Classmate Post

Recently in a blog post, one of my classmates mentioned that they had an interest in a group project on Lebanon and its media. They stated that the main reason for this were that although the country has seemingly free media in terms of government intervention and censorship, especially compared to the rest of the Middle East. After reading over the post, I found that I completely agreed with his argument and claims about the country's media problem.

One of the common trends among the six groups that presented to our class was that almost all countries had high media censorship. The two countries that were outliers were Israel, because of its justified media censorship with national security issues, and Lebanon because of the little to no government censorship the media faces. However, unlike Israel that takes advantage of this and reports as one might expect, Lebanon reports in accordance with religious and ethnic affiliation. This, as my classmate pointed out, makes the news in the country incredibly bias, meaning that it is as unreliable and therefore invalid as the news that is being reported in countries with high censorship. This leads to an extremely unique problem, which is how to make their news more credible and less bias.

The difficulty in this problem is the decision the government would theoretically have to make. On one hand, what is currently going on is the people deciding for themselves what they what to do and what they want their media to be. At face value, this would appear to be very fair and democratic. However, putting this into context, one realizes that the way the people chose to be conduct themselves in the media is bias and therefore unreliable. On the other hand, government intervention in order to make the media less bias and more credible, (an almost mythical concept) is also unfair because the government is controlling the media and not letting the people decide for themselves. Although it appears to be almost certain that the current system will not change, at least in the near future, it still is both a problem and one that is not at all easy to solve.

Another thought that occurred to me was what would happen between religious and ethnic groups if the government did decided to intervene and change the current system. It is almost impossible to report news without some sort of bias, meaning that it is probable one religious or ethnic group would feel they either are or are not being favored by the government. What would this lead to? Would riots break out? Would there be greater conflict between the different ethnic and religious groups across the country? It does not appear that it would get to this point in the coming years, however if the government were to intervene in the country's media to make it more fair and less bias, I feel that these are key questions that would have to be answered.

Presentation Review

The country I learned most about in addition to finding the most interesting was the presentation on Israel. The first reason for this, is because I feel the media, along with possibly many others issues, is commonly overlooked when it comes to reporting on the country. When we hear about Israel in news, which is frequent as they are both our allies and because of the United State’s large jewish population, it is almost exclusively regarding the ongoing conflict with Palestine. Not to say this is not a serious issue or does not deserves coverage, but the aspect of media is rarely, if ever, brought up. This gives the country a separation from the Middle East and North Africa, in which high media censorship and civil rights problem are constantly discussed when the countries reported on in by Western media. Keeping this separation in mind, I feel that many Americans would not question Israeli media or possible government censorship. As I learned from the presentation, this both is and is not the case.

The reason for this double standard is that although Israel does have media censorship, it is not only minimal, especially compared to other countries in the Middle East and North Africa, but also justified. This is because the standard of using censorship is only when the countries national security is at risk. As Palestine has undoubtedly proven to be in a constant battle with Israel, this concern, and subsequently censorship the countries had because of it, is valid. In addition, it could also be argued that the United States has acted in similar ways. For instance, following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S passed the Patriot Act, enabling them to access the activities and records of all U.S citizens under certain speculations (the need for “speculation” that would latter be disproven by Edward Snowden). This act, which I personally believe be to unconstitutional, shows how under distress the American people lost freedoms, just as the people of Israel have, due to being in a constant conflict with Palestine. This is another reason why censorship in Israel is not only justified, but also difficult to criticism from the point of view of an American citizen.

Although some many point out how Palestinian journalists are targeted by the government more than Israeli ones are, this does not deserve as much criticism as it could possibly get. At face value, it seems unfair that the government would do this. However, when put into context, although still not justified, it is not nearly as unfair as it seems. Following 9/11, many Americans were highly critical of the Muslim religion and Arab population as a whole, both in the United States and around the world. This was of course the wrong thing to do, however coming off that attacks that had just occurred, is it what happened nonetheless. Despite not having faced an attack on the scale of 9/11, being attacked as constantly as they have over the amount of time, creates the same mood and perception. Ultimately, I feel that we as Americans would not be justified in criticizing the targeting of Palestinian journalists, as the treatment of Muslims and Arabs in our country following 9/11 was just as bad, if not worse.