CBC Front Page
September 27, 2001
Like everybody, I've been riveted to - and overwhelmed by - the images on my TV screen since the devastating events of September11th. Suddenly the future seems remarkably precarious. I feel compelled to watch, hoping to understand the incomprehensible, and maybe also get some reassurance.
That's a tall order, especially given TV's limitations. Because TV is so effective at delivering images, emotions and experts, we're sometimes seduced into believing that it can supply everything we need to know. But it can't, and we need to remember that.
So while I'm glued to the set, here are a few things I try to keep in mind:
The pictures aired of some Palestinians celebrating in the streets, for instance, hardly represented the reaction of the entire Arab world, but might easily have been interpreted that way. No medium can tell the whole story, and TV tells less than most. And, in the case of the terrorist attacks, nobody even knows what the "whole story" is yet. We need to ask ourselves what's missing. As in the Gulf War, recent TV coverage has given us lots of military personnel advocating retaliation with massive force, and precious few international law experts citing the U.S. constitution and UN charter, which dictate investigation and prosecution. TV presents war as inevitable, and peaceful alternatives are made to appear not viable.
These elements - and the commercials themselves - create an environment that changes the way we see what's going on.
Say a story about the anguish of a missing firefighter's family or the plight of an Afghan refugee is introduced with a lot of audio-visual hype, and then followed by commercials for fast food or a holiday escape. Sometimes the tragedy of that family or those refugees ends up being undermined or trivialized by the "packaging."
Some networks have tried to give Muslim leaders an opportunity to challenge the equation of their faith with terrorism. This is important. We need a variety of ethnic, cultural and religious views to be represented; we need dissenting points of view to be included; and we need dominant perspectives to be challenged. (For instance, when President Bush says he'll use "everything at the U.S.'s disposal," why doesn't that include diplomacy?)
Finally, I watch for how people who don't have a voice are being described. What images are shown of them? What are they doing? What context - if any - is given for their behaviour?
As I write this, the major U.S. networks are showing repeated images of the Stars and Stripes to reinforce the theme of "America United." That ignores the reality in which many U.S. citizens are profoundly conflicted about their country's foreign policies, and what the appropriate response to the attacks might be.
Terrorism comes out of complex historical, cultural, religious and territorial matters, requiring a lot of explanation and context - and what I know about this, I've mostly learned from reading the newspaper. Alternatives to military action - diplomacy and negotiation, for instance - are visually boring. The lesson here? We should all supplement our TV watching with other sources of information.
Since the terrorist attacks, some U.S. newscasters in particular have stopped reporting and started advocating. When former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger told CNN, "There's only one way to begin to deal with people like this... you have to kill some of them even if they are not directly involved" - that's not a statement of fact, it's an opinion. And we should question how informed it is.
NBC's Tom Brokaw relied on an anonymous call to an Arab TV station when he told his viewers that the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for the attack. The information, instantly disseminated around the world, was wrong. In contrast, CBC's Peter Mansbridge, in attempting to explain the inexplicable to his viewers on the first day, confessed, "We just don't know." For that unvarnished truth, I was grateful.
Here's another language issue. When the U.S. bombs what it believes to be military targets in Iraq, or the Sudan, and civilians die, that's called "collateral damage." But when a hijacked plane goes into the World Trade Center, that's the "murder of innocent victims." Why?
We need, more than ever, for our leaders and our broadcasters to practise rigour and restraint in this conflict. If you're worried about factual inaccuracy, lack of context or rhetorical excess, you should take advantage of broadcasters' feedback mechanisms, and demand greater responsibility.
The difference was that those movies rarely show the consequences. I think seeing the close-up shots of people bleeding, and the personal testimonials of missing wives and lost brothers, was critical to helping us appreciate the human dimension and cost of the terrorism.
So on the positive side, television can be very effective at communicating emotional impact.
But too much immersion in the images of devastation can numb or traumatize us. I try to limit myself to one newscast a day, and I talk about the issues with people around me.