Truth is often the first victim to fall in the battlefield: The politics of war, media, and journalism

Truth is often the first victim to fall in the battlefield: The politics of war, media, and journalism

    Thursday, June 22, 2023   No comments

A detailed report by The Intercept, titled "Ukraine Prevents Journalists from Access to Frontlines, Escalates Censorship," has been reported by veteran war correspondents accusing Ukrainian officials of making reporting on the reality of the war, with rare exceptions, now nearly impossible.

The report, written by the Italian writer on international affairs and military issues, Alice Sperry, stated that "the Ukrainian government has intensified its efforts to control the narrative associated with the war now, by tightening access for journalists to the front lines of the conflict."

 Sipri stated that "after the Ukrainian forces regained control of the coastal city of Kherson last November, after 8 months of Russian control, some journalists entered the liberated city within hours, but the journalists' credentials were confiscated by the Ukrainian authorities, under the pretext that they were" They ignored the current restrictions.

 

Katerina Sergatskova, editor-in-chief of the independent Ukrainian newspaper Zaporona Media, said they "tried to impose more control on journalists, and now it's really difficult to report from Kherson, for example."

 

Simafor news agency reported earlier this month that since Russia launched its all-out offensive last year, Ukrainian authorities have threatened, revoked or denied press credentials to journalists working for 6 Ukrainian and foreign news outlets because of their coverage of the events. 

 

Sipri touched on one recent example, where "the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine did not renew the press credentials of a photographer based in Ukraine, who accused the country's security services of subjecting him to interrogations, a lie detector test, and accusations that he was working against the national interest of Ukraine."

 

Government officials were forced to re-accredit photographer Anton Skiba last week after a pressure campaign by colleagues and press freedom advocates, who denounced tighter access for frontline media, but the incident highlighted tensions between Ukrainian authorities and the journalists they cover. escalating conflict in recent months.

 

Veteran war correspondents, for their part, accuse Ukrainian officials of making coverage of the war, with rare exceptions, nearly impossible.

 “The Ukrainian government has made it virtually impossible for journalists to do real frontline reporting,” said Luke Muggleson, a journalist for The New Yorker. on the one hand, and superficially documented by the press on the other.

 

"It's surprising how little of what's happening is being chronicled, and the main reason, though not the only reason, is that the Ukrainian government has made it virtually impossible for journalists to do real reporting," Mugelson told The Intercept.

 

Mugelson explained that the restrictions come from military and political leaders, and interfere with the desire of ordinary soldiers to share their experiences.

 

Some Ukrainian journalists also warned that "the strict censorship practiced by the military distorts the coverage of the war," if a Ukrainian soldier said to a journalist, "I hate this war so much," and the press officer asked him to respond with, "Yes, the war is difficult, but we maintain our morale." 

"This is the narrative that many of the Ukrainian public is getting," Sipri asserted. Late last year, Zelensky signed into law a law giving the government sweeping powers over the media, and the European Union of Journalists described the initial draft of the bill as "befitting the worst authoritarian regimes."

 Earlier this year, a poll indicated that trust in the media among the Ukrainian public currently stands at 57%.

 Several Western reports talked about heavy Ukrainian losses on the front after Kiev launched its counterattack against the Russian forces, and this reflected the statements of the Ukrainian and Western leaders, as well as Moscow's assurances, but the Ukrainian media prevents the transfer of any press materials from the fronts, which was translated into the lack of documentary materials. the results of the attack.

 

Comparing Scenes from the Protests in the Garden of Prosperity and the Celebration of Nowruz in "Women-Oppressor" Iran

Comparing Scenes from the Protests in the Garden of Prosperity and the Celebration of Nowruz in "Women-Oppressor" Iran

    Thursday, March 23, 2023   No comments

In this week’s media review report, we would like to highlight the disparity in media coverage of social events when they happen in the West versus when the happen in Muslim-majority countries. We propose this media review because the constant and consistent negative coverage of protests in Muslim-majority countries and radio-silence when violent protests and brutal police handling of protesters in the Garden of Prosperity must be challenged as a matter of equity and as a matter of freeing the human rights discourse from political manipulation.

When protests in Iran were instrumentalized to portray yet another government in yet another Muslim-majority country as authoritarian regime ruling over an Islamic society still in need of the paternal protection of the civilized world, the progressives and liberals in the West jumped on the bandwagon. How could they be wrong if someone from somewhere stated in some social media platform that Iran executed 14,000 protesters? Reflexively, even politicians joined in. The Canada’s prime minister amplified the post and condemned Iran for not respecting the rights of peaceful protests.

Here we are weeks deep into the many “peaceful” protests across Europe, and in France, especially, with scenes of heavily armed police violently clashing with unarmed protesters. Yet, not a single Western government called for an end to the violence and the use of force against peaceful protesters.

This is not about using one case of protesters and counter-protesters’ measures to legitimize police brutality against civilians in any country or in all country. It is about the incessant, constant, consistent, and overwhelming media stream portraying violence happening in a Muslim-majority country as a normal event suggesting that Muslims are of violent nature, and the total blackout and abysmal coverage of protests in the West and the violent handling of protests in the West. It is the overwhelming negative coverage of Muslim-majority countries, the absence of any images or stories that depict positive aspects in Muslim-majority countries, and the lack of coverage of the violence that happens in the West that provide a bigoted narrative, and it is this negative narrative that produce a draft of history that is deeply flawed and cruel to people of the Global South.

Here is a glimpse of the deliberate selective coverage: during the same time when Iranian men and women, yes women, were celebrating the new Persian; the streets of Paris and other major French cities were literally on fire. The police were beating, dragging, and arresting protesters. No word of concern for the use of excessive force was uttered by any Western leaders.

When Iranians protested the death of an Iranian woman, all Western leaders reacted; they introduced resolution of condemnation in world organizations, and they imposed sanctions on Iranian individuals and institutions. The world was told that Iran is no place for women to walk the streets without head coverings, and those who do risk arrest and death at the hand of the police. That is a damning narrative not just for Iran, but for Muslims in general.

But when there is evidence of Muslim women in Iran and elsewhere in Muslim-majority countries walking the streets, and celebrating holidays in public spaces wearing or not wearing a range of head coverings, such scenes are suppressed, because they provide a counter narrative to the one that has been portraying Muslims as "woman-oppressing" peoples.

Is the West losing the propaganda war to China? "Is the [pro-Ukraine group] named Biden Administration?"

Is the West losing the propaganda war to China? "Is the [pro-Ukraine group] named Biden Administration?"

    Wednesday, March 08, 2023   No comments

Researchers who monitor the global media will not miss the fact that Chinese media has been more focused these days on analyzing Western media reports than on pumping their own stories. The war in Ukraine and the pressure on China to take side have increased the Chinese media output of stories that depicts Western media and western governments as inconsistent, and biased. This social media post by a Chines official tells the story; the story of how western governments’ action have made it easy for Chinese media and Chinese officials to do their work and appear cool at the same time.

 "Is the [pro-Ukraine group] named Biden Administration?"

The editorials in China’s global media, GT, tell the rest of the story.

The performance of the US and Western media once again illustrates that their so-called independence and professionalism are selective. It's not just the US and Western media, but almost the entire Western world is very passive in seeking the truth behind the Nord Stream bombing. At a recent related UN meeting, the UK showed "tolerance," holding that more investigations are unnecessary and claiming it was unclear why the Russian Federation is suddenly pursuing the issue with such urgency. Many countries including Germany, one of the biggest victims of this incident, has yet to make a public statement. 

 

Internet, Space, Politics, and War: How Western government-business collaborations and connections is spurring other countries to develop their own

Internet, Space, Politics, and War: How Western government-business collaborations and connections is spurring other countries to develop their own

    Friday, January 13, 2023   No comments

The US administration has used connections between private businesses in China and the Chinese government as a reason for banning Chinese companies from operating within the country. They argued that data collected by these businesses may end up in the hands of foreign governments. When some European governments joined the US government and put restrictions or bans on China-based businesses, it made this problem a global one. At the same time, it brought to the forefront the relationship between the private sector and governments. The media coverage may suggest that the problem with governmental use of data, information, or technology owned by businesses applies only to businesses operating out of China, implying that Western governments do not use tools from businesses or collaborate with businesses to achieve national political and economic advantages. The Recent and ongoing events around the world, however, are confirming that there is not a divide between private and government entities. All governments end up leaning on companies and businesses operating from their territory to use their resources and assets to protect and further what they see as their national interest. The connections and relations between business-government was revealed clearly during the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

During the pandemic, drug companies received government funds to develop vaccines and anti-viral drugs. And that private-government partnership extended to the control of the production and distribution of drugs according to government priorities, not market forces or public good conditions. For example, EU governments prohibited European vaccine makers from selling their products outside Europe to prioritize the vaccination of Europeans over the rest of the world.

Also, with the start of the war in Ukraine, US-based social media, Internet companies, and media outlets all fell in line with policies and guidelines developed by Western governments to control the narrative about the war, which consisted of filtering out any coverage or information that may appear to be sympathetic to the Russian point of view.

Also, with the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, the then-richest person on earth and the majority owner of SpaceX, the company behind the Starlink project which deliverers high-speed internet from space, Elon Musk, announced that he will allow the government of Ukraine to use the service. Similarly, when demonstrations broke out in Iran the fall of 2022, Musk told Iranians that he will make Starlink services available to the anti-government protesters.

With China facing similar pressure related to its claim over Taiwan, the ban on Chinese technology companies and the willingness of US-based companies to support US positions on global conflicts, it was not hard for the Chinese leaders to build or strengthen alternative to US- and EU-based companies so that they cannot be used against them the way they have been used against Russia and Iran. We also anticipate Russia and Iran to allocate resources to developing similar structures to address these issues. The recent revelation about the emergence of a Chinese competitor to Starlink and SpaceX bolster this conclusion. The media coverage, blow, should provide more context.

Read story from the source.

 

Reviewing Turskish media reaction to the Ankara - Damascus Normalization

Reviewing Turskish media reaction to the Ankara - Damascus Normalization

    Thursday, January 05, 2023   No comments

Once the Syrians remember the facts of eleven years of Turkish behavior towards their country, the attempts to overthrow the regime and the state and support the armed opposition, leading to the occupation of parts of northern Syria, the importance of the first Moscow meeting can be realized at the level of the defense ministers of Turkey, Syria and Russia. And while awaiting the crystallization of a clearer picture with the possible meeting to be held soon between the three countries at the level of foreign ministers, Turkey was preoccupied with the details of the new phase of the reconciliation process, noting that the view of the writers supporting the “Justice and Development” party was shy in approaching the developments, while enthusiasm appeared, The “schadenfreude” is evident in the position of those who have been calling, for years, for direct communication with Damascus, amid almost unanimous agreement that the biggest winner of what is happening is the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad.

About this, Muhammed Ali Guler writes, in the opposition newspaper “Cumhuriyet”, in an article entitled “Al-Assad won and NATO lost,” that “(Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s external needs, and (Turkish President Recep Tayyip) Erdogan’s internal needs, intersected to produce pressure. Russia is in the direction of holding a meeting of the Turkish and Syrian defense ministers in Moscow, thus opening the door to normalization between Syria and Turkey. According to Guler, “a lot of speculation arose in Turkey and Syria about the issues discussed by the two ministers, but it can be said that from the point of view of Turkish foreign policy, Ankara has accepted the fact that regional policies will proceed from now on on the basis of a “solution with Assad” or “the Assad solution.” ». Guler stresses that the most important of all these assessments is “to see the extent of the reflection of the normalization process from the point of view of Turkish foreign policy, on Ankara’s behavior in regional and international issues, which assumes that the “Assad solution” will be reflected in Turkey’s foreign policies. This requires necessary steps in the field that reflect the new approach.

The first of these measures, the writer says, is the dismantling of the structures that Ankara established in order to overthrow Assad. It includes all armed groups, Syrian, Islamic and radical, to which Turkey opened borders and formed a parliament and government for them as well. In Guler's opinion, the aforementioned constitutes "the most important issue now," as it is by "dissolving these structures" that what the writer describes as a "flexible solution" to the presence of the Turkish army in Syria can be reached. And he adds, “Of course, the dissolution of these groups is not as easy as expected, as it has a political and social cost. Some of them will not give up their arms, but may even move against Turkey. Here, cooperation between the Turkish and Syrian armies will be of great importance, as it will facilitate the liquidation of armed Islamic groups and will reduce the cost to Turkey. Secondly, it will help program a gradual withdrawal of the Turkish army and a corresponding control of the Syrian army over its territory. And he wonders, in this context, whether the Turkish authorities will accept the advanced scenario, or will they adapt their vision to the impact of the presidential elections and put forward the condition of “achieving political stability” first?

In the same newspaper, Barish Doster writes, saying that the Moscow meeting, despite its delay, is important for the two countries, as it allowed Turkey to correct its wrong policies towards Syria, and at the same time showed more than one thing: the first of which is “the limits of the Turkish state’s ability”; The second is “the mistake of practicing foreign policy on a sectarian, ethnic, ideological, personal or emotional basis and using it as a tool in domestic politics.” The new Turkish policy towards Syria also showed, according to Doster, “the mistake of relying on and trusting the United States and believing that it will win under any circumstances; It is also a mistake to underestimate Assad and look at countries and societies in the Middle East with a sectarian eye. According to the writer, “if the talks between the two countries produce results, they can cooperate, with the help of Russia and Iran, against terrorism, eliminate the American presence in Syria and the armed Kurdish elements that support it, and thus achieve peace and stability,” as well as prepare for “the return of Syrian refugees.” to their country.” He believes that "Syria is Turkey's gateway to the Middle East with a border of 911 km, the second begins to win, not only from the political, diplomatic, strategic and security aspects, but also from the economic point of view."

In the loyal newspaper "Miliyet", Tonga Bengen says, "The United States wants a Syria fragmented as a state and institutions, because this is its way to consolidate its influence in this country. Therefore, Washington is not satisfied with Turkey's efforts to reconcile with Syria. And he goes on to say that “Washington will use all kinds of conspiracies and provocations to trap a solution between Ankara and Damascus, such as pressure through the militants in Idlib, and through other issues in the eastern Mediterranean and within the Turkish army by officers who do not agree with Erdogan in his new policies.” Hence, the most important thing, according to Bengin, is that “Syria, Russia and Turkey be honest, sincere and firm in order to achieve lasting peace and confront the potential games of the United States and the mines that it will plant.”

As for Mustafa Kara Ali Oglu, in the opposition newspaper “Qarar”, which is close to Ahmed Davutoglu, he believes that “Turkey is not in an enviable position. We were against Bashar al-Assad and we want to depose him. Now this goal is no longer possible, and Assad has gained enough strength to sit at the table across from us. And Russia skillfully managed the Astana process to the extent that it forced Turkey to recognize the Assad regime and sit with it. This is a significant success for both Moscow and Damascus. But he also says that Turkey “should not trust Russia with regard to the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, as Moscow and Washington provide protection for it,” asking: “Can it be said to the refugees who fled Assad that the problem has been solved, and they can return? Is this applicable? According to the writer, the Turkish forces cannot leave Syria without resolving the problem of the Kurdish forces, because they are “the only negotiating force we have with regard to Damascus,” concluding that “the process is completely unknown and unreliable, and negotiations over it will take years or even decades before reaching agreements.” Issues that cannot be resolved in the field will not be easy to solve at the table.

For his part, Fahim Tashkin, in the opposition newspaper "Gazete Dwar", considers that "the Syrians today must use accurate measures in order to confront what they expect from the normalization process with Turkey. Things may progress surprisingly, and Erdogan's dream of praying at the Umayyad Mosque may come true, but alongside Assad. The writer describes the Moscow meeting as “a birth on the page of Turkey’s defeat,” noting that “it is not clear what the two sides agreed upon, but Damascus and Moscow see it as an agreement to strike the armed groups in Idlib, while Ankara suffices to mention the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, while the problem will be the jihadist groups.” In Idlib and the warlords, it is one of the most difficult challenges that Ankara will face. Tashkin wondered: “Will Turkey say to Syria: Deal with the Kurds and leave me the matter of finishing off the jihadists?” To answer: “Erdogan wants to convince Damascus that the Kurds are the common enemy, and that they are the price of normalization between the two countries.” And if Erdogan and Assad meet before the elections, he adds, “We can talk about a bloody electoral investment. The next meeting of foreign ministers will make the goals clearer. The result: Assad wins.

Journalism, Where Bias Comes From?

Journalism, Where Bias Comes From?

    Friday, August 12, 2022   No comments

Reporting on war is rearely objective: 

Here, an injured child receives frontpage coverage, a name, age, and a photo to accompany the story.

Other children, though, no names, no faces, no stories--just a number: 15.