With all the unrest happening in the Middle East, I have been reading many news articles. What consistently strikes me is the disconnect between the press and the official view of their government. For example, the New York Times has an article about Netanyahu coming to the US soon where he will outline his policies. In the article it says that Netanyahu will not negotiate with the Palestinians when Hamas is included in the government (and does so in a way that makes him seem obstinate). But this is not news, especially as the U.S. goverment also considers Hamas to be a terrorist group. So if the American government treats them as terrorists, then why does the Times have to report this as news, or treat Hamas as if it is only a terrorist group according to the US government. What I am trying to say is that while newspapers should definitely question their government, shouldn't there be some overlap between the press and their government in terms of foreign policy?
If not, then why?
Monday, May 16, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Is the media blowing US-Pakistan relations out of proportion?
In the uproar surrounding Osama bin Laden's death, I have been noticing a lot of media reports proclaiming that the US and Pakistan are experiencing a crisis in their relations and are drifting away from one another.
One Reuters report, that I read in JPost, announces about the raid itself that "The CIA ruled out working with Pakistan on the raid because 'it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission: They might alert the targets,' Panetta said." Leon Panetta is the chief of the CIA.
Another article, this one in Time Magazine, has a headline of :
"American officials stopped well short of accusing Pakistan of sheltering Bin Laden, but they strongly indicated that they would want answers about the extent of the network in Pakistan that allowed Bin Laden to live and hide in apparent comfort for so long. "
All in all, the media paints Pakistan as an untrustworthy ally..but my question is, how much of this is speculation and how much is fact?
I think that when it comes to international relations, media speculation does not help anyone. We do not know what is happening behind closed doors. By the media announcing theories as facts, they are providing a disservice to citizens. Maybe Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, maybe not. But for the media, which needs attention grabbing headlines to generate business, speculation is an easy way to grab readers and reminds us that one should always try to look at the media's stories with a grain of salt
One Reuters report, that I read in JPost, announces about the raid itself that "The CIA ruled out working with Pakistan on the raid because 'it was decided that any effort to work with the Pakistanis could jeopardize the mission: They might alert the targets,' Panetta said." Leon Panetta is the chief of the CIA.
Another article, this one in Time Magazine, has a headline of :
Finding Bin Laden Raises Questions About Pakistan's Complicity
The New York Times has an article where American officials are quoted as saying:"American officials stopped well short of accusing Pakistan of sheltering Bin Laden, but they strongly indicated that they would want answers about the extent of the network in Pakistan that allowed Bin Laden to live and hide in apparent comfort for so long. "
All in all, the media paints Pakistan as an untrustworthy ally..but my question is, how much of this is speculation and how much is fact?
I think that when it comes to international relations, media speculation does not help anyone. We do not know what is happening behind closed doors. By the media announcing theories as facts, they are providing a disservice to citizens. Maybe Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, maybe not. But for the media, which needs attention grabbing headlines to generate business, speculation is an easy way to grab readers and reminds us that one should always try to look at the media's stories with a grain of salt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)