Jonah Lalas Lalas is a fourth-year
international development studies and political science student who
urges you to question your assumptions. Email him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Jonah Lalas
Lately, the news has been bombarded with stories, interviews,
and investigative reports on terrorism, the tragedy of Sept. 11 and
the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan. Yet amidst all of the
“expert” testimonies and President George Bush’s
face on every newsmagazine, one voice has been left out of the
picture ““ the voice of the students.
Even though our generation will be the ones fighting this
“War on Terrorism” and will inherit the world shaped by
our leaders, the American media has been largely reluctant to
explore our viewpoints and perspectives. Though some newspapers
such as the Los Angeles Times have printed a few articles critical
of U.S. foreign policy, television media has resorted to the same
monotonous hysteria, reporting merely what comes out of the mouths
of politicians, other commentators and their own speculative
positions.
Illustration by ED OYAMA/Daily Bruin
On the weekend of Sept. 29, I finally thought all this had begun
to change. Channel One, a TV station for thousands of grade schools
across the nation, planned on shooting a town hall meeting between
high school and college students to find out their thoughts about
the war. The show, entitled “The Day it All Changed,”
was then to be broadcast on the WB the following night.
I, along with six other UCLA students, jumped at the
opportunity.
We found ourselves with about 50 other students on a funky
colored set with weird furniture right out of The Real World
““ the producer wanted this show to be a cross be between CNN
and MTV.
The studio was able to get Republican Sen. John McCain on
satellite for a Q & A. The producer as well as Lisa Ling,
the host of the show, specifically encouraged us to challenge
McCain’s monomaniacal attitude toward the war and ask him the
tough questions. They gave us the impression that McCain had made a
huge mistake coming on to the show because we, the students, would
grill him until he wept.
Many students asked McCain very critical questions about the
war, especially with regard to the role that the U.S. played in
strengthening the Taliban in the 1980s. We brought up the $40
million that it gave to the Taliban last May, the U.S. support of
the violent Northern Alliance and the 1998 bombing of a
pharmaceutical factory in Sudan with no evidence of chemical or
biological weapons. Students even suggested alternatives to
military action such as pursuing justice through the United Nations
and the International Criminal Court.
McCain clearly skirted several of these issues and shifted focus
toward the malevolent nature of the Taliban. My heart raced eagerly
as I envisioned McCain’s nervous face on national
television.
But to my dismay, none of the critical questions made the final
cut. Instead what emerged was the monotonous tone of the American
media and its failure to ask the right questions. What was
potentially an educational and insightful forum among students
transformed into a form of political propaganda, with John McCain
at the helm for American military action.
Much like every other politician in Washington, D.C. ““
with the exception of Congresswoman Barbara Lee ““ McCain
touted his pro-war stance and went on about the need to stop
terrorism by going to the “source.” Though some
students in the final cut did express their hesitancy at the
thought of war and urged the government to look for peaceful means,
nothing new was brought to the table.
There was absolutely no discussion about alternatives to war
““ i.e. the International Criminal Court ““ or the
history of notorious U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. In
typical American media fashion, the show packaged a progressive
viewpoint into a small simplistic sound bite. Like a drug, the show
provided a quick, comfortable fix and avoided any sort of
controversy that would stir up people’s minds. In fact, the
final quote before the closing of the show ended with a student who
expressed her overwhelming feeling of patriotism since the attacks,
a patriotism that transcended party lines, once more putting people
on a nationalistic high.
What this show represents is the censoring … er, editing out
of critical voices and student opinions. Disgusted, my friend and I
sent an e-mail asking Lisa Ling for an explanation. After all she
had personally told him after the show how much she admired hearing
such sharp questions from students. She passed our concerns over to
the executive producer, who defended the final cut.
I have no doubt in my mind that he honestly thinks he did a
great job with the show. But this type of attitude is pervasive in
all media, especially with the myth of objectivity. The truth is
that nothing is neutral and everything is political. Regardless of
the executive producer’s intent, he has his own opinions just
as everyone else, and they will come into play when he makes
decisions about what to include and what to cut.
Also, given the centrist and conservative media, the very
thought of presenting a “balanced” view shifts the flow
of ideas in favor of the dominant pro-war stances. Because student
voices in the studio were relatively progressive, the producer had
an obligation to present that viewpoint to counter the one-sided
rhetoric heard on everyday television.
Still, it is important to understand that there is no evil
conspiracy and serious intent to silence certain voices. The lack
of diversity of opinions in the media is merely a reflection of
what the “impartial” people in positions of power think
is important. When it comes down to it, someone still decides what
goes on the front page and all biases can never be completely
eliminated.
As students we have a tendency to be more impatient, open-minded
and inquisitive than the average person. With a proclivity for
questioning authority, we should speak out and challenge the
dominant ideas that are leading this country into a destructive and
unending war.