Columnist Neelam Khan argues that news outlets' coverage of the Paris and Beirut terrorist attacks is inherently different.
If I have learned a thing or two this semester, it is how to become a “media literate” citizen. By definition, that means “understanding the complex messages we receive from television, radio, Internet, newspapers, magazines, books, billboards, video games, music and all other forms of media.” It means being aware. It means understanding the media we consume may not be all that it seems, understanding different perspectives and remaining skeptical toward the facts that are presented to you.
I try being aware by understanding that every single media outlet has some sort of agenda and bias. I regularly check different news outlets so that I can get different perspectives. By using one source of news, you are only getting one viewpoint — one idea that the news outlet carefully crafts. You have to be careful with what you believe.
With all those sources of news, we are surrounded by information. What is real, and what is fabricated? Are we getting the truth, or just some sensationalized trend news outlets follow to compete for views?
But what really concerns me is, after all that news, what is being ignored?
The Paris attacks have gained a lot of attention over the past few days. Not only were they tragic events during which 129 were killed and 352 were injured, but they were also the perfect opportunity for politicians to toot their own horns and for media outlets to demonize Muslims. (Oh, and to change your Facebook profile picture.)
Donald Trump talked about U.S. gun laws less than 24 hours after the attack. Commentaries plagued news channels about Obama’s attention toward climate change rather than ISIS. What does climate change have to do with Paris? What do gun rights in America have anything to do with the death of 129 people in Paris? What do 1.6 billion Muslims have to do with 20,000 murdering terrorists?
People are using the tragedy as a bridge to other conflicts of self-interest. On Saturday, I read that Paris was going to be good for Republicans. I read that Paris was going to be good for Democrats, too. For a second, I didn’t want to hear how Trump’s dumb reaction to the massacre was going to affect Clinton's chances of being elected. I mean, how do they do it? How does media get away with being shameless?
Regarding media coverage of the attacks, journalist Habib Battah wrote, “… it both dehumanises the victims and serves the interests of the attackers by increasing one-dimensional stereotypes and thus 'othering' those who suffer in faraway places. Not only do these narratives feed into rightist, xenophobic or Islamophobic political views, they also colour the perceptions of readers and editors at mainstream publications.”
Paris is being exploited. And this “othering” of those suffering is done quite well. For example, a day before the attack, twin bombings by three ISIS members led to 43 deaths and hundreds of people seriously wounded in the largest city of Lebanon. Is the Lebanese flag lit up around the world? Did leaders come out and condemn those bombings? Are people sensationalizing that attack on the news?
No, they’re not. It’s been almost ignored throughout media outlets. In Australia, there are three times as many Lebanese immigrants than there are French. And yet, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull tweeted, “Australians' thoughts, prayers & resolute solidarity with the people of France.” No mention of Lebanon.
In the opening paragraphs of stories about Paris, Reuters and The New York Times narrate scenes of horror, laced with chilling quotes from the victims and descriptions of police efforts to apprehend the terrorists. By contrast, in stories about Beirut, the military and geopolitical details take center stage. Nearly every paragraph examines Hezbollah's deployment in Syria. There are virtually no quotes from the victims, and the word "terrorism" is rarely used.
In an analysis piece posted by the Huffington Post less than 24 hours after the Lebanon attacks, it blatantly suggests the tragedy was to be expected. "It was a matter of time before residents of Dahiyeh, the Hezbollah-controlled suburb of Beirut Lebanon, were bombed again,” the article stated.
What if an article posted a day after the Paris attack claiming it was just “a matter of time” before Europeans were massacred?
Rather than focusing on the cruelty of the suicide bombers, the Huffington Post piece actually interrogates its victims. The focus was not on terrorist cells or their financiers, but rather the "predicament" of "the Shia community," a "hijacked population" that is "trapped," "stuck" and "will always remain imprisoned by its leaders." The author's only hope for change? "Perhaps the Lebanese Shia Muslims are just several suicide bombings and innocent deaths away from questioning Hezbollah's mission in Syria."
Could you imagine an article like that being posted a day after the Paris attack? Do you think people would react well to that? People would be outraged.
That is media for you. We will never know the whole truth. That is why it is our mission to be media literate and to understand that journalists have inherent biases and news outlets may have their own agendas. The stories they cover become a trend, and the stories they don’t cover are left forgotten. It is your job to find and care about the stories that aren’t heard.
Neelam Khan is a sophomore studying screenwriting and producing. What do you think about media coverage of the Beirut attacks? Email her at nk852613@ohio.edu.
