Title Discuss the significance of media participation specifically the methods used by writers to analyse American
... In the ensuing investigations and numerous debates that seeked to apprehend the perpetrators and explore the motives behind the attack, the American people asked “how can we retaliate? ... Nevertheless, the subsequent sentiments expressed through various forms of communication, especially the media, exemplify their dominance, misunderstanding and to some extent ignorance. ... This paper examines both the media’s participation and America’s global influence through the year’s pre and post 911. The focus is on the opinions of writers and the way in which their information is consumed, processed and understood, relative to the way in which it is presented. ... Although several writers are presented to in reference to this discussion, the focus is on Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies who wrote a series of compelling arguments, in response to the question post 911 “why do people hate America” in their book with the same title. A question they believe has acquired a status of fact and new resonance since 911, which, subtly transformed by the media and other forms of communication, is no longer merely a basis for inquiry. The attacks are simply referred to as ‘cowardly acts of hatred’, ‘random acts of terror’ and ‘devastating to the American people and our way of life’ (Bush, 2001). ... That even best-intentioned foreign and domestic policy has lead to the worst effects of American power, thus the consequent animosity felt towards the U. ... However, the American public seem oblivious to the apparent backlash of hatred which appears to be a result of economic and military influence throughout the globe. Sardar and Davies, constantly allude to the lack of understanding which leaves the American public confused as to why it is a target of terrorists. ... Furthermore, the apparent inexperience with dealing with such an attack has been to lash out at other ‘rogue states’, which appears to have cemented their strongest allies whilst pushing away any who appose their methods. ... Sardar and Davies see this as gross miscalculation on behalf of the US to overestimate the world’s willingness to blindly follow American foreign policy. ... Although the authors do not expressly state that these resources are used wrongfully, there are other writers such as Micheal Moore who feel that these resources are used to proliferate a fierce retaliatory strategy against its enemies in the eyes of the public. Moore expounds that the media is manipulated or used to manipulate the public into following the political aims of the present government. He contends that through media channels the people are held in a perpetual state of fear of the enemy, willing to give up their liberties to a higher power, driven by the desire maintain their freedom (Moore, 2001, 2002). Moore himself is not unabashed to using the media as an arena to assert his own political beliefs. He personifies the growing trend of writers that analytically criticise US foreign policy and military intervention and might even be considered the vanguard of the opposition. ... But the book is not designed to placate the American public, nor is it designed to facilitate anti-American animosity and quicken the pace of this recent momentum. ... Sardar and Davies see hatred, regarding specific events that factor into hatred, as the fundamental basis on which violence has been used as a counter-weapon towards the US. ... Among other things, this hatred comes from a self-perception the US projects across the globe through the media, and entertainment, which antagonises other states providing a context of conventions that are understood/misunderstood and interpreted. ... Because cultures clash on so many issues, aggression and conflict is used by both sides to mollify their disagreements. ... Barbara Gunnell, a prominent political analyst writing for the New Statesmen, reflected that in fact both “the American administration and the Taliban leadership describe each other in the terminology of evil” (Gunell, 2001). Sardar and Davies focus on the politically advantageous desire for the communication of anti-American systems to be labelled as an ‘axis of evil’ (Bush, 2001), as evil demands opposition rather than analysis and understanding. ... Characters in such films as ‘Rules of Engagement’, ‘Delta Force’, ‘True Lies’, ‘The Harem’ and ‘Executive Decision’ all involve Islamic fundamentalist groups that wish to destroy the American Dream and its people. ... It goes not without admonition when writer Edward Said (1978) said that, “this representation of Muslims as militant, barbaric fanatics, corrupt, effete sensualists, people who lived contrary to natural law, developed in Western society has been resistant to change and is causally linked to anti-American thinking and terrorist activities”. ... They claim that the context of hatred is inter-connected and reinforced not only through entertainment and media, but also symbolically, a phenomenon called ‘the McDonaldnization of Society’ (Ritzer, 1999). ... Anti-American support has reached a recent high as more countries stop endorsing American military action and seek a more egregious compromise, not with terrorists, but between cultures. ... American’s strongest allay in recent years, Britain has been on constant alert since joining Bush’s ‘war on terrorism’. Thankfully, nobody has fallen victim to terrorist attacks, but many politicians and writers condemn supporting American military action due to the considerable financial cost to the public and the potential threat of violence (Robin Cook, 2002). Moreover, chemicals recently captured around greater London to be used, in words of the would-be assassins, on ‘soft targets’ meaning civilians, have added to the paranoia of the public (BBC World Service, March 31st 2004). ... The British Prime minister, Tony Blair, has taken constant criticism through the media over his support for American military action and the Conservatives may use recent events, as the Socialist party did in Spain, to its political advantage in the upcoming election. Economist Bill Emmott in his book 20:21 visions suggested that politically, the tidal swing away from the US could, over time, attribute directly to the future fall of the American Empire (Emmott, 2003).