Oh how time flew by! Just yesterday i can imagine just entering university on my first day. I was all nervous and anxious about how hard it was going to be, or how strict my lecturers will be, how will my classmates be like? Now I'm in my third and final year and when i look back at everything I've done, everyone I've met, and the things i have accomplished i can safely say that my time in University was well worth it.
All i have to accomplish is this last great feat. The ultimatum of three years of my hard work comes to this final showdown of the final project. Ive decided to do a dissertation rather than a media product like a film, magazine or radio package. Mainly because they involve in working in groups and working in groups as I've mentioned in previous blog posts is not something which i like to do. Although i don't hate it...its just for this final piece of work I'd rather rely on myself than on anyone else.
The deadline is April 28 2010. Its slowly creeping its way in, so I'm having to constantly keep a track of my time and hopefully I'll get everything done by the end of March which will give me time to get everything else done, like checking references, spelling, grammar, etc. This will obviously be done as i go along anyway...but i need a few weeks to properly sort everything before i hand it in. I'm actually even wasting my time writing this blog post...so i shall now skidaddle.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Friday, 15 January 2010
Avatar 3D Review
Yesterday i just watched the upcoming blockbuster of this year or probably this century, Avatar - and in 3d too. James Cameron the director of the film had his plans ready from 1997 but the technology to make the film wasn't available so he waited it out. And boy wasn't that the greatest decision he made in his life?
Avatar was the most expensive film ever made with a budget of around $300 million dollars which is about £186 million. So far it's the fastest ever movie to hit the billion mark and this is set to rise.
The story is good, but not amazing. It had some nice character development, are the whole film seemed to flow pretty well with each each not dragging as some say at all.
The film itself is visually stunning, with some spectacular landscapes and very life like 'alien humanoids' calling them selves the 'Navi'. These aliens are in CGI mixed with real motion censor technology which obviously enhances the fictional characters to be more realistic. There were at times though the Aliens looked at tad cartoon like, and certain CGI elements were obvious, but most of the film is aesthetically very good, probably the best I've seen so far. The CGI is well done as well, probably a little lower or on par with Square Enix's Final Fantasy Advent Children.
I went to watch the film in Real D 3d and it does enhance visuals a lot with it's depth of field. You really feel life you are in the exotic landscapes which the film portrays. There were some things where the 3d never worked like when the characters were in a room and suddenly you see the 3d affect come into play which was totally pointless but when the actions scenes came about, as the audience you get yourself braced for lots and lts of 3d effects since so many potential chances where the 3d could have used, but it wasnt. Aside from these minor annoyances, the 3d did actually make the overall film look better.
I'm going to watch the film again sometime to really get more out of the film, probably in the IMAX theatre, since i'm hearing from people the sound is top notch, though i hear the visuals are not as good as Real D 3d. If i was to rate the film out of ten i'd give it a 8/10, mainly because it was entertaining and had something for everyone.
Avatar was the most expensive film ever made with a budget of around $300 million dollars which is about £186 million. So far it's the fastest ever movie to hit the billion mark and this is set to rise.
The story is good, but not amazing. It had some nice character development, are the whole film seemed to flow pretty well with each each not dragging as some say at all.
The film itself is visually stunning, with some spectacular landscapes and very life like 'alien humanoids' calling them selves the 'Navi'. These aliens are in CGI mixed with real motion censor technology which obviously enhances the fictional characters to be more realistic. There were at times though the Aliens looked at tad cartoon like, and certain CGI elements were obvious, but most of the film is aesthetically very good, probably the best I've seen so far. The CGI is well done as well, probably a little lower or on par with Square Enix's Final Fantasy Advent Children.
I went to watch the film in Real D 3d and it does enhance visuals a lot with it's depth of field. You really feel life you are in the exotic landscapes which the film portrays. There were some things where the 3d never worked like when the characters were in a room and suddenly you see the 3d affect come into play which was totally pointless but when the actions scenes came about, as the audience you get yourself braced for lots and lts of 3d effects since so many potential chances where the 3d could have used, but it wasnt. Aside from these minor annoyances, the 3d did actually make the overall film look better.
I'm going to watch the film again sometime to really get more out of the film, probably in the IMAX theatre, since i'm hearing from people the sound is top notch, though i hear the visuals are not as good as Real D 3d. If i was to rate the film out of ten i'd give it a 8/10, mainly because it was entertaining and had something for everyone.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Reporting Terrorism in the TV News Media
The word terrorism is a significant word. One which has captured the fear in people’s hearts in the way it connotes destruction, war, killing and violence. After the pivotal event of 9/11, this was made more apparent and the term was generally used in a pejorative way. This article attempts to examine the ideologies and the historical approach to reporting terrorism in the TV news media with particular attention to the British TV news media. Analysis will be made of TV news reports and the implications these reports can have for the audience. Terrorist related events will be examined looking at the ideologies behind them. A survey will be done to show the public perception of terrorism in the news. The article will argue that the mainstream media distort the reality of events in order to achieve their news value, helping the terrorists in their aims and consequently changing society’s perception of terrorists.
There is no universal definition of terrorism, since there are so many different types of terrorist acts. Attempts by the UN and other international bodies to define term, was made into a book which runs to three volumes and 1,866 pages without reaching any real conclusion. The word terrorism was first coined by Edmund Burke, describing his dislike for the ‘state terror’ which was prevalent in the French Revolution in 1793-1794. (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007:90). Interestingly one of the influential figures of the French Revolution Maximilien Robespierre says: “Terror is nothing than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible: it is therefore an emanation of virtue.” (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007:90). Maximilien undoubtedly believed sincerely in what he said, and this also goes for the modern day terrorist. They sincerely believe in what they fight for since they have an ideology which motivates them.
One definition can be seen from the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Anan, as he presented in his address to the International Summit on “Democracy, Terrorism and Security” on March 10, 2005 in Madrid. He said: “Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians and non-combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from any act.”
The Oxford definition of the term is: “The unofficial use of violence and intimidation in an attempt to achieve political aims.” (Oxford Dictionary, 2007: 575). The Cambridge dictionary defines it as: “(threats of) violent action for political purposes.” You’ll notice the word ‘political’ being mentioned and this is what the majority of people believe terrorism to be – a politically motivated attack.
This has led some to argue that terrorism is a political ideology, with the main aim being to frighten or create a psychological impact on its targets, and provoking a reaction which will consequently or most definitely involve the media. The mass media is responsible for so much of the information the world receives and usually has a big role to play in fulfilling the terrorist’s goals. As Papacharissi and Oliveira tell us: “...terrorist acts are reified in the presence of media who cover, and thus publicize, the terrorist act.” (Papacharissi, Oliveira, 2008: 55).
Terrorist acts unfortunately possess news value elements such as drama, visuals, sound bites, relevance, and “general newsworthiness” and it is this “newsworthiness” in today’s time, which terrorist groups frequently use and exploit in order to further their agendas. (Papacharissi, Oliveira, 2008: 55). The news value that terrorism has is immense since it is something which not only captures the audience’s attention especially in the west (due to terrorist incidents of 9/11 and the 7/7 tube bombings in London) but also because of the mixture of fear and hatred that the general public have for these ‘terrorists’. The media is responsible for making people more fearful of terrorist acts because of the amount it actually reports. An example can be seen, as John Lewis points out that international terrorism has been the main topic of interest in this generation with many more news stories being produced since 2001 than they were in 1981, when in fact more terrorist activities were prevalent back then. (Harcup, 2007:55). Lewis argues that this kind of coverage “...distorts our perception of risk” and thus leading the audience to be less fearful of other big dangers like global warming for example since the media changes our perception of the world and also reflects it. (Harcup, 2007:55).
The TV news media in particular is a medium which is very powerful. Dr. Ronald Meinardus argues that whenever the “terrorists” make their move and provoke a reaction, the media play a central role: “There are those who argue that terrorism is basically a communications strategy. While that may be too one sided, I believe that terrorism as we know it today, would be inconceivable without the power of the global media, and particularly the global television networks.”
TV along with the internet, radio, newspapers, magazines, and books, has become an ‘Information highway’ and is quite a valuable source of information as Nicholas Abercrombie tells us: “Our everyday lives are so interwoven with the media that we are scarcely aware of them.” (Abercrombie, 1996: 2). Many people use TV as their essential news source and it is this news source which people use as their ‘window to the rest of the world’. Nick Lacey tells us: “In Britain, television news has greater credibility than printed news, and the BBC more so than ITN. This is probably because of the combination of a press that is too obviously partisan and the strength of the myth that ‘seeing is believing’. (Lacey, 2009:267). Seeing images, especially video footage adds an element of realism which helps the news organization to further represent their ideological values.
However, although TV adds to the strength of ‘seeing is believing’, Philip Taylor argues that once war breaks out there are two types, the “Real War” and the “Media War”. He states: “Real war is about sounds, sight, smell, touch and taste of the nasty, brutal business of killing people...Media war, however, is literally a mediated event which draws on that reality but which in, and of itself, is confined to merely an audio-visual – and therefore inherently desensitizing – representation of it.” (Dodds, 2007: 222). So in actual fact whatever we see in front on our TV screens can never be the actual representation of the event, but only a mere representation of what the TV news network wants us, the audience to see and as Jonathan Bignell tells us: “Newspapers and other news media shape what can be thought of as news, by reporting some events and excluding others. So news discourse is an ideological representation of the world because it selects what will be reported, and sets the terms of what is significant.” (Bignell, 2002:80).
But when reporting terrorism there seems to be a dilemma for journalists which raises ethical and ideological questions. Shurkin explains the dilemma quite well as he says: “The media find themselves in a dysfunctional position relative to terrorism. On one hand they must report terrorist attacks as they happen. On the other, they are part of the reason these incidents occur in the first place...In its most cynical form, the image is of terrorists using the media as a conduit for their message and the media using the terrorists for dramatic stories. ” (Shurkin, 2007: 81,82).
This is particularly true in the way Islamic terrorists have actually gained a platform to voice their opinion on TV in the form of video interviews. Terrorist groups can go to great lengths to gain control over the way in which their message is transmitted and received. For example they tend to provide journalists with “firsthand” videotapes of attacks in order to make sure that their version of events controls the airwaves and not the governments. (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007: 92).
Although in the case of Kenneth Bigley, this is not so apparent. The terrorists gave the Arab television network Abu Dhabi, the video tape of Bigley’s execution in which afterwards they posted it on the internet . This wasn’t to dominate the airwaves but to hit their intended audience with a psychological impact. This is the main purpose of terrorist related attacks; they create fear in the people hearts, and an execution as unfortunate as Bigley’s would have surely put a scar on the audience’s heart. It could be argued the British media inflamed this fear, in the amount of coverage the story had received, consequently resulting in the media’s criticism. The effects of this kind of reporting created the fear that more British people in the future would be kidnapped by terrorists – just exactly what the terrorist wanted.
The independent news network of the Middle East, Al-Jazeera is known for its daring attitude with its controversial coverage into reporting terrorism. It became famous worldwide for showing exclusive interviews with Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks earning it the nickname as the “Bin Laden Channel”. The news network is criticized for having a biased attitude towards ‘the west’ with its lack of objectivity and giving a voice to terrorists.
However the Deputy Executive Director of Al-Jazeera's London bureau, Yosri Fouda says: "We always try to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible. We don't only reflect one angle and this is why some governments are unhappy with what we do. Al-Jazeera is a cultural, political and social phenomenon - it’s teaching people about things like civil society, human rights and voting - many governments in our part of the world are not happy with such things." He argues that no news organization would not have aired the Bin Laden tape. While it is probably true that any news network with the Bin Laden tape would have aired it on their channel, one thing does come to mind though – is it ethically correct? Showcasing a terrorist on national television can be severe and have dire consequences. The people watching, particularly those with strong feelings against the US would just get even more inflamed and their hatred for the ‘west’ would just increase.
According to Dr Naomi Sakr, it’s not the channel which has an anti-US agenda, but the fact that it is reflecting the “anti-American feeling”: “What we are seeing is the pent-up frustration of people in a part of the world where there is no free media. Al-Jazeera focuses on the issues that they are pre-occupied with - the Palestinian situation, Iraq and levels of poverty and social exclusion in Arab countries. People find it hard not to blame the US for the problems in the Middle East." Al-Jazeera could be compared to likes of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, in the way both channels have nationalistic ideals. In the eyes of an Arab, Al-Jazeera is much more credible than any of the other international news sources, mainly because most of the journalists there are Arabs themselves and also because in the way it’s hailed as a ‘revolutionary force’, and the only channel telling the “story straight.”
The reporting of terrorism or terrorist acts, may lead one to think about why are these ‘so called’ terrorists, actually terrorists? How do we know which news source is conveying the correct information about these terrorists? One thing that nearly all terrorists portray themselves as is freedom fighters, who are fighting for a ‘righteous cause’. The most famous terrorist attack in British history was known as the Gun Powder plot of 1605. Robert Catesby – a staunch catholic, led the plot, which was an assassination attempt to kill King James I along with the protestant aristocracy by blowing up the Houses of Parliament. Other conspirators also joined Catesby in an attempt to kill off the King in a bid to make protestant England a more ‘catholic’ country, including the infamous Guy Fawkes who was the explosives expert in the plot and responsible for setting off the bombs.
Catesby felt he had to do something in order to change the countries religious beliefs and he is reported to have said: "The nature of the disease required so sharp a remedy", meaning to say that he thought the plot was a “morally justifiable act of self-defense against the oppressive rule of a tyrant” . He saw the plot as an act of last resort, and was determined to try and solve the “ills by peaceful means and without bloodshed” . So were these people freedom fighters, fighting for a good cause? Catesby wanted to try another means but felt he was led to compulsion to carry out the plot. But whatever the situation, how can one call themselves ‘freedom fighters’ by trying to kill or blow up people, thus taking freedom from others by consequently taking away their lives?
This assassination attempt or terrorist attack was a religiously fuelled attack and is still remembered and venerated to this day as Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night. Families and children alike come together and set off fireworks enjoying the colourful delights of what is essentially commemorating a deadly terrorist attack; which if successful, would have probably killed several people along with many casualties. A recent BBC news report about the City of York not having fireworks this year because of costs, started off showing a reconstruction of the event of the Gun Powder plot where by a barrel is seen being lit by presumably Guy Fawkes himself .
The non-diagetic background music used here is some classical music with violins. Nick Lacey tells us that: “Music not only adds meanings generated by the image; it also creates meanings. (Lacey, 2009: 62). This suggests that the Gun Powder plot in the BBC news report is being ‘desensitized’ through the use of calm and tranquil violins being played and thus the “meaning” which Lacey talks about being conveyed here, is that ‘there is no real danger’. The commentary over this scene says: “He is easily Yorks most infamous son, Guy Fawkes, one of the world’s first terrorists and the explosives expert of the gun powder plot.” It’s as if Guy Fawkes is being praised in the way he is being referred to as “one of the world’s first terrorists,” since the noun “worlds” is being used as an adjective to describe Fawkes’s position when compared to the ‘whole world’.
Consequently as the media desensitize the incident of the gun powder plot the more people think of it as a cause of celebration. This is another way the media can change society’s perception. Why should something like this especially in this day and age be celebrated? Why are we all remembering a terrorist? Should we all then venerate the event of 9/11? – What’s the difference? Both had the intent to kill and destroy with 9/11 only being successful in its intent. Both had a sense of injustice felt towards their nations or people – with the Catholics being subject to persecution in Britain in the period of Kings James I and the Muslims being persecuted in their own lands by America whether directly in Afghanistan or indirectly through regime support.
Bin Laden seemed to believe he was striking back in retribution for injustices carried out against Islam and Muslims as he explains on a video tape shown on Al Jazeera on October 29, 2004: And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers. But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers.
It can be seen here that Bin Laden felt a strong need to fight back against the “transgressors” and seemingly did so through the 9/11 attacks. Some of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon along with some Lebanese were celebrating the attacks by giving out sweets to everybody out on the streets. One Lebanese said to a Reuters camera crew: "People are happy. America has always supported terrorism. They see how the innocent Palestinian children are killed and they back the Zionist army that does it. America has never been on the side of justice." Muhammad Rasheed, a Palestinian said: "This is the language that the United States understands and this is the way to stop America from helping the Zionist terrorists who are killing our children, men and women every day." From these responses it can be clearly seen that Osama Bin Laden was seen as a hero and a freedom fighter for all those Muslims who have been oppressed in the world by America. Just as the saying goes, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” the Palestinians and Lebanese saw America as the ‘real’ terrorist.
Both the 9/11 and the Gun powder plot, were seen as attacks against symbols of power, with a high collateral damage or the potential to do so. They were more to do with a rebellion against what was seen by the individuals as oppression which was then stained with a facade of ‘religious righteousness’. In the contemporary era this is commonly known as religious fundamentalism. An ideology which literally means to strictly adhere to the principles of the religious scriptures be it the Quran or the Bible or any other religious text. This reinforces ones perception of fighting against the ‘enemy’ since they are now fighting for the sake of God, thus making the reason for fighting even stronger. The ideology of fundamentalism nowadays, is currently only ever associated with ‘Islamic fundamentalism.’ This association has become the norm in western media in which Elizabeth Poole states: “All Muslim acts interpreted as extreme are then constituted as fundamentalism, which is then linked to terrorism.” (Poole, 2002: 46). Although the danger here is that association of violent Islamic Fundamentalism and Islam in the western media, has made the younger and more vulnerable Muslims feel that they need to become fundamentalists in order to become better Muslims, thus creating a new breed of radicalized terrorists.
Another ideology which governs the way some terrorist’s work is nationalism. The IRA in particular is known for their patriotism. Their aim to create a united Ireland away from British interference propels them on in their long standing cause. Interestingly the PIRA (Provisional Ireland Republican Army) is an offshoot of the IRA and the RIRA (Real Ireland Republican Army) are an offshoot of the PIRA. These splits were mainly because of ideological differences and the sharing of power with other political parties.
The famous Hunger Strike incident involving 10 PIRA and INLA (Irish National Liberation Army) members in Belfast’s Maze Prison, 1981, was an act of self starvation. They literally starved themselves to death for their demand to be recognized as ‘political’ prisoners rather than ‘criminals’ or terrorists. (Merari, 2007: 109). This suicidal act could be compared to that of suicidal bombers, since both acts have a political intent behind them – the only difference being that the ‘hunger strikers’ only harmed themselves in the process. Although it can be argued that these people were real freedom fighters since they harmed know one and their determination for not to be referred to as terrorists or criminals was such, that they actually sacrificed their very lives.
But what was the driving force of this incredible sacrifice? According to Areil Merari self starvation is an extremely demanding way to die more so than that of an “instantaneous self-inflicted explosion”. He says: “The suicide was part of a contract that no one could break. The group pressure in that situation was as strong as the group pressure that led hundreds of thousands of soldiers in World War 1 to charge against the enemy machine gun fire and artillery to almost sure death.”(Merari , 2007: 109). It was these nationalistic ideals which turned the IRA members into martyrs in the eyes of many Irish citizens for standing up against the British government in its criminalization of “Ireland’s long and noble fight for freedom”. As a result, this made more people political aware and thus launching the success of the IRA’s political wing, Sinn Fein and the many electoral success that followed. The media however seem to make out the situation in Ireland involving the RIRA, who many Irish regard as ruthless thugs, and Sinn Fein is getting progressively worse.
The most recent RIRA attack on two soldiers gunned down outside their Ulster Barracks was described mainly as a “chilling” terrorist attack . A TV news report of the incident by Sky News shows Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuiness who was a former leader of the PIRA and now an active Sinn Fein politician, in the report saying: “These people are traitors in the island of Ireland.” He is then shown in stylized black and white shot in front of photographers – the footage being in slow motion. The juxtaposition of the two shots shows McGuiness as somewhat sinister suggesting that he should not be trusted and the commentary then says: “That sort of language from a man who used to be right at the top of the IRA tree angered hard line republicans who today declared as an enemy, the man they once regarded as a leading figure in their movement.” Interestingly the news report quotes him saying, the RIRA terrorists are the traitors whereas the commentary portrays him as a traitor to the republicans.
Fear and drama is also created in the report by using footage from an actual RIRA member wearing a black mask speaking about killing the “British occupation forces, when, whenever and wherever” they decide. Lacey tells us that in news reports: “Dramatic tension is often invoked through the use of a binary opposite [...]” (Lacey, 2009: 265). It can be suggested that use of binary oppositions plays a big role here in telling the audience that it’s the RIRA terrorists versus the British soldiers or essentially Britain itself. Also the stern and masculine commentary used here is a sign of the danger these terrorists impose . This is where the news value element comes into the story since without any real ‘enemy’ there is no value to the story and as Lacey says: “This tension is the narrative disruption that needs to be resolved, and without which there is no story.” (Lacey, 2009: 265). But if the story itself gives the audience a “chilling” feeling of fear, isn’t this in reality helping the RIRA terrorists in their motives? This suggests to us again that the terrorists use the media to their advantage and the news media always fall into this trap on the premise of news value.
Since the news industry is a business with its own commercial self interest it is essentially a ‘social construction of reality’. (Fowler, 1991:2). Taking this into account we can see that journalist’s are in a sense limited by the bounds of time, money and hierarchy. According Robert Fowler: “The world of the press is not the real world, but a world skewed and judged.” (Fowler, 1991: 11) Everything that is said or written in the news is done from an ideological position, since language itself is something which is not “clear” but rather a “structuring medium”. (Fowler,1991: 10). Media ownership can play a big part in this ‘bias’ nature of news organizations as Nick Davies tells us: “Owners can and do interfere in the editorial process of their outlets.” (Davies, 2008:15). One proprietor shows this power quite well. Since September 11th, Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets all around the globe were like “propaganda arms” of the Bush Administration, shaming anybody who dares to question the President’s ‘War on Terror’. Interference of owners does raise ethical questions about how the media is regulated because surely if owners let their medium run freely, society’s perception of the world will become more distorted, especially with regards to terrorism.
Unlike the PCC, Ofcom the Broadcast regulator in the UK is backed by law which makes sure that any Broadcasting organisation which breaks the ‘Ofcom code’ can be fined or have its license revoked. (Harcup, 2007: 116). One of the codes which Ofcom has and which every broadcast news organisation in the UK endeavours to follow is the “5.1 Due Impartiality” code . In the recent Gaza crisis the BBC chose not to air the Emergency Aid appeal by DEC because of this “impartiality” code . Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC said: “It is sometimes not a comfortable place to be, but we have a duty to ensure that nothing risks undermining our impartiality. It is to protect that impartiality that we have made this difficult decision.”
Many people who saw the Gaza crisis on TV saw the Israeli army as the real terrorists, mainly because of the indifference towards the numbers killed with at least 1,300 Palestinians killed compared to the 13 Israelis killed in the war. While it is true that the BBC may have had its reputation on the line and as Thompson puts it: “[...] without running the risk of reducing public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in its wider coverage of the story” , the fact that they never aired the appeal made more people lose confidence in the BBC and actually it underlined their partiality towards Israel. In a joint letter, Jeremy Dear and Gerry Morrissey represented thousands of BBC staff and said the move risked being seen as "politically motivated" . They said: "Far from avoiding the compromise of the BBC's impartiality, this move has breached those same BBC rules by showing a bias in favour of Israel at the expense of 1.5 million Palestinian civilians suffering an acute humanitarian crisis." One BBC news source even said most of the anger is at BBC’s top management. This conflict demonstrates even news values can sometimes be taken over due to ‘political impartiality’ and interference from the ‘big boys at the top’.
So what is the public’s perception of the terrorism in the news? A survey was carried out using 20 consumers of TV news from the ages of 18-50.
Most participants agree that terrorists are bad people but there a few (15%) who believe that they can good people as well. Interestingly 60% of the participants say they don’t believe at all what the news tells them about terrorism but they seem to think that other believe do fall for the “media lies” with 90% of the participants agreeing to this. Davies tells us that many media experts, academics, students, politicians and consumers say they cannot believe everything in the media: “[...] and yet repeatedly many of them fall for explanations which are themselves infiltrated by falsehood, distortion and propaganda.”(Davies, 2008: 13). The survey also reinforces the fact that people use the TV news media as their main information portal for information on terrorist related events.
What is worrying here is that not one person refers to any books for the source of information making it even easier for news organizations to lure them in to their ideological values. Overall the myth of ‘seeing is believing’ still stands strong with TV news media and may do for a very long time. The reportage of terrorism has been always done with news value as its reward, with little disregard to the implications of how dramatising an event can affect the audience. Covering terrorism is like playing with dynamite since the journalist’s ideological values may come to help the terrorist in their motives – and further them in their goals of creating fear in the audience. The saying of “ones mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is true when you look at both sides of the story-something which is lacking in TV news media. So it seems journalists have a hard job in maintaining an objective stance because the truth of the matter is journalists can never be objective. Ownership, ideologies and news value always come in the way of reporting an impartial story.
Bibliography
Abercrombie, Nicholas (1996) Television and Society, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Bignell, Jonathan (2002), Media Semiotics: An Introduction, Manchester: University Press
Besley, Andrews and Chadwick, Ruth (1992) Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, London: Routledge
Bonger, B., Brown, L M., Beutler, L E., Breckenridge, J N., Zimbardo, P G., (eds) (2007) Psychology of Terrorism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connelly, Mark, Welch, David (eds) (2007) War and the Media: Reportage and Propaganda, London: IB Tuaris
Davies, Chris (2008) Flat Earth News, London: Chatto and Windus
Fowler, Roger (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London: Routledge
Gerwehr,S. and Hubbard, K., (2007) What Is Terrorism: Key Elements and History, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 7.
Harcup, Tony (2007) The Ethical Journalist, London: Sage Publications
Lacey, Nick (1998) Image and Representation – Key Concepts in Media Studies, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD
Merari, Ariel (2007) Psychological Aspects of Suicide Terrorism, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 8.
Papacharissi, Z., and Oliveria, F. (2008) ‘News Frames Terrorism: A comparative Analysis of Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S and U.K Newspapers’, in The International Journal of Press/Politics v13 n1.
Poole, Elizabeth (2009) Reporting Islam: Media Representations of British Muslims, London: IB Tauris
Said, Edward (1997) Covering Islam – How the Media and the Experts determine how we see the rest of the world, New York: Vintage Books.
Shurkin, Joel N. (2007) Terrorism and the Media, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 6.
Tumber, Howard and Webster, Frank (2006) Journalists under Fire: Information war and Journalistic Practices, London: Sage Publications
There is no universal definition of terrorism, since there are so many different types of terrorist acts. Attempts by the UN and other international bodies to define term, was made into a book which runs to three volumes and 1,866 pages without reaching any real conclusion. The word terrorism was first coined by Edmund Burke, describing his dislike for the ‘state terror’ which was prevalent in the French Revolution in 1793-1794. (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007:90). Interestingly one of the influential figures of the French Revolution Maximilien Robespierre says: “Terror is nothing than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible: it is therefore an emanation of virtue.” (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007:90). Maximilien undoubtedly believed sincerely in what he said, and this also goes for the modern day terrorist. They sincerely believe in what they fight for since they have an ideology which motivates them.
One definition can be seen from the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Anan, as he presented in his address to the International Summit on “Democracy, Terrorism and Security” on March 10, 2005 in Madrid. He said: “Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians and non-combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from any act.”
The Oxford definition of the term is: “The unofficial use of violence and intimidation in an attempt to achieve political aims.” (Oxford Dictionary, 2007: 575). The Cambridge dictionary defines it as: “(threats of) violent action for political purposes.” You’ll notice the word ‘political’ being mentioned and this is what the majority of people believe terrorism to be – a politically motivated attack.
This has led some to argue that terrorism is a political ideology, with the main aim being to frighten or create a psychological impact on its targets, and provoking a reaction which will consequently or most definitely involve the media. The mass media is responsible for so much of the information the world receives and usually has a big role to play in fulfilling the terrorist’s goals. As Papacharissi and Oliveira tell us: “...terrorist acts are reified in the presence of media who cover, and thus publicize, the terrorist act.” (Papacharissi, Oliveira, 2008: 55).
Terrorist acts unfortunately possess news value elements such as drama, visuals, sound bites, relevance, and “general newsworthiness” and it is this “newsworthiness” in today’s time, which terrorist groups frequently use and exploit in order to further their agendas. (Papacharissi, Oliveira, 2008: 55). The news value that terrorism has is immense since it is something which not only captures the audience’s attention especially in the west (due to terrorist incidents of 9/11 and the 7/7 tube bombings in London) but also because of the mixture of fear and hatred that the general public have for these ‘terrorists’. The media is responsible for making people more fearful of terrorist acts because of the amount it actually reports. An example can be seen, as John Lewis points out that international terrorism has been the main topic of interest in this generation with many more news stories being produced since 2001 than they were in 1981, when in fact more terrorist activities were prevalent back then. (Harcup, 2007:55). Lewis argues that this kind of coverage “...distorts our perception of risk” and thus leading the audience to be less fearful of other big dangers like global warming for example since the media changes our perception of the world and also reflects it. (Harcup, 2007:55).
The TV news media in particular is a medium which is very powerful. Dr. Ronald Meinardus argues that whenever the “terrorists” make their move and provoke a reaction, the media play a central role: “There are those who argue that terrorism is basically a communications strategy. While that may be too one sided, I believe that terrorism as we know it today, would be inconceivable without the power of the global media, and particularly the global television networks.”
TV along with the internet, radio, newspapers, magazines, and books, has become an ‘Information highway’ and is quite a valuable source of information as Nicholas Abercrombie tells us: “Our everyday lives are so interwoven with the media that we are scarcely aware of them.” (Abercrombie, 1996: 2). Many people use TV as their essential news source and it is this news source which people use as their ‘window to the rest of the world’. Nick Lacey tells us: “In Britain, television news has greater credibility than printed news, and the BBC more so than ITN. This is probably because of the combination of a press that is too obviously partisan and the strength of the myth that ‘seeing is believing’. (Lacey, 2009:267). Seeing images, especially video footage adds an element of realism which helps the news organization to further represent their ideological values.
However, although TV adds to the strength of ‘seeing is believing’, Philip Taylor argues that once war breaks out there are two types, the “Real War” and the “Media War”. He states: “Real war is about sounds, sight, smell, touch and taste of the nasty, brutal business of killing people...Media war, however, is literally a mediated event which draws on that reality but which in, and of itself, is confined to merely an audio-visual – and therefore inherently desensitizing – representation of it.” (Dodds, 2007: 222). So in actual fact whatever we see in front on our TV screens can never be the actual representation of the event, but only a mere representation of what the TV news network wants us, the audience to see and as Jonathan Bignell tells us: “Newspapers and other news media shape what can be thought of as news, by reporting some events and excluding others. So news discourse is an ideological representation of the world because it selects what will be reported, and sets the terms of what is significant.” (Bignell, 2002:80).
But when reporting terrorism there seems to be a dilemma for journalists which raises ethical and ideological questions. Shurkin explains the dilemma quite well as he says: “The media find themselves in a dysfunctional position relative to terrorism. On one hand they must report terrorist attacks as they happen. On the other, they are part of the reason these incidents occur in the first place...In its most cynical form, the image is of terrorists using the media as a conduit for their message and the media using the terrorists for dramatic stories. ” (Shurkin, 2007: 81,82).
This is particularly true in the way Islamic terrorists have actually gained a platform to voice their opinion on TV in the form of video interviews. Terrorist groups can go to great lengths to gain control over the way in which their message is transmitted and received. For example they tend to provide journalists with “firsthand” videotapes of attacks in order to make sure that their version of events controls the airwaves and not the governments. (Gerwehr, Hubbard, 2007: 92).
Although in the case of Kenneth Bigley, this is not so apparent. The terrorists gave the Arab television network Abu Dhabi, the video tape of Bigley’s execution in which afterwards they posted it on the internet . This wasn’t to dominate the airwaves but to hit their intended audience with a psychological impact. This is the main purpose of terrorist related attacks; they create fear in the people hearts, and an execution as unfortunate as Bigley’s would have surely put a scar on the audience’s heart. It could be argued the British media inflamed this fear, in the amount of coverage the story had received, consequently resulting in the media’s criticism. The effects of this kind of reporting created the fear that more British people in the future would be kidnapped by terrorists – just exactly what the terrorist wanted.
The independent news network of the Middle East, Al-Jazeera is known for its daring attitude with its controversial coverage into reporting terrorism. It became famous worldwide for showing exclusive interviews with Osama Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks earning it the nickname as the “Bin Laden Channel”. The news network is criticized for having a biased attitude towards ‘the west’ with its lack of objectivity and giving a voice to terrorists.
However the Deputy Executive Director of Al-Jazeera's London bureau, Yosri Fouda says: "We always try to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible. We don't only reflect one angle and this is why some governments are unhappy with what we do. Al-Jazeera is a cultural, political and social phenomenon - it’s teaching people about things like civil society, human rights and voting - many governments in our part of the world are not happy with such things." He argues that no news organization would not have aired the Bin Laden tape. While it is probably true that any news network with the Bin Laden tape would have aired it on their channel, one thing does come to mind though – is it ethically correct? Showcasing a terrorist on national television can be severe and have dire consequences. The people watching, particularly those with strong feelings against the US would just get even more inflamed and their hatred for the ‘west’ would just increase.
According to Dr Naomi Sakr, it’s not the channel which has an anti-US agenda, but the fact that it is reflecting the “anti-American feeling”: “What we are seeing is the pent-up frustration of people in a part of the world where there is no free media. Al-Jazeera focuses on the issues that they are pre-occupied with - the Palestinian situation, Iraq and levels of poverty and social exclusion in Arab countries. People find it hard not to blame the US for the problems in the Middle East." Al-Jazeera could be compared to likes of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, in the way both channels have nationalistic ideals. In the eyes of an Arab, Al-Jazeera is much more credible than any of the other international news sources, mainly because most of the journalists there are Arabs themselves and also because in the way it’s hailed as a ‘revolutionary force’, and the only channel telling the “story straight.”
The reporting of terrorism or terrorist acts, may lead one to think about why are these ‘so called’ terrorists, actually terrorists? How do we know which news source is conveying the correct information about these terrorists? One thing that nearly all terrorists portray themselves as is freedom fighters, who are fighting for a ‘righteous cause’. The most famous terrorist attack in British history was known as the Gun Powder plot of 1605. Robert Catesby – a staunch catholic, led the plot, which was an assassination attempt to kill King James I along with the protestant aristocracy by blowing up the Houses of Parliament. Other conspirators also joined Catesby in an attempt to kill off the King in a bid to make protestant England a more ‘catholic’ country, including the infamous Guy Fawkes who was the explosives expert in the plot and responsible for setting off the bombs.
Catesby felt he had to do something in order to change the countries religious beliefs and he is reported to have said: "The nature of the disease required so sharp a remedy", meaning to say that he thought the plot was a “morally justifiable act of self-defense against the oppressive rule of a tyrant” . He saw the plot as an act of last resort, and was determined to try and solve the “ills by peaceful means and without bloodshed” . So were these people freedom fighters, fighting for a good cause? Catesby wanted to try another means but felt he was led to compulsion to carry out the plot. But whatever the situation, how can one call themselves ‘freedom fighters’ by trying to kill or blow up people, thus taking freedom from others by consequently taking away their lives?
This assassination attempt or terrorist attack was a religiously fuelled attack and is still remembered and venerated to this day as Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night. Families and children alike come together and set off fireworks enjoying the colourful delights of what is essentially commemorating a deadly terrorist attack; which if successful, would have probably killed several people along with many casualties. A recent BBC news report about the City of York not having fireworks this year because of costs, started off showing a reconstruction of the event of the Gun Powder plot where by a barrel is seen being lit by presumably Guy Fawkes himself .
The non-diagetic background music used here is some classical music with violins. Nick Lacey tells us that: “Music not only adds meanings generated by the image; it also creates meanings. (Lacey, 2009: 62). This suggests that the Gun Powder plot in the BBC news report is being ‘desensitized’ through the use of calm and tranquil violins being played and thus the “meaning” which Lacey talks about being conveyed here, is that ‘there is no real danger’. The commentary over this scene says: “He is easily Yorks most infamous son, Guy Fawkes, one of the world’s first terrorists and the explosives expert of the gun powder plot.” It’s as if Guy Fawkes is being praised in the way he is being referred to as “one of the world’s first terrorists,” since the noun “worlds” is being used as an adjective to describe Fawkes’s position when compared to the ‘whole world’.
Consequently as the media desensitize the incident of the gun powder plot the more people think of it as a cause of celebration. This is another way the media can change society’s perception. Why should something like this especially in this day and age be celebrated? Why are we all remembering a terrorist? Should we all then venerate the event of 9/11? – What’s the difference? Both had the intent to kill and destroy with 9/11 only being successful in its intent. Both had a sense of injustice felt towards their nations or people – with the Catholics being subject to persecution in Britain in the period of Kings James I and the Muslims being persecuted in their own lands by America whether directly in Afghanistan or indirectly through regime support.
Bin Laden seemed to believe he was striking back in retribution for injustices carried out against Islam and Muslims as he explains on a video tape shown on Al Jazeera on October 29, 2004: And I tell you, God only knows, that we never had the intentions to destroy the towers. But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers.
It can be seen here that Bin Laden felt a strong need to fight back against the “transgressors” and seemingly did so through the 9/11 attacks. Some of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon along with some Lebanese were celebrating the attacks by giving out sweets to everybody out on the streets. One Lebanese said to a Reuters camera crew: "People are happy. America has always supported terrorism. They see how the innocent Palestinian children are killed and they back the Zionist army that does it. America has never been on the side of justice." Muhammad Rasheed, a Palestinian said: "This is the language that the United States understands and this is the way to stop America from helping the Zionist terrorists who are killing our children, men and women every day." From these responses it can be clearly seen that Osama Bin Laden was seen as a hero and a freedom fighter for all those Muslims who have been oppressed in the world by America. Just as the saying goes, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” the Palestinians and Lebanese saw America as the ‘real’ terrorist.
Both the 9/11 and the Gun powder plot, were seen as attacks against symbols of power, with a high collateral damage or the potential to do so. They were more to do with a rebellion against what was seen by the individuals as oppression which was then stained with a facade of ‘religious righteousness’. In the contemporary era this is commonly known as religious fundamentalism. An ideology which literally means to strictly adhere to the principles of the religious scriptures be it the Quran or the Bible or any other religious text. This reinforces ones perception of fighting against the ‘enemy’ since they are now fighting for the sake of God, thus making the reason for fighting even stronger. The ideology of fundamentalism nowadays, is currently only ever associated with ‘Islamic fundamentalism.’ This association has become the norm in western media in which Elizabeth Poole states: “All Muslim acts interpreted as extreme are then constituted as fundamentalism, which is then linked to terrorism.” (Poole, 2002: 46). Although the danger here is that association of violent Islamic Fundamentalism and Islam in the western media, has made the younger and more vulnerable Muslims feel that they need to become fundamentalists in order to become better Muslims, thus creating a new breed of radicalized terrorists.
Another ideology which governs the way some terrorist’s work is nationalism. The IRA in particular is known for their patriotism. Their aim to create a united Ireland away from British interference propels them on in their long standing cause. Interestingly the PIRA (Provisional Ireland Republican Army) is an offshoot of the IRA and the RIRA (Real Ireland Republican Army) are an offshoot of the PIRA. These splits were mainly because of ideological differences and the sharing of power with other political parties.
The famous Hunger Strike incident involving 10 PIRA and INLA (Irish National Liberation Army) members in Belfast’s Maze Prison, 1981, was an act of self starvation. They literally starved themselves to death for their demand to be recognized as ‘political’ prisoners rather than ‘criminals’ or terrorists. (Merari, 2007: 109). This suicidal act could be compared to that of suicidal bombers, since both acts have a political intent behind them – the only difference being that the ‘hunger strikers’ only harmed themselves in the process. Although it can be argued that these people were real freedom fighters since they harmed know one and their determination for not to be referred to as terrorists or criminals was such, that they actually sacrificed their very lives.
But what was the driving force of this incredible sacrifice? According to Areil Merari self starvation is an extremely demanding way to die more so than that of an “instantaneous self-inflicted explosion”. He says: “The suicide was part of a contract that no one could break. The group pressure in that situation was as strong as the group pressure that led hundreds of thousands of soldiers in World War 1 to charge against the enemy machine gun fire and artillery to almost sure death.”(Merari , 2007: 109). It was these nationalistic ideals which turned the IRA members into martyrs in the eyes of many Irish citizens for standing up against the British government in its criminalization of “Ireland’s long and noble fight for freedom”. As a result, this made more people political aware and thus launching the success of the IRA’s political wing, Sinn Fein and the many electoral success that followed. The media however seem to make out the situation in Ireland involving the RIRA, who many Irish regard as ruthless thugs, and Sinn Fein is getting progressively worse.
The most recent RIRA attack on two soldiers gunned down outside their Ulster Barracks was described mainly as a “chilling” terrorist attack . A TV news report of the incident by Sky News shows Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuiness who was a former leader of the PIRA and now an active Sinn Fein politician, in the report saying: “These people are traitors in the island of Ireland.” He is then shown in stylized black and white shot in front of photographers – the footage being in slow motion. The juxtaposition of the two shots shows McGuiness as somewhat sinister suggesting that he should not be trusted and the commentary then says: “That sort of language from a man who used to be right at the top of the IRA tree angered hard line republicans who today declared as an enemy, the man they once regarded as a leading figure in their movement.” Interestingly the news report quotes him saying, the RIRA terrorists are the traitors whereas the commentary portrays him as a traitor to the republicans.
Fear and drama is also created in the report by using footage from an actual RIRA member wearing a black mask speaking about killing the “British occupation forces, when, whenever and wherever” they decide. Lacey tells us that in news reports: “Dramatic tension is often invoked through the use of a binary opposite [...]” (Lacey, 2009: 265). It can be suggested that use of binary oppositions plays a big role here in telling the audience that it’s the RIRA terrorists versus the British soldiers or essentially Britain itself. Also the stern and masculine commentary used here is a sign of the danger these terrorists impose . This is where the news value element comes into the story since without any real ‘enemy’ there is no value to the story and as Lacey says: “This tension is the narrative disruption that needs to be resolved, and without which there is no story.” (Lacey, 2009: 265). But if the story itself gives the audience a “chilling” feeling of fear, isn’t this in reality helping the RIRA terrorists in their motives? This suggests to us again that the terrorists use the media to their advantage and the news media always fall into this trap on the premise of news value.
Since the news industry is a business with its own commercial self interest it is essentially a ‘social construction of reality’. (Fowler, 1991:2). Taking this into account we can see that journalist’s are in a sense limited by the bounds of time, money and hierarchy. According Robert Fowler: “The world of the press is not the real world, but a world skewed and judged.” (Fowler, 1991: 11) Everything that is said or written in the news is done from an ideological position, since language itself is something which is not “clear” but rather a “structuring medium”. (Fowler,1991: 10). Media ownership can play a big part in this ‘bias’ nature of news organizations as Nick Davies tells us: “Owners can and do interfere in the editorial process of their outlets.” (Davies, 2008:15). One proprietor shows this power quite well. Since September 11th, Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets all around the globe were like “propaganda arms” of the Bush Administration, shaming anybody who dares to question the President’s ‘War on Terror’. Interference of owners does raise ethical questions about how the media is regulated because surely if owners let their medium run freely, society’s perception of the world will become more distorted, especially with regards to terrorism.
Unlike the PCC, Ofcom the Broadcast regulator in the UK is backed by law which makes sure that any Broadcasting organisation which breaks the ‘Ofcom code’ can be fined or have its license revoked. (Harcup, 2007: 116). One of the codes which Ofcom has and which every broadcast news organisation in the UK endeavours to follow is the “5.1 Due Impartiality” code . In the recent Gaza crisis the BBC chose not to air the Emergency Aid appeal by DEC because of this “impartiality” code . Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC said: “It is sometimes not a comfortable place to be, but we have a duty to ensure that nothing risks undermining our impartiality. It is to protect that impartiality that we have made this difficult decision.”
Many people who saw the Gaza crisis on TV saw the Israeli army as the real terrorists, mainly because of the indifference towards the numbers killed with at least 1,300 Palestinians killed compared to the 13 Israelis killed in the war. While it is true that the BBC may have had its reputation on the line and as Thompson puts it: “[...] without running the risk of reducing public confidence in the BBC's impartiality in its wider coverage of the story” , the fact that they never aired the appeal made more people lose confidence in the BBC and actually it underlined their partiality towards Israel. In a joint letter, Jeremy Dear and Gerry Morrissey represented thousands of BBC staff and said the move risked being seen as "politically motivated" . They said: "Far from avoiding the compromise of the BBC's impartiality, this move has breached those same BBC rules by showing a bias in favour of Israel at the expense of 1.5 million Palestinian civilians suffering an acute humanitarian crisis." One BBC news source even said most of the anger is at BBC’s top management. This conflict demonstrates even news values can sometimes be taken over due to ‘political impartiality’ and interference from the ‘big boys at the top’.
So what is the public’s perception of the terrorism in the news? A survey was carried out using 20 consumers of TV news from the ages of 18-50.
Most participants agree that terrorists are bad people but there a few (15%) who believe that they can good people as well. Interestingly 60% of the participants say they don’t believe at all what the news tells them about terrorism but they seem to think that other believe do fall for the “media lies” with 90% of the participants agreeing to this. Davies tells us that many media experts, academics, students, politicians and consumers say they cannot believe everything in the media: “[...] and yet repeatedly many of them fall for explanations which are themselves infiltrated by falsehood, distortion and propaganda.”(Davies, 2008: 13). The survey also reinforces the fact that people use the TV news media as their main information portal for information on terrorist related events.
What is worrying here is that not one person refers to any books for the source of information making it even easier for news organizations to lure them in to their ideological values. Overall the myth of ‘seeing is believing’ still stands strong with TV news media and may do for a very long time. The reportage of terrorism has been always done with news value as its reward, with little disregard to the implications of how dramatising an event can affect the audience. Covering terrorism is like playing with dynamite since the journalist’s ideological values may come to help the terrorist in their motives – and further them in their goals of creating fear in the audience. The saying of “ones mans terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is true when you look at both sides of the story-something which is lacking in TV news media. So it seems journalists have a hard job in maintaining an objective stance because the truth of the matter is journalists can never be objective. Ownership, ideologies and news value always come in the way of reporting an impartial story.
Bibliography
Abercrombie, Nicholas (1996) Television and Society, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Bignell, Jonathan (2002), Media Semiotics: An Introduction, Manchester: University Press
Besley, Andrews and Chadwick, Ruth (1992) Ethical Issues in Journalism and the Media, London: Routledge
Bonger, B., Brown, L M., Beutler, L E., Breckenridge, J N., Zimbardo, P G., (eds) (2007) Psychology of Terrorism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connelly, Mark, Welch, David (eds) (2007) War and the Media: Reportage and Propaganda, London: IB Tuaris
Davies, Chris (2008) Flat Earth News, London: Chatto and Windus
Fowler, Roger (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press, London: Routledge
Gerwehr,S. and Hubbard, K., (2007) What Is Terrorism: Key Elements and History, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 7.
Harcup, Tony (2007) The Ethical Journalist, London: Sage Publications
Lacey, Nick (1998) Image and Representation – Key Concepts in Media Studies, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD
Merari, Ariel (2007) Psychological Aspects of Suicide Terrorism, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 8.
Papacharissi, Z., and Oliveria, F. (2008) ‘News Frames Terrorism: A comparative Analysis of Frames Employed in Terrorism Coverage in U.S and U.K Newspapers’, in The International Journal of Press/Politics v13 n1.
Poole, Elizabeth (2009) Reporting Islam: Media Representations of British Muslims, London: IB Tauris
Said, Edward (1997) Covering Islam – How the Media and the Experts determine how we see the rest of the world, New York: Vintage Books.
Shurkin, Joel N. (2007) Terrorism and the Media, in Psychology of Terrorism, Ch 6.
Tumber, Howard and Webster, Frank (2006) Journalists under Fire: Information war and Journalistic Practices, London: Sage Publications
Monday, 2 November 2009
BBC College of Journalism
BBC Radio 4 visited my university last week and i thought to myself i have to take opportunity to get some experience! I found out there was a college of journalism workshop happening so i opted to put my name forward. Although there was a little hiccup in the beginning about the tickets, i managed to get in the end. The guy giving the lecture was Micheal Blastland- -and eloquent journalist, and author who does freelance for the BBC.
He was speaking about something which most of us journalists or just normal people, take for granted. All these facts and figures we see in the mass media are by large or most of the time, exaggerated and not even checked properly. He was talking about something to do with a journalists having this archetype in their minds which makes them automatically jump to assumptions and make links - something which is done to create more stories out of one topic.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
What is left of actuality after creative treatment?
Seeing is believing...or so they say. Reality is said to be made much clearer through art. But can something constructed and ‘made up’ such as art, be allowed to mingle with reality? Doesn’t this actually make reality less real? The father of British documentary film, John Grierson, defined documentary as the “the creative treatment of actuality”. Its “obvious contradiction” caused problems right from the outset (See Winston: 1995, 11). Does the ‘creative treatment’ of actuality leave us with no actuality at all, or does this creative treatment or ‘art process’ throw light upon the world in which we inhabit?
Bertolt Brecht once said: "Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it." [1] Grierson also argued that the purpose of art was to represent the real world and not “the bank holiday of frenzied events” (See Aitken, 1990: 60). Documentary as an art form creates some underlying implications, if it, at the same time has a ‘claim on the real’. According to Brain Winston: “The contemporary use of ‘document’ still carries with it the connotation of evidence.” (Winston, 1995: 11). Even today some people immediately conceptualize documentaries as objective, rational, and educational. But can documentaries actually ‘document’ reality or are they just an artistic creation?
Bertolt Brecht once said: "Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it." [1] Grierson also argued that the purpose of art was to represent the real world and not “the bank holiday of frenzied events” (See Aitken, 1990: 60). Documentary as an art form creates some underlying implications, if it, at the same time has a ‘claim on the real’. According to Brain Winston: “The contemporary use of ‘document’ still carries with it the connotation of evidence.” (Winston, 1995: 11). Even today some people immediately conceptualize documentaries as objective, rational, and educational. But can documentaries actually ‘document’ reality or are they just an artistic creation?
Leni Riefenstahl’s, Triumph of the Will (1935) could be an example of both. A controversial yet inspiring film for many fiction and non-fiction films alike, Riefenstahl creates a powerful representation of the rebirth of Germany in a 1934 party rally, along with its main ‘superstar’ Adolf Hitler. Riefenstahl’s main aim was to create emotional stories without any intention of propaganda (See Nichols, 2001: 61). As Eric Barnouw states: “She did not invent the actions captured by her cameras. She saw it as her task to bring them to the screen with maximum impact” (Barnouw, 1974: 103) However, after the end of World War 2 the film was regarded by many, to be pure propaganda film. Examples of this can be seen in the opening of the film where a plane is seen flying over Germany. Its shadow can be seen overlooking and covering the streets that it passes – A depiction of Hitler himself, as he overshadows Germany. The plane which is high above the city of Nuremburg suggests that it has dominance over the nation, watching over everything, like a ‘Big Brother’ of Germany.
Its uplifting non-diagetic orchestra in the opening sequence, make Hitler seem like some kind of ‘divine’ authority as he descends down to meet his followers. One scene sees the camera tracking backwards as it unveils a huge crowd making the Nazi salute in Mexican wave fashion; all of them, young, old, like robotic soldiers. It looks like these people were directed and as Susan Sontag points out: “The rally was planned not only as a spectacular mass meeting, but as a spectacular propaganda film.”[2]
Riefenstahl still argues her film was not a constructed and did document reality: “Everything in it is true. And it contains no tendentious commentary at all. It is history. A pure historical film... it is film-vérité. It reflects the truth that was then in 1934, history.”[3]
While it is true that the film reflects the culture and history that was back then, it made Hitler too much of a ‘godly’ figure and the films obvious propaganda connotations obscure the true reality of the Nazi fascist and racist regime, thus taking away its ‘claim on the real’. And as Sontag tells us: “In Triumph of the Will, the document (the image) is no longer simply the record of reality; "reality" has been constructed to serve the image.”[4] As an artistic creation Triumph of the Will is considered to be one of the best. Its establishing shots are always epic, with the vast crowd of soldiers and citizens in view. The cameras were clearly positioned in certain places and shots were edited along with the music. The opening again is another example of this. As Hitler comes out of the plane, the uplifting transient music climaxes into a louder, elevated rhythm going in tune with the chants of the crowd.
It seems that documentaries can never really document reality and hence can never be ‘truth’. The creative treatment process whereby the raw footage goes through is vulnerable to many subjective and opinionated transformations. In the case of the Triumph of the Will, it is no doubt that the film documents a true historical event but it borderlines more towards art because of its timely edits of the camera shots and music. So the ‘documentary film’ is something which can never be objective. But why are documentaries still seen as something ‘authentic’, when clearly everything during the production process is constructed? You might think then, what difference is there from documentary film and fiction film? – They’re both constructed. The big difference is that fiction explores another world for the audience to contemplate whereas documentary represents the world we already inhabit and share. (See Nichols, 2001: 1).
Bill Nichols explains that documentary is a difficult term to explain but says that: “...documentary is not a reproduction of reality, it is a representation of the world we already occupy. It stands for a particular view of the world, one we may never have encountered before even if the aspects of the world represented are familiar to us.” (Nichols, 2001: 20).
Errol Morris’s The Thin Blue Line (1988) is regarded as a definite example of investigative documentary.[5] In the film Morris blurs both fiction and non-fiction elements as he questions the interviewees about the death of a police officer. He uses highly cinematic reconstructed scenes to describe each interview’s own version of events. All the reconstructions are of the same event, which describes how the police officer was shot, but all of them contradict each other, because of the varied descriptions each interviewee had of the event. Even the reconstructions take place in a different place from where the actual crime took place. According to Nichols all of these choices were tactics made by Morris, to make the audience think and question “What really happened” and as he states: “They amount to bad science but they are part and parcel of documentary representation.” (Nichols, 2001: 85). Each person’s representation of the ‘truth’ is different and Morris believes that documentaries should be creative in their form to be able to search for ‘truth’: “There’s no reason why documentaries can’t be as personal as fiction filmmaking and bear the imprint of those who made them. Truth isn’t guaranteed by style or expression. It isn’t guaranteed by anything.” (Arthur: cited: Bruzzi, 2000: 5-6).
The Thin Blue Line clearly shows Morris’s imprint with its highly stylized reconstructions which make the film look much more like a non-fiction film noir[6], and the film noir element at the same gives you the feeling of a highly atmospheric fiction film. This can be seen in the opening, where the credits start rolling when the film starts; typical of fiction films. Lighting and shadows are used effectively in the film, especially in the reconstructions. For example when Randall Adams, the person accused of the murder, talks about how he was interrogated by the police officer and how he was threatened with a gun to confess the crime, the reconstruction shows a shadowy and almost dominant figure, with his face covered by the darkness. Everything in this scene is ‘dramatised’ including the sound, like the footsteps, the pen thrown onto the table and the reloading of the pistol. They are done slowly to make the audience hear every intricate detail which adds to the overall suspense. Morris’s subjectivity could be seen here as he wants to make the audience see the police officer in a bad light. The film then cuts to the police officers who seem friendly and somewhat non-threatening[7]. This juxtaposition of cuts obviously confuses things but Morris wants the audience to decide who and what to believe.
According to Stephen Rowley: “Attempts to force confessions are something we see in Hollywood films, and which we associate with villainous cops played by scary-looking actors.” Morris intentionally added a ‘fiction film’ element to reinvent the case while at the same time revisiting it[8]. By doing this Morris gives us new light to the American justice system as he portrays these goofy[9] police officers responsible for putting an innocent man into jail. So in essence he gets to the truth using what Grierson would say a “creative treatment” process and as Morris tells us: “I wanted to make a movie that had this real-world story that was very, very important to me. A terrible miscarriage of justice. But I wanted to make it in a certain way...”[10]. Note how Morris says he wanted to make it in a ‘certain way’. He didn’t just want interviews and cutaways, but wanted drama and suspense.
According to Nichols: “We judge a representation more by the nature of the pleasure it offers, the value of the insight or knowledge it provides, and the quality of the orientation or disposition, tone or perspective it instils.” (Nichols, 2001:20-21). Objective truth in any film is impossible to find and Morris shows this in The Thin Blue Line as he interviews people with different version of ‘truths’. Everyone have their own way of thinking and thus people make out ‘truths’ or representations of reality in different ways because this is at the end of the day, is affected by our own prejudices, beliefs and values.[11] In the end though Morris manages to show the ‘truth’ through a simple tape recorder – the culmination of all the tension and suspense throughout the film is brought to an end through the most simplest form of evidence.[12]
It’s now clear that documentaries all have a voice of their own, a specific perspective held by the filmmaker. They use both sound an imagery to portray their argument to the audience. They do this in a form of a narrative and as Nichols explains: “Documentaries are fictions with plots, characters, situations and events like any other.” (Nichols, 1991: 107). Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North (1922) is a story made to represent how an Inuit family battles against nature and tries to survive in the arctic. Since there is no dialogue or voices heard in Nanook of the North, Flaherty mainly uses music along with inter-titles to depict his point of view and the nature of each scene.
For example in the scene where Nanook is depicted trying to figure out what the gramophone is, we see him biting into the record as if to tell us that he is primitive and has never seen technology like this in his life. This scene is supposed to portray the simple side of Nanook but it seems more like a patronising scene with the inter-title beforehand telling us: “In deference to Nanook, the great hunter, the trader entertains and attempts to explain the principle of the gramophone – how the white man ‘cans’ his voice”.[13] It’s attempts to ‘respect’ “the great hunter”, suggests a much more patronising tone which ends with a somewhat stereotypical Inuit ‘slang’ with the use of “White man”. It also seems as if Flaherty who is acting as the ‘trader’ is mocking Nanook by just watching him bite into the record without showing him how to actually use it. The light hearted music adds to the overall ‘mockery’ which seems as if it were from a Warner Brother’s cartoon.
Flaherty knowingly done this since everything was staged[14]. According to Barnouw: “Characters occasionally glanced at the camera as though at a film maker. Nanook, grinning over the gramophone, testing a gramophone disc with his teeth, looks at the camera as though for agreement and approval...” (Barnouw, 1974: 39). So it seems that Flaherty’s attempts to portray a simple minded Inuit backfired, and because his representation of the ‘Inuit’ did not engage with the historical world, Nichols tells us: “The voice of the film betrays its makers form of engagement with the world in a way that even he might not have recognized.” (Nichols, 2001: 44). Flaherty’s obsession with the remote and primitive (See Barnouw, 1974: 85) meant that his own views and ideals got in the way of representing the ‘historical world’ and hence he failed to ‘add light’ or historical understanding upon the Inuit world.
Documentaries essence lies in the dramatisation of actual material and this is done in the editing process using sound and music. In Nanook of the North, music is chiefly used to set the mood of a scene and to also to dramatise certain situations. For example, in the scene where Nanook is trying to hunt a seal out of the ice, the sounds of violins, trumpets and flutes are heard playing in a repetitive and frantic manner. It shows to the audience the intensity of the hunt, as Nanook repeatedly hauls the line in only to be jerked down and dragged over the ice again[15]. The music adds to the drama and exaggerates the scene. The audience finally know in the end that Nanook has won, as they are signposted in with a different rhythm, more tranquil, with the violins slowing down, signifying somewhat, the ‘end of a battle’.
Another type of sound seen in documentaries is the voice over. Nichols terms it as “The expository mode” and he says, it: “ ...addresses the viewer directly, with titles or voices that propose a perspective, advance an argument, or recount history.” (Nichols, 2001: 105).
In Michael Moore’s Roger & Me, commentary is used in a sarcastic but humorous way which entices the audience’s attention. For example, seven minutes into the film you’ll hear Moore commenting on Roger Smith for the first time and then talking about GM’s plans and how they plan to sack many people. He uses a montage of still shots – cleverly used in juxtaposition[16] with the commentary. Moore ends this scene by saying in a sarcastic manner that: “...Roger Smith was a true genius”[17]. Moore has already set his subjective and ideological position to the audience, by cleverly placing this montage near the beginning[18], and as Nichols tells us: “We take our cue from the commentary and understand the images as evidence or demonstration for what is being said.” (Nichols, 2001: 107). As the commentary in documentaries explain the images, they are thus seen by the audience, higher than images in terms of ‘evidence’. (See Nichols, 2001: 107).
But how can a ‘voice’ which proposes a subjective outlook be seen as evidence? Stella Bruzzi points out that because voice over’s connote “individualism and instruction”, they tend to signify a distorted and fictionalised documentary. (See Bruzzi, 2000: 64). Moore did make Smith seem much more like a buffoon than even his own bumbling character, with the clever juxtaposition of image and audio, so this could be seen as the ‘creative treatment’ which takes away the ‘actuality’.
Overall, it can be seen that a documentary goes through a ‘creative treatment’ process where a filmmaker gets ‘actuality’ and constructs it to form a manufactured object (See Izod, Kilborn, 1997: 116) which only creates an imitation, not the real thing(See Niney, 1994:21). Grierson knew film interpreted reality, but believed that the average spectator should not share that recognition, and that a illusion of reality was essential in order to make the narrative as powerful (See Aitken, 1990: 70). This tells us that a documentary, by its nature, lies to the audience since it makes a truth claim right from the outset which leaves the ‘documentary’ in a particularly vulnerable position as it can be used a dangerous means of communication if the audience take the documentary as reality.
Bibliography:
Aitken, Ian (1990) Film and Reform: Routledge
Bruzzi, Stella (2000) New Documentary: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge
Izod, J. and Kilborn, R. (1997) An Introduction to TV Documentary, Manchester: Manchester
University Press
Nichols, Bill (1991) Representing Reality, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press
Nichols, Bill (2001) Introduction to Documentary, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press
Niney, Francois (1994) The Fiction of Reality in Documentary Film Quarterly
Winston, Brian (1995) Claiming The Real: the documentary film revisited, London: British Film Insitute
Barnouw, Eric (1993) Documentary – a history of the non-fiction film, New York: Oxford University Press
Films referred to:
Triump of the Will – Leni Riefenstahl’s (1935)
The Thin Blue Line – Errol Morris (1988)
Nanook of the North – Robert Flaherty (1922)
Roger & Me – Michael Moore (1989)
Endnotes/website:
[1] http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/26853.Bertolt_Brecht
[2] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9280
[3] http://www.kamera.co.uk/features/leniriefenstahl.html
[4] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9280
[5] http://www.cinephobia.com/thinblue.htm
[6] http://www.cinephobia.com/thinblue.htm
[7] http://www.cinephobia.com/thinblue.htm
[8] http://www.documentary.org/content/errol-morris-thin-blue-line-1988
[9] http://www.cinephobia.com/thinblue.htm
[10] http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/16/morris.html
[11] http://www.cinephobia.com/thinblue.htm
[12] http://www.cinephobia.com/thinblue.htm
[13] http://www.hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk/MultimediaStudentProjects/98-99/9500048s/project/html/fakena.htm
[14] http://www.hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk/MultimediaStudentProjects/98-99/9500048s/project/html/fakena.htm
[15] http://www.oneworldmagazine.org/seek/nanook/nanotext.htm
[16] http://www.angelfire.com/film/articles/moore.htm
[17] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30p71PNXEx8&feature=related
[18] http://www.angelfire.com/film/articles/moore.htm
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Ramadan - Month of Reflection
NO food and no drink from sunset until sunrise for a whole month. Can you do this? May seem crazy to some people but for Muslims this is routine. Every year millions of Muslims across the world are fasting in a special month known in the Islamic calendar as the month of Ramadan. For Muslims this month rivals every other month purely because of its psychological and mental benefits as well as the patience one attains when fasting.
Fasting isn’t just about letting your stomach groan at you by remaining hungry. It’s about fighting ones inner desires, lusts and passions and keeping them at bay, whether they be eating chocolate (or any food for that matter), watching movies, fulfilling your sexual desires or even playing too much on your Nintendo Wii. The main purpose of fasting is to direct the heart away from all the unnecessary attachments of this world and to more of a closer attachment of God. Through our thoughts and actions a person has to try attain purity and hopefully your development of character and personality in this month will show through out the rest of the year.
And fasting for a whole day isn’t necessarily easy when you think about it, especially as the days are becoming longer each year. Being a student doesn’t help either as I will always see people eating in front of me, whether it is in the cafeteria where I usually grab my lunch or just outside near the town centre. I see the food, I want to eat the food, but I won’t eat the food, solely because God commanded me not to eat the food. This also goes for the bad habits one may have such as slandering, backbiting and lying.
But why is this month so important to Muslims? Well one of the main reasons is that its believed the Holy Quran was sent down in this particular month and so muslims are obliged to spend it in worship throughout the day, maximising in every supplication and worship towards God. Ramadan for Muslims is an exciting month in which everyone is in anticipation for since the rewards are great, both spiritually and physically. Its just like the feeling you get when waiting for a new film to come out or a computer game. No words can describe how good it feels to complete a day's fast or the joy and the feeling of festivity when the day's fasting is over.
For me this holy month is the only month whereby I can really have an x-ray of myself. Its like a month of training for me. Not really the, 'going into the gym and lifting 100kg' training, but more of the body and soul. I look and reflect on all the things I take for granted, such as my food, money,education, nice warm house, nice cup of tea, nice toast, nice this and nice that - the list is endless. When everyone's around the table just about to break the fast, the fragrance of the food hits yours mouth like strawberry and chocolate swirling in your mouth. Its that good. Since you remain hungry throughout the day, just about anything you eat will make you feel good. This is when your hunger is at its peak and that’s when you know what people in the third world countries are feeling like who are literally living in starvation because they are so poor.
Aside from the religious reasons and making you feel pity for the poor the health benefits of fasting are immense. If done properly, which means without overindulgence at the time of breaking fast, meaning saying a no no to those oily samosas, kebabs, burgers, parkoras (and again the list is endless), fasting can make you lose weight, control addictions and help your natural defence system making you heal much faster.
With all these benefits of fasting I find it weird to see many people don't fast. Believe it not though everyone fasts during the night anyway since the term 'breakfast' literally means 'breaking your fast' becasue you don't eat anything for night.
I have to admit though as the fasting hours get longer every year and the surprising remarks you get from people who are not fasting get funnier every year, the month seems to pass by so quickly. It just shows that rather than counting down each day in anticipation for Eid, we should really make each day count. That's when we'll really benefit from this 'month of training'.
Fasting isn’t just about letting your stomach groan at you by remaining hungry. It’s about fighting ones inner desires, lusts and passions and keeping them at bay, whether they be eating chocolate (or any food for that matter), watching movies, fulfilling your sexual desires or even playing too much on your Nintendo Wii. The main purpose of fasting is to direct the heart away from all the unnecessary attachments of this world and to more of a closer attachment of God. Through our thoughts and actions a person has to try attain purity and hopefully your development of character and personality in this month will show through out the rest of the year.
And fasting for a whole day isn’t necessarily easy when you think about it, especially as the days are becoming longer each year. Being a student doesn’t help either as I will always see people eating in front of me, whether it is in the cafeteria where I usually grab my lunch or just outside near the town centre. I see the food, I want to eat the food, but I won’t eat the food, solely because God commanded me not to eat the food. This also goes for the bad habits one may have such as slandering, backbiting and lying.
But why is this month so important to Muslims? Well one of the main reasons is that its believed the Holy Quran was sent down in this particular month and so muslims are obliged to spend it in worship throughout the day, maximising in every supplication and worship towards God. Ramadan for Muslims is an exciting month in which everyone is in anticipation for since the rewards are great, both spiritually and physically. Its just like the feeling you get when waiting for a new film to come out or a computer game. No words can describe how good it feels to complete a day's fast or the joy and the feeling of festivity when the day's fasting is over.
For me this holy month is the only month whereby I can really have an x-ray of myself. Its like a month of training for me. Not really the, 'going into the gym and lifting 100kg' training, but more of the body and soul. I look and reflect on all the things I take for granted, such as my food, money,education, nice warm house, nice cup of tea, nice toast, nice this and nice that - the list is endless. When everyone's around the table just about to break the fast, the fragrance of the food hits yours mouth like strawberry and chocolate swirling in your mouth. Its that good. Since you remain hungry throughout the day, just about anything you eat will make you feel good. This is when your hunger is at its peak and that’s when you know what people in the third world countries are feeling like who are literally living in starvation because they are so poor.
Aside from the religious reasons and making you feel pity for the poor the health benefits of fasting are immense. If done properly, which means without overindulgence at the time of breaking fast, meaning saying a no no to those oily samosas, kebabs, burgers, parkoras (and again the list is endless), fasting can make you lose weight, control addictions and help your natural defence system making you heal much faster.
With all these benefits of fasting I find it weird to see many people don't fast. Believe it not though everyone fasts during the night anyway since the term 'breakfast' literally means 'breaking your fast' becasue you don't eat anything for night.
I have to admit though as the fasting hours get longer every year and the surprising remarks you get from people who are not fasting get funnier every year, the month seems to pass by so quickly. It just shows that rather than counting down each day in anticipation for Eid, we should really make each day count. That's when we'll really benefit from this 'month of training'.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
40 days in the Path of Allah....in Wales!
I've been slacking off in my blog posts i know, but I was away for 40 days in the path of Allah and just came back on Monday. I have to say...it was an experience and a half. If anyone doesn't know what i mean by going out in the 'path of Allah'...don't worry it's not some kind of extremist terrorist training scheme! Far from it. Its called 'Tabligue jamaat' the group which 'conveys' and calls towards Allah.
Tabligue literally means 'to convey' and this collective effort is something like missionary work where you are out giving your time for any number of days you can do. Usually it's recommended to do 3 days a month, 40 days a year and 4 months once in a lifetime. You are in a jamaat (group) and go from mosque to mosque in the country you are sent to, or in my case England. You work and make effort in each local area with the concern as to how Islam can come into our own life, the locality and the how the whole of mankind be saved from the fire of hell.
This effort mainly works on the people who are already Muslims to make them steadfast in the Islam, before going onto non-Muslims. This is because unfortunately most Muslims these days (even myself) are Muslims by name or by our tongue, but inwardly our faith in Allah is very low. We believe things like food and money are sustaining us when in fact Allah is sustaining us. These things are just a 'means' of sustaining us. We have to have such belief that even if we were to drink sand, through the will of Allah, this can even quench our thirst. The impossible does not exist for Allah because this is no difficult task for the creator of the whole universe.
We also strive so very hard in this world to try and attain success and status, forgetting about the hereafter and forgetting that one day we will die and be judged for every single action we did in this world. The nature of human beings is such that whatever status or position we get to, we will always want more. Nothing will ever satisfy us, until one day death comes knocking on the door, and we find that the value of this temporary life is over. The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) once said, this world is like a paradise for the non-believer and a prison for the believer. He also said we must be like a traveller in this world, just stopping for a short while and getting ready to go onto our next destination, which is the real and never ending life.
So the main purpose for this effort is to mainly rectify yourself, and to build your faith in Allah. Since your in the mosque 24/7 for basically 40 days , your faith boost up like a recharged battery. You are away from all the desires and bad temptations of the world and in the environment where angels are residing and in a place where constant worship is going on. Everyday there are certain programmes which take place and certain people in the group are given certain roles to fulfill. For example, after the early morning prayers we get together in a circle and make shura (consultation/meeting). During this period we make concern for the local community, as to how everyone can be regular in the mosque for prayers and just generally bringing people closer to their faith. But we always bear in mind that we are in fact in need of guidence more than anyone else and we should never think we are better than someone in terms of faith. The more we invite people towards Allah the more my faith in Allah will grow - and this is the desired result.
During the consultation, everyone gives their opinion as to how the effort should be done in the area and who should be given which responsibilities. I was sometimes given the role of doing a short speech or lecture on the greatness of Allah. Other roles include taking care of each others well being which is called 'Khidmat' in arabic. This involves preparing breakfast, lunch, dinner for everyone, keeping the mosque clean and tidy, ironing and washing clothes, etc. This role is a very important part of Tablighi Jamaat since it is supposed to kill off the base desires of human beings and especially the pride which one has, since pride is a quality which only Allah, the creator and sustaniner of the whole universe deserves to have.
Other activities include reading from 'Hadith' books, which contain the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and just general individual worship e.g reading the Quran, rembering Allah through prayer beads, making supplications, etc. We learn though that even in our general lifestyle we can make anything worship but only if we do this act for the sake of pleasing Allah and follow the way in which prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would have done it. Everyone gets a turn in doing different activites so everyone is constantly learning.
Apart from staying in the mosque we go out and visit brothers door to door, and just generally on the streets, parks or wherever and give them dawah (invitation) towards the greatness of Allah. The greatness of Allah is really emphasised while we are out in jamaat because unless this conviction is not in the heart, all other Islamic practises will seem meaningless and 'empty'.
We first went to Dewsbury (the main headquarters of this effort in the UK) and we were sent to make effort in Wales. Wales is a wonderful place with nice scenery. The people there were generally quite friendly. We went and stayed in Bristol, Bath, Barry, Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff (which we stayed the longest), Gloucester and Cheltenham. I was surprised how very few people could actually speak Welsh, and how very similiar the neighborhoods were to that of places like Luton and London. We did face some antagonism but this was little enough to be shrugged off. There was the occasional beeps from the cars while we walked past, along with people screaming out of the cars saying God knows what but other than that it was pretty quiet.
There is a beauty in this effort where i haven't seen in anywhere else in the world. You're with brothers you don't even know, where you eat together, sleep together, worship together and give dawah together, all united with one concern, the same concern that our beloved Prophet had (pbuh) ....and this is how the whole of mankind can be saved from the fire of hell and enter into paradise.
It's pretty sad that it's ended since i wanted to do so much, and you'd be surprised at how quick the time went by. But at least i came back to the month of Ramadan where a whole new spiritual level is now being opened up.
Tabligue literally means 'to convey' and this collective effort is something like missionary work where you are out giving your time for any number of days you can do. Usually it's recommended to do 3 days a month, 40 days a year and 4 months once in a lifetime. You are in a jamaat (group) and go from mosque to mosque in the country you are sent to, or in my case England. You work and make effort in each local area with the concern as to how Islam can come into our own life, the locality and the how the whole of mankind be saved from the fire of hell.
This effort mainly works on the people who are already Muslims to make them steadfast in the Islam, before going onto non-Muslims. This is because unfortunately most Muslims these days (even myself) are Muslims by name or by our tongue, but inwardly our faith in Allah is very low. We believe things like food and money are sustaining us when in fact Allah is sustaining us. These things are just a 'means' of sustaining us. We have to have such belief that even if we were to drink sand, through the will of Allah, this can even quench our thirst. The impossible does not exist for Allah because this is no difficult task for the creator of the whole universe.
We also strive so very hard in this world to try and attain success and status, forgetting about the hereafter and forgetting that one day we will die and be judged for every single action we did in this world. The nature of human beings is such that whatever status or position we get to, we will always want more. Nothing will ever satisfy us, until one day death comes knocking on the door, and we find that the value of this temporary life is over. The prophet Muhammad (pbuh) once said, this world is like a paradise for the non-believer and a prison for the believer. He also said we must be like a traveller in this world, just stopping for a short while and getting ready to go onto our next destination, which is the real and never ending life.
So the main purpose for this effort is to mainly rectify yourself, and to build your faith in Allah. Since your in the mosque 24/7 for basically 40 days , your faith boost up like a recharged battery. You are away from all the desires and bad temptations of the world and in the environment where angels are residing and in a place where constant worship is going on. Everyday there are certain programmes which take place and certain people in the group are given certain roles to fulfill. For example, after the early morning prayers we get together in a circle and make shura (consultation/meeting). During this period we make concern for the local community, as to how everyone can be regular in the mosque for prayers and just generally bringing people closer to their faith. But we always bear in mind that we are in fact in need of guidence more than anyone else and we should never think we are better than someone in terms of faith. The more we invite people towards Allah the more my faith in Allah will grow - and this is the desired result.
During the consultation, everyone gives their opinion as to how the effort should be done in the area and who should be given which responsibilities. I was sometimes given the role of doing a short speech or lecture on the greatness of Allah. Other roles include taking care of each others well being which is called 'Khidmat' in arabic. This involves preparing breakfast, lunch, dinner for everyone, keeping the mosque clean and tidy, ironing and washing clothes, etc. This role is a very important part of Tablighi Jamaat since it is supposed to kill off the base desires of human beings and especially the pride which one has, since pride is a quality which only Allah, the creator and sustaniner of the whole universe deserves to have.
Other activities include reading from 'Hadith' books, which contain the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and just general individual worship e.g reading the Quran, rembering Allah through prayer beads, making supplications, etc. We learn though that even in our general lifestyle we can make anything worship but only if we do this act for the sake of pleasing Allah and follow the way in which prophet Muhammad (pbuh) would have done it. Everyone gets a turn in doing different activites so everyone is constantly learning.
Apart from staying in the mosque we go out and visit brothers door to door, and just generally on the streets, parks or wherever and give them dawah (invitation) towards the greatness of Allah. The greatness of Allah is really emphasised while we are out in jamaat because unless this conviction is not in the heart, all other Islamic practises will seem meaningless and 'empty'.
We first went to Dewsbury (the main headquarters of this effort in the UK) and we were sent to make effort in Wales. Wales is a wonderful place with nice scenery. The people there were generally quite friendly. We went and stayed in Bristol, Bath, Barry, Swansea, Neath, Port Talbot, Bridgend, Cardiff (which we stayed the longest), Gloucester and Cheltenham. I was surprised how very few people could actually speak Welsh, and how very similiar the neighborhoods were to that of places like Luton and London. We did face some antagonism but this was little enough to be shrugged off. There was the occasional beeps from the cars while we walked past, along with people screaming out of the cars saying God knows what but other than that it was pretty quiet.
There is a beauty in this effort where i haven't seen in anywhere else in the world. You're with brothers you don't even know, where you eat together, sleep together, worship together and give dawah together, all united with one concern, the same concern that our beloved Prophet had (pbuh) ....and this is how the whole of mankind can be saved from the fire of hell and enter into paradise.
It's pretty sad that it's ended since i wanted to do so much, and you'd be surprised at how quick the time went by. But at least i came back to the month of Ramadan where a whole new spiritual level is now being opened up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)