Manolescu Lacramioara, G123 Syrian war - media manipulation

Media has great influence on people, nowadays. Therefore, it is rather important for one to be aware of the influence media has on them as well as of the manipulation media uses on people. It is common for any media channels to use certain techniques and arguments the favours their interests. In my opinion there may be plenty of reasons for doing so, such as social, political, economical, but mainly, media's interest in manipulating the public is its own gain and that is a large audience. Take the Syrian war for example. Every site that presents the story has the same version, but differently presented. Some media channels try to raise sympathy, others tend to blame one party or another and others are simply neutral, presenting facts as they are. No matter which technique they use, it is likely that all of them have their own agenda. First of all, after reading the article about the Syrian war on the BBC website, one can notice that the writers seem neutral when it comes to both sides of the war. They do not blame one and defend the other or vice versa. What they do though, is blaming both sides for the war outlining the negative effects this war has on Syrian children. Not only do they blame the rebels and the military for recruiting children, but they also blame the society as this fact "is seen as a source of pride by many children and their families" states BBC. They present facts such us a large number of young children being recruited by both sides and this is referred to "the lost generation" by BBC. Even though it may seem like an innocent truth, the article presents the terror lived by children which softens the readers. The influence of people's emotions is well known tool that will provide approval from the public towards a "humanitarian war" which will only result in more civilians killings. "These killings and atrocities perpetrated by US-NATO sponsored death squads are casually blamed on the government with a view to justifying a military intervention" states Michel Chossudovsky in an online article. Second of all, CBS seems to think that the war in Syria is affecting every country in the Middle East, more or less. President Obama had Israel apologies to Turkey only to make them stronger allies for fighting the war in Syria. The USA also controls most of the Middle Eastern country's

decision as the asked Iraq to inspect any daily flights that they consider to be caring weapons for Damascus. The article presents both sides of the war on a neutral tone, while convincing people that the USA has the right to use force in order to stop the war. The writer clearly says that "you need only look at the past week of events, starting with America's diplomatic offensive" after claiming Syria is on the edge. It is important for the American people that the world understands what they are going to do before they do it, so that when the time comes they simply accept their decisions without questioning them, and media is the best way to do it. On the other hand, CNN points all fingers towards the Syrian government, more specific towards the president of Syria. The article highlights the fact that the violence that is in the streets of Damascus and the growing refugee crisis "calls for outside intervention". Somehow, the expression they use states that because the president is out of control and he does not take the advice of other countries, gives the right to the American army to restore order on the streets of Syria. This can only bring more hate among the Middle Eastern population as they already confronted the American army in many other battles along the way. Even though the reason may seem innocent and an act of kindness, there is always a political gained from their involvement, just as many people suspected the war with Iraq to have been used as a means to have access to oil. Other Syrian websites simply present the facts as the people of the country see them. Most of the articles on Syrian website blame the government and the soldiers that not only do they kill children, but they also use the war as a cover up to rape and abuse children knowing that nobody will investigate. All in all, we can see that most American articles try to justify the role of USA in the decisionmaking process when it come to Middle Eastern countries by presenting the war facts on a neutral tone, while other websites blame either the government or both sides of the war for the conflict in Syria. Therefore, we can see the manifestation of media manipulation used for political persuasion by insinuating and convincing people that the best thing for the Middle East is for the USA to get involved.

Bibliography:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21760461 http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/03/26/f-vp-ayed-cairo-syria.html http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/24/world/meast/syria-101

http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-nato-s-next-humanitarian-war/29234