Greeting me this morning on CNN was a photo montage of the
conflict in Syria.
Here are the highlights:
Headline: Showdown in Syria
CAPTION: Free Syrian Army fighters enter a Syrian army base during
heavy fighting in the Arabeen neighborhood of Damascus on Sunday, February 3.
Image #2
CAPTION: Aleppo residents pulled at least 80 bodies from the nearby
Queiq River on Tuesday, January 29. Opposition activists blame the regime
forces for the killings. Video and photos show rows of bodies with head wounds
and bound hands, some of which show signs of torture, witnesses say.
Image #3
CAPTION: Rebels place weapons in the back of a truck as they prepare
to engage the Syrian regime forces in the village of Kurnaz on January 27. More
than a dozen rebel fighters took up defensive positions in Kurnaz with light
weapons against Syrian army tanks sending shells toward the village.
Blatant Propoganda
Let’s approach this presentation as though we know nothing
about the conflict in Syria. If this
photo montage was our first introduction to the situation, what conclusions might
we arrive at (assuming we take the provided information at face value)?
First, there is the headline: “Showdown in Syria”. Directly out of the gate the subject matter
is treated like a poster advertising a new Hollywood action film. This violent conflict has already cost more
than 60,000 people their lives. The word
“showdown” psychologically shrinks the perceived scope of this increasingly
destructive war. It also suggests that
the photos we are seeing are part of a “decisive” battle. Showdown is defined as “a conclusive
settlement of an issue, difference, etc., in which all resources, power, or the
like, are used”. So the use of the word
in the headline is informing us that this conflict is nearly over, which may be
completely contrary to the reality of the situation.
Image #1
This is the first photograph in the presentation. The standout component is the first word of
the photo’s caption: Free. “Free Syrian
Army fighters” is a carefully crafted phrase leaving zero room for
interpretation. These are the “free”
soldiers, and they are fighting on behalf of their country to win freedom for
all. “Free Syrian Army” is the name
chosen by the rebel forces in Syria. The
use of the word “free” to describe the fighters does not suggest to the reader
who the “good guys” are, it tells the reader point blank: These people are
fighting for freedom and you are on their
side.
Image #2
The only visual representation of death is offered in this
photo of corpses already in body bags.
We are told in the caption that “Opposition activists blame the regime
for the killings”. We are also told that
there are “signs of torture”. Take note
that none of the information is offered as factual, and all of it comes from “opposition
activists” without an attempt to verify the information or present a
response from the government. Compare “opposition
activists” to “regime”. Again, there can
be no mistaking the default “good guys” in this scenario. The hero of every story stands in “opposition”
to evil. Evil does not “oppose”
goodness, it violently attacks it. “Activists”
are typically underdogs fighting the corruption/evil of a much larger
entity. The word “regime” is also loaded. Any government referred to as a “regime” is
to be considered fascist, genocidal, and beyond redemption. An American would never call their government
a regime unless they intended a controversial accusation. So we have “activists” standing in “opposition”
to a “regime”. The clarity of the
message is absolute.
Image #3
I could not help feeling as though the conflict was being
presented as a video game. There is a
strong overtone of gun-toting machismo and an alarming lack of focus on the
horrific reality of a civil war, a conflict in which neighbors are killing
neighbors.
A recent video game, Far Cry 3, places the protagonist on a
lush jungle island overrun by pirates.
You join with the local rebel forces to win back the freedom of your
kidnapped friends. It is the overall “tone”
of the video game that creates an association with this “news” presentation of
the Syrian conflict. The portrayal of
the Free Syrian Army is that of men (and boys) almost relishing their role as
rebels fighting the regime. It becomes
difficult to know which inspires which; are video games reflecting the real world
or is the real world being presented to us as though it were a video game? I believe the latter is true. The conflict is being simplified for mass
consumption the same way violence in a video game is (typically) treated with
ethical ambiguity: It’s OK, you are killing “bad guys”.
There is a bloody civil war taking place in Syria. In a civil war, friends find themselves
enemies and brothers kill each other.
This conflict is not a political game of media spin. People in the tens of thousands are being
torn apart by bullets and bombs. This is
not a “showdown”. These are real lives
being destroyed while the United States massages media propaganda and plans the
future exploitation of the next era of Syrian government.
The current Syrian government may very well be “evil” to the
core. The Free Syrian Army may very well
be fighting for their people’s freedom against a fascist regime. But let me ask you this: If another civil war occurs in America, which
side will be labeled the “Freedom Fighters” and which side will be condemned as
the “Evil Regime”? Imagine the reality
of Americans killing Americans in the tens of thousands. Who will be the “good guys” then? What picture will the media paint for us when
it’s our civil war? War is almost entirely made up of ethical gray
area. Black and white truths are
impossible when human beings are willing to kill each other to achieve their
goals. Why then is the civil war in
Syria being presented to us like a “good guy vs. bad guy” video game?
Conclusion
How long are we going to allow our media infrastructure to get
away with such blatant propaganda? This
is not news. This is advertising and the
market is war. When can I buy my “Showdown
in Syria” T-shirt? This is a mockery of
the agony inherent in ANY civil war, wherever it may take place.
If the conflict in Syria were so easy to frame, if it really
were a matter of freedom fighters against a purely evil regime, why doesn’t the
United Nations commit the resources to decisively end the conflict? Why allow such violence to continue? If the world agrees by consensus who the “good
guys” are and they also agree that they should ultimately be victorious… what’s
the hold up? What is all this military
power for if not to help the righteous good guys kick the evil regime’s
ass? According to this photo
presentation, the Syrian conflict is a slam dunk case of “Good vs. Evil”. So why haven’t the world superpowers simply
applied the necessary force to remove the evil regime? Why watch from the sidelines offering the
bare minimum of support, ensuring a high death toll and prolonged suffering?
What is this sad game being played with human lives?
Where are we headed when something as disgraceful,
polarizing and horrifying as a civil war can be presented like a video game “showdown”
between good and evil?
To view the full photo
presentation on CNN: CLICK HERE
NOTE: CNN often
changes its headlines. As of the time of
this writing, the headline to this photo presentation was “Showdown in Syria”,
which may change to something else over time.
No comments:
Post a Comment