Student Zone

Media Journal # 1

I scoured the internet using “Google News” on stories about a video released on Australian TV depicting 5 US Soldiers burning two corpses of alleged Taliban fighters, a practice forbidden by Islamic law. The stories that dug deeper also noted the second part of the story (and in my opinion the more important part) of the Psychological Operations team that broadcasted a message indicating a tactical purpose for this action. While this is compared to Abu Ghraib abuse, a key differentiating factor in this story is that immediate evidence exists of a larger military strategy behind this act rather than the acts of a “few bad apples.” One simply has to read the transcript provided to see that the acts were indeed premeditated and certainly went beyond the 5 Soldiers who carried out the desecration.

Article 1: Afghans Outraged Over Alleged Desecration - Miami Herald October 20th 2005

Summary:
This article, carefully worded to not accuse the US of desecration (the word alleged is attached every time “desecration” is used), measures Afghan responses to the allegation. Focusing on quotes from a number of Afghan sources, almost all of them condemned the (alleged) desecration, some predicting a rise in anti-American resistance. It then quotes the State Department PR, who also condemned the incident, calling it troubling and not reflective of American values. It then talks about the message by the Psy-Ops team taunting messages in the nearby village believed to be harboring Taliban fighters. It also has some quotes from DuPont, the Journalist who was embedded with the troops and captured the footage- he plainly states that the act was deliberate, and done to incite Taliban fighters to attack them so that they could find the fighters.

Response:
How much verification is needed to confirm that this event did indeed occur? It is rather confusing what the “allegation” is, considering that the footage clearly shows corpses being burned, a message being broadcast to the village about the act, and even an embedded journalist carefully documenting everything in first person. Everybody seems to respond to the act as if it has actually occurred, including US officials, with no source actually casting doubt on whether or not it did. So why is this an allegation? It is rather confusing when acts of violence (allegedly) perpetuated by insurgents in Iraq, without a claim or responsibility are often not referred to as “alleged”, nor is the fact that they actually occurred often contested.
The quotes that it lifts from the transcript from SBS (one that I have read in doing the background research for this journal) are only those of "cowardly dogs", and "You are too scared to come down and retrieve their bodies," which in my opinion misses the deliberate nature of the desecration, and thus does not provide adequate context for the response from all sides.

Article 2: Video builds anti-U.S. feelings in Afghanistan - Kashar News (Pakistan), October 21st 2005

Summary: This story also covers Afghan sentiment towards the footage released, while explicitly explaining the deliberate nature of the acts depicted in it. It also quotes the same sources as the previous articles, including the State Department, and in fact surprisingly seems to have more American political figures giving their response. It also quotes DuPont, but provides more detail than the previous article about the message broadcast to the village over a loudspeaker.

Response:
This article seems to take a dramatically different tone about the incident, while it is very similar in structure. The word “alleged” is not used at all, but it is cleverly worded to not directly accuse as well. Another difference is the quote that is used from the message that was played on the loudspeaker- "Attention Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs," one message said. "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be." A few words make a huge difference- now we can see that the psy-ops team had a strategic purpose and the act was one that was intentional, and inciting. I feel like this sufficiently informs the reader about the nature of the desecration that occurred- one certainly not out of ignorance, nor necessarily out of religious bigotry, but a premeditated tactic of war.

Article #3: U.S. Soldiers Burnt Bodies of Captured Taliban Fighters - Democracy Now! Radio News (88.7 WLUW Chicago), October 20th

Summary:
This was a short (headline-style) report that clearly states that US Soldiers did indeed burn bodies of two dead Taliban fighters. It then presents a longer quote than seen in any of the newspaper articles from the message the psy-ops team broadcast to the village.

Response:
I thought that it was excellent to use an extended quote from the message the psy-ops team broadcast in order to inform the listener of the nature of what occurred and the response:
"You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be... You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."
This quote explains to the listener what occurred better than any lengthy article I have seen. I also agree with the programs editorial decision to not call this an alleged or purported incident but to consider it as factual because of the unusually well-documented nature of the incident.

I viewed several sources on the beating of Robert Davis. I also read several articles like the Chicago SunTimes and Tribune,New York Times and the New York Post. Visual evidence of the beating was the biggest factor in keeping the viewers attention. Because brutality is so common, when brutality is mentioned in the news,no evidence is hardly needed to convince me that a police officer has harmed an innocent citizen. But to watch the taping, got me, and I am pretty sure many more viewers, to ask, Why are the police officers doing this to an innocent citizen? How is the victim coping? Is there any more evidence needed to know that a lot of police officers actions are racially motivated? On all news channels that I watched(CNN, MSNBC, and ABC),the tape showed the same footage. Robert Davis being punched in the head four times by a police officer with three other police officers tackling him to the ground. From the video, it looks as if Robert Davis shows no signs of trying to struggle. He ends up on the sidewalk motionless, covered in blood. All while a police officer on horseback trys to block the camera. At the end of a tape a fifth police officer grabs an associated press producer slams him against a car and yells "I've been here for six weeks trying to keep my *** alive! Then you
*** come here and **** up my city!" In some news like CNN online, a mug shot of Robert Davis was shown, staring ahead with his left eye beaten shut. Most people should have gotten the same message from this video, that police brutality is alive and well in 2005. However,the news has showed that after watching the video, some people actually believed that police brutality was not evident in this case. In efforts to show both sides of the story, they got representatives from both sides of the issue to speak on the video. Ministers and activists were seen trying to prove their side against members of various police forces including the Chicago Police Association. In one example on Court tv, they got a Police therapist by the name of Peter Kileen. He stated that" Police Officers have been under a lot of stress the last month and a half, and are not reacting in a normal way." I don't think Hurricane Katrina is an excuse to beat anyone, but it seems like after seeing the video, this idea was actually conceiveable to some people. There have been similar statements on other news shows. On ABC a newsreporter quoted the New Orleans Police by saying that "The Police Officers are losing sleep, are working 12-15 hours and are under stress." So these statements may have been made just for the sake of argument. Most of the news and newsreporters did a good job of not taking sides. My only problem was that some of the video was omitted on the New york Post. The first half of the quote by the fifth police officer was shown. The second half in which he says "Then you **** come here and **** up my city", was left out. To me, only showing the quote where he says, "I've been here for six weeks trying to keep my *** alive.", supports the argument that this act was just survival and that the police officers are normal stressed out people. To show the second half would only prove that he was stressed out, and in addition, he was a jerk, and this police officer has probably been in another situation like this before, taking his pain out on innocent people, whenever he has a problem in his life. I believe that a lot of police brutality is hidden, so after seeing this on the news, it has led me to belive that yes, the police officers are stressed, and are not making it any better for the people of New Orleans,who we have seen are mostly African-American. First, shooting innocent people who are "Looting",and now brutality being caught on tape. On the other hand, there is the counterargument that the police officers are only human and receiving the emotional effects of Hurricane Katrina.

The South Asia earthquake has remained the media's cover story since it struck parts of Pakistan, India, and other neighboring areas, Saturday. Most news' segments and articles have switched their attention from the actual act of the earthquake, to now helping survivors rebuild.
CNN and The Chronicle Herald (Halifax, Nova Scotia) are both connected to the Associated Press who reported two different stories. They had the same message but with different leads. Even while under the same press associations, they had different leads that reported the facts.
"-Rain, wind and cold were hindering relief efforts Tuesday; three days after a 7.6-magnitude earthquake killed an estimated 41,000 people and left millions homeless in the Himalayan regions of India and Pakistan." -CNN.com
"-Desperate Pakistanis huddled against the cold and some looted food stores Monday as international aid still had not reached remote areas of mountainous Kashmir after a monster earthquake flattened villages, cut off power and water, and killed tens of thousands. Officials predict the death toll, now estimated at 20,000 to 30,000, will climb and fear that more could die from exposure or disease with winter just six weeks away." - The Chronicle Herald.
The writings stuck to the plan of a journalist. Write for the readers, inform them of the news, and grab a hold of their attention. Not every media company has reported something new.
After reading and listening to several publications I noticed the media started to become a Xerox:
"-Heavy rain and hail forced the cancellation of some relief flights to earthquake-stricken regions Tuesday and survivors scuffled over the badly needed food the first large-scale aid to make it overland to this devastated city. Officials estimated that the death toll would surpass 35, 000," was reported by MS NBC, ABC News, and Fox News.com, who are also affliated with the Associated Press.
Paul Watson, a Times Staff Writer reported:
"-Torrential rain and hail today slowed relief efforts near ground zero of last weekend's massive earthquake as hundreds of casualties continued to stream into makeshift hospitals."
His lead introduced the fact about the earthquake and also stated the focus of his story, which was slow relief because of storms.
He even used keywords like ground zero,which is an associated phrase to Americans who might have a hard time relating with the victims of the earthquake.
If making a story interesting, checking facts, and informing the audience of new details are the standards for journalist, sorry to say, but a few have failed.