posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
maelorin at 12:36am on 06/03/2003
maelorin at 12:36am on 06/03/2003for some time now, i have been exploring the role of media in wars.my interest is a little different from that of most propaganda analysts - i'm interested in whether, and how, media organisations are involved in propaganda that contributes to, or drives, the push towards war. put simply, i'm asking the question 'can media be held accountable if they incite hatred or violence or genocide or armed conflict'?
along the way i have been more than a little distracted by the 'games people play' following the destruction of the world trade center on september 11, 2001. the 'war on terror/ism', the 'war in afghanistan', and now the 'war on iraq' - which hasn't actually happened yet, though you wouldn't think it from all the attention it has been getting.
it's not even a virtual war yet, just a possible, or perhaps more accurately, an impending war. i don't think there are many people who seriously doubt that the usa and others will attack iraq, and sometime soon. that said, an actual 'war' has yet to happen. of course, a placard that demands 'no war' is a hell of a lot easier to write than 'don't go to war with iraq' ... and a lot quicker to read on a 10 second video shapshot of a protest march.
in contrast, the australian government's 'be alert, not alarmed' campaign not only requires more airtime to get its message across, but just reading the message takes longer. luckily, the government has spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising to ensure tv stations give the pedestrian little 'fireside chats' the time they need for the well paid media personality to wander around scenic locations telling us that 'our wway of life has to be protected'. meanwhile, stripping the guts out of our 'way of life' seems to be government policy. but i'll get to that later.
when you can afford to pay for airtime, you can afford to use complex messages - after all, you are paying to have enough time to explain what you mean to your audience. when you don't have millions of other people's money to spend on promoting yourself, you have to be concise - very concise if you can't be sure you'll get more than a second or two.
i wonder what kind of campaing we'd have had if we weren't paying for it? if asked, i'd have opted for a brochure that actually gave me advice on what i should do if i'm caught in a building during a bomb threat. or how to recognise 'suspicious' activities ... rather than a fifteen million dollar advertising exercise to tell about how they're spending the other millions of our money. something constructive. maybe something that actually might be useful, like first aid courses and such - so if we are bombed, we might have some idea how to survive until emergency services can get to us. just a thought.
along the way i have been more than a little distracted by the 'games people play' following the destruction of the world trade center on september 11, 2001. the 'war on terror/ism', the 'war in afghanistan', and now the 'war on iraq' - which hasn't actually happened yet, though you wouldn't think it from all the attention it has been getting.
it's not even a virtual war yet, just a possible, or perhaps more accurately, an impending war. i don't think there are many people who seriously doubt that the usa and others will attack iraq, and sometime soon. that said, an actual 'war' has yet to happen. of course, a placard that demands 'no war' is a hell of a lot easier to write than 'don't go to war with iraq' ... and a lot quicker to read on a 10 second video shapshot of a protest march.
in contrast, the australian government's 'be alert, not alarmed' campaign not only requires more airtime to get its message across, but just reading the message takes longer. luckily, the government has spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising to ensure tv stations give the pedestrian little 'fireside chats' the time they need for the well paid media personality to wander around scenic locations telling us that 'our wway of life has to be protected'. meanwhile, stripping the guts out of our 'way of life' seems to be government policy. but i'll get to that later.
when you can afford to pay for airtime, you can afford to use complex messages - after all, you are paying to have enough time to explain what you mean to your audience. when you don't have millions of other people's money to spend on promoting yourself, you have to be concise - very concise if you can't be sure you'll get more than a second or two.
i wonder what kind of campaing we'd have had if we weren't paying for it? if asked, i'd have opted for a brochure that actually gave me advice on what i should do if i'm caught in a building during a bomb threat. or how to recognise 'suspicious' activities ... rather than a fifteen million dollar advertising exercise to tell about how they're spending the other millions of our money. something constructive. maybe something that actually might be useful, like first aid courses and such - so if we are bombed, we might have some idea how to survive until emergency services can get to us. just a thought.
exhausted
There are no comments on this entry.