A Commentary about "Control Room"

The power of the media has always fascinated me. As a broadcasting major, I am starting to learn about and acknowledge the role that the media plays in the shaping of the present society. "Control Room" is a documentary by Jahane Noujaim that gives viewers a chance to see the Iraqi war from the Al-Jazeera network perspective. Al-Jazeera is the most watched network of the Arab world, and therefore have much power over what the Arabs know (and don't know) about the war. When I watched it, I thought that there were several truths conveyed and that the Al-Jazeera network, in its effort to remain objective in bringing the news, is seen as a major player in influencing the public opinion on the war and the parties that are involved.

I found it interesting how both sides (the American and Iraqi) claimed that Al-Jazeera is biased toward the opposition. Americans see the network as a medium of Iraqi war propaganda – the images of the brutal, occupying U.S. soldiers killing the innocent Iraqi children. The Iraqis, however, think that Al-Jazeera gets their information from the U.S. military and use the war propaganda in favor of the United States. So, where does that leave Al-Jazeera? Right in the middle of the conflict. As Samir Khader said, “You cannot wage a war without rumors, without media, without propaganda.” That’s Al-Jazeera’s purpose: to be the medium upon which the war is fought, using words and images as weapons.The other thing that jumped out to me while watching this documentary is when then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed Al-Jazeera as being biased towards the Iraqis. I have a one-word reply for that: “Duh!” As a resource for information to around 40 million Arabs, Al-Jazeera has to appeal to their target audience. If they have any intention whatsoever of keeping their network afloat, they need viewers. In order to keep those viewers, they need to share their viewers’ perspective and report from their point of view. Although Al-Jazeera claims that their reporters are capable of being objective even with their position of the war, their opinion will affect the way they deliver the news in one way or another. As Joanne Tucker, manager of AlJazeera.net said, “Objectivity is almost a mirage.” Of course, there would be a sense of nationalism on their part, because those are their fellow Arabs. They feel a sense of kinship with these people and I, for one, don’t blame them for it.

On this note, perhaps the biggest idea that struck me from this movie isn’t in the movie at all. It was left in the cutting room floor, only to be seen as a “deleted scene.” In the clip, Lt. Josh Rushing was talking about how Arab nationalism means almost the same as anti-Americanism. However, American patriotism isn’t seen as anti-Arabism. He said that, in part, it’s because of American ambivalence. I thought about that statement and I can’t help but think that it’s true. I’m definitely not saying that American nationalism should mean anti-Arabism. I’m just saying that we just stopped caring about other people because we are so self-absorbed. It’s almost as if we are desensitized from everything that is going on. We live in our little comfort bubble, enjoying our position as the most powerful nation in the world. Even some of the soldiers that are there admit that they don’t know what they are doing there – they are simply “following orders.” Here in the home front, we see a death of a soldier as passing news. We watch the destruction of cities on television while eating our fast food dinner. What we don’t see are the piles of dead bodies rotting on the streets and the suffering that takes place, not just of the Iraqis, but of our troops as well. It is as if we are in a whole other world. This is actually what makes Al-Jazeera a controversial network. They are not afraid to show the unromantic notion of war. It is sad that we can bear to see fictional gory images in the latest Hollywood flick, but we cannot force ourselves to see that these scenes have become a part of our reality. However, these images have no place in American network television, as censors would argue. And that’s why we have eye-opening documentaries as the “Control Room” that screams, “Wake up!’

The Money Behind the Media

I'm hoping to be a news reporter someday...I just love the warmth of the light when it first gets lit in the studio...adrenaline pumping as the director counts down...5...4...3...2...1. All eyes are on you as you report the events that are important to those who hear. This I remember from the 4 years that I was an anchor for my high school's live daily news show. Now, a year and a half into college, I still haven't lost that passion for doing this that I love. But, unfortunately, the thoughts that I initially had about the wonderful world of the media were all but an illusion. It is about advertising, making money, and control (which is very paranoid, but bear with me). Many people rely on the television news to inform them of the current events that may affect their way of life. Sadly, some of us may not realize that the information that they receive has been shrunk, tweaked and commercialized.

Media conglomerates make the media a less diversified whole, which has adverse effects on the media content and news coverage. During the past two decades, the world has seen several mergers by large companies who have control of most of the media. This means that many network stations and most of the small TV stations that cities have are owned by or affiliated with one of these companies. The result is a reduction of equal and diverse opinions that are necessary in a democratic society. When there are only a few owners of the mainstream, there are fewer perspectives to sort through, which gives the people fewer choices. With cable or satellite television, the media industry creates an illusion of assorted perspectives to choose from at every click of a button. If only a handful of companies own most of these stations, the public is not receiving the varied amount of views that they should be receiving in the vast number of channels. However, does the public actually have a choice? It costs millions of dollars to own and operate television stations, not to mention to obtain licenses and programs to broadcast. Therefore, only those who have the money to pay for the expenses can own television stations. The airwaves are controlled by the privileged wealthy few, who are allowed to buy more stations and each other. Not only are the conglomerates getting richer, they also have the ability to control the media and censor information that could potentially harm their companies.

Since the primary goal of television news stations is to make money, they will choose to air the information that pleases their investors and distort the ones that do not. Self-censorship allows the news stations to withhold information that they consider objectionable, which robs the American audience of the full and unhampered truth. This not only applies to news stories that the stations deem as inappropriate for network television – which, by today’s standards does not seem to be much – but also stories that may lose them valuable stockholders and investments. I was reading through this article by Chris Shumway, a former local TV news reporter, as I was taking this class called Media Literacy last spring and he has really interesting things to say. According to him, the contracts signed by news reporters includes an agreement to suppress stories that presents their station in a negative way:

Take one of my own TV contracts for example, a clause in it actually reads: Employee shall not make any statements or remarks about or concerning [the station] or its affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, employees, sponsors, or any network with which it may be affiliated, that are disparaging or derogatory or that tend to discredit or reflect unfavorably on [the station] or said affiliates”. It goes on to state that I cannot subject the station (or its officers, directors, sponsors etc.) to “disrespect or criticism.”

TV news reporters are pressured to say what is politically correct or risk dismissal. Acting as the intermediary between the people and current events, news reporters should claim the responsibility to deliver the truth regardless of its consequences. The interests of the American audience should weigh more than that of the investors. Sadly, it does not always work this way. Therefore, news stories are distorted to appease the parent company, because the news media is just another business.

As all other businesses, the news business needs money to keep afloat. Television sells its time in seconds and minutes to the companies who can afford them. Therefore, a second’s worth of a news story may be regretted as what could have been a second’s worth of advertisement. It is frightening to think that people who intended to watch the news for information are unknowingly being sold by the news station to advertisers who pay a dear amount for the opportunity to hook these potential consumers. Shumway suggests “it’s foolish to think that TV news programs serve primarily as vehicles for the delivery of news and information to the public. First and foremost, they are vehicles for the delivery of commercials to audiences." Increasing advertising revenue becomes a higher priority than delivering news.

Time constraints distort the news through the careful selection of stories to air – important stories are compressed to nothing but seconds. Neil Postman wrote, “The average length of any story is forty five seconds.” He goes on to say that it is impossible to imply a sense of importance and seriousness to an event that is given less than a minute in an entire newscast. The audience has barely enough time to translate the information in their brains and much less time to contemplate over the news, as serious or important as it may be. Depth and thorough analysis are sacrificed for brevity. I analyzed a local nightly broadcast for the Fox network and found out that within the full hour of the newscast, only a little less than sixteen minutes are allotted for the “real” news – pertinent information that does not include sports, weather, gossip, or other gimmicks. About as much time is allotted for advertisements, which unfortunately includes the several frequent attempts of tactless advertising for the station, used as innocent-appearing transitions from one story to another. Other students in my class also analyzed news broadcasts from different stations and found similar results. With only a few minutes to cover the day’s important stories, long stories are cut short and some stories do not make it at all. The result is a reduced quality of journalism. This all comes back to the role of the corporate giants. Not only are the contents of the news program carefully selected and edited for their bank account’s sake, time that should be spent for the news is wasted on selling their products that in turn, funds the insipid newscast.

The news is not just about journalism anymore. It is about putting money in the pockets of the wealthy few who took over the reins of the public’s media. All the public ends up with is a watered-down form of whatever is left of the real news. Hopefully, people will start to realize this and educate themselves about the ever-growing influence of major companies.
After this revelation, I still refuse to give up my dream. Maybe doing something about this may just be the little mark that I leave the world with. If not, then the least I could do is try.

Here are my sources (if you want to look it up):
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin, 1985.
Shumway, Chris. “News Media, Corporate Power and Democracy.” June 2000. 25 Mar 2004. <http://chris.shumway.tripod.com/newsmedia.htm>