In Our Opinion...

Ethnocentrism in the Age of International Cooperation

By Tim Larson

We live in a time of increasing globalization. Communication and cooperation among nations and peoples are becoming more important as we tackle global problems like poverty, climate change, and terrorism. At the same time, however, American news media act as national citizens, at times displaying ethnocentric viewpoints in their stories and characterizations of others. Ethnocentrism in news media damages America's image in the global community and can make cooperation with other nations and peoples more difficult to achieve.

According to a 1979 study by Herbert J. Gans, ethnocentrism is enduring value in American commercial news. Ethnocentrism is expressed when the media portray the United States as the world's most important or most valued nation. A recent article in The New York Times, “Iraqi Unit Flees Post, Despite American’s Plea,” provides an example of this.

On April 16, a company of Iraqi soldiers left their positions in Sadr city claiming that they were ill-equipped to fight against the Shiite militias there. The article characterized the Iraqis as “deserters,” and their actions as “abandonment” or “retreat.” The article went on to explain how some Iraqi soldiers had to be taught by Americans how to safely and effectively fire their weapons. American Sergeant George Lewis was quoted as saying, “We don’t see any progress being made at all. We hear these guys in firefights. We know if we are not up there helping these guys out we are making very little progress.”

Regardless of how Americans feel about this war, these Iraqis are our allies. Ethnocentric portrayals of American troops and insulting remarks about Iraqi army inefficiency can only damage our relationship. It is time for us to recognize that ethnocentrism can damage our national interests and stop allowing it to remain an enduring value in news media.

 

Pulling the Strings of the Media Puppet: the Government's Hidden Role

By Jessica Piele

More often than not, it’s a hassle-free relationship: the government wants to get a message across and the media facilitates that message. I believe it is the “more often” than the “not” that such occurrences are cropping up. Interestingly enough, the ramifications of such a system can come back to haunt those in charge.

In 2005 a mass of criticism pressed for the Bush administration to come clean about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The detention center needed to be investigated, and immediately following, the administration’s communications experts sent retired military officers, identified as “military analysts,” to Cuba. According to these “analysts,” everything checked out okay, and they praised the administration’s wartime performance in a variety of media outlets. 

A recent examination has uncovered that those “analysts” were being used by the Pentagon to generate favorable news coverage and mobilize continued support for the Iraq war. According to The New York Times, there was also a powerful financial dynamic linking these military analysts as representatives for numerous high-profile lobbyists, executives, and board members.

Such relationships were unknown to the public at the time, but one person who was involved recently admitted his embarrassment for ‘duping’ America. The messages sent out in 2005 by the Bush Administration were intended to shape terrorism coverage. This effort was clearly a successful one. While it is currently less frowned upon to criticize the administration as the war effort languishes, some believe that it is irrelevant to point fingers concerning this revelation a full three years later. I believe that investigations to reveal the truth behind this “disinformation campaign” should occur immediately, but in all likelihood the government will continue to puppeteer the media while we applaud the show.

 

The Government's Smart Move with Embedded Reporting

By Nancy Pham

Strongly aware of the power of the press and in an attempt to avoid another “living room war” like Vietnam, the government’s handling of press freedoms and access during the 1991 Persian Gulf War was heavily regulated, which bred frustration and anger from the news media. The government wanted more control over public opinion and sought to do this by essentially blocking out the press from certain aspects of the war.

Journalists were no longer allowed to live and travel freely with the troops but were instead escorted in small, strictly regulated, press pools and were forced to share their information with other reporters, thus limiting the rivalries and ambitions that would foster more in-depth reporting. Since the conflict only lasted four months, however, the media did not have the time to fight back against the restrictions. Even if they had, they would have been threatened with a complete blackout of information, something that they, for the sake of viewers, sponsors, and personal pride, could not afford to risk.   

Not wanting to deal again with the resentful, angry reporters of the Gulf War, the government is giving what seems like leeway in the War on Terror. Borrowing an idea from all the way back to World War II, the Pentagon made the decision to allow embedded journalists in the early stages of the Iraq war. However, unlike in the past, the reporters are tied to one particular unit and not allowed to roam, and since they live with and depend on the troops for their very survival, journalists paint a sympathetic picture of the troops. Although reporters and viewers were intrigued by the “on the ground” access, embedded reporters actually had a very narrow, distorted view of the conflict and were actually not in a privileged vantage point. This is dangerous and misleading to the public.