Dr Mohamed Kirat
News media are not presenting the truth, but they present what they want people to think of as truth. Framing is inventing reality. It is brainwashing since it does not give the public and the audience a room for thinking, rather, it does all the thinking for them and tells them how they should react and feel about happenings and events. People consciously agree with what is being presented to them because they are psychologically convinced that what they receive is accurate.
The framing technique is all about manipulating facts to make them support certain ideologies and certain set of objectives to maintain the status quo and serve the establishment. This is social constructivism which is the construction of ideologies and belief systems and this is how the news media’s major purpose is usually achieved through the process of framing news.
People are constantly exposed to media that is full of biases due to framing techniques. Entman argues: “Although the schemas and interpretations within the individuals’ minds arise from prior beliefs and interpersonal communication as well as from the media’s words and images, there is no escape from framing”. Framing is frequently used in times of conflicts, crises and wars. The news media and because of the stakes and challenges at play have to secure their loyalty to the system by shaping a public opinion favourable to what the government sees and views as right.
The news media constructs a reality that justifies all the decisions made by the decision makers. On the events of 9/11, the news media emphasised that America was a victim and it had to fight terrorism. Monahan asserts “several studies found that the initial mainstream media coverage, principally television, evoked a dominant frame that advanced the twin notions of American victimisation and the need for a militaristic hunt for justice”.
Politics plays a major role in the media industry which plays a determining role in fabricating news through framing and representation that serve the ideological, political and economic objectives of the ruling power. Framing strategies are used by news media to serve the status-quo and the power elite by shaping public opinion through agenda setting and deciding what gets in the news and how it is presented and which aspects of it are highlighted. Framing is a psychological process which does not impose different ideas on people, yet it makes them unconsciously believe and accept what it presents to them as reality.
The failure of mass communication theory to explain the practices of news organisations can be noticed during the coverage of wars and crises. Unlike normal circumstances, the coverage of wars and crises faces a number of stakes and challenges making the media part of the war itself.
During war, principles such as freedom of the press and impartiality are not respected and the journalism practice is completely different than in normal times. Very often, the news organisation sides with the position of its country during wars. Scholars who have studied press-government relationships have arguably failed to develop criteria and standards that explain the behaviour and practices of media organisations and journalists during wars. Yet it can be asserted that there are no differences in media behaviour during war and crises among different media and political systems. Dictatorships, democracies, developed and developing countries all become similar in using the media, public relations, psychological warfare, propaganda, manipulation, framing, and distortion as an integral part of the war itself.
As expected, the United States began preparations for its war against Iraq long ago and further escalated its preparations after the events of 9/11 and its declaration of war on terrorism. Its accusations to Iraq ranged from maintaining relations with
Al Qaeda, having ties with Osama bin Laden, possessing weapons of mass destruction, even though United Nations inspection teams operating in Iraq for more than a decade failed to prove this allegation. The US media were not willing to play their watchdog role and failed to question and investigate the war allegations of American officials.
America justified its war on Iraq by claiming to spread democracy in this country and rid it of the “dictator” Saddam Hussein, and thus liberating the Iraqi people from this tyrant. To control, manipulate and reach social consent, more than 9,000 media practitioners work for various American government departments, with more than 1,500 media and public relations practitioners for the Pentagon alone. It can be concluded that in times of wars and crises alliances occur — whether hidden or apparent — between media and power, thus suggesting a search for an alternative to classical communication theories. The alternative that will explain the behaviour and practices of the media during wars, conflicts and crises come under the name of “Government Press Coalition Theory”. Regardless of the owner of the news organisation, and regardless of the political, economic and level of democracy and freedom in society, the media institution is entirely in line with the government in times of wars, conflicts and crises. Regardless, whether they are in Western democratic countries, or developing nations; dictatorships or authoritarian regimes, news organisations surrender completely to the ideology of the government in the process of manufacturing, gathering and disseminating the news, in order to fabricate, condition, and shape local and international public opinion in accordance with the interests and objectives of those who rule and govern.
Unfortunately, this is what’s happening while people around the globe need an accountable and responsible press that provides them with truth, but only the truth that helps enlighten their minds and opinions.
The writer is a Professor of Public
Relations and Mass Communication.
