Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
'Credit card theft? There's an app for that'
Video
Adam Savage Builds His Own 'Blade Runner' Blaster
Blog
March 18, 1987: Woodstock for Physicists
Game
Final Fantasy, Then and Now
Art
Tim Burton Next 3D Animated Film? Da Da Da, Da, Snap Snap, `The Addams Family'
Cool tools
Hot links

Super Mario Flash Game Restyled for Obama

Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Free Culture, Open Government, Liberty
Online Buddhist meditation
Reducing harm from drug use
The Violence Network

The Violence Network

It's biased, gruesome, and totally compelling. How Al-Jazeera makes one American think differently about war. By Eric Calderwood

DAMASCUS - This morning, while I made my coffee and eggs, I tuned in to the best show on television. When I went next door to buy my milk, the owner of the Rawda Grocery Store was already watching it, and down in the Sha'alan neighborhood, at the restaurant where I ate breakfast yesterday, customers are sitting over their bowls of fava bean soup, eyes glued to the screen. Millions across the region are following it along with us.

The show is the conflict in Gaza. On Al-Jazeera. Israel has restricted international reporters and camera crews from Gaza, so the Qatari network is one of the few international media outlets to have a full, working bureau inside Gaza City.

Even if CNN could sneak a camera crew through the checkpoints, it's hard to imagine they would produce anything like what's on Al-Jazeera - an all-day, ever-shifting drama that throws war in your face with all its gruesome cruelty. It is openly partisan, almost never showing Israeli deaths or injuries. It is also provocative and upsetting in a way that looks nothing like news in the West. Their broadcasts routinely feature mutilated corpses being pulled from the scene of an explosion, or hospital interviews with maimed children, who bemoan the loss of their siblings or their parents - often killed in front of their eyes. Al-Jazeera splices archival footage into the live shots, weaving interviews and expertly produced montages into a devastating narrative you can follow from the comfort of your own home.

This is news without even the pretense of impartiality. After several days of following the Al-Jazeera coverage of Gaza, I've never seen a live interview with an Israeli, neither a politician nor a civilian. In the Al-Jazeera version, the Gaza conflict has only two participants: the Israeli army - an impersonal force represented as tanks and planes on the map - and the Palestinian civilians, often shown entering the hospital on makeshift stretchers. There are few Hamas rockets and no Israeli families. It's not hard to see why Al-Jazeera is accused of deliberately inflaming regional enmity and instability.

But in a larger sense, Al-Jazeera's graphic response to CNN-style "bloodless war journalism" is a stinging rebuke to the way we now see and talk about war in the United States. It suggests that bloodless coverage of war is the privilege of a country far from conflict. Al-Jazeera's brand of news - you could call it "blood journalism" - takes war for what it is: a brutal loss of human life. The images they show put you in visceral contact with the violence of war in a way statistics never could.

For an American, to watch Al-Jazeera's coverage of Gaza is to realize that you've become alienated not just from war, but even from the representation of war as a real thing. As Americans, we're used to hearing the sound of heavy artillery, machine guns, and bombs in action films and video games. Yet here on the news, they seem strangely out of place. You could argue that Al-Jazeera uses images of civilian violence to foment public outrage against Israel. This might well be true. At the same time, these images acknowledge human suffering and civilian death and stand strongly against them - and in doing so, foment outrage against war itself.

Whether you are a fan or a critic of the network's presentation of the news, it's hard to deny that Al-Jazeera is, first and foremost, excellent television. The network's command of the form is one reason why it has resisted being marginalized, and even gained in prestige, despite acrimonious criticism from the American government and from many Western media sources. Watching its sounds and images, day after day, has a powerful effect totally outside the framework of the conflict it's covering.

Al-Jazeera choreographs its Gaza coverage with a sophistication that goes well beyond the dramatic representation of violence. To watch the war on Al-Jazeera is to be captured in a new rendering of time, and to become part of an "imagined community" defined by it. The network uses a ticker-tape format, with a constant flow of text underneath the main image. To the left is a small box that counts the days of the war in red and white fonts. Thus, while watching the news, you're introduced to a new calendar, in which the beginning of the war is the beginning of time. The ticker tape at the bottom of the screen includes a running count of the human cost of the war, steadily tolling the number of wounded and dead.

The network's producers seem to have learned a lot from American reality television, where real footage is crafted and spliced into a compelling narrative with characters, personal conflict, and a dramatic arc. Each day, viewers here in Syria and across the Arab world tune into a new "episode." Each day, the war's narrative builds and folds back on itself, reinforcing the audience's familiarity with the cast of characters: Hamas, the scrappy rebel; Israel, the regional bully; the civilians of Gaza - and, in particular, the wounded children - caught in the middle of the conflict. The "international community" is a bloviating model of inefficacy, tied up in innumerable committees and summits. Through it all stride the Al-Jazeera correspondents, decked out in blue bulletproof vests.

Al-Jazeera often goes live to the correspondent in Gaza City right at the beginning of the daily three-hour cease-fire, when the Israeli army is supposed to put down its arms to allow the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza. During this shot, the correspondent inevitably "catches" live footage of the Israelis continuing to bomb well into the cease-fire period, and inevitably expresses surprise and dismay at what he is seeing, even though he is essentially replaying a scene he framed the same way the day before, and the day before that.

The staged suspense, the protestations of surprise - they smack of cynical theater. But it's hard to argue with the footage itself: There have been several independent reports of Israeli attacks and raids during the daily cease-fire. However they choose to frame it, Al-Jazeera correspondents are capturing events that other networks cannot. At that basic level, what they're doing is irreplaceable as journalism.

As perverse as it may sound, Al-Jazeera's coverage of the war satisfies, in the same way that a sitcom or serialized drama satisfies. It's not so much surprise that keeps bringing you back, but rather your familiarity with the characters' flaws and faults. And you know that your experience of the drama is not individual but rather collective. Walk into any cafe, grocery store, or dry cleaner in Damascus, and you are almost certain to find a TV tuned to Al-Jazeera's around-the-clock coverage of the war in Gaza. There is solidarity and also a certain comfort in watching the grim reality of war en masse.

It is impossible for me to imagine American viewers caring this much about a war they were not fighting themselves, especially one presented CNN-style, as an intermittent report of statistics, diplomacy, and military briefings. Al-Jazeera's critics would argue that the network has a lot to learn from the objectivity prized and upheld by well-regarded Western media outlets. But the American media has something to learn, too: Showing the actual violence of war is how you get the public to grasp the nature of war. Our networks' squeamishness about violence lets us keep human death and suffering at a distance, an abstract consequence of policy. If what you are worried about is individuals, then to look away from violence is not a neutral position.

The most compelling refrain of Al-Jazeera's Gaza coverage is not, however, its news reports, but rather a short montage titled "The War on Gaza," which the channel intersperses between news segments. The montage reassembles itself each day, incorporating new images and reorganizing old ones, oscillating between images of the war and images of international protests against the war.

The images change each day, but two appear every time. First, there is a young girl, face covered in blood, crying amid the smoke of a recent explosion. A phantom adult arm is carrying the girl from the scene. The adult body is cropped off, and all you see is the girl's face frozen in anguish and pain. The second recurring image is the one that closes each edition of the montage: Scenes of pro-Palestine street protests from around the world, ending in a close-up of a tall, defiant poster with the words, in English, "Stop the Holocaust in Gaza." The montage then fades to a red background, in which you can discern the image of a wounded child whose moribund eyes are turned skyward. The montage creates an impression, renewed every day, of mass outrage against the war, not only in the Arab world, but also in Europe. Yet here in Damascus, even the street demonstrations I've seen don't seem to carry the heat of people's mass absorption with the TV coverage of the war.

That word "Holocaust" on that poster (in Arabic, mihraqa) is also a provocation, and it's only part of the very deliberate lexicon used on Al-Jazeera to describe the Gaza War: "aggression" ('udwan), "occupation" (ihtilal), and "genocide" (ibada). If objectivity is your yardstick, the entire way the network's newscasters discuss the war disqualifies them as journalists. But this is also how my Syrian neighbors see American journalism, which lumps any number of Arabs and Islamists and political rebels together as "terrorists."

Here in Damascus the ethical stakes of this war of words are very real. Yesterday, I went down to a popular shopping district a few blocks south of my house to buy groceries. On the main commercial strip, I noticed that a number of the stores had put up anti-Israeli propaganda posters. Many of them featured a burning American flag with a Star of David and a swastika in the middle. On many thresholds, shop owners had painted the Israeli flag so that their customers could step on it. In one storefront, the owner had placed a poster that said: "Americans not welcome." Ironically, this shop owner is also the landlord of some of my best American friends in Damascus.

I can understand why many people strongly believe that Al-Jazeera itself contributes to these regional hatreds. But after months of watching the network intensely, I can honestly say that I've never heard their newscasters frame an argument or a story in anti-Semitic or anti-American terms. And Al-Jazeera hosts one of the most ecumenical news programs I have ever seen on TV, anywhere: A morning spot called the "Press Tour," which shows images of newspapers from the United States, Europe, the Arab world, and (notably) Israel, and translates excerpts of the most important articles. Since the start of the current Gaza conflict, Al-Jazeera has expanded its coverage of the Israeli press into an entire nightly segment in which a newscaster reviews the lead articles in the major Israeli newspapers, with readable images of the Hebrew text they are translating. Many of them openly support the war and condemn Hamas, and some of them even condemn Al-Jazeera's coverage of the war. To think about how remarkable this is, imagine an American news anchor simply reading article after article from newspapers in Tehran, or Mosul, or even Paris.

In a way, that's the paradox of Al-Jazeera's war journalism: It is flagrantly political, but accompanied by a real curiosity about other perspectives. It also makes me wish for something else: A TV network with the bravery to show the war imagery you can see on Al-Jazeera, but the integrity to do it in the service of peace, rather than the service of a side. Its violent imagery, however unpleasant, would be a strong stand for the individual against violence, and for human compassion against easily fanned hatreds.

Maybe then, the next time I go shopping for vegetables in my neighborhood in Damascus, I wouldn't see swastikas or burning American flags, but rather pictures of wounded civilians, both Israeli and Palestinian. Unfortunately, right now, the view from my living room doesn't look promising.

Eric Calderwood, a Harvard University PhD student living in Syria, researches Muslim-Christian relations in the medieval Mediterranean.

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next
At a recent lecture given by long time subversive artists Gilbert and George, there was a fantastic point made which highlighted the absurdity of institutionalised religion and the anomalous status it's given in today's society.

They said something along the lines of....

"Imagine if a biscuit company was able to sell itself the way the church does. The biscuit company would probably be able to do a lot better if it was able to offer eternal life (in addition to biscuits) as a reward for your money"

Now the idea also works in reverse.

Imagine if there was a company that didn't pay tax, had little or no oversight from the state legal system, was found to be fingering children- had tried to hide it- their leader and the leader's brother were both implicated and they still refused to open themselves up to public scrutiny.

You probably wouldn't buy their biscuits would you.

Find out about our Widget

Feedback

4 mar

The HomepageDAILY community likes to co-create both content and process. What are you thinking right now about what we do and how we do it? Tell us about the news, videos and stories and anything else you see on HPD. What you like, what you don't like, what you'd like to see in future. Recommend a website, video or article; send us pix, new stories - share it with us and by so doing you are giving us permission to share it with the world.

Leave Feedback here

*********************************

Why has homepage started running so many nameless 100 word eds? Names are good for intellectual continuity, honesty and non-hypocrisy. - Terry McGee

*********************************

Re: Bale de Rua

We thought the Bale de Rua was aweful. Choreography was terrible - set design, music and costumes were lacklustre. The dancers however were very athletic and graceful. - Jules

*********************************

Re: In Praise of Mediocrity

I just wonder who decides if what ever you chose to do in life, is mediocre or not. Sounds like with standards like yours, this article with its poor structure and soap box appeal may also be considered by many as, in-fact, mediocre. - Khedra

*********************************

Re: The Assassins of Langley

Yes, Mr. Neville. Odious, heinous assassins sold body and soul to Luciferian entities who pull the strings (the last of them, I want to believe) from the shadows. Philip Aggeee and John Stockwell portrayed them quite well. They are NOT heroes, nor are the gangbangers of East Los Angeles who spray grafitti in Iraq, where they most certainly train for urban warfare on our streets. Good riddance to them all!

*********************************

Re: Hairy Legs: A Study of Female Art, Feminism and Femininity

 Looking forward to more of her articles. Hope she does plenty of Art Theory at SCA. Barbara Kruger and Judy Chicago are certainly powerful artists and it would be interesting to see what they are doing now.

*********************************

A hero's welcome for the famous Iraqi shoe thrower

Terrorist! Please do your research first before writing such dangerous things, we was insulting Bush by throwing the shoe as he was disgraced with him, not trying to topple the largest super power in the world by throwing a shoe. I cant believe you have put those words up. Ashamed

*********************************

Re: How to Report the News

Having worked as a TV news reporter I found Charlie's piece very amusing - some of us have long believed reporting like this is a rubbish way to do things! But even if a journalist wants to tell stories in a more authentic and engaging way, the constraints of the so-called "house style" in many news organisations make it difficult to achieve. What's needed is a massive culture shift and a complete re-think of what we understand quality broadcast news reporting is. And guess what? That's exactly what's happening, though you'd never believe it from what we're still mostly seeing on TV. Anyway, the new digital technologies, and shake up of "old school/old mainstream" journalism means new platforms and styles of "news" storytelling can now emerge. Let's hope fresh and appropriate ways of funding appear too, so we can kill off this dreadful formulaic reporting and delivery, and clear the way for more natural and interesting ways to treat stories and content.

Much love, Ian Aspin.
www.twitter.com/ianaspin

*********************************

Re: Pushing 60 With Pot

You're pushing 60, well I'm pushing 70 and still having to scrounge around for my pot. It's tragic that when I first came to Australia it was $30 an ounce, and now I have to pay nearly $350 - Peter

 *********************************

Re: Textbook publishers dream of the tablet

Why can't this just be a program for PC and Windows? Why do they have to make us buy more hardware that's just going to disappoint? - Tyler J. Wilson

*********************************

Re: Killing Indian Students: Australia's Favourite New Sport!- by Sean Maguire

How about the indian guy who slashed his wife's throat, is still australia to blame for?..may be , for accenpting them to move over!I am an immigrant myself but I love this country, there is no perfect place on Earth but australia is one of the best! - Michael

*********************************
 
 
This entire fiasco is an incredible over reaction. Australia is an easy target. Why? because we are honest, transperant and we talk about our failings. Is there aggression and iolence in Australia? Sure, like any country. But we face it head on and we work to eliminate it. What about the stories of the 100’s of thousands of Indian workers who are treated as slaves in the middle east and nobody says anything? What about the fact that India still has entrenched pedophilia in terms of child brides? What about the crushing poverty embraced by more than 60% of the Indian people while this nation runs around building nuclear warheads? A storm in a teacup, an over reaction, and a diversion from some the really bad issues facing India. What is really happening here is that students are being unnecessarily frightened. meaning they will miss out on what could be the opportunity of their lifetime. - Daryl
 
*********************************
 
 
I couldn't agree with Sean Maguire's article more on the recent Indian attacks. For all those who like the pretend the attacks are merely based on coincidence, try to imagine how we would react if the boot were on the other foot and an uncharacteristic number of Australia's had been murdered in India. Would you push for a travel ban? Would you be scared for your children in a seemingly hostile environment so many miles away?  - Kara Jensen-Mackinnon

*********************************
 
12 sep
10 aug
More feedback...
© 2007-2008 homePageDAILY - All rights reserved * Terms of Use * Privacy Policy * Advertising Information * Media Kit * Contact Us