Isn't it more differentiated and complicated than that?
Rick Master (2007-09-17)
In order to guard against misunderstandings, the article by Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes is well written and comprehensible in its arguments. Notwithstanding, I assert that the interpretation and understanding of the theoretical framework is to narrow in order to cover the whole genres of "media events".
None would deny the change of media caused by events like disaster, terror and war during the last thirty or forty years. However, theoretically justified and coherent are the changes by the realist school and the creation of International Relations by E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau in the aftermath of World War II.
Realism as a normative theory argues that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power, rather than ideals or ethics. Following the realist idea this action is based on the nature of people. But these theories were neglected especially during the 70’s, when the Vietnam War challenged the realistic ideas. Theories of Interdependence (Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye) and e.g. Liberalism (primarily by Adam Smith and John Mayard Keynes) became more popular.
Based on this theoretical change and development of the media to live broadcasting of terror, disaster and war became traceable. Finally, the development in the media was based on the theoretical change described above. The agenda of world politics made these changes in the media essential and logic.
It is obvious that terror events cannot properly be called "unplanned" when media schedules and availability are obviously implicated in the perpetrators' planning, even if this question is unanswered in the text. Organizations like the "Islamic Dschihad
Union" and "Al-Qaida" use Internet and TV to recruit members, spread propaganda and to take responsibility for a terror act. It is not wrong to say that media is used to accomplish their purpose.
One of the strongest arguments in the text is that tragedies and starvation or disease in other parts of the world are often ignored even though Hurricane Katrina (2005) and the Tsunami of Southeast Asia (2004) were widely discussed. Beside the disregarded post colonial wars in Sierra Leone, Angola or Somalia, the fact that millions of people are dying in Kongo or Zimbabwe seems to be secondary. Reasons for this are the western hegemony in the news reporting and the callousness against the destiny of others.
Another good point of the article is the question how the media is controlled. The influence of the media during wartime was obvious for the first time in Vietnam. After the Ted Offensive of 1968, the government believed that they were losing the media support. Certainly, the US-government lost the support of the people at that time.
Administration and military learned at that time the need to "embed" reporters in order to receive continuous press coverage.
From my point of view it is wrong to say that there is no control of the press because of embedded journalists. Before the Kosovo Conflict, the military selected journalist from Germany and other countries, which should report about the NATO intervention in 1999. The object was to find journalists with military background and experience; this was the easiest way control news reporting and is just one example of influence.
The essay "No More Peace!" was helpful for the understanding of media development and constructive in his concept, even if it was – in my view – slightly limited through a narrow theoretical framework. Several good ideas, explanations and characterizations about the genres of media events – including the ceremonial contest, conquests and coronations were made. I recommend the discussed essay for advanced studies.
