Discussion on Part 1 of the film "Love, Hate & Propaganda: War on Terror"

by Sarmista Das on March 23, 2016 - 1:57pm

1. Watch Part 1 of the CBC documentary “Love, Hate & Propaganda: War on Terror” (45 minutes) available here: http://www.cbc.ca/lovehatepropagandawaronterror/2012/05/episode-1.html

 

2. On NewsActivist, either:
A) post one unique open-ended discussion question related to the video, OR
B) respond to one of the discussion questions posted by your peers.
 
•Spelling and grammar count. For those posting discussion questions, ensure that the question has not already been asked (if your question is repeated, you’ll lose marks).
 
•Deadline: by next class (Wednesday, March 30 by 2:30 PM)

Comments

Do you consider the U.S. government as a terrorist? Why or why not?

How has the media influenced the war on terror? Discuss the impact, either positive or negative from a civilian, political etc. point of view.

What do you think about the picture taken by Jarecke, the young American that wanted to capture the truth of a war? What was your reaction? If you were him, what kind of picture would you have thought of taking that represents the truth of a war?

Do you think that the media impacts peoples interpretations and opinions on matter such as terrorism and war? Does the media glorify and report what they believe to be more "entertaining" leaving out the majority of the truths and reasons behind war left unsaid?

Yes, the media has enormous impacts on people’s interpretations and opinions. I believe that it impacts especially issues such as terrorism and war. The influence of medias on terrorism and war is due to the fact that these issues are controversial and not well understood by the majority. Since the media is most citizens’ primary source of information, people forge their opinion based on the information and interpretations presented by it. Unfortunately, as it is explained in the documentary, some information is falsified or modified to be used as a tool for propaganda. However, I think that in situations such as the war in Iraq, the media was also somehow manipulated. The Secretary of State of the United States, Collin Powell, made a presentation to the United Nations to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It is difficult for the media to question the validity of the information presented by the American Government since it has a high position of authority. No one would have doubted that the Secretary of State of the United States was presenting false information. In other words, the media sometimes divulges false information without necessarily being aware of it.

I think the media has a lot of control on what the public knows about the world and how to interpret it. Many times I've read about important events happening in the world on social media, but I didn't even see a glimpse of it on the news. I believe that the media applies to the motto that "If it bleeds, it leads". Meaning that the more gory or horrific the story is, the more entertaining it will be for the audience, thus making them report on it more and sensationalizing it. I find that the media picks and chooses what they will include in their reports, even if it isn't the whole truth.

Do you think that violence should be replied with even more violence? What are the impacts of this sort of responses?

No, I personally do not think that violence should be responded to with more violence. As the saying goes; two wrongs do not make a right. I do not think that Bush addressed and went about handling the terrorist attack on 9/11 in the correct manner. Osama Bin Ladin’s objective was to start a war with America; if the American government decided to respond in a non-violent manner, and did not declare war, perhaps this conflict would have never blown up to such a large extent. Responding in a violent manner simply leads to more civilian casualties, more terror, more anger, and a longer battle. War does not resolve anything. We need to find a way of addressing and dealing with disputes without the use of guns and bombs in order to actually overcome the disagreement at hand.

In your opinion, why do you think no media outlet in the United States wanted to use the photograph that journalist Ken Jarecke took during the Gulf War in Iraq?

As a response to the question, ''Why do you think no media outlet in the United States wanted to use the photograph that journalist Ken Jarecke took during the Gulf War in Iraq?'', I think that the media did not have the choice to publish or not Ken Jarecke's picture. In my opinion, no American journal or magazine was allowed to buy that picture because it was too demonstrative or too real for the American citizens to see. I think that the government had control over what information can be shown in order to portray a good image of the country. For instance, videos of bombing during the night were shown on American's TV to prevent people from seeing sensitive images of harmed and dead people. If those terrifying and sad pictures were distributed in the States, more citizens would feel for the horrible attacks that have been done to people that are going through war. The United States’ government was strict on what American citizens were allowed to know. Thus, they censured images and videos so that it would not change the public's opinion on war, and the citizens would not force the government to back out of it. Due to media control, Ken Jarecke's picture was not bought by American journals, and it affected him, because people in his country were not aware of what was truly going on during times of war.

 I think the media chose to not publish the picture to keep the war from looking as bad as it truelly was. The government and media were actively trying to shelter the American people. The picture was such a raw and real representation of the horrors happening in the war that there was a worry that this would paint the war in a bad light to Americans. This was a tactic to censor the pictures the public could see. If the masses don't see the devastation, there is less chance that there will be public outcry to stop the war. This picture would have been enough for a lot of people to change their minds, or at least think twice about the war. Therefore the picture was essentially kept from the American public to ensure their support for the wars.

If Pat Tillman did not agree with the U.S going to war against Iraq, why do you think he went along with it?

What did you find most interesting about the topics discussed in this documentary? Explain why.

Why do you think it is important for media to portray events, such as the image of war, in the most truthful way possible?

It is important for people around the globe to know what is actually happening in countries where war is occurring. The main issue is that the media is selective in the events it wants to show the world. This distorts some of the facts, and makes people take a position that is more likely promoted by the media. Also, propaganda is used to demonize the 'enemy'.

It is important for people around the globe to know what is actually happening in countries where war is occurring. The main issue is that the media is selective in the events it wants to show the world. This distorts some of the facts, and makes people take a position that is more likely promoted by the media. Also, propaganda is used to demonize the 'enemy'.

The war against the Middle East is influenced, some may say control, by the media. If the manipulative message at the beginning of the episode by the fifth teen years-old girl has not been done, would the war be as long and murderous as it is now?

The American government censored media outlets from broadcasting many activities of the war against the Middle East, while the media of the Middle East did not censor any activities. In fact, the Middle East showed the public many horrific pictures and live footage that resulted from the war. How does the presentation of manipulated information by the media influence a population in contrast to showing a population the truth?

The American government censored media outlets from broadcasting many activities of the war against the Middle East, while the media of the Middle East did not censor any activities. In fact, the Middle East showed the public many horrific pictures and live footage that resulted from the war. How does the presentation of manipulated information by the media influence a population in contrast to showing a population the truth?

Do you think the war to Irak was justified? Why? If not, in what other way could the United-States have fought terrorism?

With the invention of the Internet and the amount of information available to everyone to make their own opinion in consideration, were you surprised by the power of propaganda in the 21st century? Does the documentary change your perception of media outlets today?

Do you think the war on terror has or will ever have a winner? If so, is it the US government or multinational terrorist groups? Why?

About the author