Lula backs Iran's nuclear programme

Title: Lula backs Iran's nuclear programme
Author: Al Jazeera and agencies
Date: Tuesday, November 24th, 2009
Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/20091123202823289828.html

For my concluding entry I decided to turn to Al Jazeera English to examine the Iran nuclear sites issue. I had a prior feeling that Al Jazeera, the only independent news network in the Middle East, would try and take a look at this issue from a different angle (as opposed to Western views) due to its ongoing reputation, especially in the wake of 9/11, to present dissenting views. The content of this internet news article and subsequent news video clip proved my hypothesis to be correct. This was one of the very few news articles I found during the semester that examined how Iran does have nations (and a quite powerful one – Brazil) who supports its nuclear ambitions, as opposed to the six world powers who strictly oppose its program. Previous articles(BBC, CNN, Fox News) only focused their attention at how Iran was defiant and non-compliant with the requests of the world powers; nothing of Iran’s supporters was mentioned. Sardar and Van Loon would explain this by citing that cultural imperialism promotes a dominant set of cultural practices and values. Thus, the views of the West dominate the world media and depict Iran as evil.

Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, who backs Tehran’s highly controversial nuclear programme said that "It's important that someone sits down with Iran, talks with Iran and tries to establish some balance so that the Middle East can return to a certain sense of normalcy." Up until now it appears as if world powers have isolated Iran and forced it to comply with their rules instead of seeking ways to push for peace and stability in the Middle East. The Brazilian president uses more conversational language to discuss the issue, "I told President [Barack] Obama, I told President [Nicolas] Sarkozy, I told [German] Chancellor Angela Merkel that we will not get good things out of Iran if we corner them. You need to create space to talk," he said last month. Of course, Al Jazeera also maintains its objectivity/journalistic integrity through the invocation of the ‘common ground’ and the coexistence of the ‘opposite opinion.’ (PowerPoint notes) Thus, it takes careful consideration to represent the views of the Brazilian opposition politicians in regards to this highly controversial matter.

Matheson and Chomsky analyze how linguistics and semiotics work to shape rhetoric. They would thus argue that the rhetorical use of diction, grammar and tone in this article work to neutralize the issue and like the Brazilian president mentioned, “create space to talk” (i.e. the article is presented as being just and balanced on this issue). Evidence for this? For one, this is the only article out of the five that uses direct quotes from Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Chomsky would also say that this news source is one of the more least likely ones to feel pressure from the five filters of The Propaganda Model. Meanwhile, Barthes would argue that the image accompanying the news story carries an ideological connotation; protests in Brazil, despite the support of their own president, show the growing fear of people in regards to nuclear Iran.

International Dilemma

Video: http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html
Title: International Dilemma
Date: October 29, 2009

After watching the documentary, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War On Journalism I decided to turn to the arguably far-right republican Fox News outlet for my next analysis of the Iran nuclear issue.

I logged onto their site and went to the video section to find a story. Under the “News” and subsequent “World” tabs the only relevant Iran story that I found was from this late-night/early morning talk show Red Eye that prides itself on being outrageous and outspoken. Oddly enough, is that not how most people describe Fox News itself? This show is in fact a blending of the comedy, satire and news parody genre like the highly-popular news satire The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
However, they are only similar in format not effectiveness since The Daily Show uses the “unsaid to function as truth” while Red Eye is untruthful in its comedic approach or “uses the said to function as a lie”. Megan Boler says that The Daily Show “puts real words into displaced contexts in a way that reveals the constructed-ness of the real and thereby creates an unsaid, shared commentary about the experience of feeling deceived by the media.” Alternatively, Red Eye does not function in the same manner but only attempts to present the issue in a very entertaining and sensationalist way without making much of a truth statement in regards to the issue at hand or the broader idea of the demand “for media accountability to standards of civic discourse seen as central to democracy” (Boler 147). This then bids the question that if this program is not meant to be taken very seriously, why would the Fox website deliberately place this video in the reliable news section? Noam Chomsky would say that Fox News believes that its audience is too stupid to be able to understand things and thereby, this news channel that acts as a specialized class deduces the status of the masses as spectators or bewildered herd. If, like the first filter dictates, the media is oriented around profit, then Fox’s way of gaining the attention of this bewildered herd is by drawing them in using entertainment. On the other hand, other news sources previously analyzed like the BBC use their superior status and credibility as trustworthy disseminators of the news to turn a profit.

Let us examine. The news anchor, Greg Gutfeld, seems like he belongs more on an entertainment news channel than on a serious news network. But then again, Fox has a reputation for its scandalous over-the-top reporting and perhaps that is their primary tactic to draw in the ratings. What makes the news story appear more legit is the fact that they bring in former US ambassador to the United Nations and Fox News contributor American conservative John Bolton. The bias is inherent when the anchor states “Obama is quietly preparing for a nuclear Iran” and then goes on to bid the question if “Does that mean we have just given up hope from stopping them from getting the bomb?” Thus, he deduces such a complex issue to an even simpler conclusion. Throughout the segment the anchor continuously makes seemingly inappropriate remarks that make it seem that he is takes the solemn issue very lightheartedly. (e.g his clenching or unclenching the fist comments). He even makes a joke of how hard it is to use Uranium for nuclear purposes (e.g countries that don’t have indoor plumbing have a nuclear bomb). They also go so far as to ridicule Obama by saying, “I mean it’s a bit difficult having won the Nobel peace prize actually to do anything that might advance American interest. I think that’s going to come back to haunt him especially in respect to Iran.”

To reiterate from the last posts for the sake of comparison, Matheson and Chomsky analyze how linguistics and semiotics work to shape rhetoric. They would thus argue that the rhetorical use of diction, grammar and tone sensationalizes the events in this article to evoke a particular reaction from the reader. Matheson argues in his Discourse Analytic Perspective that a close analysis of the discourse used in a particular headline creates meaning that is not directly transparent. If we deconstruct the meaning of the title into its linguistic formula (word choice, grammar) and the preconceived notions of the media consumer, we begin to understand the particular social reality that is being reinforced. The intended reaction from the title “International Dilemma” suggests once again that Iran is labeled (Matheson) as the villain or central problem and that this is an international issue that the majority of nations side with the US on. Again like the previous posts, this is a faulty generalization because it is not certain that all nations take this stance.

Taking Fox’s reputation into consideration there is no reason to doubt that they actually stand behind their commentary even though they are presented in a comical context. Perhaps, this is Fox’s way of presenting its viewpoints (i.e. in a humorous way) without any serious repercussions from other news agencies that accuse them of overwhelming bias and being anti-democratic. They can always use the excuse, “we were only kidding.”