hey everyone, here's the literature review I wrote for this week. enjoy
- Kenta

The readings from this week both dealt with the relationship of power and media within the context of Middle Eastern politics of the past decade. Hugh Miles’ Al-Jazeera is fascinating in its account of Al-Jazeera’s ascent as an organization; the growth and dynamism of this organization is certainly amazing. However, it is naïve and unfounded to describe Al-Jazeera as an ideal in terms of its truth journalism. Al-Jazeera itself professes an agenda “to enhance the media revolution in the Arab media and to bring it up to standards with the Western media” (302). Ironically it is contrast to the Western media’s crass journalistic mediocrity that Miles has used throughout the book to establish Al-Jazeera’s virtues. Miles’ provide nuance to his account, but still errs on the side of idealizing Al-Jazeera as a bastion of objectivity, which leads him to overestimate the (persuasive) power of Al-Jazeera vis-à-vis other sources of information. Knightley’s chapter on the role of war correspondents in the Iraq invasion of 2003 deal with matter similar in time and place, but focusing on the relationship of media and state power. The chapter paints a dour picture (at least from the perspective of the journalist) of media at the subordinated by the powerful state, and illustrates with examples from the Iraq War.

Overall Miles’ book seems optimistic about the democratic changes introduced by Al-Jazeera in Arab societies, especially when compared to the state-controlled media of the past. Miles sees Al-Jazeera’s growth undermining authoritarian status quo regimes and providing a medium for criticism and activism. Meanwhile, as a global news organization available via satellite and over the internet, Miles also seems to think that Al-Jazeera is a fresh and different from the convention western media giants that shy away from criticizing powerful Western regimes. Miles commits much of the book to developing the idea that Al-Jazeera is either unbiased, much less biased than Western counterparts, or that its bias is negligible considering the enlightening service it provides in its news. Miles introduces several methods of arguing this point most of which do not make much of a point. One notable approach (also used in Control Room) is to point out that that opposing parties’ have contradictory notions of Al-Jazeera’s bias: “In the Middle East I was told time and again that it targets Arabs. In the West it is repeatedly alleged that Al-Jazeera spreads hate against Israel and America” (351). Attractive as it is, opposing views do not necessarily cancel each other out. Miles’ opinion seems to be that this confirms that no one is ever content with anything, even a gem like Al-Jazeera, however, one could also say (the argument is perhaps weaker) that it also corroborates the opinion that there’s something fishy about Al-Jazeera’s news. Another of Miles methods is to qualify accusations of bias not by disputing the grounds of the claim, but with ad hominem tangents about disingenuous politicians, right-wing loonies, etc. This is most evident in the treatment of the an instance in which documents surfaced claiming that Al-Jazeera had been infiltrated by members of Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat in the late 1990s. Here Miles seems to insist that relevance of the documents is belittled by the fact that they were presented by Ahmad Chalabi who had an unrelated axe to grind with Al-Jazeera. Clearly this abstracts from the more important point that Miles does not refute the authenticity of the documents.

The glaring omission from the argument seems to be the fact that Al-Jazeera is clearly an organization that is essentially a wing of the Qatari government. Miles notes that Al-Jazeera, due to various constraints, has always operated at a loss. Commercial incentives do not justify its existence. The organization’s economic needs are only satisfied by bailouts by the Emir of Qatar (Al-Jazeera was originally established with capital provided by the Emir). Miles tries to insert some qualification here, saying that it is not clear whether these funds are those of the Qatari government or those of the Emir himself, as though there would be a difference (as far as I know, as an absolute monarch the Emir is the government). Miles cites the testimony of the Al Jazeera itself which says that “although it takes Qatari money, this has no impact whatsoever on its editorial policy”. Would one expect them to profess anything else? While Miles admits “there is probably an informal connection of some kind”, to him it is obvious that “this has a negligible effect on Am-Jazeera’s editorial policy”. Usually in order to deem an effect negligible one would have to know what that effect was in the first place. Miles seems to draw his conclusions from the fact that Al-Jazeera has criticized the Qatari government in the past and critical voices have not been barred from the air. While that is stronger evidence, it is not conclusive—could it not be possible that the Emirate cultivates the image of being liberal and benevolent? This would seem not impossible given that in the book’s opening Miles goes to some length to describe the Emir’s intentions to differentiate Qatar from other Arab states by making it an enlightened country (attracting Western universities, priorities on education, etc). An alternative explanation that the Emir has an affinity to democracy is strange because of the fact that he is an emir, but also by the opening of the book, the monarch expresses explicit disdain for democracy (“the concept seemed so ridiculous to him that he had to be led in hysterical laughter from the balcony of the House of Commons” 13). Miles’ analysis could use more insights into how Al Jazeera relates to the machinations and political considerations of its patrons and overlords. Miles’ book does not exclude mentioning these elements of the story, however, he treats them as marginal when they would seem to underpin the particulars and have a rightful place in the center.

Philllip Knightley’s chapter “No More Heroes March-April 2003” reflects on role of war correspondents in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. During this campaign the state clearly viewed the instrumental strengths of the media—hoping to use its broad message to mold the unfolding combat. Knightley includes a correspondent’s observation that “if word comes out at Centcom that there’s an uprising against Saddam’s regime, [that is because] they [Centcom] can be thinking, planning and hoping that the information will be picked up and local people will build on that and an idea will become reality even if it never existed in the first place” (536). In other words the state not only displays the tendency to not only patronize the media to its own ends, but incorporate it as an appendage of the state itself. Knightley argues that coverage of the invasion of Iraq in spring of 2003 was largely a product of journalism operating under the cynical morality of the Bush administration: “You’re either with us or you’re against us”. War correspondents were faced with the choice of embedding with Coalition military units or pursuing their journalism “unilaterally”. In Iraq, journalists operating in enemy territory were liable to be targeted as enemies, and in many cases were. Knightley mentions the bombing of Al-Jazeera’s Baghdad bureau as well as an instance in which an American tank was filmed aiming and opening fire on Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel, a location known to be housing media. Although the details of this incident remain somewhat obscured, the military’s assertion that the tanks were drawing sniper fire from the hotel continue to baffle, considering that eye witness accounts and the empirical evidence of audio records contradict this claim. Knightley’s conclusion is that the 2003 Iraq campaign demonstrates that the new morality governing war correspondence is almost unilaterally defined by the state, and transgression is corrected by draconian means. State mastery over the dissemination of information has largely castrated the media, since alternative voices can forcibly silenced and affirmations are easily propagated. Knightley does not end on an optimistic note, but he is not without hope either (writing the chapter itself expresses this). He ponders the question of whether the audacity and courage of journalists will be enough to offset the monolith of the state, and essentially whether the sword is conclusively mightier than the pen.

While Miles’ book demonstrates that even those mediums identified as the bastions of objectivity and truth are invariably not that, it is not to say that one should forsake truth altogether and arbitrarily pick one position. While truth may be subjective and knowledge only instrumental, the soundest and most verifiable opinions are probably still preferable, and these will not be afforded by reliance on extrinsic authorities (Knightley’s anxiety about state-control, and my dissatisfaction with Miles’ portrayal of Al-Jazeera). Reason demands opinions that can encompass and account for numerous alternatives.

Posted by Kenta Tsuda at 09:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Greetings all:

Just back from very stimulating conference in the heartland, 'Constant Capture: Visibility, Civil Liberties, and Global Security' - http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CIE/AP/Constant_Capture/index.html - where I aired for the first time a down-and-dirty edit of the 29 palms footage - and show-cased some of the work being done in our Global Media Project and seminar. Good response, and our blog should be getting some data-flow from the participants - including a promised posting of a remarkable set of glyphs on the event, taken by one of the organizers, Lane Hall.

I decided to take advantage of the remarkable mix of participants (described by someone as 'eggheads, artists and wonks'), and try out our secret Project Z (I did wait until everyone was in a receptive post-cocktails-and-dinner state of mind): once again the zombie zietgeist opened up like some kind of space-time portal: got some great feedback, good intertexts (more on that in class), and then, the next day I was approached by a performance artist/student who had gotten wind of our after-hours discussion. Turns out she is an honest-to-god zombie-buster, living the anti-zombie creed (keeping her hair nub-short - so the zombies cannot grab it - taking karate, getting competent with weapons). Check out her website for some essential info - http://www.zombiedefense.blogspot.com/.

W. Benjamin - yet again - says it best: 'The genuine liberation from an epoch, that is, has the structure of awakening in this respect as well: it is entirely ruled by cunning. Only with cunning, not without it, can we work free of the realm of dream. But there is also a false liberation; its sign is violence.' (Arcades Project, p. 173).

And a few schedule changes/reminders: 1) Jean Bethke Elshtain, eminent public philosopher, is coming to speak at Watson this Wednesday, 4 pm, on Sovereignty and Hannah Arendt. Since this overlaps with our themes and is sure to provoke some new thinking on research projects, I propose students present in the first half of the seminar and then we de-camp to Joukowsky for second part (with reception to follow); 2) Thomas Levin, from Princeton, situationist guru, surveillance buster, and curator extraordinaire, will be joining us Tuesday May 2, 5-7, with an array of clips and flurry of words (tell yer friends - he's not to be missed); 3) Santos will be back in the House! this Wed to the next, so best time to solicit research project responses.

See you tomorrow, JDD

Posted by James Der Derian at 12:39 PM | Permalink

The SITE Institute is a clearing house for jihadist video, information and communications from Chechnya to Iraq. It is updated constantly and is a very interesting resource. In addition, it is run by what appear to be credible, reputable academics.

http://siteinstitute.org/

Rita Katz, Director and co-founder of the SITE Institute, has studied, tracked, and analyzed international terrorists and their financial operations for more than six years. Since well before September 11, she has personally briefed government officials, including former terrorism czar Richard Clarke and his staff in the White House, as well as investigators in the Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Homeland Security on the financing and recruitment networks of the terrorist movement. Many of her leads have prompted the government to investigate and take legal action against individuals and organizations suspected of ties to terrorism.

Before founding the SITE Institute in 2002, Ms. Katz served as Research Director of the Investigative Project in Washington, DC. Born in Iraq and a graduate of the Middle Eastern Studies program at Tel Aviv University, Katz speaks both Arabic and Hebrew with native fluency.

Ms. Katz is the author of TERRORIST HUNTER: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America (HarperCollins, 2003). Her commentary on terrorism issues frequently appears in prominent media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, 60 Minutes, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal.

Josh Devon, Senior Analyst and co-founder of the SITE Institute, focuses on the research and analysis of the global terrorist network. He has consulted on terrorism-related investigations for several government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the FBI. Mr. Devon has published numerous articles on terrorism, including the extensive use of the Internet by terrorist groups and their followers worldwide. He appears regularly in the media. Mr. Devon has a B.A. in English from the University of Pennsylvania and a B.S. in Economics from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He is currently pursuing an advanced degree in International Relations, concentrating in Middle East Studies, at Johns Hopkins University's School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

Posted by Oliver Ward Schulze at 01:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

“After 911” presents a discussion of difficult questions surrounding the military and media orchestrated war on terror campaign set quickly into action after the fall of the World Trade Center Towers. Meshing media and military footage with footage and commentary from three conferences in the Information War Technology and Peace project, the film distills central points of criticism in the post 911 debate: unilateral and hyper-militarized U.S. foreign policy strategies, media constructions and media myths, the role of technology as weapons of attack and weapons of defense, psychological warfare and the creation of a culture of fear.
The film’s evocative opening is the sound of muffled walkie-talkie voices played to glimpses of a confused looking President Bush. The documentary then transitions to the kooky image of early black and white Disney violence set to the calm, mature voice of writer Robert Coover as he speaks of those “dreams of others” that shape the reality of most; “dreams honed, systematized and transmitted by language” ; dreams accepted and internalized by the conditioned masses. At its outset, “After 911” presents itself as a sharp political and philosophical audio-visual commentary on the psychological warfare central to the historical justification of violent political history across the globe. Even the springs that give chaotic flight to Mickey Mouse and his overweight rival in the opening cartoon sequence seem to suggest the systematic nature of political violence.
Also in its first moments, the film introduces the event of 9/11 with eerie music— evoking the dark, fearful and uncertain mood felt in the U.S. in particular after the terrorist attacks in September of 2001—and the slow motion footage of the towers falling and military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. The slow speed of these visual queues allude to the process of creating a collective memory and the military-media myth-making that saturated the American public even minutes after the attacks in New York. In contrast to this dream-like footage, the film offers the lucid commentary of intellectuals, academics and public figures presented during the TACT Symposium, the 911+1 Forum and Exhibition and the DIS/SIM Symposium.
As the documentary points out, the Information War Technology and Peace project aims to spread awareness and foster politicized dialogue about current U.S. policy. These debates—unlike the deluge of patriotic imagery—did not flood the public sphere in the moments after the attacks. “After 911” thus presents a political conversation that was silenced for months after the attacks with the intensification of surveillance and stripping away of legal protections of individuals in the name of patriotism. For some, fear of personal safety may still stifle public expression of skepticism about the U.S. political motivations. It can be argued then that “After 911” portrays an intellectual openness that was possible only well after 911 and remains largely contained in the safe, insulated space of liberal academia. Speaker Maja Zehfuss comments on the initial silencing of public criticism of the war against terror in the name of paying “respect the memory of the dead.”
The academic narrative of “After 911” pushes past the awestruck attitude that focuses on the tactics of terrorist warfare to reveal a conflict arising from age-old geopolitical issues. Carol Cohn comments that the attacks awoke Americans to interrelated global issues previously ignored: the rise of fundamentalism, colonial legacies, structural adjustment policies, crumbling state sectors and booming shadow economies. Instead of probing the socio-economic and political circumstances in the Middle East that set the stage for terrorist violence, Daniel Deudney, Mary Kaldor, Carl Conetta and Robert Steele point out that the U.S. turned to a warfare strategy that would only add fuel to the fire. Questioning the U.S.’s historically imperialist action or addressing structural poverty in the Middle East was not considered. Instead, the Bush administration pumped the defense budget up to unprecedented levels, draining the U.S.’s resources for social policy and international development and thereby compromising non-military state infrastructure. Furthermore, as Fateh Azzam and P. Terrence Hopmann point out, the U.S. government acted unilaterally, ignoring international legal frameworks and crippling the authority of the UN and foreign interest. The speakers are careful to point out the extreme danger and political arrogance of taking such action without foreign support and international consensus.
One important focus of the documentary is the role of technological innovation as a key facet of contemporary militarization. As Wendy Hui Kyong Chun and Bruce Sterling point out, the Bush administration has deemed technological innovation the perfect remedy and defense solution, ignoring those above-mentioned underlying and ongoing geopolitical processes. Meanwhile, technological innovation has handed power over from the soldier to the weapon itself. As Colonel Tom Ehrhard explains, weapons are designed to autonomously decide whether and how to attack a target. As in the first Gulf War where images showing only the bomb’s perspective removed human casualties from the image of war and lessened skepticism about destruction, “man out of the loop systems” today remove human vulnerability from the equation, leading to less hesitation to use physical force.
Technology is also intimately related to the culture of paranoia cultivated in the post 911 American psyche. Surveillance technology and the quest for vigilance in the name of pre-emptive warfare has led—according to Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, Admiral Rodney P. Rempt, Tom Levin and Peter Cornwell—to the uncritical acceptance of “invasive tactics” that strip individuals of their civil and human rights and pit them against one another in a big brother environment. The media’s crucial role to this anxious social-psychological state is best represented in the film’s montage of tens of clips of newscasters’ and politicians’ televised mention of anthrax. The montage makes the point that the media’s function is to drill paranoia into the public psyche, but it also serves as a comical comment on the absurdity of the media’s pavlovian—and sometimes even contradictory—emphasis on specific catch-phrases.
While “After 911” presents a comprehensive discussion of the psychological and technological means by which war is manufactured and public assent solicited, it does not explore the underlying profitability of the military-industrial complex pushing the war-making machine. In this respect, it contrasts Eugene Jarecki’s documentary “Why We Fight” in which the economic interests are focal to the understanding of American politics. Perhaps “After 911” falls short in assuming its audience to have previous understanding of—or to be able to suspect—the profit-driven nature of militarization.
In its final moments, “After 911” turns back to the subject of dreams and the imaginary in post 911 politics. Scholars point to the dichotomized and racialized media myths constructed to demonize the fundamentalist Muslim enemy and to valorize the American soldier as brave freedom fighters. As Thomas Lasner and Mohammed el Nawaway make clear, the media offers a mythical narrative and a mediated reality that viewers accept as fact in their own understanding of reality. In the post 911 rhetoric that facilitated the political-psychological process of ‘othering’—that phenomenon well-explored in the works of Edward Said—American patriotism becomes equated with fearing and hating the dehumanized eastern enemy. John Santos and Sari Nussbeibeh pose difficult questions: So far into this process of alienation and division, what would it take at this point in history to see the ‘other’ as human and to create trust?
It seems that the possibility of overcoming and reversing this process of divisive psychological warfare could occur only if citizens had the tools to demystify and challenge those political and economic dreams that seem to override concerns about the welfare of average members of society—both civilians and soldiers. “After 911” seems to imply that despite the fact that the critical thinking skills and questioning attitudes necessary for this process of demystification may not be widely cultivated in the media-seduced masses, the evidence to destroy these myths are embedded everywhere around us. Coover’s reading of an excerpt of I Only Wish that I Could Weep ends the documentary on this note with a final reflection: “The story behind the story was in the story.”

Posted by Ariana Balestrieri at 04:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Click here to watch the video.

Posted by Watsonblogs at 10:17 AM | Permalink

Interesting opposite side to insurgent video, US armed forces' personal video and photos of the war.

http://www.fallujah.us/

Oliver

Posted by Oliver Ward Schulze at 06:56 PM | Permalink

Alexandra Trustman
Global Media
Balkan Effect
Professor Der Derian

Thematic Essay: Is the Camera a Humanitarian Tool?

The Balkan Effect refers to how the media was used to influence and represent the ethnic conflict and civil wars that took place in the Balkan Peninsula during the last decade of the twentieth century. The two wars that are referenced specifically are that in Bosnia between 1992-1995 and in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. “After the Gulf War, Bosnia became the most televised, most real-time, most virtualized conflict of the nineties” (Der Derian, 50). Thus, the camera—as the instrument of television, real-time feed and even still photographic images—became responsible for constructing a perception of the war to those abroad, both by increasing awareness and in its potential mission to effect change. This marriage between the “virtual,” war represented and exposed through new technologies, and “virtue,” morally sound behavior, creates what Der Derian coins as “Virtuous War,” war represented through technology that works to raise ethical consciousness and to evoke change based on this new found ethical awareness. Is Virtuous War as Der Derian outlines it, possible? Can visual and virtual exposure to war galvanize people to act in a positive humanitarian way? Is that even the camera’s role? Through a study of the Balkan Wars it becomes apparent that the camera has the potential to effect change, but is limited by its inherent positioning of the spectator.
In his article “Atrocity, memory, photography: imaging the concentration camps of Bosnia—the Case of ITN versus Living Marxism, Part 2” David Campbell explores the dispute between LM’s Thomas Deichmann and Michael Hume and ITN’s Penny Marshall and Ian Williams over a photographic still from some footage shot at Trnopoljie, a Bosnian concentration camp. The photograph was of an emaciated prisoner, Fikret Alic, and was used as evidence to prove “the Bosnian Serb authorities’ ethnic cleansing strategy that lay at the heart of the war” (Campbell, 143). It is thought that this photograph, taken as “proof” is “an example of the demonization of the entire Serbian people by the Western media, for the purposes of making US military intervention necessary and inevitable” (Campbell,143). The still was taken from footage that was included in Britain’s Independent Television News report in August 1992. Thus its purpose was to inform England about the conflict in Bosnia. Whether the segment’s intent was to invoke humanitarian action as well is unclear, however if this photograph is in any way responsible for Western military action to help end the conflict in Bosnia, as implied in the Campbell article, it does become humanitarian in use. This position is complicated however, by Deichmann and Hume’s stance for they challenge its accuracy in its link to a system of ideology. Deichmann argues that the Holocaust, as an event that has become naturalized is signified by the combination of emancipated prisoners and barbed wire. He takes issue with this comparison—although potentially unintended and unavoidable by the photographer—for in his view it “demonizes” the Serbs. S. Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, admits that “to sell a war in a democracy when you’re not attacked, you have to demonize the leader to show that there are humanitarian reasons for going in” (Knightley, 502). Deichmann is not wrong to criticize American or Western use of images to demonize, however, he is unfounded in his accusation that the photograph purposefully invokes Nazism. In terms of the ethical question, which Deichmann touches on but is unable to fully communicate— Is over exaggeration of the enemy justified if the end is humanitarian action? Is the ethical outcome of the camera’s use undermined if this initial exaggeration is used to gain political support at home as Lichter suggests, as opposed to being specifically for change in light of humanitarian cause?
The ITN/LM conflict is only further complicated when considering whether “Virtuous War” is actually virtuous. In his book “First Casualty” Phillip Knightley notes that despite “the revolution in communications technology—instant television links from the front to the studio and between correspondents in the field; electronic transmission of still photographs and the internet— that should have provided the public with an unprecedented overview of the war… instead the public drowned in wave after wave of images that added up to nothing” (Knightley, 504). The over saturation of images not only overwhelms the public, but ironically prevents the communication of significant information. This lack of meaningful knowledge in turn creates a state of stagnancy, where spectators do not act. In this way the camera fails as a humanitarian tool for it stirs no attempt or effort for change. This sentiment is further addressed in Thomas Keenan’s essay “Publicity and Indifference: media, surveillance, ‘humanitarian intervention.’” Keenan quotes the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Lustiger as saying, “Here there are no secrets. There are journalists here, from here pictures are transmitted, there are satellite communications, all of this is known. In this city there are soldiers of the United Nations, well armed, and nonetheless it all continues to happen” (Keenan, 2). Mark Danner reinforces Lustiger’s claim, stating, “what we did and didn’t do with what we saw was all the less forgivable, because we could see” (Keenan, 3). Much of this lack of motivation to act humanitarianly can be attributed to the way in which the camera positions spectators. While live feed works to collapse the reality represented on television with our own reality, this convergence is constantly being mediated, and as “mediated images of the world are mere representations that lend an air of unreality to the things that they represent” spectators find themselves positioned outside of the reality they are consuming (Keenan, 8). Keenan mentions Baudrillard’s view that “the West has to watch helplessly,” it seems however, that this helplessness is not a choice, but rather is forced upon the spectators by nature of the new technology (Keenan, 9).
This idea is furthered in Keenan’s essay by citing Paul Virillio, who explains how the virtuality of television works to strip spectators of their agency and points out that as television moves at the speed of light “we no longer have time to reflect; the things we see have already taken place. And we must act immediately” (Keenan, 6). The simultaneous need and inability to act once again renders spectators helpless. Here what the camera transmits is of no consequence, because the way in which it is transmitted, the very speed that makes television possible, paradoxically prevents it from catalyzing humanitarian efforts.
The camera can potentially work as a humanitarian tool, but ultimately it is the person behind the camera who has the choice whether or not to use the camera for an ethical cause. Live-feed news on major broadcast networks, has serious constraints, namely capitalist and governmental and unfortunately these don’t often coincide with humanitarian endeavors. The Balkan Effect, or Balkanization refers to when great powers interfere with smaller powers in order to preserve their superiority. Just as the camera can potentially be used humanitarianly, it can also be manipulated to contribute to maintaining western hegemony, and more often than not is used in this way. Live-feed news is interference in small nations itself, for depending on the choice and context of footage television manipulates its viewer and functions as propaganda for a particular perspective. The way in which both Milosevic and the Serbs were demonized is an example of how television can impinge on the events of other nations. States function in their own national interest, thus it is possible that Western countries whose hegemony benefits from the turmoil of smaller nations, like Britain and the U.S. would cover the conflicts such as those in the Balkans with less of an urgency to help in some kind of humanitarian way. The only real way to prevent this is through supra-organizations like NATO and the UN for they claim to work in the favor of the majority of represented nations. However, as seen in the failed assassination of Aleksander Vucic and ultimate inability to solve the conflict, NATO worked more in the interest of NATO rather than in Kosovo’s favor. There may be no way of escaping bias then, even within supra-structures. However, when it comes to news broadcasting the camera is seen as contriving a point of view. This perspective, however is always subject to change given the intentions of the user. Despite any potential political agendas that can sway the function of the camera, it is also important to recognize thayjt there is something inherent to the medium of television, both in its functionality and through its implicated agendas that prevents it from ever creating a truly “Virtuous War.”

Posted by James Der Derian at 11:58 AM | Permalink

Ariana Balestrieri's Global Media Panel Discussion vBlog.

Posted by Watsonblogs at 09:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Click here to view the video.

Posted by Watsonblogs at 04:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Just two info-bits: we will be combining forces with Wendy Chun's MCM class next Wednesday, to hear Tom Keenan speak on jihadist use of new media. Info is below.

Wednesday, April 12, 3:00 p.m., Global Security Seminar Series
"'Where are human rights ...?' Reading a jihadist communiqué from Iraq," with Thomas Keenan, Bard College
Location: Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute, 111 Thayer Street
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/events_detail.cfm?id=721
Professor Keenan will analyze a communiqué issued by the Army of Ansar al-Sunnah, one of the armed groups operating against the occupation in Iraq, explaining why they assassinated a Kurdish human- and women's-rights activist last October. He will also use videotapes made by Iraqi insurgents and distributed on the Internet in an effort to re-approach the old questions of the relationship between politics and violence, on one hand, and the (new) media and terror, on another.

Sponsored by the Forbes Center for the Study of Modern Culture and Media and the Watson Institute.

And some breaking news: Micahel Klare, Hampshire Prof and Defense Correspondent for the Nation magazine, is going to supplement his talk to the Peace Mission with a short presentation to for our Tuesday screening (5-7 pm) on how to crack the op-ed page (for recent example, see ProJo last week). Info below:

A forum on "How Our Oil Dependency Fuels War" will be held on Tuesday, April 18, at 7:00 PM, at the First Unitarian Church, corner of Benefit and Benevolent streets, in Providence. Keynote speaker is Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College and author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. Responders include Katherine Brown, Executive Director of the Southside Community Land Trust, and Barry Schiller of the Sierra Club of RI. The moderator is Karina Wood of the Providence Congress for the New Urbanism. The forum is sponsored by the Rhode Island Peace Mission and co-sponsored by the First Unitarian Social Justice Council. Free and open to the public. For more information, call 724-7700, Ext. 6.

I also wanted to take a poll, to see how many of you might be interested in catching matinee performance of V for V on Tuesday, since Keenan will be showing his clips in class? Let me know,

JDD

Posted by James Der Derian at 06:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Click here to watch the video.

Posted by Watsonblogs at 01:42 PM | Permalink