As previously mentioned, I read the news for a living*. This means I end up identifying a lot of recurring tropes—conventional storytelling devices—in mainstream media, whose goal is to simplify the narrative(s) about the Middle East in a way that is easily digestible for a (presumedly) Western audience.
As you can guess, the vast majority of these tropes are ridiculous, insulting and just plain stupid. Here are a handful that I happen to find extremely grating.
The Middle East is one big blob.
Sure, to the average Joe who doesn't know his basic geography, Lebanon could just as easily be in Africa or Ohio. And it's so gosh darn hard to keep track of who's killing whom around here these days! Which is where the term "Middle East" becomes a very convenient shorthand for just about anywhere. And by anywhere, I mean sometimes Syria, but mostly Israel and Palestine, if one is to believe the headlines. (Bonus points for articles discussing the Middle East crisis)
Calling them "Middle East peace talks" is an optimistic vision, when you think about it. If we somehow managed to solve the protracted conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, then the entire Middle East would finally resolve all of its ongoing issues! "Hey shabaab! Stop killing each other / firing at protesters / planting car bombs / throwing activists in jail—they finally agreed on a two-state solution!"
Seriously, dudes. It's as aggravating as using the word "America" in reference to one country when there are 34 other nations in that land mass. I'm sure there are plenty of Latinos and Canadians annoyed by that, and the West doesn't find them half as scary as Arabs.
Everything can be explained by religion—sorry, sects.
According to the media, there are two types of people in the Middle East: Muslims versus the seculars. Or sometimes Muslims versus Christians. Or is it Sunnis versus Shi'as? Anyway, you can rest assured that it's always someone against someone else, and it's always about religion. Which is why religious affiliations must be mentioned AT ALL TIMES, lest readers forget for one second that the only thing Arabs care about is their deities. Try counting the number of times people and places are identified as Shi'a and Sunni in a typical AFP article about Iraq. And that's not even getting into the use of terminology like "Sunni Arabs" and "Shi'a Muslim." Come on guys, you're going to get your audience confused if you start mixing up religion and ethnicity as if they're interchangeable words! (Unless this was your plan all along...)
Another important factor in maintaining the image of perpetual division between religious groups in the Middle East is to constantly remind the public of this ancient Arab saying: "Sunnis of a feather flock together."** So don't hesitate to spell out how each sect is a monolith that unanimously supports one side or another in a given conflict, like AFP's awesomely scientific survey (12th paragraph) which boldly claims that Lebanese Sunnis side with the (mainly Sunni) Syrian rebels, while the country's Shi'as support Bashar al-Assad. Since there hasn't been an official opinion poll on where Lebanese people stand on the Syrian conflict, I'm going to assume this reporter talked to a couple of acquaintances who fulfilled his or her confirmation bias to come up with this conclusion. But that's not how journalism works. You are paid to come up with properly backed facts, not spout inanities on how you think things are.
No example shows it quite as well as this New York Times blunder, when the headline of an article about a speech by Hezbollah (hence Shi'a) leader Hassan Nasrallah read: "Hezbollah vows to step up Sunni fight." All well and good, except Nasrallah never mentioned attacking Sunnis. In fact, he had made it very clear that he did not care about the religious identity of the Dahiyeh bombing perpetrators. But what's a Gray Lady to do when its subjects don't fit into the mold?
Oppressed people are either perpetually sad and downtrodden or inspiringly dignified in their victimhood.
This Nicholas Kristof-type narrative is often seen as the counterpoint to "Arabs are all bloodthirsty medieval jihad warriors," but is just as problematic. Syrians and Palestinians, to name only the most notable examples, are not expected to feel happy or act silly; they must constantly be poster children for a broader context. This trope is dangerously pervasive in news photography, where you will see big-eyed unkempt children, teenagers throwing stones or stoic old men in keffiehs, stand-ins for what the media wants to say about a given situation, but deprived of their individuality.
So when a given situation shows Arabs having a broader range of emotions, the initial journalistic reaction is shock and awe. One of the most notable examples was the June coverage of Arab Idol winner Mohammed Assaf, who happens to be Palestinian from the Gaza Strip. One headline by Reuters read "Palestinian 'Arab Idol' victory unleashes rare outburst of joy." Because joy is apparently on the list of items banned from import by the Israeli blockade on Gaza? Did they have to smuggle joy in through tunnels from Egypt? Never mind the fact that large public outbursts of joy are relatively rare everywhere in the world, save during major sporting events. But thanks to the miserabilist tone, Reuters conveys a Hollywood happy ending without ever really mentioning the reason why life in occupied Palestine is not all sunshine and roses in the first place.
Democracy is still a surprising anomaly in the Middle East.
Ah yes, the tired cliché about authoritarian dictators, kings and sheikhs is the reason why George W. Bush had to go into Iraq and introduce these poor souls to democracy, right? Sure, a lot of Middle Eastern nations don't have the well-oiled*** democracies that Western countries supposedly have (although the US ain't looking too good these days...). But these assumptions on Middle Eastern backwardness are so ingrained that they come up in the most insidious of ways. For example, this article on Iraqi Kurdistan elections states in the first sentence, so as to highlight its significance, that this is "their first election in four years."
Does the author have any idea how stupid that sounds? This is the Orientalist equivalent of saying "Woe is me, this is my first lunch in 24 hours." No one would ever write about America's "first presidential election in four years," because this is the legally approved time span for a political term in office, period. By inserting this phrase right in the lede, AFP is implying that four years is a fishy amount of time, and that there is something deeply abnormal with these Middle Easterners practicing democracy. They are creating drama where there is none.
These narratives bother me, not only because they are insulting to their subjects, but because they reflect the little esteem these media outlets have for their readers. A recent article mockingly used this orientalist tone to cover American news. However, the joke was more about the ongoing American political situation being so backwards that it could easily take place "over there," and not about how offensive and demeaning these clichés really are. Contrary to what the corporations controlling mainstream media think, our job is to educate people, not to dumb down information and cultivate generations of ignorant sheep fearful of the "Other" and devoid of any real understanding of the world's complexity. We must demand free range information instead of factory-processed news.
*Only barely an oversimplification.
**Not an actual saying.
***Pun intended.
As you can guess, the vast majority of these tropes are ridiculous, insulting and just plain stupid. Here are a handful that I happen to find extremely grating.
The Middle East is one big blob.
 |
| Yeah, we're confused too, John. We know you didn't sign up to solve everything. (Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AFP) |
Sure, to the average Joe who doesn't know his basic geography, Lebanon could just as easily be in Africa or Ohio. And it's so gosh darn hard to keep track of who's killing whom around here these days! Which is where the term "Middle East" becomes a very convenient shorthand for just about anywhere. And by anywhere, I mean sometimes Syria, but mostly Israel and Palestine, if one is to believe the headlines. (Bonus points for articles discussing the Middle East crisis)
Calling them "Middle East peace talks" is an optimistic vision, when you think about it. If we somehow managed to solve the protracted conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, then the entire Middle East would finally resolve all of its ongoing issues! "Hey shabaab! Stop killing each other / firing at protesters / planting car bombs / throwing activists in jail—they finally agreed on a two-state solution!"
Seriously, dudes. It's as aggravating as using the word "America" in reference to one country when there are 34 other nations in that land mass. I'm sure there are plenty of Latinos and Canadians annoyed by that, and the West doesn't find them half as scary as Arabs.
According to the media, there are two types of people in the Middle East: Muslims versus the seculars. Or sometimes Muslims versus Christians. Or is it Sunnis versus Shi'as? Anyway, you can rest assured that it's always someone against someone else, and it's always about religion. Which is why religious affiliations must be mentioned AT ALL TIMES, lest readers forget for one second that the only thing Arabs care about is their deities. Try counting the number of times people and places are identified as Shi'a and Sunni in a typical AFP article about Iraq. And that's not even getting into the use of terminology like "Sunni Arabs" and "Shi'a Muslim." Come on guys, you're going to get your audience confused if you start mixing up religion and ethnicity as if they're interchangeable words! (Unless this was your plan all along...)
Another important factor in maintaining the image of perpetual division between religious groups in the Middle East is to constantly remind the public of this ancient Arab saying: "Sunnis of a feather flock together."** So don't hesitate to spell out how each sect is a monolith that unanimously supports one side or another in a given conflict, like AFP's awesomely scientific survey (12th paragraph) which boldly claims that Lebanese Sunnis side with the (mainly Sunni) Syrian rebels, while the country's Shi'as support Bashar al-Assad. Since there hasn't been an official opinion poll on where Lebanese people stand on the Syrian conflict, I'm going to assume this reporter talked to a couple of acquaintances who fulfilled his or her confirmation bias to come up with this conclusion. But that's not how journalism works. You are paid to come up with properly backed facts, not spout inanities on how you think things are.
No example shows it quite as well as this New York Times blunder, when the headline of an article about a speech by Hezbollah (hence Shi'a) leader Hassan Nasrallah read: "Hezbollah vows to step up Sunni fight." All well and good, except Nasrallah never mentioned attacking Sunnis. In fact, he had made it very clear that he did not care about the religious identity of the Dahiyeh bombing perpetrators. But what's a Gray Lady to do when its subjects don't fit into the mold?
Oppressed people are either perpetually sad and downtrodden or inspiringly dignified in their victimhood.
This Nicholas Kristof-type narrative is often seen as the counterpoint to "Arabs are all bloodthirsty medieval jihad warriors," but is just as problematic. Syrians and Palestinians, to name only the most notable examples, are not expected to feel happy or act silly; they must constantly be poster children for a broader context. This trope is dangerously pervasive in news photography, where you will see big-eyed unkempt children, teenagers throwing stones or stoic old men in keffiehs, stand-ins for what the media wants to say about a given situation, but deprived of their individuality.
So when a given situation shows Arabs having a broader range of emotions, the initial journalistic reaction is shock and awe. One of the most notable examples was the June coverage of Arab Idol winner Mohammed Assaf, who happens to be Palestinian from the Gaza Strip. One headline by Reuters read "Palestinian 'Arab Idol' victory unleashes rare outburst of joy." Because joy is apparently on the list of items banned from import by the Israeli blockade on Gaza? Did they have to smuggle joy in through tunnels from Egypt? Never mind the fact that large public outbursts of joy are relatively rare everywhere in the world, save during major sporting events. But thanks to the miserabilist tone, Reuters conveys a Hollywood happy ending without ever really mentioning the reason why life in occupied Palestine is not all sunshine and roses in the first place.
Democracy is still a surprising anomaly in the Middle East.
Ah yes, the tired cliché about authoritarian dictators, kings and sheikhs is the reason why George W. Bush had to go into Iraq and introduce these poor souls to democracy, right? Sure, a lot of Middle Eastern nations don't have the well-oiled*** democracies that Western countries supposedly have (although the US ain't looking too good these days...). But these assumptions on Middle Eastern backwardness are so ingrained that they come up in the most insidious of ways. For example, this article on Iraqi Kurdistan elections states in the first sentence, so as to highlight its significance, that this is "their first election in four years."
Does the author have any idea how stupid that sounds? This is the Orientalist equivalent of saying "Woe is me, this is my first lunch in 24 hours." No one would ever write about America's "first presidential election in four years," because this is the legally approved time span for a political term in office, period. By inserting this phrase right in the lede, AFP is implying that four years is a fishy amount of time, and that there is something deeply abnormal with these Middle Easterners practicing democracy. They are creating drama where there is none.
These narratives bother me, not only because they are insulting to their subjects, but because they reflect the little esteem these media outlets have for their readers. A recent article mockingly used this orientalist tone to cover American news. However, the joke was more about the ongoing American political situation being so backwards that it could easily take place "over there," and not about how offensive and demeaning these clichés really are. Contrary to what the corporations controlling mainstream media think, our job is to educate people, not to dumb down information and cultivate generations of ignorant sheep fearful of the "Other" and devoid of any real understanding of the world's complexity. We must demand free range information instead of factory-processed news.
*Only barely an oversimplification.
**Not an actual saying.
***Pun intended.
This is really excellent, thank you; pointed here by a link at Shakesville (where I'm CaitieCat; I can't seem to sync up my online presence between various commenting systems and blog platforms, but CaitieCat is me, and fullmetalfeminist is my public feminist blog).
ReplyDeleteThanks CaitieCat, really glad a fellow Shaker liked it!
ReplyDelete