The Hypocrisy of the Western Media Houses The media coverage on the Arab uprising in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria demonstrated outright partisanship, bias and censored news coverage especially by the Western media.
Influential magazines and media houses did not report events as they were, with a view of letting readers and viewers digest on the issues highlighted, but chose to cover events selectively giving one side more airtime. Of course, with an excuse that they were not allowed into some areas by the government forces as observed in Libya and Syria. Any independent observer would have noticed that the BBC and CNN which by default, monopolized the coverage, only screened and published partial information that supported their views and in most instances intentionally left out what they perceived could sabotage their course or those of their proponents, their governments. This unethical and unprofessional reporting is reminiscent of most dictatorial regimes in African countries in early postcolonial periods where only one radio and TV stations were licensed. The state machinery strictly controlled the single TV and Radio stations and no information could be released without clearance from the ruling powers. It can be equally argued that, CNN and BBC acted as if they had been mandated into Libya by their government with only one clear end state: To provide information or propaganda that could only result in convincing the readers and viewers that the intervention was necessary and immediate. Under no conditions were they to air or screen views or incidents that would invoke doubt about the intervention in the readers' minds. The reporters did an excellent work in representing the opinions of their governments. Most of them became consumed in the biased reporting that in some cases one would think they were part of the revolution or the uprising. They emphasized in their reporting all the negatives; Gadhafi's burnt maid, the prisons and torture chambers, the dead young rebels, women and children. While this may have been true, the reporters failed to give an equal in-depth coverage on the collateral deaths and injuries of children and civilians occasioned by the NATO forces, the repulsion of black immigrants fleeing the Libyan war by some European countries who were later killed, the killing of Gadhafi, the treatment of captured Gadhafi's son, the numerous unaccounted armament and the recent reprisals on former Gadhafi loyalist by the National Transition Council (NTC). These were and have been reported in passing or just lightly covered. Lately, the media have played down the differences in the different factions and tribal politics that may lead to a protracted insurgence and make it had for any party to hold Libya together as Gadhafi did for 42 years despite his methods and tyrannical rule. These are not palatable news to the western powers that orchestrated and installed the NTC and such news must be buried. After all, the western powers used the media to achieve their goals and now, they have to lie low so that they may not suffer accusation for the monster they helped to create. The truth is that while Libya needed liberation from dictatorial rule, the need was not as immediate and could have come in a better way with less destruction and deaths. The media have insisted that Libyans liberated Libya, but this is far from the truth. These issues raise serious ethical and professional questions on the future of journalism and in particular the aspect of neutral and non-partisan reporting. "Should the media herd readers to the direction they want? Is leaving out pertinent issues and coverage tantamount to irresponsible journalism?" I am left at crossroads in determining what the role of the media in the 21st century is and how consumers are expected to react. The western media covered the events of the Arab uprising with bias. It must be borne that truth told with an evil intent is worse than any lie one can ever tell. Unfortunately, none of the African media houses were bold enough to send journalists to report on the uprising but instead took back seats. Readers should censor what is published and adopt the tweet culture of `following' or `un-following' media houses that are hypocritical or want to confine and channel readers to a particular mindset. But again, can we turn away from the influence of major western news agencies such as CNN and BBC even if the reporting is insincere? By Major (Rtd) Edward K Lutta Email. [email protected] <mailto:eklutta%40hotmail.com> Thé Mulindwas Communication Group "With Yoweri Museveni and Dr. Kiiza Besigye Uganda is in anarchy" Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi "Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni na Dk. Kiiza Besigye Uganda ni katika machafuko"
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
