Iran and Media Manipulation
I recently talked to a colleague from Iran at a conference. He and his wife are now living in Canada. He confirmed that females are often unhappy with the head scarves forced upon them there and that, in fact, his own wife stopped wearing one upon moving to Canada. I found this idea interesting, given recent developments in some European nations: France's attempts to institute a full public ban on headscarves which cover the entire face except the eyes (headscarves are already banned in schools and the workplace), and Switzerland's ban on minarets. I am not sure how I feel about either of these particular actions; there are strong reasons on both sides. However, in the case of Switzerland, I find the law upsetting, because my only reasoning for why such a law should be allowed to go into place is that the call to prayer is a disturbance of the peace, particularly for non-muslim families living near mosques. But it turns out that none of the mosques conduct the call the prayer as it is. So why this ban on minarets?
Of course the Swiss want to preserve architectural heritage--a valid concern, but I doubt this is the main reason. I think it's fear of Islamic fundamentalism that motivated this law. Ignorance about Islam and fear of immigration and cultural domination is a strong motivator. Just as there are Christian extremists who do not represent the majority of Christians, there are Muslim extremists who do not represent the majority of Muslims. However, as outsiders ignorant of the belief system, people tend to see and remember what is most prominent--that is, the extremes. If that's not enough, the media tend to focus on extremes and twist things to make stories and the characters in them more sensational. This helps define some clear lines for the masses in terms of who is a "good guy" or "bad guy" and makes things easier to digest. Keeping people in the dark is the perfect way to make them see in black and white, so it's advantageous to discourage knowledge of the details and just how complex they may be. Ultimately, it's about control of people. Prejudice is a strong control device, and it's often propagated by those in power for that reason.
At any rate, there are far more dire issues in Iran right now. For more information, you can read material on this youtube channel and watch videos.
Here in the US, we are constantly bombarded with media depicting Middle Eastern leaders, laws, and Islam in a negative light. Having recently read the book "What is the What" about the Second Sudanese Civil War, I have become curious about Islamic political leaders. It seems that there are many examples in recent history of bloody political conflicts resulting from attempts to institute Islamic fundamentalist states which use sharia law (An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth). In fact, there are bloody conflicts resulting from trying to establish other religious states; in particular, consider the case of Israel with the Israli-Palestinian conflict. So I decided to do a little of research, starting with the current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his views on these issues.
After watching an address by President Ahmadinejad made to the UN in 2009 here, I was impressed. His speech was very well prepared, and he delivered it well. I even agree with some of his main points. However, there are other statements and interviews which I found very disturbing. Like other politicians, he simply avoids questions he feels uncomfortable with or doesn't know how to answer, but what's disturbing is exactly what kinds of questions he avoids. In one interview, he beat around the bush on question about whether or not he thinks the Holocaust happened, stating that he simply believed it's never wrong to encourage more research and scientific evidence for a historical event. Historical events are being rediscovered and rewritten all the time as more evidence is uncovered, he argued. However, he made the excellent point that this has little to do with the Palestinians living in Israel today. The current violence and US support of it is unjustified. Since I did not see the full interview, it seems to me that this question about the Holocaust was perhaps a cheap shot in the middle of an interview about the international relations and the Middle East. This is just one way that our media manipulates. What is the real reason that the US is supporting Israel? I don't know. But I don't think it's because Jews were subjected to genocide during WWII and US sentiment is that this should entitle them to their own religious state. I think that this reason is yet another fed to masses because it's one that appeals.
I also found a fascinating youtube video about how the media have manipulated statements Ahmadinejad made in regards to his views on Israel. In fact, if you do a quick search for him, you'll find these "altered" statements tend to dominate what you find: Media Manipulation
This led me to this video about 9/11 which I highly recommend: Why us? September 11th was a reaction to what?
Let me make it clear here that I am not arguing for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or saying that I'm on any particular side of the Israli-Palestinian conflict--far from it. I'm merely sharing some interesting videos and observations which I've found relating to how the government and media take creative liberty to sculpt the world views of consumers in efforts to define some clear lines for the masses and keep them under control. Things are not always what they appear to be.
Of course the Swiss want to preserve architectural heritage--a valid concern, but I doubt this is the main reason. I think it's fear of Islamic fundamentalism that motivated this law. Ignorance about Islam and fear of immigration and cultural domination is a strong motivator. Just as there are Christian extremists who do not represent the majority of Christians, there are Muslim extremists who do not represent the majority of Muslims. However, as outsiders ignorant of the belief system, people tend to see and remember what is most prominent--that is, the extremes. If that's not enough, the media tend to focus on extremes and twist things to make stories and the characters in them more sensational. This helps define some clear lines for the masses in terms of who is a "good guy" or "bad guy" and makes things easier to digest. Keeping people in the dark is the perfect way to make them see in black and white, so it's advantageous to discourage knowledge of the details and just how complex they may be. Ultimately, it's about control of people. Prejudice is a strong control device, and it's often propagated by those in power for that reason.
At any rate, there are far more dire issues in Iran right now. For more information, you can read material on this youtube channel and watch videos.
Here in the US, we are constantly bombarded with media depicting Middle Eastern leaders, laws, and Islam in a negative light. Having recently read the book "What is the What" about the Second Sudanese Civil War, I have become curious about Islamic political leaders. It seems that there are many examples in recent history of bloody political conflicts resulting from attempts to institute Islamic fundamentalist states which use sharia law (An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth). In fact, there are bloody conflicts resulting from trying to establish other religious states; in particular, consider the case of Israel with the Israli-Palestinian conflict. So I decided to do a little of research, starting with the current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his views on these issues.
After watching an address by President Ahmadinejad made to the UN in 2009 here, I was impressed. His speech was very well prepared, and he delivered it well. I even agree with some of his main points. However, there are other statements and interviews which I found very disturbing. Like other politicians, he simply avoids questions he feels uncomfortable with or doesn't know how to answer, but what's disturbing is exactly what kinds of questions he avoids. In one interview, he beat around the bush on question about whether or not he thinks the Holocaust happened, stating that he simply believed it's never wrong to encourage more research and scientific evidence for a historical event. Historical events are being rediscovered and rewritten all the time as more evidence is uncovered, he argued. However, he made the excellent point that this has little to do with the Palestinians living in Israel today. The current violence and US support of it is unjustified. Since I did not see the full interview, it seems to me that this question about the Holocaust was perhaps a cheap shot in the middle of an interview about the international relations and the Middle East. This is just one way that our media manipulates. What is the real reason that the US is supporting Israel? I don't know. But I don't think it's because Jews were subjected to genocide during WWII and US sentiment is that this should entitle them to their own religious state. I think that this reason is yet another fed to masses because it's one that appeals.
I also found a fascinating youtube video about how the media have manipulated statements Ahmadinejad made in regards to his views on Israel. In fact, if you do a quick search for him, you'll find these "altered" statements tend to dominate what you find: Media Manipulation
This led me to this video about 9/11 which I highly recommend: Why us? September 11th was a reaction to what?
Let me make it clear here that I am not arguing for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or saying that I'm on any particular side of the Israli-Palestinian conflict--far from it. I'm merely sharing some interesting videos and observations which I've found relating to how the government and media take creative liberty to sculpt the world views of consumers in efforts to define some clear lines for the masses and keep them under control. Things are not always what they appear to be.