2 starts almost immediately by introducing the Marxist critique of capitalist societies within the study of journalism. These perspectives argue against Habermas’ idea of the public sphere, in other words, the dialogue between ordinary people, which would direct the future of political decision and society itself. Marxist critics argue how the media is an institution of the government and is able to dominate and control all channels of communication, shaping the interests and values of those who have less power. However, the essay then identifies how the media must do so without destroying the relationship between itself and its audience; the media must somehow maintain its legitimacy and public trust. Using the coverage of global conflicts such as the Vietnam War as an example, the essay looks into how the media had accumulated a gathering of public individuals who opposed the war, and thus opposed the interests of the ruling elite. This is studied more in depth throughout Chapter 3, where a ‘before and after’ type analysis began to highlight an almost equal balance of both positive and negative reportings throughout the post-Tet period, as opposed to the majority of positive reportings throughout the pre-Tet period; the tragic reality of the war began to infiltrate the American news. Consequently, the analysis draws focus towards professionalism and objective journalism; journalists would become more critical of official decisions, yet they would also allow the opportunity for officials to voice their own opinion. This recognised a growth in the journalist’s political independence.
Following this, Hullin explores the advent of populism within Television News during the period of Reagan’s presidency, investigating the increasing notion of News as a drama and form of entertainment. Firstly, Chapter 5 discusses the idea of how News had developed the ability to create social and political realities rather than simply reporting on them. This idea is also clearly illustrated in Chapter 6, ‘Speaking of the President’, which describes Reagan’s visit to Italy as a ‘media event’, which was made purely to boost his reputation, and to reinforce his role as a ‘hero’ to the American viewers back at home. This identifies the clear power of politics over media. Furthermore within the exploration of populism, the book looks at the emergence of new conventions within Television News that were used in a desperate attempt to compete with other channels for ratings, for instance, faster edits, a demand for visual spectacle and a shift towards stories of human interest.
This leads us onto an interesting development that the book chooses to address; the eventual decline in the time duration of ‘soundbites’ and the increase of editing towards the 1980s. This is cleverly pointed out and firstly says a lot about development of technology. But most importantly it highlights the changing role of the journalist; no more are they a passive observer of events, they have become more a creator of narrative and the primary centre of storytelling.
To summarise, the book seems to suggest that American journalism is an ambivalent yet increasing powerful entity that throughout its development, has tried to discover a balance between professionalism and populism, being a projector of political ideology and at the same time a commercial business that can maintain the requirement and trust of its audience. Overall I found this to be very complex, yet informative and thorough investigation into the issues and developments of American Journalism. It must be noted that this by no means a simple explanation of American journalism throughout the 20th century; specific chapters might require multiple readings in order for the reader to fully engage with the variety of arguments and angles that Hallin explores.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Media, Conflict and Power
Market Killing: What the Free Market Does and What the Social Scientists Can Do About It is chiefly focused on looking at society from a point of view thought to have been neglected by the authors and contributors. It began with an essay looking at the social and cultural effects of the release of the free market at the end of the 20th Century. This resulted in the book becoming part theory and analysis which is then followed by a collection of brief essays/commentaries from a variety of media and cultural theorists including Noam Chomsky. These contributions highlight key topics and are something I found useful as the journalists and theorists that wrote them, could elaborate on their specific field.
The first few pages of the book outline why they have written it, they say it is because nobody has properly analyzed society because they are too caught up in the post-modernist approach. The book promotes ta critical and theoretical way of looking at society to be able to outline the flaws in cultures and change them. It is mostly focused on the release of the free market and how theorists have not looked at its affects properly and that it has produced inequality and monopolization. The book argues that this contemporary style of post-modernist thinking prevents students, writers and alike from looking at the flaws in society. It suggests that the focus on the meaning and language of texts blinds them from looking at the changes in the world properly and suggests they should be criticizing things like political actions and advertising their effects on society.
Furthermore, it looks at how beliefs can effect cultural change within the government and throughout other parts of society. One argument is that the release of the free market resulted in an increased emphasis on commercialism and dumbing down of newspapers and other forms of mainstream media. The book also mentions large conglomerates such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and how they have monopolized industries. It illustrates that they have the power to take advantage of “favorable conditions” ie. using Mexico for cheap labor and for the lack of rules and regulations with regards to safety and pollution. In addition it mentions how News Corporation has been known for its supposed influence on political matters.
One interesting chapter/commentary, “What is wrong with science and rationality?,” is written, reluctantly, by Chomsky. I couldn’t decide if I found this chapter useful because he comes across as very arrogant which, for me, weakened his points. He states that he looked at the chapter again 7 years after he wrote it and does not believe any of it has been “superseded”. The chapter looks in depth at how we analyze the world through a very rational and scientific way of thinking and he argues that this may or may not be the right way to look at the world. Chomsky also talks about power, he suggests that science and history have been used to create power and cites writers describing Stalin’s “tyranny as an embodiment of science and rationality”.
Overall, the book was a heavy but interesting read. Although a lot went over my head I found the commentaries a very useful tool. A tool which I think a lot of other media theory texts I have read could have greatly benefited from. It has a unique argument and one which I think should be taken seriously because being able to efficiently deconstruct and improve our society is only going to provide benefit for everyone involved.
Tags: media-conflict-power
A Review by Jack Mower
In “The Media of Conflict: War reporting and Representation’s of Ethnic Violence” (Allen, T and Seaton, J 1999) a number of professors and lecturers come together to discuss the role the media has in portraying the conflict of war. In particular it looks at the media’s role in sensationalising ‘war’, and the negative effects such news reports have.
Allen and Seaton start by outlining what is to come within the book, giving a general but detailed summary on each chapter and case study, outlining the main theories and debates that will be discussed. The first half of the book aims to give a detailed deconstruction of certain theories on ethnicity and war. The first chapters are key to understanding the further chapter and case studies, especially for anyone new to the subject.
Allen, in the 1st chapter goes on to discuss the use of the term ‘war’ and the connotations the word implies. Where much of the general public see’s the sensationalised version of war through news reports, Allen looks at the deeper meaning, looking at a number of contributors’ ideas, particularly Keegan and Freedman before concluding “war is a negotiated social categorization which draws attention to situations in which collective public killing can be expected to occur”. (Page 18, Perceiving Contemporary Wars)
Seaton goes on to elaborate on Allen’s theoretical descriptions. She suggests ethnicity is a way the media allocates characteristics to groups of people using the example of the recent ‘war’ in Iraq. Did this conflict come because Iranians are Iranian and Iraqis are Iraqi? Allen suggests the media create roles for groups that the public then take as the norm and Seaton further discusses this in the following chapter. The media’s role in documenting ethnic violence is a key issue that is strong throughout the book. “do reports document ethnicity or produce it?” asks Richard Fardon in Chapter 3. Here Fardon looks at who creates these ethnic terms, suggesting ethnicity is just a made up fabrication of other interests, be it political or economic. (Page 71)
The second half of the book takes a different approach, focusing on nine different case studies, applying theories and debates from the first half of the book. Having different case studies, written by different people, allows readers to pick and choose a particular conflict and issue, and look deeper into it. It would be difficult to write about every case study so I will talk about a couple I found most valuable. Fred Halliday in chapter 6, talks about the Gulf War and discusses the way in which the media was manipulated, censored by the government, and the effect of the different ways the war was covered by the media itself. As a modern war this was of great interest, particularly the way television coverage refused to focus on actual violence (“only 3%”) says Halliday, which shows great censorship in images.
Chapter 13 by Mel McNulty looks at the issues in Rwanda – how the media justified the need for intervention of western forces by reporting on a humanitarian disaster of plague and disease, rather the reporting on the mass genocide. This as McNulty argues “was something the Western reader could understand: a massive disaster...aid needed, make a donation. This was ‘Band Aid’.” (Page 280) The chapter is insightful into a number of ways the media powerfully intervened to help “exacerbate the Rwandan crisis to the point of genocide” (Page 268) Chapters 10, 11, 12 and 14 also concentrate on different case studies from Africa.
Overall the book provides a very thorough coverage of theories, debates and case studies with insightful comments from many lecturers and professors. Anyone looking into media coverage and portrayal of ethnic violence should give this a read, especially for information on specific case studies involving Africa, Yugoslavia and The Gulf War.
Tags: media-conflict-power