Iranian Nuclear Issue

The stories that have been selected for analysis are articles in the CNN and BBC concerning the attendance of Iran’s president of the General Assembly meeting of 2012. These articles cover the story of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presence in this year’s United Nations General Assembly. President Ahmadinejad, unlike in previous years, presented a more moderate approach towards the West when it came to the issue of Iran’s attempt to develop nuclear weapons. He stated that the governments of the West were setting double standards for other countries such as Iran when it came to the development of nuclear power, while they themselves had some of the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world. The story further covers President Ahmadinejad’s comments on the powerlessness of the United Nations Security Council when it comes to deal with matters of inequality among the nations of the world due to the fact that it is dominated by few very powerful nations which put their interests first before the interests of the whole world. The President then touched on Israel and the injustices it has brought about through its occupation of Palestine stating that the Security Council should be reformed so that such injustices could be better handled.

When reading the story as presented on the CNN website, one will immediately note that this article is not well balanced. Instead, it is biased towards what may be considered to be the beliefs of the Western government about Iran. Despite the fact that the title of the article is about President Ahmadinejad and his attendance of the General Assembly Meeting, this story is given very little space in the article and instead, more attention is given to what Western leaders said about Iran’s nuclear issue and the fact that they were not going to rule out military action against this country. After this, the story moves on to something completely different, discussing what other world leaders had to say about their own local and regional problems and their need for the support of the United Nations. One would say that the BBC article is more balanced, since the headline of the article is about President Ahmadinejad, and because the whole story is dedicated to the speech he gave to the General Assembly and the responses of some Western leaders towards it. The speech is dealt with in greater detail when compared to the way it was in the CNN story, often making direct quotes of what he said as well as giving out a tone of his wanting the matter of Iran’s nuclear issue to be settled peacefully. The story in the BBC article deals completely with the topic of the headline and does not digress to other stories.

The BBC article can be considered to be a better source of information than the one of CNN mainly due to the fact that it does not show any kind of bias. The BBC article has remained objective throughout its story, providing a balanced assessment of the situation at hand and leaving it to the reader to decide for themselves what to believe to be true.

Did Lebanon fall apart in the 1970s and 1980s because of the Arab-Israeli conflict?

The Arab-Israeli conflict had a huge impact on Lebanon during the 1970s and 1980s and this is because the countries, which were in conflict, bordered Lebanon on all sides except the Mediterranean Sea. It is a normal thing for countries, which border those, that are involved in conflict to experience some form of repercussions from the civil and external conflicts of their neighbors and in this case, Lebanon was not an exception. Lebanon was so much influenced by the conflicts of its neighbors that it not only had economic consequences, as would normally be the case, but also political ones as well. The Arab-Israeli conflict had a direct hand in the political instability which developed in Lebanon since, as an Arab country, it came to be pulled into the conflict.1 Lebanon, in an attempt to show solidarity with the Palestinians because of Israeli occupation got themselves in the wars, which the Arab states of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria launched against Israel. Despite the fact that the Lebanese army did not do much during this conflict and its success was minimal, it came to become one of the havens for the Palestinian liberation movements. While these groups were provided with a safe haven in Lebanon, their strength within the country grew so much that they started getting involved in the local political affairs. The arrival of these groups as well as the influx of Palestinian refugees increased the sectarian tensions, which were lurking just beneath the surface of the Lebanese society.

One of the most significant events that developed from the Arab-Israeli conflict and came to be a contributing factor in the destabilization of Lebanon is that which led to the Black September in Jordan.2 When the Jewish state was formed in 1948, the remaining Palestinian territories came under the control of Jordan and Egypt, with the former occupying the West Bank for maintaining its own security. Jordan had quite a large number of Palestinian refugees, who formed about half of its population, and when it occupied the West Bank, the Palestinian population doubled to form one third of the total Jordanian population. This country suddenly found itself in a situation where its native population had become a ruling minority. This situation inevitably led to a conflict between the two groups that formed the population of Jordan, especially when the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) established itself within the country. Black September is the conflict, which arose between the Jordanian government of King Hussein, and the Palestinians, represented by the PLO, to determine who would control Jordan. This conflict lasted for almost a year and it resulted in the defeat and expulsion of the PLO from Jordan as well as the entrenchment of Hashemite rule in the country. When this happened, the PLO moved its base of operations to Lebanon where, it contributed to the increasing sectarian tensions by bringing with it most of its fighting force. While launching guerilla attacks against Israel, the PLO also got involved in local Lebanese politics and during the civil war, it often sided with the Islamic groups against the Maronite Christian population.3

The PLO’s making Lebanon their base of operations ensured that they got involved in the internal affairs of this country. In essence, this organization formed a state within a state within this country, and this inevitably led to conflict with the host government. The power of the PLO was so great that it came to take over the administration of all the Palestinian refugee camps in the country, hence denying the Lebanese government the right to exercise power over its own territory. The PLO, with its headquarters in the Lebanese capital, continued to build its armed base by recruiting from the refugee camps it controlled. With its newfound confidence and political muscle, this organization used Lebanon as a base of operations in launching attacks against Israel, the latter that often retaliated in kind.4 The conflict between the PLO and Israel did considerable damage to Lebanon as this country and its people had to undergo a lot of suffering and loss in a war, which was not theirs to fight. In addition, this conflict increased the tense sectarian atmosphere in the country with forces such as the PLO and Israel taking sides in the sectarian divisions experienced within the country. These sectarian divisions and the outside support that many of the sects received was one of the main reasons why the violence, which turned into the Lebanese Civil War, took place.

An endeavor by the Abu Nidal Organization, to assassinate the Israeli envoy to the United Kingdom in 1982 led to Israel’s decision to attack Lebanon in the same year.5 The aim of this invasion was to ensure that a government friendly to Israel was put in place and an agreement signed which would guarantee Israel peace for many years to come. The Israeli invasion was targeted at the radical anti-Israeli Muslim groups, which used Lebanon as a base of attack against it. By attacking them and destroying their power, Israel wanted to weaken them enough to ensure that they would not easily regain the ability to attack it. During this conflict, Israel came to a direct confrontation with a part of the Syrian military, which was based in Lebanon at the time. The attack was swift and well planned and in the Palestinian and Syrian groups found themselves surrounded in Beirut. Israel’s plan had been to establish Maronite Christian dominance6 of Lebanon through the person of Bashir Gemayel, who would form a government that was pro-Israel, hence the establishment of peace between Israel and Lebanon. However, with the assassination of this popular Maronite leader, the Israeli position in the conflict was compromised, and bowing to pressure from both home and abroad, it withdrew from Lebanese territory. While its main aim had not been achieved, the Israeli invasion had pushed the PLO, the most popular Palestinian movement, out of Lebanon and it set up base in Tunisia.7 However, the power vacuum that remained was swiftly filled by Hezbollah and its allies, which consolidated its power in the south of Lebanon.

Throughout the Lebanese conflict, the various countries of the Middle East which had their own interest in this country contributed to its falling apart. None of the countries that were involved in this conflict saw any reason for the peaceful solution of the Lebanese sectarian conflict, and instead they all supported their own sectarian factions within the country. For example, Iran and Syria gave their full support to such groups as Hezbollah8 and Alawite militia groups, Libya and Egypt supported the various Sunni militias, and finally, Israel gave its support to the Maronite Christians. All the foreign states involved in this conflict, except Israel, wanted their own factions to take over Lebanon so that it could be used as a base for attacking Israel in a war, which many of them believed, was inevitable. Israel, on the other hand saw the establishment of a friendly government in Lebanon as a way of securing itself to the north and of establishing the peace, which it had long desired in the region. Furthermore, it was one of Israel’s aims to ensure that the Syrian military presence in Lebanon was removed because it posed a major threat to its interests towards the north.9 The loss of life among the native Lebanese population was massive, but this did not bring the conflict to a swift end as one would have expected. Instead, this conflict became even worse, with each of the sectarian factions even more determined to establish its dominance all over the country. The Arab-Israeli conflict, therefore, had a direct hand in the causing of the Lebanese crisis since each of the countries involved attempted to use Lebanon to achieve its own ends.

The support of Israel for the Maronites and other Christian groups in Lebanon can be considered to be one of the reasons why the country fell apart in the 1970s and 1980s. Among the reasons why Israel supported the Maronites was because of the fact that this group of Christians, unlike their fellow citizens, supported the existence of the Jewish state.10 This proved to be an opportunity for Israel whose aim was to put the Maronites in power so that a friendly government could administer its northern neighbor. As a consequence of this, the militant groups, which were associated with the Maronites, were trained in Israel by the Israeli Defense Force. In addition, whenever there were any conflicts which involved the Maronites, Israel tended to provide them not only with logistical support but also brought in advisors to help them make strategies on how best to tackle their Muslim adversaries. The fact that some of the Maronite leaders wanted to remove the PLO and all Palestinian refugees from Lebanon made them a valuable ally for Israel who, in addition to supporting them militarily, also started providing them with political support, which enabled them to gain an edge over their Arab backed opponents. As a direct consequence of the training they received from Israel, the Christian militia groups in the south of Lebanon later came to form the South Lebanese Army.11 The formation of this army contributed a great deal in the development and the duration of the conflict between the various Lebanese sects over control of the country.

Syria came to be directly involved in the affairs of Lebanon in 1976 when, because of the growing power of the various Palestinian groups in the country, it felt that the Christian population had to be protected against them. This meant that the Syrians came into the conflict on the side of the Maronite Christians against the radical Islamist and Palestinian groups, whom they had previously supported.12While this was the case, Syria brought its army into Lebanon for the purpose of keeping peace between the conflicting groups, so that it could be better able to secure its interests in the country as well. The Syrian army caused significant damage to the various armed Palestinian groups in Lebanon but at a meeting of the Arab League, it was forced to call for a cessation of hostilities. While this was the case, the Syrians were given a mandate to form a deterrent force to ensure that all the sides of the Lebanese conflict maintained a ceasefire. Despite their initial support for the Maronites, the Syrians changed sides and supported the various Muslim groups instead. The biggest opportunity for the Syrians came during the Lebanese war of 1982, which drove the PLO out of Lebanon, and Israel was pressured into withdrawing. This created a situation where the Syrians were able to consolidate their power in Lebanon and effectively come to dominate it.13

In conclusion, it can be said that the falling apart of Lebanon was caused, directly and indirectly by the Arab-Israeli conflict which was ragging all around it. Its strategic position along the Mediterranean coast as well as its proximity to Israel made it a natural target for both sides of the conflict. The meddling of the main players in the affairs of Lebanon made it weak internally because of the increasing sectarian conflict, which was brought about through the influence of the Arab-Israeli confrontations. One would go as far as to say that after the wars between the Arab states and Israel, Lebanon became the place where their conflict continued because both of these sides supported different sides of the Lebanese sectarian conflict. In essence, the Arab-Israeli conflict continued in Lebanon by proxy, with the different Lebanese factions representing the interests of their sponsors. This situation kept fueling the civil war within the country and it is possible that had outside force not been involved, then such a war would not have taken place and destroyed the once prosperous Lebanese economy. The continued conflict within the country also led to the growth in the power of militant groups such as Hezbollah, which are still dominant in Lebanon to this day. However, despite the continued conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Lebanon has managed to recover from the wars it experienced in the 1970s and 1980s and has regained the peace, which it once had. It is yet to be seen if the current conflict in Syria will have any effect on the peace that has been regained in Lebanon.

Media Theories

The Marxist theory tends to emphasize the role of mass media in the reproduction of the status quo and it further suggests that a direct link exists between economic ownership and the dissemination of messages that affirm the legitimacy and the value of a class society. These theorists emphasized the ideological effects of media in the interests of a ruling class, in reproducing the essentially exploitative relationships and manipulation, and in legitimizing the dominance of capitalism and the subordination of the working class. According to Bechmann, G (143), the media institution must be considered to be a part of the economic system with close links to the political system. The consequence of this can be seen through the reduction of independent media sources, the concentration of the news on large markets, the avoidance of risks by media houses, and the reduction of investment in less profitable media tasks such as investigative reporting and documentary film making. There is also a neglect of the poorer sectors of the potential audience and the range of news media is often politically unbalanced.

The Frankfurt School is a neo-Marxist thought which rebelled against modern society and media as creators and bearers of contemporary culture and ideology. Their criticism of mass communication media was that they hamper the road to a utopian society which is free from class and domination, and that media also stands in the way of change. Negt, O (61) states that by selectively presenting reality, including aspects of culture, education and entertainment (in which the bourgeois values enjoy priority) the media confirms and supports the dominant capitalist ideologies and thus maintains the status quo at the cost of the working class, which is represented by the masses. This school is therefore concerned about the ideological manipulation and exploitation of the mass media by capitalist considerations.

The media dependency theory, which is also known as the media system dependency theory, has often been explored as an expansion of the gratification approach although here are some slight differences between the two theories, that is, media dependency looks to the viewers goal as the origin of the dependency while the gratification theory emphasizes on the needs of the audience. Both the dependency theory and the gratification theory are, however, in agreement that media use may lead to reliance and according to the media dependency theory, the more reliant a person is on the medium for having his or her requirements satisfied, the more significant the medium will be to that individual. According to Einwiller, S et al (305) the individual’s reliance on a particular medium is influenced by the amount of media sources available to that individual because a person should become more reliant on a particular available media if his access to alternative media is inadequate. The more alternatives there are for a person, the less dependent will he be on only one specific medium.

There are, in my opinion, more similarities than differences between the theories of Marxists and that of the media dependency concerning the media. Both are concerned about the effect of media on the society, especially more about the use of the elite within such a society of the media to further their own ends, namely, the maintenance of their status. Media is used to control the masses so that they do not rise in rebellion against the oppressive upper classes of their society. It is not used for the purpose of social progress, as is claimed by the heads of media corporations, but for the purpose of maintaining the status quo so that the lower classes can continue to render their services to the elite and in the process making the elite richer, while the working classes remain poor. By limiting the content and quality of the media that the masses can access, the elite are able to perpetuate and justify its reasons for dominating the society as well as why they oppress the working classes for their own benefit. A very good example is when one considers those countries that are ruled by autocratic regimes. These countries tend to have only one state television and radio which is normally used to spread the state’s propaganda among the masses and in this way, the regime is able to maintain its grip on power.

Both of these schools of thought agree that the media structure, following the capitalist trend, tends towards monopoly. Media monopoly is a great concern today, because with a monopoly comes great power and it is not a wise thing to leave such power in the hands of a few as there may be a tendency to abuse it. Loveless, M (165) states that the media industries tend not to facilitate free speech and political discussion because they are likely not to be open enough to promote debate on all points of view. Although credible media calls for there to be facts, accuracy and completeness, most of the media houses do not follow this code and instead they only promote that which is most profitable to them and that of the promotion of the elite. In relation to the dependency theory, one would suggest that media monopoly would lead to a dependency because since most of the media available have a single owner, then they all would most likely follow his political, social, and economic ideals. Therefore, the masses will only be dependent on a biased viewpoint on matters from the media and their way of thinking will adjust to suit that perpetuated by the media.

The global integration of media ownership is another issue tackled by these two theories. James, B (37) states that global integration leads to less freedom of choice in what the masses are interested in seeing and instead, they are forced to accept what the media industry wishes them to see. One can argue that the product of an integrated media possesses the ulterior motive of repressing the imagination and rendering the masses socially and politically inactive. This would be in the interests of the capitalist elite because this media product is able to confine the thought of the masses to meaningless things because they are the victims of what is offered to them. The media industry in this instance turns both the media contents and their audiences into something similar to commodities, whose main purpose is to be used to make a profit. According to Hung – Yi (230) the masses, or individuals, are shown contents which have no real meaning to them to such an extent that their dependency comes to be based on nothing but a mirage and not a true reflection of what really goes on in society. The global integration of media ownership also leads to the decrease of any real diversity in the various media and this will result in the growing dependency of the masses on a single media form.

The Marxist theory suggests that public interest in communication is subordinated to private interests by the capitalist media owners because opposition and alternative voices are marginalized in favor of that of the elite. Furthermore, the news about the dominant groups is given more time on air than that of the minority ones and this shows the unconscious attitudes that are predominant in society and it also shows the power of the elite to manipulate the media in their favor. The dependency theory, as exemplified by Bigne Alcaniz (403), corroborates this argument because it shows how people can get dependent on a single medium due to the unavailability of alternatives. Since most world’s media are capitalist owned, the ideas of capitalist dominance come to become prominent in the lives of those audiences dependent on this media, and who eventually take this ideas at face value and continue to perpetuate it within their societies.

In conclusion, I would suggest that both the Marxist theories (of the Frankfurt School) on media and the dependency theory are essential in the study of the world media today because they quite adequately explain how it works. In this paper, we have looked at the various aspects of media within the context of these theories and some aspects of how these media influence the lives of the masses. One would agree with these theories that the media today dominated by the elite and that its purpose is to perpetuate its dominance by using the media to control the masses. It is a well known fact that if the masses recognize all their problems and realize who is the cause of all of these problems (the elite/ bourgeois) then they would rise against them and overthrow their class. In order to contain such an incident from happening, the elite has devised many forms of meaningless yet entertaining forms of media to keep the masses from concentrating on their problems and instead to get lost in a world of fantasy. In this way, the elite not only makes a profit from the audiences of the media they own, but they are also able to use this same media to justify their oppression of the masses or working class by using such outdated social theories as the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ among other elitist ideas.