A Great Shining Lie

[nfotxn]

So somebody bombed a nightclub in Bali. It's a terrible thing, a large loss of life always is. But it's also a fact of life. That aside what I don't understand is the linking of every terrorist act to Al Queda and therefore perpetuating Bush's pro-war agenda via media propaganda! And although I believe it's likely Al Queda is responsible for the attacks on the WTC I really haven't been privy to much irrefutable evidence in support of that hypothesis.

I think it's obvious to any informed and thinking individual that the whole situation however tragic isn't due to "pure evil" from one specific side as is often claimed in our oh-so-objective media. The "War on Terrorism" is like most every war in history motivated primarily by more than just hate but also greed and ignorance. It's also my personal belief that the only way to be innocent is to reject both attacks and retaliation. This could turn into a fantastically huge social rift as quick as you can say "Vietnam". But I'm digressing again.

I guess this is just a reminder to stay media savvy about the whole thing. I'm not suggesting paranoia but rather to keep informed from a variety of sources. The sad fact of the matter is that most of what you see on TV is the same 1% of the story syndicated around the world. Inevitable distorted with each re-iteration.

Am I nuts to have this strange feeling that I'm being manipulated with propaganda when I turn on my TV? That's of course a rhetorical question because all media is propaganda. That's why you gotta think for yourself. Resist the urge to find entertainment in suffering, I think that's a big one lately. I swear I see more eyes light up in excitement when the word "terrorist" is mentioned. How sick is that? Sure people want to discuss things, that's great and totally natural. But the irony of the situation is that the world really hasn't changed. It's just that the zeitgeist and therefore the media has decided to entertain themselves with terrorism like it was a fuckin' X-Files plot. Words like "Zapatista" and "Saro Wiwa" unsuprisingly don't register.

My point today is that genocide, holocost, terrorism and down right war happens all the time and has through out history. Life in the world's first nations is so insulated now that when something terrible happens to us it becomes a cause celebra. Because really in relation to the rest of the world we're a bunch of bored and self-absorbed artistocrats. It's like Fight Club, we need an attachment but most importantly an understanding of the visceral. When we don't have these things we truly become animal.

Comments

[mathan.livejournal.com]

When I heard the reports saying "Al Qaida" the first thing I said was, "It's too soon to say for sure." However, AQ has been active in the area since 1988 according to some reports, Muslim country (Indonesia), prime target for westeners...

The reports are going to be biased, thats for sure, and you have to sort through and read between the lines. All I know for sure is, a lot of people were needlessly hurt.

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of Canberra, and Asia-Pacific over the next few weeks.

[nfotxn.livejournal.com]

I think it's funny that people are all grouping islamic terrorist whom they'd known little about up until just over a year ago into the same camp.

I'm sure it's far more complex than that.

[mathan.livejournal.com]

You're going to see two different strong views.

A) It's AQ.
B) It's the terrorist forces in Indonesia trying to stir up shit between Australia and Indonesia.

It could very well be either. I think we need to be open to the fact that it could be either. As I wrote in a response to someone in this entry, "Becoming more insular and ignoring the world outside, much like the United States have done for years (I see this everyday having access to the US media in Canada), will simply make matters worse promoting more naivety."

World politics are extremely complex. Look at Ireland. Look at Isreal and Palestine.

[mathan.livejournal.com]

And it's also important to note, as mentioned by Dan:
- Bali is 95% Hindu, peaceful and reasonably stable
- Only 30% of Indonesia is Muslim. It's all mixed... and a bit messy.

So it's an interesting area.. I'm learning lots, trying to figure things out, read between the lines, etc.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

No, a lot more than 30% of Indonesia is Muslim. I believe it's around 85%. Bali is a Hindu area, but it's an exception.

That said, however, who cares that Indonesia is Muslim? No one has any problem with Indonesia being Muslim. Megawati Sukarnoputri is Muslim. Malaysia is also largely Muslim. Anwar Ibrihim is Muslim.

Indonesia has a lot of problems, but I don't think much of it has to do with religion. There is the province of Aceh which wants independance so that it can become an Islamic state, but I think that's a small thing compared to anti-independance mercenaries slashing and burning Timor.

I've never seen anyone call Indonesia a "militant Muslim country" until reading LJ today, and it bothers me that people have started to say this. Are they that desperate to jump on the '9/11' bandwagon? Were they feeling left out of all the drama?

Gah. *spits bile*.

[mathan.livejournal.com]

Ah but it's an important fact because the Islamic world tend to look at Indonesia as being too moderate. No one as far as I know has called Indonesia a "militant Muslim country" from what I've seen.

[sultmhoor.livejournal.com]

CIA World Factbook for Indonesia: (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/id.html)

Religion: Muslim 88%, Protestant 5%, Roman Catholic 3%, Hindu 2%, Buddhist 1%, other 1% (1998)

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

It is more complex than that. There are at least three militant Islamic groups in Indonesia which are under suspicion. It's theorised that one of them might have enough informal links to Al Qaida in order to obtain bombs like that.

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

How do you define 'propaganda'? Be careful of using it too broadly. Strictly speaking, propaganda is government communication designed to influence public opinion.

It's a bit naive to expect that all news should be objective. It's never objective. North American journalism has this odd notion that it should be objective, but British journalism has no such restrictions, so you can certainly see The Guardian taking on certain subjects and viewpoints, while The Economist will take on quite different topics.

The feeling of manipulation is just one of encountering that hidden subtext, and the broader social currents underneath it. It might feel deceptive because it is designed to present and fit the news into a broader context in a certain way, but that's what news is. Both the right and left report current events in the scope of their broader world-view, and it's sometimes a very dogmatic one--for instance, where "All GM modified foods are bad!" or "Gay rights today, pedophile rights tomorrow!"

I believe there's a greater fear than media manipulation, and that is that most people cannot digest news because they lack a deeper understanding of where it happens. Bali is a great point. People know it's in Indonesia, and that Indonesia is a nominally Muslim country, therefore there must be violent Balinese Muslims involved. Perhaps--though Bali is peaceful, and 95% Hindu, so that doesn't quite fit.

I also think your comment that life in the first world is so insular is somewhat naive. What is the first world these days? Western Europe? Scandinavia? The US? Canada? Japan? Australia? New Zealand? I'd also add some other somewhat surprising countries: Singapore. South Korea. Chile. Uruguay. Israel. Slovenia. Taiwan. Iceland. These are countries that are highly interdependent. And all of them are well aware that foreign affairs are important.

I would argue (because I'm a rabble rouser :-)), though that the EU is a lot more isolationist than the US in the past twenty years. They (particularly the French) couldn't be bothered to get involved in Rwanda in 1994, they didn't know how to deal with the collapse of the Soviet Union, they very reluctantly got involved in the most serious recent threat to European security: the wars in Yugoslavia in the mid 1990's. Recently they couldn't figure out how to deal with Zimbabwe, so they just slapped Mugabe's wrist lightly and looked away. Despite all their high mindedness, they don't get it, and are hobbled by their consensus approach to foreign policy.

Another way of looking at current affairs than the first world-third world viewpoint is to look at international relationships from a premodern-modern-postmodern framework. You do this by classifying a state's behaviours into one of those three categories. Premodern states (Iraq, Bangladesh, Somalia) have weak centralized governments, consider their borders to be insecure, a high level of poverty, and have poor interconnections with the rest of the world. Modern states (Brazil, South Korea) tend to be nationalist, somewhat expansionist, have recently industrialized, and are more inward looking. Post modern states (France, Japan, Canada) surrender some of their sovereignty and put faith in multinational institutions and alliances. It’s a fairly developed thesis, and in my view a more interesting way at looking at things than the emotionally tinged First World – Third World way. Besides, where did the Second World go?

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

Some British journalism still believes in objectivity. The BBC is as respected as it is because of its commitment to objectivity.

And in any case, non-objective journalism should never be confused with objective journalism. Papers like The Guardian, or Australia's Green Left Weekly lay their cards on the table about their stance, and they have competitors which oppose them.

They don't claim to be a comprehensive, unrivalled news source like CNN.

Also, the terms "First World" and "Third World" came out of the Cold War. The "Second World" was the USSR and its allies. The terms have grown outside of their original contexts. I guess you could say that they've become obsolete because the original context is gone, but that hasn't stopped people from still using the terms "left wing" and "right wing".

Also, everyone in Australia knows that Bali is peaceful and Hindu. (That's why Australian go there for holidays -- to clubs called 'The Sari'.) I assume you're addressing non-Australians there.

Re:

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

Hm. That's a good point--the BBC still intends to be objective. And it's still quite respected. And yes, *all* American news outlets--pretend to be objective.

Still, a lot of supposedly 'objective' papers aren't. It's getting to the point that we can spot a NewsCorp paper from a mile away here in Australia. "New Scientist", a weekly Brit science publication, has a distinctly leftish stance, being anti-GM, pro-environment.

And yes, I was certainly aiming my Bali comments at a non-Australasian audience. Most people outside of the region can't even place Bali in Indonesia. :-)

[mathan.livejournal.com]

Even then, sometimes the BBC fails. i was watching the BBC broadcasts and they're making a few mistake - jumping on the bandwagon that this may be a AQ attack, but trying to make it sound like it IS an AQ attack. At least thats what it sounds like.

Is Bali part of Indonesia? I got the impresion that it was independent. If not, it puts a new spin on things in my mind.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

> It's getting to the point that we can spot a NewsCorp paper from a mile away here in Australia.

Well, that's true. But no-one respects NewsCorp.

And we only care about Rupert Murdoch because of his cute son.

[notofthisworld.livejournal.com]

I was also pretty surprised that links to Al Qaida were being drawn so quickly. But they aren't entirely baseless. They're based on the fact that Al Qaida has recently threatened the US embassy in that area (of course, they probably always do that), and the suggestion that the local Indonesian terrorist groups wouldn't have the experience to make such a large bomb.

But still, those links are rather weak, and the media over here has been rather responsible in pointing that out. The possibility of Al Qaida involvement has been a footnote rather than a headline. (At least, on the channels I've been watching.) It's something the Americans want to look into, obviously, but there are plenty of other theories too.

I don't know how its being reported in other countries.

And dude, total "Word!" to the thing about people being excited by this, and enjoying the drama of it. I guess there isn't enough horror in the rest of the world to entertain them.

[polardemonwolf.livejournal.com]

you said: And although I believe it's likely Al Queda is responsible for the attacks on the WTC I really haven't been privy to much irrefutable evidence in support of that hypothesis

Did you not watch the news? Did you not see the videotape of dimwit confessing to the whole thing?

[bitterlawngnome.livejournal.com]

On 09/11/01 I was sitting next to an Iranian friend. We were watching the TV with half our attention, watching the people around us with the other half. We looked at each other and went for a walk.

"I can't believe they're so freaked out. It's like they literally can't take it in, like it never occurred to them that it would happen one day."

"It's never happened to them - never TO them. It's always been a Nintendo game."

"Guess so. Most of these people don't even have a memory of being bombed as part of their family history."

"The US is going to have to bomb someone now. It doesn't really matter who."

"It's going to be at least a couple of years before you can say any of this stuff in public without getting stoned in the marketplace."

[smointjoker.livejournal.com]

Are we animals?