Note: This post has been divided into two (as of now) posts, for the ease of reading. Since the post discusses some theories and concepts, the readers will benefit by reading it in instalments.
Here are all the instalments:
__________
Let us circle back to (part of) the theme of this blog.
(Media) Technology and Mind (and Public Opinion)
How Media (technology) directs our mind not only to certain topics, but also to certain arguments.
This post does not politicize any news events.
However, some news events and their coverage is examined in the context of media theories.
9/11 and the World
September 11, is synonymous with terror.
By 2001 media technology had made is possible to live-broadcast to the farthest corners of the world.
That morning, I was working at home when classical music on NPR-National Public Radio was interrupted by a journalist reporting live from the Pentagon.
Within a few minutes, I found it difficult to concentrate. I headed to the university on my bike. On the way, I stopped at a bike shop, I used regularly.
The shop-owners who knew me well, were a family originally from Japan.
‘Did you watch it?’
“No, I heard it. I do not use TV.’ I had just moved towns and had not yet connected my TV.
‘My friends from Japan told me to turn the TV on,’ said the lady, ‘They are ahead so they were in the middle of their day when it happened.’
I was quaking with fear even though I was not sure of what was happening.
The world saw the towers fall live.
Thousands of miles away from the USA.
Since the event occurred in the morning, people outside of the USA saw it before most Americans did.
The power of technology. It can connect people across the oceans, in a bond of humanity. Through joys and through sorrows.
Technology is Only a Tool
However, technology is only a tool. It is the consciousness, and the intention behind the use of technology that makes the final impact.
Every country on this earth was talking about the horror.
The events of September 11, 2001, brought the world together in sympathy towards the United States of America.
The day also set the world’s news-agenda for the rest of 2001. And several years beyond.
The internet was still in its early stages. There was no FaceBook, YouTube or twitter/X.
Yet, many who had never even set a foot in the United States of America had been a witness to the tragedy.
I remember downloading a video of the event. Even the pixelated version that was available at the time, saddened me so much that I chose to not connect my television.
That choice weaned me off television. My news for the rest of my time in the US came from NPR-National Public Radio and the four newspapers that were given free at the university.1
The World Stood by the US
For months, I kept bowing to every US flag I saw. A sadness took over for critiquing.
Critique.
Question everything. That was the way of the scholars.
Part of what we are seeing on campuses today.
Granted, some things needed to be questioned and re-examined.
Except that very few practical solutions were posed to these ‘problematic issues.’ Only an idea of an ‘overhaul of everything that exists.’
In the absence of concrete solutions, the young students moved about in half anger-half despair. A directionless despondency hung in the air.
Much of that results in aimless rebellion we witness among the youth today.
People and the State
As friends, students, colleagues talked about how September 11 directly affected them, it became important that day to separate the state from its people.
Did any of the people who suffered 9/11 deserve it? We know that 99.9% of those directly affected on 9/11 had no interest in politics2. This is not a comment on lack of understanding of, or interest citizens hold in politics/geography.
It is just a fact.
Most people in the world, not just the US, go about their lives without considering politics. Daily grind keeps them focussed on the immediate.
In the absence of concrete solutions, the young students moved about in half anger-half despair. A directionless despondency hung in the air. Much of that results in aimless rebellion we witness among the youth today.
Yet on the morning of September 11, 2001, many good, politically unaware people got caught in the politics of the big-wigs.
After the vigils were done, after the cloud of sadness that hung over the country (and to an extent on the world) started to part, began the game.
‘What was going to happen next?’ What should be the response?
An American friend asked me, ‘What do you think? Should we go to war?’
‘It’s your country, I shouldn’t have any say.’
Even though I feel a part of every country I have lived in, I always take a step back in suggesting any social or political reforms.
Each country has its own ways, her own lens.
‘No, but if you were forced to decide.’3
‘I think war can get long drawn, but sometimes it’s inevitable.’
Both of us knew that war is never good. We were all in a shock. We could only turn towards media for information.4
Media has its own logic. Often it is busy creating a narrative, if not a consensus.
Keep in mind, media’s main business is not informing the audiences, as we tend to believe. Instead media organization’s main objective is to keep audiences glued to media-content- be it print, audio or audio-visual.
Those eyeballs and eardrums are their life-line.
The larger the audience of a media organization, the bigger the check it can command from its advertisers.
Media Headlines, Pictures and Storytelling
The way an event is presented influences its public perception.
Often, headlines are a choice, based on prior experience. Politics, culture, history, play a significant role in the choice of headlines.
If we the audience, are preceptive, and sensitive to words and presentation, we can catch the subtle differences between how an event is presented.
Keep in mind, media’s main business is not informing the audiences, as we tend to believe. Instead media organization’s main objective is to keep audiences glued to media-content- be it print, audio or audio-visual.
An interesting difference surfaced during the first reporting of September 11 attacks, between the reporting of The New York Times and CNN. While CNN’s big headlines, with overbearing music read, ‘America Under Attack’, NYT took a more graceful approach, and covered all the 9/11 stories under ‘A Nation Challenged5.’ Under the series they covered personal stories and displayed pictures of those who lost their lives.
The print media allowed for a little more reflection, than the broadcast media, which tends to sensationalize news with ‘breaking news’ headlines and a dramatic music.
To add to that, there were days when the same picture graced the front pages on all the four newspapers that we had a regular access to.
Usually such uniformity in images and content is a result of news organizations rushing to the same agency for images.
Contemplate for a few seconds, the impact of seeing the same image(s) flashed across the world6.
And the same image being repeated in documentaries and news stories? Not just in the case of September 11, but in the case of any crisis?
After the Storm
Gradually, we started to hear two kinds of stories on the NPR.
The ones that were trying to shine light on Islam7 so that people in the US could have a better understanding of the faith. Another were the stories of impending horror. The dangers that could be unleashed unless the WMD—Weapons of Mass Destruction were blocked or eliminated8.
At this juncture, it is important to state that neither conspiracy nor manipulation is being implied here.
It is important to understand how various factors influence media decisions. And how media and state decisions contribute to what the public gets to see, read and hear.
Any action/inaction results from combination of blind spots of the media, interests of states. The stories that reach us provide us with ways of understanding news events. The coverage of these news events guides our minds not just to certain issues but also specific arguments.
Among many stories, was one whole story on the possibility of a small pox attack9.
I remember how my thinking-faculties started to nod at the decisions that had yet not been announced. I knew which was I was going to lean.
The ordinary folks, like you and I, believe/behave a certain way because we are given images and notions of ‘other countries’ and their people. Between events and their presentation as news, there are intricacies of geo-politics that most of us are never privy to.
Over two decades later, thousands of lives lost from around the world, we seem to be dealing with similar issues, only in another part of the world.
Technically, technology (can) brings us close.
However, first we need to think and behave as if all the countries belong to the same planet.
To be continued.
Here are all the instalments:
Suggestion for Further Readings
History of News Papers. https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/chapter/4-2-history-of-newspapers/#:~:text=Scholars%20commonly%20credit%20the%20ancient,daily%20doings%2C%20in%2059%20BCE
Iraq War, 15 Years later (Photos). https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/photos-looking-back-at-the-war-in-iraq-15-years-after-the-us-invaded/556028/.
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post & the Local Newspaper.
If you think it is an arbitrary number, you can come with your own. I think it would be safe to say that a majority of the people are not interested in politics.
PEW RESEARCH CENTER: In the months leading up to the war, majorities of between 55% and 68% said they favored taking military action to end Hussein’s rule in Iraq. No more than about a third opposed military action. However, support for military action in Iraq was consistently less pronounced among a handful of demographic and partisan groups.
The Center’s final survey before the U.S. invasion, conducted in mid-February 2003, highlighted these differences: Women were about 10 percentage points less likely than men to support the use of military force against Iraq (61% vs. 71%).
A sizable majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (83%) favored the use of military force to end Hussein’s rule. Democrats and Democratic leaners were less supportive; still, more Democrats favored (52%) than opposed (40%) military action.
Yet Democrats were divided in opinions about whether to go to war in Iraq, with liberal Democrats less likely than conservative and moderate Democrats to favor using military force.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/03/14/a-look-back-at-how-fear-and-false-beliefs-bolstered-u-s-public-support-for-war-in-iraq/
In another post I will cover theories that talk focus on specifics about how information is disseminated to the public during a crisis
The coverage was later turned into a book: https://www.amazon.com/Nation-Challenged-Visual-History-Aftermath/dp/0935112766
Looking Back at the Iraq War: Images: https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/photos-looking-back-at-the-war-in-iraq-15-years-after-the-us-invaded/556028/.
Sometimes, it made us smile! We grew up in India with one of the largest Muslim population in the country. We were used to seeing our political leaders visit mosques, don the religious caps and bow to the religious places of Muslims or any religion. Many of us had done the same. We were quite familiar with the basic tenets of different religions. Many non-Muslims in India are used to waking up to Azan early in the morning.
Smallpox: NPR: ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. DECEMBER 13, 2002 https://www.npr.org/2002/12/13/877495/smallpox Host Michele Norris talks to NPR's Richard Knox about today's announcement about the smallpox vaccine. After months of debate, President Bush today announced the first part of his plan to protect Americans against a smallpox attack. Even though the administration has yet to say how likely such an attack may be, there are fears that a few leftover vials of smallpox, stored in Russia and the US, may have fallen into the wrong hands. Based on that assumption, the President is now calling for the vaccination of about a million people, starting early next year.
Smallpox Risks NPR: ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. DECEMBER 18, 2002. https://www.npr.org/2002/12/18/883946/smallpox-risks NPR's Richard Harris reports on how people are deciding whether to take the smallpox vaccine. Some hospitals are announcing they won't participate in President Bush's plan to vaccinate one-half million health workers.They say the risk of a smallpox attack hasn't been clearly outlined and seems too low to justify the risks of taking the vaccine. The vaccine causes side effects in many people and can lead to life-threatening illnesses and death in a few cases.