Media Criticism

The title to this post may sound stuffy but it is the most succinct way to state my position. I have been advocating the idea of partitioning areas based on historically-verifiable claims since I was a graduate student nearly five years ago. This idea has grown anew in my mind after reading an article by Professor Jerry Muller from Catholic University of America in this month’s Foreign Affairs.

The article is entitled “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism�? and discusses the vices and virtues of dealing with ethnic claims to nationhood. Muller speaks to the issue of partitioning based on ethnic nationalist claims in his closing remarks by stating that “…it inevitably creates new flows of refugees but at least it deals with the problem at issue. The challenge for the international community in such cases is to separate communities in the most humane manner possible: by aiding in transport, assuring citizenship rights in the new homeland and providing financial aid for resettlement and economic absorption.�?

Muller is accurate in depicting the political hot potato that is changing preestablished national boundaries. Partition has acquired an ugly taste in the mouths of foreign policy experts who use the word most commonly in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know the challenges that would face leaders throughout the world if they mentioned partitioning counties, departments and other political units within their constituency. The difficulty in verifying claims to geographical areas as historical homelands is not lost in my analysis. The reason that partition is the most palatable option for global peace and security is the crumbling nature of artificial political boundaries.

Every line drawn on a global map today is fake. There are boundaries that are negotiated around natural feature including the border between Texas and Mexico (Rio Grande River). The problem lies in Africa where four decades after the end of de jure colonialism we still use silly borders cut up by long-dead monarchs. The end of World War I brought about the division of the Middle East and Eastern Europe between the major powers (many who are still major players today) that were not based on ethnic and historical backgrounds. It is time to wipe the slate clean, redraw boundaries that bring ethnic minorities out from under the thumb of oppressive majorities and reset our old ways of thinking about foreign policy. The only people who would be upset about a clean slate would be profiteers and a few disgruntled cartographers.

I remember watching the seminal western The Searchers in a film studies course and hearing about how great the movie was from my instructor. The company line was that the sets were wonderful, the direction was magnificent and John Wayne was prototypically American in his portrayal of a hardened cowboy. I think portrayals about Africa are similar to John Wayne movies in their use of Westernized versions of Africa. The dangerous part about these portrayals is that they seem to confirm our diplomatic history with the continent. The one advantage of Wayne’s movies was that the wars had been completed during filming.

There are two articles in the recent issue of GOOD Magazine that cover the issue of American diplomacy with Africa. An article by Sasha Polakow-Suransky speaks to frustrations with portraying Africa with notable exceptions like Don Cheadle’s turn in Hotel Rwanda. The second article by Andrew Woods discusses the use of poor Africans as contractors in Iraq. These articles point to a frustrating development in dealing with Africa. The power of the pocket book is used to donate to charities headed by celebrities in a shallow effort to help faraway Africans without dealing with fundamental diplomatic issues that keeps aid out of the hands of those who need it. We are suffering from Western guilt in dealing with former colonies pushed down by centuries of racism.

Everyone should be pissed about the way Africa is addressed in our daily life. Voters should demand a conversation with politicians and business leaders beyond the superficial discussion of solving the AIDS crisis. Africans need roads, phones, food and homes instead of surplus grain and a sympathetic smile. Consumers need to boycott movies where actors without any knowledge of Africa try to speak to intensely parochial issues on the continent. In the end, American consumers have an immense amount of power to direct money, time and energy toward changing the system instead of feeding money into our own corrupt government into the mostly corrupt governments in Africa.

Anyone who has read past entries on Media Critiques is aware that I dislike the current state of polling and the use of polling by the media. Polling experts claim that the numbers they produce on topics ranging from the latest fashions to the popularity of the president can be extrapolated to the entire population. This type of certainty demonstrates a failure by seemingly intelligent pollsters to recognize that polling is a corollary of marketing and not of academia.

The impetus for my latest rage about polling comes from an article in the Columbia Journalism Review discussing a Zogby poll that claims 52% of Americans would support an attack on Iran. Writer Michael Meyer points out a number of faults with the poll including the use of only two choices to respond to a hypothetical (yes, HYPOTHETICAL) completion of nuclear weapons by Iranians in the near future. Meyer fails to point out that Zogby may be the worst of the worst when it comes to polling due to the poor wording of poll questions. I shouldn’t push Zogby polls forward as the king of bad information as every polling company shares a similar stake in my contempt.

I am not only concerned with the appearance of political support for an Iranian war inherent within the Zogby poll. My concern spreads into the 2008 presidential election where it appears that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination without a problem. The ignorance of Washington elites of what real life Americans outside of polling groups feel about the political scene gives polling its power. Polls are a gauge of the perspectives of a few people that allow politicians and executives to proceed with their own initiatives with the thin veil of public support. Polls, like the Bible, can be interpreted in a number of ways. It is time to stop giving public opinion polls such a large role in our lives and show our support for an issue by picking up a phone, putting pen to paper and screaming out loud to people in the Washington echo chamber.

The title seems draconian but the promise by President Pervez Musharraf that he will relinquish his military uniform (again) and open the presidency to the democratic process must be fulfilled. Coverage of the Pakistani situation has been rampant in the mainstream media as well as alternative media sources as this ambivalent ally in the war on terror turns to hell in a hand basket. We must look past the promise of democracy in the midst of chaos to begin earnest steps toward realizing democracy in Pakistan.

I don’t think regular readers will be surprised by my views on the war on terror. A war against an idea, a tool of oppression and anarchy is foolhardy. The only thing more foolish than fighting terror is using feckless thugs, authoritarians and incompetent bureaucrats as our allies. In the same way that America got into bed with all manner of politician to fight Communism in the Cold War, America is allying itself with anyone as long as they say the right things about terrorism.

The Bush Administration may be content by pushing Musharraf in November 2007 that may never happen in January 2008 but Americans concerned with foreign policy want more than that. I think that the media coverage of riots, the house arrest of political reformers like Benazir Bhutto and the pressure applied by the West on Pakistan has been outstanding. Media pressure will only do so much against a flailing dictator like Musharraf and Americans need to push their representatives for action.

We need to mobilize an international coalition with the assistance of India and the European Union to enforce Musharraf’s promised steps. The occasion of stabilizing Pakistan may offer America an opportunity to offer an olive branch to Russia. It is important to utilize the United Nations General Assembly to promote the idea of peace keepers and international election observers in Pakistan to make sure that every vote is counted and every ballot has more than the name Musharraf available.

Above all else, voters throughout the United States need to press the candidates in both parties to come out tough for anything but a legitimately elected government in Pakistan. If America is going to be an interventionist power, we must work within the bounds of international politics and ally ourselves with nations that support democratically elected governments. We cannot afford Pakistan to fall into chaos as the Asian continent becomes critical to 21st century political, economic and social development.

The terms “People’s Party�? and “Populism�? have changed drastically since the days of silverites and gold bugs in the 1890s. The People’s Party in the United States tried to bring in labor, women’s groups and limited numbers of African Americans into an alliance against moneyed interests that began political rule that continues today. American populists in the 1890s were imperfect and lacked the sophistication of major party activists but desired a political system geared toward the average person.

Today’s great “populists�? include racists like Christoph Blocher of the Swiss People’s Party which has grown into the largest political party in Switzerland. Blocher has used language familiar to historians of Central Europe to lash out against immigrants in the hopes of gaining seats in Parliament. The rush of ignorant voters worried about Muslims and the polyglot masses entering the land of chocolate and watches helped push the SVP into a plurality in Swiss government.

Switzerland has always been associated in my mind with political accommodation and reason. The seven seat cabinet that has helped balanced power between the major parties since World War II is beginning to resemble a Klan meeting. Blocher and another represented of the SVP will sit in the cabinet, breaking up the balanced approach taking to Swiss politics for five decades. By no means is Christoph Blocher a facsimile of authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler; Switzerland has an insufficient infrastructure and an unwilling populous for institutionalization of hatred. My concern is that Blocher’s victory will help encourage voters in surrounding nations to choose nationalists and right wing nuts.

The Flemish Block in Belgium and the National Front Party in France are only two examples of nationalist parties cloaking racist language behind the veil of populism. The hedge on growing conservatism and nationalism in Poland in the most recent election is diminished when you look at Civic Platform’s policies. Civic Platform was successful in wresting power from the Law and Order Party under the corrupt Kaczynski brothers. While Donald Tusk is a moderate leader that will demand EU involvement and withdrawal from Iraq, Civic Platform and Law and Order are similar in their desire to maintain a conservative domestic government in Poland. In the end, nationalism is pushing past traditional conservatism to take hold of the European public’s imagination.

I understand that the European welfare state has caused certain logistical problems in nations like Belgium and France. The use of foreigners and minorities as scapegoats for economic and social woes is nothing new; in fact, it shows a lack of imagination by popular leaders like Blocher. Every opposition party and minority coalition in Europe needs to rise up and save that this type of narrow-minded, one-dimensional political rhetoric will not stand in the 21st century. European voters should not be duped by nationalists claiming to shut down borders when the European continent is becoming more open than it has ever been. My only hope is that the Swiss people understand that the addition of political power to Christoph Blocher’s portfolio can only equal long term problems before the next parliamentary elections.

The confrontation between Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush on Tuesday was something that battle rappers and high school debate teams should watch in equal measure. Both presidents gave speeches several hours apart and Bush attended meetings in order to get out of seeing Ahmadinejad’s speech. Bush spoke about the authoritarian and dictatorial governments throughout the world including Cuba, Zimbabwe and a nation that starts with I and ends with ran.

Ahmadinejad was slightly more subtle than George W. Bush which proves that he is a bit of a buffoon in his own right. Anyone should be more subtle than Bush and Ahmadinejad’s speech was something to behold. He describes an occupying force that does not admit defeat, allows thousands of deaths and devalues the independence of other nations. I wonder which occupying force in the Middle East he could be referring to?

The United Nations offers a distinct opportunity for tyrants and democrats alike to speak to a global audience. America has always been hostile to the United Nations because a) it has no muscle and b) arguments going back to Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations indicate a hint of racism underneath political arguments. Americans do not have a right to tell the world who they can hear speak in the United Nations because it is not OUR organization. People can protest all they want but Ahmadinejad spoke, the Cubans left after Bush’s rhetorical attack and representatives from brutal dictatorships took these attacks in stride. While the arguments between Bush and Ahmadinejad were superficial and full of bile, they do show the value of open debate. You can take what you will from that statement but if we want to spread democracy to the world (like Wilson), we need to be prepared for the bruises, cuts and psychological damage associated.

On the CNN Political Ticker today, there is a story about the Republican Party’s love affair with new French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain have praised Sarkozy’s approach to immigration and a variety of other issues in an effort to show their international acumen. The Ticker notes that Democrats have cautious interest in the new French leader but that political moderation in Europe is akin to American liberalism.

I think it is hilarious that Republicans who only months ago were still sounding the call against France are now embracing Sarkozy and the people he leads. Republicans may have felt they were arguing against Jacques Chirac but they pointed out the unemployment and laziness of the French people, not their leader. The fact that they have turned on a dime and fallen in love with Sarkozy belies their position on Iraq since the French president opposes the underlying premise of the war. The Political Ticker points out another interesting wrinkle in the ongoing hypocrisy of the Republican Party and the ambivalence of the Democratic Party.

The media’s new baby is going above and beyond their journalistic duties to expose the issue of global warming. It is refreshing that the media has gone from zero to environmentalist in a hurry but a new Foreign Policy article exposes one of the more insidious results of the “green press.�? Global warming is the new Communism and every side is girding their defenses to protect their natural resources interests.

The point of the Foreign Policy article is that the expansion of interest in global warming by world leaders has turned a substantive issue into a tool against tyranny. The military and civilian leaders alike have claimed that melting ice caps and desertification will lead to anarchy in lesser states. These assumptions make people in Africa and Asia seem like brutes in a way that is all too familiar in these areas. I think the point that Foreign Policy makes most effectively is that an overwhelming supply of natural resources are more dangerous than a dearth of resources.

The press has picked up on this new global antagonism because newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post need to stay current. The excitement over global warming has made editors and writers fall over each other on their way toward the top of the green mountain top. We need papers to write editorials on a regular basis denouncing this disturbing use of environmentalism as a way of creating a new breach between the developed and developing worlds. If we are going to solve climate change issues, our journalists need to break through the same garbage we went through in the Cold War to cultivate the moment of promise we have in front of us.

Here’s the scoop: Douglas Alexander, a political ally of new British PM Gordon Brown, gave a speech denouncing a “might makes right” approach to international relations. He stumped multilateralism and peaceful diplomacy as an alternative to war.

Alexander’s comments have stirred up the rumor mill, and many are claiming that his remarks were an understated way of breaking ties with the foreign policy methods of the United States, particularly pertaining to the unpopular conflict in Iraq.

However, this article from the foreign Brisbane Times seemed quite odd to me. The headline–Senior British minister hints at shift in US relations–is essentially an argument that the rest of the article subtly refutes.

This media method follows the pattern of a persuasive tactic. Often, if to argue a point, it is effective to acknowledge and deconstruct the opposite argument. This article’s headline postulates that the relationship between the United States and Britain will change, while the article itself makes the opposite argument; quotation after quotation indicates that Britain has no (outward) intention of altering American-British relations.

There are many reasons this formula may have been intentionally placed in the article. A headline claiming that the United States and Britain may shift their relationship catches the eye (it certainly caught mine), so this may have been a way to bring in readers. If so, it worked. Alternatively, the author may be making a deliberate statement that the media frenzy surrounding Alexander’s comments is unfounded.

There is, of course, the simple possibility that the author attempted to write an objective piece, and his/her opinion shone through the words. Maybe Britain just handled the situation well and flooded the media with the quotations they wanted to see in print.

Reading the news isn’t always as simple as it seems.