Conlcusion - Stand up

Overall, war journalism is not simply a tendency to report on violence, but a journalistic standard that is detrimental to our society’s understanding of the world at large. The way in which our for-profit media system defines “news” and presents “news” actually depoliticizes our culture. If the traditional role of journalism, supported by our constitutional right of free speech, is supposed to operate from a “watch dog” point of view and keep our government honest, then why is it that the coverage of these two events seems to support a political agenda rather than correctly informing the public? I believe that there is a real need for peace journalism. Only through peace journalism will our society begin to see the world in a new way – with less fear and hate for people and cultures that our different from our own.

Media as Harmful

Throughout the semester we discussed “The War on Terror” or the Iraq war in almost every lecture. Collectively, we agreed that it is reasonable to argue that the U.S. invaded Iraq for political and financial reasons. In a post 9/11 society, I argue that the media coverage of the Tehran demonstrations reinforced fear for the “other.” The media failed to broaden our society’s understanding of another culture and as a result aided in a continuation of broken communication within The Middle East.

Media and Images

Through my analysis I have come to the conclusion that the media is powerful in terms of its ability to shape public opinion and is even more powerful when it comes to the construction of public memory. The images shown throughout the media coverage of both events are nearly interchangeable. I have compiled images from the protests and you can see how without narration, it would be very difficult to discern the difference in location or context. What I learned most from my research is that because of war journalism, political agenda and propaganda flourish. In the situation of Seattle, portraying the protesters in a negative light supported capitalism as well as the nationalistic interests of The United States in relation to labor regulation and free trade agreements.

Obsession with Conflict and Confrontation

I believe the media is obsessed with conflict and confrontation because it makes a good story. More than half of the public says they followed the protests over the disputed re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad either very closely (28%) or fairly closely (28%).

The obsession with war journalism has become the standard and as a result, political agenda is at the forefront of much of our news. The media operated through journalism of attachment by highlighting the similarities between the people of Tehran and Americans, and covered from a standpoint of good vs. evil. This type of coverage sounds OK in theory, but this coverage reinforced the ideology of nation and other.

The coverage highlighted religious differences with images of organized prayer in the Middle East. The government of Iran, (other) was seen as savage and brutal, creating a mindset that “other” was synonymous with conflict and turmoil. This type of coverage leads Americans, to expect this type of behavior from a group such as “other.”

We are hailed into thinking that we should be thankful that we live in a country with constitutional rights that protect our right to assemble and speak openly and freely against our government. This type of coverage on a larger political scale normalizes conflict for the region.

Citizens Drenched in Blood

In contrast however, the Tehran protesters were not portrayed as “other.” The media concentrated on defining the “Green Movement” as a group of oppressed individuals who were abused by their own government. To me this was shocking, because the U.S. government treated Americans the same way just ten years earlier.



How could it be that the treatment was somehow being portrayed in a completely different light? The press positioned their coverage from a humanitarian angle, centered on the violation of civil liberties and portrayed this sort of action as un-American. CBS news quoted a CNN interview of a female witness who sated, "They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood."

Green Movement (Background)

In 2009, protests in response to the Iranian presidential election were held in Iran’s capital city of Tehran. Three opposition candidates claimed the victory of incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to be a result of manipulated votes. Supporters of one opposition candidate, Mir-Houssen Mousavi, gathered in a protest that was nicknamed the Green Revolution.

Mousavi was vocal about his dissatisfaction with the official ruling. He appealed the outcome of the election and was unsuccessful. During the protest the Iranian government closed universities, enforced a national curfew, and imposed a media blackout. As a result, much of the media coverage relied on videos from Youtube, and information posted on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.



The Basij, a military group in Tehran, used force against the protesters and videos on the internet are evidence of outright brutality. Later the government banned “Green Demonstrations,” and blocked web sites, cell phone transmissions and text messaging. Even peaceful protesters were attacked with batons, pepper sprayed, and arrested. Similar to the “Battle in Seattle” news coverage, violence was the focus.

War Journalism

The media’s war journalism perpetuated propaganda. Protesters were defined as “other,” thus the police brutality was justified as a means to protecting the “nation.” Public opinion was shaped and an imagined fear was created. This imagined fear was able to drown out a message rooted in political and social significance. Communication barriers were strengthened because the media failed to cover the event in a way that informed the public and allowed for public debate regarding our countries commitment to trade and labor agreements.



Most Americans know very little about the “Battle in Seattle,” or continue to hold on to the idea of nation vs. other. Fox News reported in 2007 that a Federal Jury found the state of Seattle guilty of violating the constitutional rights of WTO protesters. The outcome may have been unintentional, but the media was successful in normalizing conflict and allowing Americans to forget what happened.

What really happened?

I found several videos that include images of police attacking peaceful protesters as they chanted “no violence.” Military tanks were on the city streets of Seattle and police tear gassed, beat, and shot rubber bullets at the protesters. It wasn’t until much later in the demonstrations, and years after that the media acknowledged the police brutality. The acknowledgment of the violation of constitutional rights by the media was a good thing, but in my opinion it came too late. More importantly, the focus on violence has created what our text called the amnesia affect.

Significant Findings

What I found most significant was the media coverage during the protests. The New York Times printed a flawed article accusing demonstrators of being extremely violent. A retraction was printed two days later, but the damage was done. Other news networks followed the initial coverage of The Times and focused on “violent protesters,” instead of police brutality and the message behind the demonstration.



The mayor of Seattle declared a civil emergency and called in The National Guard Troops. Protestors were portrayed as violent anarchist. A large portion of the early media coverage focused on the destruction of public property by a small group of those protesting against the WTO. A small group of individuals who used violence to relay a message became the media’s focus and this was used to justify the brutality against all demonstrators, even the majority who were there to protest peacefully.

Battle In Seattle (Background)

In 1999, The World Trade Organization convened at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington to introduce and launch a new millennial round of trade negotiations. It is estimated that more than 40,000 people gathered to protest the controversial labor standards, fair trade standards, and environmental protection, under The WTO’s negotiations. The protest was also to speak out against the overall negative effects globalization has on poor nations. Some of the organizations that were targeted include but are not limited to, Banana Republic, Old Navy, McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Warner Bros.
Prior to the “Battle in Seattle,” media coverage was mixed. Some international coverage sided with the growing conscription against globalization. A London newspaper accused the WTO of being, “More concerned with increasing private profit than with all other considerations, including the well-being and quality of life of the mass of the world's people,"

Objective:

There was an underlying theme this semester as we debated the possibility and importance of peace journalism in our society. As a class we agreed that, in theory, peace journalism could create the framework needed to understand other cultures, break down communication barriers on an international level, and eliminate the fear and hate of “other.” For my final project I analyzed media coverage of two similar protests in hopes of demonstrating the power the media has in terms of shaping public opinion and the construction of public memory. Further more, I aim to demonstrate the ways in which the media reinforces the idea of what it means to belong to “the nation,” through journalistic practices that allow political agenda to shape our news.

War and Peace Final Project

Chasing Violent News: An Analysis of the 1999 World Trade Organization Protests in Seattle, and the 2009 Election Protests in Tehran.