al salamu `alaykum,
THE MEDIA never ceases to be a problem. No matter how you cut it they’re always spewing their propaganda and their agenda constantly and consistently. In fact, they’re so effective that many in our own community start to believe their lies and manipulation.
One the hottest spots of media attention is Iraq and the ongoing occupation. The area is in such chaos with killings and bombings happening left and right that one can’t help but see a dismal situation. Maybe the biggest push by the media on Iraq is the “Sunni, Shi`a divide.” As this article in the Washington Post thoroughly articulates, this is a concept that was brought in and imposed on Iraq with the U.S invasion. The U.S uses this tactic to weaken the enemy and subjugate the people to useless and unfounded quarrels, causing them to help the U.S permeate into society. This is just the same as the U.S has done in minority populations within the U.S. They’ve introduced differences that have not historically existed (such as the Bloods and Crips in the African American community) to cause internal fighting, rendering them ineffective. [Correction: In this case, however, rather than use the media the government has used drugs, alcohol, spies and popular culture to riddle the black community, which was on the forefront of activism in the 60s, with gangs, violence and superficial differences.]
But even with these efforts the U.S is still failing and falling short in their goals. The U.S has created a situation of strife and grief that is compounded by their futile efforts.
Only when the U.S stops imposing on people and allows the people to decide on their own government and system of self-rule, will the region come to peace.
make du`a’ for the oppressed and all Muslims world wide.
jazakum Allahu khayran
10 comments
Comments feed for this article
2007 May.20 at 4:08 pm
uPgRaD3 Z3R0 0n3 A
Ron Paul is a presidential candidate the U.S who would largely agree with you, but he unfortunately has no chance of winning.
We libertarians believe in a foreign policy based on The Golden Rule. With true free trade and true free markets (not the fake NATO and WTO trade agreements which gives certain corporations advantages over the rest of us).
New federal agencies create more federal employees. Federal employees tend to vote for congress members who are in favor of creating, maintaining, and growing new agencies. The classic snowball effect is thus triggered.
Federal employees represent a huge voting block in the U.S – including the military
The Military Industrial Complex has a vested interest in continuing with the foreign policy of the last 50 years. They lobby heavily in Congress.
WW II was the last war where Congress actually declared war as is mandated in The United States Constitution. U.S foreign policy has steadily gotten worse ever since. The U.S. government made foolish deals with the Soviets and handed over Eastern Europe leading to millions more deaths including the death of many more soviet Jews (ironic). More people died during the cold war than in all of WW II. The Executive branch has gained too much power and Congress has simply rolled over and gave up its power. The balance is now broken, and U.S. is in trouble.
Even if it were true that there are 10s of thousands of terrorists in this world, they are still a tiny minority of the world’s population. We should not allow our government to occupy countries just to catch a few of them.
Please consider the following analogy:
If a bank robber came from Germany to NYC, robbed a bank, killed 100 people, then fled to England – should we follow the example of our current administration and occupy France so we can capture and kill the world’s bank robbers? We can lure them into France and “fight them on their own territory”. We could kill anyone who happens to be in the same buildings or city block as any potential bank robber might be located. We could take over Paris and force France to elect a neo-conservative Christian.
Bin Laden is most probably hiding out in Pakistan and he is from Saudi Arabia. It makes no sense to be killing so many innocent people in Iraq. It is bad policy even if we take an immoral and selfish point-of-view.
Even if the Real Reason we are in Iraq is for the oil, the policy is flawed. The amount of oil used to keep the Military Industrial Complex going is a lot more expensive than simply offering anoter 30 cents or $1 a barrel over our competition (China, Germany, France, India – current and future competition).
If we would stop subsidizing oil wars and allow the market to dictate the price of oil/barrel, the alternative greener energy sources will become more economical much sooner.
True free trade with true open markets will lead to more capitalist democracies. U.S. intervention in North Korea, Viet Nam and Cuba led to communism there.
Intervention in Iraq and the Middle East hurt the majority of Americans, because now we have helped fuel the increase in Terrorism and damaged trade between U.S. private companies and Middle Eastern countries.
2007 May.20 at 4:23 pm
uPgRaD3 Z3R0 0n3 A
I think it is more the Government schools and the War on Drugs fueling the other issues you bring up though. So I do not completely agree with you on all that you say. At some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions. You cannot blame gangs on media propaganda alone. I doubt that many gang members bother reading newspapers or watching Fox news, for example – they usually are listening to Rap and other pop music when I see them on the train. Pop music is driven more by supply and demand (and so it the news).
Religion itself is not helping either. Teaching people that the Earth is 10,000 years old and that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky and “our” version of this myth is somehow superior to “your” version. People on both sides are killing with “God on their side”.
People reject science, yet will continue use the technology to fly in airplanes, take antibiotics, and search for more oil. I doubt that very many in the oil business consult the Bible or the Koran when looking for oil.
2007 May.20 at 4:37 pm
crackrjack
If the stories were written based on facts by people dedicated to making sure we are told the truth then we would have a true free press.
unfortunatley the press is owned by people with wealth and power. I assume the agenda for someone with that much power is to do what ever it takes to protect themselves from losing what they have.
To that end I speculate that what ever the media puts forth for our view is what they think makes them more profits. Which makes me wonder what agenda the media has for creating a story. Which makes the media an untrustworthy source of information.
But hey, thats just me
2007 May.20 at 11:16 pm
uPgRaD3 Z3R0 0n3 A
You are right that we do not have a true free press, but not exactly for the reasons you give, although you have some valid points and make some excellent observations.
The reason we do not have a true free press is that we do not have a true free market. We have regulators interfering with the press as we do with most other markets. Ultimately, free press and freedom of speech rely on property rights. Somebody or some group must own the printing press and decide what gets printed. If there is no owner, then the printing press will necessarily be controlled by an authoritarian agent with its own agenda/beliefs/etc.
Government is the main force today that is blocking competition in the United States and elsewhere (long ago it was the Church in the West). In spite of this, most of the big press and media are publicly traded in the stock market. Anyone can buy the stocks. There are in fact many thousand upon thousand of owners each voting with their dollar daily and even hourly. It is the more authoritarian countries that most effectively control the press (e.g. strong socialist, fascist, communist, and theocratic) where you should place you biggest worries. Perhaps here, in the United States you can help by advocating for the removal of government regulation and vote for candidates with more libertarian ideals.
Profits are based on supply and demand, which is ultimately controlled by the consumer. If the consumer is stupid and enjoys listening to falsehoods, perpetuated by religions, political ideologies, and marketeers, then that is not the fault of the major media. The media is just giving people what they want.
For example, on one channel we have Fox with it right-winged talking head, on another channel Fox present The very liberally minded Simpson’s cartoon. In the grocery store we can read headlines about Alien Abductions, while on still another TV channel, I can listen to Richard Dawkins’ talk at a university on his latest book.
There will always be competing points-of-view on every subject under the sun. Scientific methodology has come a long way in coming up with ways of filtering out falsehoods and bad hypothesis within its own realm (which is growing exponentially), but the political realm and the realm of the human mind is very complex. There are similar methods that may be employed to validate or falsify a given news story. Unfortunately, most or all people will count on their personal world view to at least some degree instead. If a story does not mesh well with their personal beliefs, then it must be false.
Now we have new media, such as blogs, Youtube, and Wikis. Everybody gets to make their opinion heard to some degree. Hopefully this will act somewhat as a counter-balance to the popular media. it is not perfect, but in some ways it can act as a competitor to the media in much the same way competitive ideas are put forth in the scientific arena – some theories get falsified, some get refined, and others debunked.
In the end, it should be up to the consumer to decide what products they choose to consume and which to reject. I doubt that there are any two people on the planet that agree on everything.
But hey, that’s just me
2007 May.21 at 12:44 am
Shaheen
I agree with the author.
Actually divide and Rule is a very old phenomenon. US have planned to divide Iraq into three states Shi’a State Sunni state and a Kurd state. Which revealed in a new map presented by a think-tank few months ago.
What is happening in Iraq everyday killings and murders between Shi’a Sunniis not just a Shi’a Sunni conflict, its rather a conspiracy made by US and allies to get easy way to control…yet it is getting uncontrollable.
And Allah willing, US will not gonna succeed in Iraq. It will become hell for them.
2007 May.21 at 12:22 pm
crackrjack
Well, the U.S. has already failed in Iraq. We all I know this to be true. But the hell isn’t being lived by the American people it’s being lived by the Iraqi people.
We all know who is to blame for the war going so badly and we can all agree we should get out as fast as possible.
What we need is for someone or a group of nations to say enough. Fix what needs to be fixed and let the Iraqis have their country back. Time to stop the blame and fix what is broken.
But hey, that’s just me
2007 May.23 at 10:40 am
uPgRaD3 Z3R0 0n3 A
I compeletely agree with crackrjack’s comments above.
The U.S. elections are coming up soon, but who is most likely to get the nomination? Given that none of the leading candidates support this position, what else can be done?
In other words, what is the best strategy to push a canditate in that direction? I have already pointed out that Ron Paul is the only candidate with this position, but he has essentially 0% chance of becoming the nominee since his party is controlled by the neoconservatives.
A similar situation exists with the Democrats. The leading candidates do not favor this stategy, but perhaps can be more easily swayed in that direction.
If Congress, would not roll over belly up and give up their constitutional duty to require a declaration of war, we would not be in this position. Unfortunately, they have not done so for over 50 years now. The executive branch now has way too much power and has lead to foreign policy which pushed us into Korea, Viet Nam and now Iraq – all failures.
On this one foreign policy issue (at least), take a look at which party was in control for each of these wars and you will see little difference between the Republican and Democratic party.
2007 May.26 at 11:01 am
Tasbeeh
I agree with you on the point that the media is biased at times, however, instead of sitting at home and complainging, or studying for a law degree your parents wanted, why don’t WE pursue careers in the media and start making the changes ourselves?
2007 Jun.12 at 12:41 am
Zahra Billoo
Eeek for the law degree mention.
There is value to be found in all career paths. Some people are just meant to be doctors and engineers. Others are meant to be lawyers. And still others are meant to be journalists.
We should pursue careers in fields we will succeed in and then determine how we can capitalize on that assessment, for the sake of the greater good.
2007 Aug.01 at 7:43 pm
Tasbeeh
Zahra: I didn’t mean it that way! I meant that some of us more inclined to pursue a career in law or medicine simply because our parents want us to. You’re right- there IS value found in all careers.
Sorry if I offended- I really didn’t mean it that way! I just think it’s important that people realize that careers in the media are open to them- and they are just as respectable as a career in medicine or law. I feel- from personal experience- that people look down on jounralists simply because they don’t pay as much.
In regards to this post- sometimes I feel like Muslims- and others- just like to complain about The Media but never try to do anything about it. All you hear is people balming the media for every stereotype and every Rarely- if ever- do you see a Muslim writing a letter to the editor. It frustrates me that everyone seems so eager to critisize “the Media” and so hesitant to take any action.
I’m just as frustrated as anyone about the media’s bias and right-wing tendencies- I just feel like there’s more we can do than just be frustrated.
I apologize again if i offended you- I did it unknowingly. Sometimes what I say comes out differently from what i actually intend.