Perceptions of American Media

First of all, I apologize that whenever anyone posts, it comes up as "Annelle."

Does anyone know how to make it stop doing that? Can we have a blog with multiple users?

Ellen, I really liked your piece. I was not aware of the way in which Early Decision represents yet another crook in our crooked college application program. I especially liked how you pointed out that Early Decision benefits those whose applications require closer attention, but that universities ought to devote this level of care to all applications.

Below is a piece that Kathy had asked me to put on the blog.


Perceived Bias in American Media: Better Than the Alternative
A woman told me that her favorite TV show is Dr. Phil. Her smile widened the hijab framing her face as she nodded knowingly. “I see Americans on the show, what they are like. I have seen people in the audience crying. They care so much about their families—I know that they are good people. Their government lies to them. It is the media’s fault.” Nodding in return, I smiled weakly.
Unfamiliar with Dr. Phil, I looked up the show online to determine what exactly is informing her opinions of Americans. While maudlin tears and catfights would not be my first choice for tools of diplomacy, I judge more harshly than she. The display of familial angst and concern, the empathic weeping in the audience is all that the Omani lady needs to convince her of Americans’ good hearts. If Americans watched a Middle Eastern version of Dr. Phil, would we similarly recognize the humanity of the people on the other side of the world through the screen? Or would their dress and social interaction—both of which seem so different from our own—relegate them to the irrevocable “other”?
While spending a semester in the Gulf, I heard many people blame the media for “brain washing” Americans into a state of apparent apathy towards our government’s bellicose foreign policy. This seems the only logical explanation for the invasion of Iraq, the belligerent posturing with Iran, and the continued support of Israel’s occupation of Palestine; actions that would appear to many Arab audiences as either evil or irrational. Yet the interpretation embraced by most of the people I met was that Americans are simply misinformed by a malicious administration and biased media. In some ways this is true: our media does not regularly display the day-to-day experience of life in Iraq, Palestine, or Lebanon with the same in-depth coverage as networks such as Al Jazeera or even Sky. As presented in most mainstream American media sources, such places remain simply “hotspots”: nests of senseless continual and apparently inexplicable violence. Blanket theories such as Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations”—an essay published in Foreign Affairs in 1993 describing global conflict as civilizational, placing “Western civilization” on an inevitable crash course with “Islamic civilization”—offer an appealingly ready-made explanation applicable to any new circumstance. However, despite the spectre of Fox news’ blatant conservative bias, the American media is far more informed than much of the world may believe.
I do not want to explain to the woman that many Americans have access to reliable information. For those with internet, international news sources are all available online. Although Al Jazeera, for example, is not permitted to broadcast, a satellite dish can pick up the signal. Countless books are published each week by experts about the conflict in the Middle East offering explanations far more accurate than Huntington’s. And American TV networks, the source from which most Americans receive news, do provide coverage of Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan. Although American networks slant towards a pro-American viewpoint, much of the information is the same as that which the Omani woman receives.
The problem with Americans’ knowledge of the Middle East is not informational quantity, quality, or access. Although many factors influence Americans’ perceptions, much stems from a few basic assumptions unchallenged by any news source and in fact only reinforced by repetition. The first assumption is that the United States maintains a level of immunity to the (perceived) chaos of the outside world. Part of 9/11’s endurance in the American psyche, aside from the trauma of a terrorist attack, is the implication that America is not in control. Yet despite this rude shaking, the secure knowledge that no matter what goes on “over there,” the United States is the most powerful country in the world holds firm. The second assumption is that “over there,” (the Middle East in particular, but also much of Africa and parts of Asia and Eastern Europe), is inherently chaotic and prone to violence, regardless of the efforts of more stable countries. While the Americans on Dr.Phil may seem unrealisitcally emotional, they provide a level of humanity that speaks more convincingly to the Omani lady than do reports of America’s actions abroad. To resolve the disparity, she blames our lack of information rather than us. Yet Muslims and Middle Easterners continue to appear as caricatures—“tribal,” “primitive,” or “intrinsically violent”—in our media and often in our heads. Does further investigation require too much work? Will our country ever outgrow our propensity for racism?
The same look of genuine goodwill and understanding that had shone in the eyes of the Omani woman now came from a young American man in a bar in New York. Upon learning I had recently returned from a few months in the Gulf, he began to talk about the war in Iraq. He also smiled as he said, “See, we just want to help. We don’t get it that nothing will ever make them stop fighting each other. That they don’t want our help; they want to do what they’ve always done. Arabs will never stop being violent, but we keep trying to change who they are.”
I try to point out that incentives more cogent than altruism probably influenced United States’ foreign policy in the region. My companion insists that America’s motives are pure, but that we simply misunderstand those we are trying to help. Although I find his interpretation insulting to my Omani friends, I doubt that he means it as such. While he is not “brainwashed” his understanding reflects the information to which he has been exposed. I nod. The misunderstanding is mutual. Hopefully my American acquaintance will reassess his perception of people in the Middle East before my Omani friend comes to less-forgiving conclusions about Americans. Or a situation already clouded in misperception will become even stormier.