Soudabeh Sabour
Sabour1
Prof. Brown
English 1B
July 28, 2013
Be Honest in Your Delivery
I want to start with a
quote from Saadi, the Persian poet, about humans which is written on the wall
of United Nations in New York.
“Human beings are members
of a whole,
In creation of one essence
and soul.
If one member is afflicted
with pain,
Other members uneasy will
remain.
If you have no sympathy for
human pain,
The name of human you
cannot retain.”
Almost all religions believe in our ancestors, Adam and Eve, and the way
generations started from them. Despite the varieties of races and ethnicities,
there is a very little difference in humans regarding their genes. It means we
are all coming from the same genes, roots and background, as Saadi says in his
poem. We are part of a whole; a whole body consisting of different parts that
are all essential. We are all the most precious creatures. But what happens
that some of us forget this and start to harm the others? What happens that we
forget where we came from and where we are going? Unfortunately, we humans are
improved in any field but we are getting lost and become strangers to
ourselves. It is expected that as we grow in each aspect of life, we get closer
to each other and become better human beings. But in reality violence has not
Sabour2
disappeared among us. There might have been violence that we never knew
about it, but these days we can record anything. Journalists take the
responsibility to record and keep whatever happens, especially regarding
violence and wars. But if we want to record our masterpieces, we should show
the reality as completely as it has happened. There should be no exception or
biased selection to show, and in order to be fair we have to show those who are
the causes of violence as well. Everyone should know who are the sources of
those violences happened so people can support or reject events. If it is not
like this, there will be cases not revealed at all, or some that have been
magnified censored or intentionally changed.
We have seen a lot of pictures and movies
about what happened in Vietnam, but no movie has been made to show those who
were chemically poisoned in the bombing of Iraq in the war of Iran and Iraq.
Have those countries that sold chemical bombs to Iraq, let the journalists
reveal any picture of what happened at that time, or make a movie of life of a
veteran who is suffering from an unknown disease caused by the bombs. Here we
feel how much it is important for media to be honest and not beneficiary from
any political group or country.
I believe that even if there are honest
journalists and photographers that record such events, countries make a business
profit making use of those records. There can be T.V. shows made based on a
picture of child in Iraq to simulate people’s emotions towards a special idea. Don’t
the T.V shows try to use it to attract more viewers? Do they really care about
those people of the third world? What they care is their own benefit.
Sabour3
DiMaggio, Anthony from University of Illinois, Chicago, has researched
about the media covering the war in Iraq from February 2007 through January
2008. He tries to compare the outcome of the media from different countries
reporting the same event. There were thirteen countries publishing news about
the war. Countries like United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, New
Zealand, Israel, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Pakistan, and
South Africa. The funny result of this research is that each country’s critic
about it, was strongly influenced by their position in the scenario, some
approved and some didn’t. This research shows how countries use media based on
their benefits. As DiMaggio says,
“ I examined the war in Iraq as classic case of
neoliberal intervention on the part of the U.S. and its allies. A systematic
historical review of U.S. policy plans in the Middle East, and the relevance of
that planning to the neoliberal occupation, are addressed at length. Those
countries located furthest outside of the core of the world capitalist system
follow the Iraq was the least consistently, on a month by month basis, but are
the strongest in their challenges to the legitimacy of the occupation.
Conversely, core countries cover the conflict far more closely, and are more
limited in their sympathy to strong criticism of the war.”
Another writer, Jo Groebel, in “The Role of
the Mass Media in Modern Wars” states that media and war are like twin brothers
that can never be separated. He says that, “Modern wars need the mass media;
the mass media need wars. This statement has to be explained. Immediately after
the ending of the Gulf War, an Israeli general described televisions as one of
the most important means of military strategy. Most governments would have
difficulty
Sabour4
engaging in a war without the support of their people. This support
depends on the belief in the necessity if military action that can be obtained
through media.” We know that most of the younger generations have no personal
experience of war. Their knowledge of war relies on mass media. The media have
a primary role in expressing the wars and attracting people’s attentions. It
seems good, but media has a critical role in transferring the news honestly.
I believe media is the best tool to show what
happens all around the world, but it needs to be honest, and unbiased in
transferring the news. But it seems that countries have puppet media and their
own shows and theaters. They take their followers’ minds to the directions that
they wish. In order to solve this problem and have a reliable and honest news, I
suggest having an unbiased, free, and independent society of journalists that
belong to no political party or country in order to have the first hand news.
Although the first and most important role of media is supposed to be publishing
reliable and first hand news, but it is not what really happens. News are
changed for many reasons, more of political purposes. Media, as a business, tries
to keep its business and increase the benefits. That is why same news will be
revealed differently from different media. This biased action is observed in
media on publishing violation news as well. I think an unbiased worldwide free
media with free independent journalist,
authors, and critic writes can solve this problem and everyone anywhere, can
reach the first hand news of any kind. So people can have their own choice to
interpret the news and judge. Biased and unreliable media only publishes news
for their own benefits, so some events might not be heard at all and some will
be changed.
Sabour
5
A
free media has a good feature which is the first hand news with no biased
interpretation to target a goal or a specific group of people. Aung San Suu Kyi
who is a Burmese opposition politician and chairperson of the National League
for Democracy in Burma in a land mark political in the 1990 general election, has called
for “completely free, independent and
unbiased journalism”. But her speech was censored by election commission when
she talked about the lack of freedom to speak and no access to get military
information. But she is still encouraging her people to be free from fears. She
believes that democracy with no freedom is impossible. She thinks that, “Strict
media laws and censorship deprived the people of freedom of speech, freedom to
write, freedom to listen and freedom of expression.”
Throughout the history people have
fought and sacrificed their lives to get human rights against those who had
taken it from them. But how can we feel we have our basic right to hear and
interpret the news while we get the second hand information? We think we are
free and have access to the fastest type of information publication, which is
internet. But still we do not have access to violation news as it really is.
According to The Media Association, in a country like Turkey, internet is
censored based on law. “ The Media Association’s Internet committee completed a
report in July 2013 on Internet censorship in Turkey that called for amending
Law No. 5651, which regulates the Internet, in a manner that would support
freedom of thought and expression and in accordance with the Council of
Europe‘s Convention on Cybercrime.” In this country some websites are not
accessible. How can this country claim to be a democratic country, while being
part of Europe? I think internet should
not be controlled or filtered by governments. This is not fair.
About four years ago in Iran, after
the cheating on the presidential election, many people especially younger ones
came to streets to fight for their votes. But the government killed most of
them and captured those who tried to take photos or videos of what was done to
unarmed people. I was a witness of the violence happened at that time but the
reality was never reported. The crime done by government’s reaction was so
inhumane that they were scared the news be published to the world, while they
claim of having a religious based democracy. People in Iran do not have access
to a non-filtered internet. YouTube is a dream to be opened. Even personal
activities are monitored. If there was a free media to show this cruelty, Iran’s
government could not break the human rights of its people. With the excuse of
improper things for children and things against Islamic roles, they are having
restrictions on everything.
How do you respond if you see a
violation is happening in your neighbor’s house? Do you just shut your door and
close your eyes? Or do you show a reaction to help? How can we feel comfortable
if our neighbor is having a problem? It might have happened to us. In that case
do we expect others to help us? By
having a free and independent media, I believe, rate of violation will get to
zero. I think if violators know that everyone will get to know them and will
react, will not do any violation.
Internet as the fastest, easiest and
the most accessible toll of media to publish news, is censored even in
countries like United States and in Europe. According to Eric Fish, in his article of “Is
Internet Censorship Compatible
with Democracy?” , internet censorship is in conflict with democracy.
According to the definition of democracy, internet censorship is not accepted.
Recently the Liberal Party in Australia tried to perform internet censorship
law, but it was not successful. In Iran, the censorship regime performs this
dirty trick in this way. They block domain name servers, and use routers to
slow or stop a user’s Internet connection if they try to go to web sites that
they do not want public to have access to.
I
tried to find a solution for the problem of violation censorship and media. As free
human beings we have the right to have access to the most recent, unbiased,
first hand information from all around the world without any media in between
to move it to its own benefit direction. If so, there might be people who care
about what happens to their own species in other parts of the world and protest
for them. This might act as a stop light for violation. If such an independent
media existed, those young boys and girls killed by Iran’s terrorist government
would be alive now. But there will come a day when no one will accept any
biased news, and I wish for a day when there is no violence in the world.
Work cited
1. Saadi, Shirazi. Biography, Wikipedia
2. McIntyre, Jeff. “Media Violence in the News:
American Psychological Association Public Policy Initiatives. “ SAGE
PUBLICATION, INC. 2010-06-08.
3. Groebel, Jo. “The Role of the Mass Media in
Modern Wars.” N.d.web. 2007
4. Worldpress. March 16. 2012. Web. August 6.
2013.
6. Fish, Eric.
“Is Internet Censorship Compatible with Democracy?” Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the
Law (2) (2009): n, page. Web. August 6, 2013.
