Read the New York Times article and watch the WikiLeaks Video about the killing of two Reuters journalists in 2007, July 12.
This is an emblematic example of: the militaries and the government trying to give a positive, or at least neutral, narrative of what happened; journalists and the media looking for the truth about what happened; and alternative media providing actual and uncensored information about what happened (about 3 years later the fact occured).
What do you think about this? Apart from reading the article and watching the video, you may want to look for other sources in order to sustain your arguments. Post a critical comment on this topic below. From 10 to 15 sentences in lenght. Please remember to quote the sources you used.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that the case of the Reuters' journalists exemplifies the value of alternative media. I agree with Nick Couldry's view presented in "Digital media and democracy: tactics in hard times", that "alternative media projects encourage the denaturalization nf the media...people who had previously considered themselves only as audiences of the media can become producers of the media". Even if it took Wikileaks three years to provide the uncensored information, its information that may have gone unknown and unnoticed to the public if it wasnt for its efforts to become producers of media. So, it can be seen how alternative media challenges narratives-often too positive or neutral- provided by the military and the government in mainstream media.
ReplyDeletePatricia Lopez C.
Alternative media provides an uncensored outlet so that individuals can be exposed to news that perhaps the government doesn’t want known. I think that mainstream media often follows the general guidelines set forth by the government: if they want specific news to be edited, the mainstream will phrase the information in such a way so that it is favorable to the government. A prime example of this is the New York Times Article, which speaks about the two Reuters who were killed. The government attempted to make the incident sound neutral, saying casually that “two civilians were killed” rather then admitting that there was an unfortunate accident where innocent reporters were shot at aimlessly. The government also released a news report, which The New York Times covered, stating that they “send their condolences to the families of those who were lost”. The condolences expressed were probably only expressed in that news release- rather then actually to the grieving families. Alterative media on the other hand offered the true nature of the story, and sought to investigate the actual facts. I think that alternative media has much more lee-way to offer real content, because they know that the government will not be reading what they are writing. Since it is a smaller population of readers, there is a much smaller chance to offend the government and make waves, so alterative media is able to do so much more freely. I know that The Village Voice, which is a local newspaper in New York City, often uncovers the dirt on violence that occurs in the region. While normal newspapers just report on the status- quo, or the information released to them by the police stations, The Village Voice is able to take more time and speak to crucial people such as victims’ families, witnesses, people linked to the crime etc. I think that this offers a much more colorful and complete detailing of a story and as such is much more worthwhile to the reader. I enjoy reading alternative media much more than I do mainstream because I think that they take the time to discover the true story, which is all I ever wanted in the first place.
ReplyDeleteJessica Ward
-Ricki Maybruch
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the New York Times article, I noticed a lot of ways in which the military and government tried to present the shootings of these two journalists in a more positive light. First, they present it as something that was necessary because of all of the chaos and violence occurring in Iraq. Next, they blame the violence on Iraqi militiamen and suicide bombers, instead of admitting the violence comes from their direction as well. The American government always attempts to justify their actions by saying it was in response to Iraqi violence. The Wikileaks video exposed the truth 3 years later- that children and other innocent people were affected by the American attack as well. The advantage of citizen journalism, like this video, is that it is not restricted by the government and military in the information it receives. Alternative media does its own investigating, without having to rely on governmental sources. Therefore, while they may not have immediate access to situations like this July 2007 shooting, they have the ability to do their own research and write on their own accord. Richard Sambrook of Harvard University said in his article, "Citizen Journalism and the BBC," that alternative media provide an excellent source of information in times of crisis. He said, "...when major events occur, the public can offer us as much new information as we are able to broadcast to them...News organizations are accustomed to being the gatekeepers of information. But with the Internet’s emergence, information has broken free and become commoditized and democratized." Most importantly, Sambrook points out that due to the expansion of new media like blogs and social websites, reporting the news is now a joint effort between news agencies and alternative media.
The video was quite disturbing. It gave a far more powerful deliverance than the New York Times article. The New York Times article was very broad and off-topic as well at times. This took away from the seriousness of the situation. The video clearly showed the eagerness of the shooter to shoot anything that moves. It was as though he was having fun killing and injuring innocent people, including children. It was as if it were a video game to him, removing the element of human life from the picture. It is amazing how much alternative media sources are willing to show. It is just as amazing how little the mainstream media will show in order to cover up or skew the truth and perceptions. Some people wish to not see the truth, for the truth can be disturbing at times. Although this is true, I personally would prefer seeing what actually happens so I can develop my own evaluations on the situation, rather than some one else telling me what to think.
ReplyDeleteAlex Friedman
After watching the live footage of the video, I understand why the government used to censor what the media did and did not reveal to the people. The article was not too bad. It simply told the people what happened, and while it was unfortunate, mistakes happen and innocent people die during war. Because of that, I wasn't so taken aback. However, after seeing the video, my mind was totally changed. The Americans were so quick to assume they were carrying a weapon, therefore, not realizing it was just a camera, which was so careless. Additionally, the way they spoke on the radios disgusted me. They were way too casual and nonchalant about the fact that they just killed 8 [innocent] people. I appreciate the media and knowing what actually happened. I feel as though it allows me to have my own real opinion on the subject matter.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Winston
The Wikileaks video and the NY Times article of the Reuters' journalists provides the public with a view that may not have ever been seen if the information was never released. The American military as any military will continue to cover up situations where they may have flawed an operation. As long as there arr alternative medias to report on situations that are offbeat in a sense to mainstream media output there can be a balance in current events. This is only possible as long as people have the right to freedom of press, and if not somehow get the information out; as long as this is a free world no one can stop alternative news, a personal voice or perspective can show the truth that main stream governmental filtered media failed to show.
ReplyDelete-Matt Borowick
The video posted of this incident is quite remarkable. Knowing somewhat of the truth of what had happened had only made it that more insane. What had stood out in my mind the most about the video was after the van that was trying to save the photo assistant and also had two children inside. The soldiers in the video disregarded this and all they could think about was shooting at those below, having no absolute proof that what they were carrying were "A47" or any other type of gun. It is somewhat shameful of how the American's had reacted to seeing a group of Iraqi's gathering and automatically assuming they are planning to attack when the group of men never made themselves seem as a threat. They were just looking at photos and a soldier in the helicopter accused them of shooting; all in all that is just irresponsible. As for the article Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl states “There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force". Although, in the video there was no sign of the area being hostile. The article definitely seems to be more on the positive light of things in the sense that the journalists should have been aware of what they were doing, and that the American soldiers were under watch of hostile areas and only trying to keep the area safe. For my opinion of both forms of media on this situation I am in the middle because I can understand both sides.
ReplyDeleteVictoria DeYoung
The 2007 incident involving the deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh is a perfect example of new and unforeseen complications in 21st century warfare. Without the technology we have today, the harsh details of the massacre that claimed two innocent victims would have gone unnoticed. Of course, without this same technology the deaths would have probably not occurred in the first place. The American troops believed they were looking at insurgents carrying deadly weapons, placing them in an “us or them” situation. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates spoke out against those who released the video saying, “You are looking at the war through a soda straw and you have no context or perspective." (LATimes.com)
ReplyDeleteThis video represents the Iraq War in its most raw format. Uncensored soldiers reacting to the situation they are confronted with. Those removed from combat may disagree with the actions of the troops or the manner in which they were carried out – but the reality is, it is impossible to judge how we ourselves faced in a similar situation would act. War is tragic and unpredictable, perhaps to an extent the general public was never meant to know or understand.
A reason we study history is to learn from the mistakes from the past. The government never seemed to have forgotten the mass hysteria after the public was informed about the Tet offense in Vietnam- they seem to be aware that they will lose support if the public was aware and was constantly exposed to the graphics and stories in Iraq. Thus, in war environments, the American government has always leaned toward lying to the public to keep morale high and influence a strong support for the military. “In the celebrations of war, war itself was rarely questioned, even though civilians have become the victims of warfare.” Therefore, it is important the public become aware of all the uncensored media the American government is paying to hide. These alternative sources of media provide outlets that challenge the positive or neutral military/governmental narratives that the public tends to be bombarded with. These other critical voices brought onto the screen give the public an opportunity to make up their own minds about the war when the news is presented in a different light (or just presented in general). It seems to bring a sense of democracy back into play when the public isn’t so uniformly swayed under a totalizing atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteSammy Rojas
After viewing the Wikileaks video and reading the NY Times article of the Reuters' journalists I could see the difference between media influenced by the U.S government and alternative media. In the article the military officials and parties involved said that it was friendly fire, “According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters.” This makes readers think that the troops has reason to believe this group of people were dangerous, therefore making the death of 11 seem less serious. This also article also makes the troops seem like heroes because they put a stop to behavior that could have escalated such as bank robberies and suicide bombings that the article focused on. In the clip I thought the first quote by George Orwell related way to well to this attack, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind”.
ReplyDeleteI watched the video a few weeks before it was brought up in class and was absolutely shocked by the footage. The video makes the scene look like one from a video game and the soldiers speaking seem very detached from what is actually going on below them. The statements made by the soldiers during the action seemed to reflect the exact opposite values that American soldiers claim to possess. I am very surprised that this video did not get more notice in the United States. Although I have a limited view because I don't have access to American TV channels, when I researched other articles after the video's release, I found very little information. This video seems like it should be front page news and yet the mainstream media seems to completely ignore it. After reading the article released immediately after the attack, it is very interesting to see what was said about the incident and what actually happened. I think the military needs to take more responsibility for their actions and not dance around the truth all the time.-Sarah Lewis
ReplyDelete