Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land
Description of the video below (from Amazon.com):
Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land provides a striking comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East, zeroing in on how structural distortions in U.S. coverage have reinforced false perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This pivotal documentary exposes how the foreign policy interests of American political elites–oil, and a need to have a secure military base in the region, among others–work in combination with Israeli public relations strategies to exercise a powerful influence over how news from the region is reported.
Through the voices of scholars, media critics, peace activists, religious figures, and Middle East experts, Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land carefully analyzes and explains how–through the use of language, framing and context–the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media, and Israeli colonization of the occupied terrorities appears to be a defensive move rather than an offensive one.
The documentary also explores the ways that U.S. journalists, for reasons ranging from intimidation to a lack of thorough investigation, have become complicit in carrying out Israel’s PR campaign. At its core, the documentary raises questions about the ethics and role of journalism, and the relationship between media and politics.
Interviewees include Seth Ackerman, Mjr. Stav Adivi, Rabbi Arik Ascherman, Hanan Ashrawi, Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Neve Gordon, Toufic Haddad, Sam Husseini, Hussein Ibish, Robert Jensen, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Karen Pfeifer, Alisa Solomon, and Gila Svirsky.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Related posts:
I am always a bit skeptical about the somewhat enlightened intellectual tone behind the analysis of bad and good media coverage. Indians and cowboys. Sometimes roles changed. As if there would be some kind of an “objective” truth behind how these crises are talked about that the intellectual can unmask with strenuous efforts against the biases of different political interests.
The truth shall set us free. Or shall it? Is there really some kind of an “objective” truth behind the crisis or do we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that there are just different kinds of propaganda from different sides: the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic powers of any event. And make better propaganda for us the good side? Is this not the very question we face when we want to understand media today?
What do you think? Should we not also be slightly skeptical of the usual suspects (Noam Chomsky, Mr. Fisk etc) even if we agree with their politics and what they are saying? Does such a documentary tell us anything that we do not already know and what does this tell us about the role and perhaps the staleness of contemporary media criticism since the 1960s as it always repeats the same thing? So how could we see the role of media in crises such as Palestine / Israel somewhat differently – how would we repeat theory and media criticism a bit differently?
That said, I do politically support most of what is said here. It’s just …
It seems the admin has some itches he would like to scratch..
I’ll take a go at it – my opinion, it goes without saying, is biased.
There is no such thing as objective coverage to any event. Every side is drawn towards supporting either regurgitating what the powerful player has to say (int his case, Israel), or the other side wants to show the human cost, the daily struggles, the voice which is supressed by those hegemonic which you speak of. In the Israel/Palestine case, it is not a matter of two hegemonies competing, because this would imply that the Palestinians (not Palestine, because there is no state..just a collectivity attempting to remain in existence and hold on to their 60 year struggle for recognition and representation) hold power which can equal and rival that of Israel’s, be it politically or militarily. This is why, when we come to the media coverage of the conflict and in the case of a war, we can see how detrimental coverage (i.e. that which omits, misrepresents, or distorts “facts”) can be of concern – that is, that critical/rational debate and investigation is thrown out the window and instead what we have is blatant and superficial coverage which simply another mouthpiece for authorities, and neither puts into context the conflict nor discusses its consequences. Failure to put into context a conflict, and the failure of media to involve itself in rational and critical debate, whether it be Gaza or Iraq or Afghanistan, will lead to deleterious consequences which will no longer allow us to differentiate between fact and fiction. This documentary might not say much for those who already understand the media bias when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians, but for those who dont, there is a moral (everytime I say that word I feel it needs an essay in and of itself) need to understand that a resistance is not terrorism, that resistance fighters are not terrorists. Why is this important? Because I have had many people tell me that I was raised in a culture of hate – they are convinced. They tell me, we see you on television., with the children and their flags and toy guns shouting “Death to the Zionists!”. And they simply think that Palestinians were born to hate – that they fight for the sake of fighting, not for the sake of attaining a higher goal as most of the resistance parties in history (one man’s terrorists one day is another man’s freedom fighter the next day..I altered that quote slight). This is what Palestinians are lacking – representation, and lack of representation means lack of legitimacy. And the media coverage of such a conflict, in which they either distort (Muslims vs.Jews) the conflict or attempt to hide its roots, does have an affect on individuals perceptions. Yes, to all the people screaming active audience at me…but as I said, perception matters, and when you mis-represent, you de-legitimze, and this will have consequences beyond what I will discuss here.
These are just some of my thoughts..
Oh, just asking questions. Or itching. And also scratching (very Simpsons).
But thank you for the detailed responses to the comments. I just think we lack the vocabulary to express contemporary media criticism and this is the curiousity / puzzlement I humbly expressed: a need for a new ABC of talking about these things in a way that would give us something new to think about.
What could such a new vocabulary look like; or – as well – let’s at least try to learn some different tactics if we can. Somebody said, once, somewhere: “no need to hope or despair, just find new weapons.” What would be these new weapons? Not ideology, I hope. What else? Public sphere? OMG. ROTFL.
So … somehow I am still not convinced these criticisms fullfill this role of conceptual creativity as well as they should … but maybe the audience is elsewhere. Just thinking aloud.
And the documentary is very well done and should be seen by everybody.