How The Media Affects The Images of Minority Groups

Despite an increasing emphasis on media ethics there are many who remain skeptical about the very notion. There is a presumption that the media ought to be ethical in its professional conduct, thus concentrating on journalistic codes, guidelines, and ideals of media responsibility.

To some the very idea of media ethics appears paradoxical: the phrase itself an oxymoron. How could journalists possibly hope to get at stories that matter if they have to be completely honest in their investigations or respect the feelings, wishes and privacy of the subjects of their reports?

It is expected that news journalism must aspire to the goal of truth, and in such a way that what is reported is set in context and promotes the audience's understanding of why the event is significant. It is this ideal that is the very foundation of the news media as the fourth estate. The aim of this implicit contract between the public and the news media is to share knowledge and understanding of current events and developments in the world around us. Hence the news media's duty is to provide true, unbiased reports that enable the public to get a speedy but informed grasp on happenings to people and institutions which not only directly affect our society but are of social, cultural, or human interest.

Patriotism, personal beliefs and ideologies all contribute to a journalist's bias in the media. Forms of bias may include political or corporate, as well as bias related to race, age, sex, religion or culture (Sanders 2003).

Bias can also assume a more obscure form, such as a journalist's failing to disclose conflicts of interest which could possibly affect the accuracy, fairness or independence of journalism (Warren 1999).

Bias in the media often goes hand in hand with sensationalism, as in the case of September 11, 2001, in which 3030 people died in one day of terrorist attacks. The North American media response to 11 September was sensational and emotional, with persistent calls for the use of military force to bring about 'justice'. In lieu of the absence of an enemy state, or opposing military force, such calls were nothing short of highly repetitive warmongering. The media 'drum-beating' saw the adoption of bellicose and jingoistic banners across television screens and in newspaper headlines across North America. "Attack on America," "America Fights Back," "America's New War," as well as the use of U.S. military operational codenames such as "Operation Infinite Justice," reminiscent of media coverage of the 1991 Gulf War and "Operation Desert Storm" (Ismael and Measor 2003).

In response to the attacks, much of the focus of Canadian media coverage quickly turned from the attacks themselves to an examination of the alleged perpetrators and, by association, the actions and beliefs of immigrants and minorities within Canadian society.

While the media called for targeting of Muslim and Arab people for security purposes, long-standing commitments to civil liberties enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were ignored (Ismael and Measor 2003).

Within the context of criticism of government policy, the media singled out Arab and Muslim Canadians as being different. The lack of context and the racist notions rampant in the media supplied those baying for blood with abundant ammunition. The media consistently portrayed war as the solution to the crisis, regularly confusing justice and vengeance, and portrayed a threat to society out of all proportion with events following 11 September.

Canadians were led to believe further attacks were imminent, would be of increasing intensity, and that they would be targeted as Westerners (Ismael and Measor 2003).

The coverage of Israel, its policies in the Occupied Territories and its military operations have been touchy matters since the founding of the Jewish state. The events of 11 September provided an opportunity for the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon to portray the Palestinian intifada as the equal of the attacks on New York and Washington.

With the United States aggressively pursuing Islamic militants across the globe via military means, Israel set out to portray itself as facing a comparable adversary to justify similar retaliation. Media coverage in Canada was ebullient in its attempts to depict Israel in such a fashion. Israeli victims were portrayed in a manner evoking empathy, while mention of the misery and sufferings of the Palestinian people were perfunctory at best (Dunsky 2001).

Palestinians, many living in squalid refugee camps, have been forced to endure an endless occupation now entering its thirty-seventh year. The daily humiliation of military checkpoints, arrest without charge, curfews and household searches have ruined an already ailing Palestinian economy, and had devastating consequences on an entire society. Instead of focusing on the human toll of increasing levels of hostility, North American media chose to concentrate on the use of terror by Arab and Islamic political organizations. Racism prevailed at a time when diverse perspectives were most required.

The xenophobic fears of the "other" provided media consumers in North America with a clear path to the conclusion that Islam is a faith in which acts of unspeakable violence are acceptable and that terrorism is rife in Muslim and Arab culture.

That the "Islamic world" was now collectively engaged in a war against Western interests and values was an assumption woven throughout the coverage. This was evident as political groupings as diverse as Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbollah and the governments of Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Sudan and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia-which as longstanding U.S. strategic allies had previously been immune from criticism--were presented as being equally capable of terrorism against the West (Dunsky 2001).

A Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland collected and analysed data in 2003 to see if there were correlations between people's beliefs and their main news sources. And it found some: Those who said they watched the Fox News Channel "very closely" were more likely to say evidence of WMD had been found or that people in the world favor the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq than those who watched Fox "not very closely" or "not closely at all." For CNN, the opposite was true-those watching the network very closely were less apt to have these misperceptions. There was little difference among the attention levels of NBC, ABC or CBS viewers (Robertson 2003).

In summing up, the coverage following 11 September fell a long way short of meeting the standards of a democratic society and ensuring the public interest. It was heavily biased and lacked the level of diversity, inclusion and openness to alternative voices required. In doing so, North American media (and many Western media) ignored the reality that territorial ambitions, ethnic differences, and political machinations drive conflicts as much in the Middle East as elsewhere.

Through the actions of a minority, the media depicted the Islamic people and the Middle East in a manner non-consistent with standards applied to other regions, topics, and peoples. For the American people, many who have a limited understanding of Arab or Muslim cultures, the power of the media provided a biased, misaligned education and instilled excessive fear in the hearts of its citizens.