WEBVTT 00:00:01.200 --> 00:00:05.400 Every news footage is a narrative, and that means, a story. 00:00:05.800 --> 00:00:10.900 And it is a presumption of narrative theory that every story has someone telling it, 00:00:11.100 --> 00:00:16.400 and that every story has a particular angle from which it is narrated or told. 00:00:16.600 --> 00:00:21.200 This particular angle is called the perspective or the point of view. 00:00:21.700 --> 00:00:26.900 Critically reading media messages means to be aware, to think, and to think critically, 00:00:27.100 --> 00:00:30.400 about this angle that the story is being told. 00:00:30.600 --> 00:00:34.200 For instance, media footage can be told by a narrator, 00:00:34.400 --> 00:00:39.200 that is, say, a voice over telling the story or relating the news. 00:00:39.300 --> 00:00:43.200 And this is, presumably, a reporter reading the news, 00:00:43.300 --> 00:00:48.000 or in the behind a reporter who actually wrote the news. 00:00:48.250 --> 00:00:54.400 It can also be told by a witness or someone who tells the story by its own voice. 00:00:55.000 --> 00:01:00.600 And more often than not, footage involves both the narration by a news reader, 00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:07.200 and statements from various officials, people on the ground, witnesses, victims etc. 00:01:07.500 --> 00:01:14.900 And it is usually believed that, if a story incorporates, contains multiple agents or voices, 00:01:15.050 --> 00:01:16.550 it is more objective. 00:01:16.700 --> 00:01:24.050 However, it is worth reminding ourselves that in narrative theory there is no such thing as absolute objectivity 00:01:24.300 --> 00:01:28.750 every utterance involves someone's particular, subjective position, 00:01:28.950 --> 00:01:33.103 and every narration is made from a particular standpoint, whether 00:01:33.127 --> 00:01:37.150 this standpoint is openly expressed or concealed in some way. 00:01:37.500 --> 00:01:43.350 So, in a way, before we can even ask ourselves which story is more truthful from another, 00:01:43.800 --> 00:01:49.500 we should become aware of these various strategies that the media use in order to be more persuasive. 00:01:49.800 --> 00:01:54.450 Let us illustrate this by looking at several different footages of the Syrian crisis. 00:01:55.000 --> 00:01:59.900 The Syrian crisis is a suitable example for discussing the role of the media 00:02:00.400 --> 00:02:04.600 as it presently involves several domestic and international players. 00:02:04.800 --> 00:02:09.700 Just to remind on the basics, In 2011, riots against president Asad 00:02:09.780 --> 00:02:15.900 started in Syria as part of the so called Arab spring, that affects many states in Arab world, 00:02:16.100 --> 00:02:21.000 which led to a full front civil war between Asad's government and the Syrian army 00:02:21.100 --> 00:02:24.250 against the insurgents, who basically want him deposed. 00:02:24.800 --> 00:02:31.700 In the last two years, radical Islamists got involved and gained control over large part of territory. 00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:37.150 In addition, there is a sizable Kurdish minority and other ethnic groups in Syria. 00:02:37.600 --> 00:02:44.550 Thus, while some are fighting the government forces, others are fighting mostly the ISIS or the radical Islamists, 00:02:44.700 --> 00:02:48.550 while ISIS itself appears to be hostile to all parties involved. 00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:54.400 International military involvement includes the anti-ISIL but also anti-government air strikes 00:02:54.700 --> 00:02:57.950 and weapon provision by the US, France, Britain and Turkey, 00:02:58.300 --> 00:03:03.150 and from 2015 Russia also launched air strikes in order to defeat ISIL, 00:03:03.500 --> 00:03:06.800 however it supports Asad and his government. 00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:11.700 So, it is a very complicated situation, which completely defies black and white description 00:03:11.900 --> 00:03:13.900 and divisions to good and bad guys. 00:03:14.400 --> 00:03:19.400 Each party, as it appears, fights for power and their particular interests, 00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:24.150 with minority ethnic groups in Syria probably being at greatest risk 00:03:24.240 --> 00:03:29.000 and thus having a more existential and less imperial motifs in the conflict. 00:03:29.300 --> 00:03:33.500 So, let us see then how different media portray the situation in Syria. 00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:38.600 The first clip is a homemade production of what appears to be a common Syrian girl. 00:11:04.900 --> 00:11:11.400 In this first clip, we see what appears to be a common Syrian girl addressing Western audiences. 00:11:11.500 --> 00:11:16.600 Her critique is targeted at Western powers and their involvement in the crisis. 00:11:16.750 --> 00:11:22.800 Her claims are basically that the West plays a hypocritical role in the Syrian crisis - in a nutshell, 00:11:23.250 --> 00:11:28.050 while Western media are allegedly sympathetic with the sufferings of a Syrian refugees, 00:11:28.150 --> 00:11:34.100 they are overlooking the fact that it is precisely the bombing of Syria that Western states are conducting 00:11:34.550 --> 00:11:38.350 which is causing for the crisis, killings and refugees fleeing the country. 00:11:38.400 --> 00:11:42.319 It is certain that the role and ulterior motifs of the USA, 00:11:42.343 --> 00:11:46.600 NATO and West for their involvement in Syria are questionable. 00:11:47.100 --> 00:11:51.650 International interventions are certainly not triggered simply by ethical concerns, 00:11:51.800 --> 00:11:55.200 but with economic and strategic interests of the Great Powers. 00:11:55.700 --> 00:11:59.550 However, when we are faced with these touching images of people's suffering, 00:11:59.700 --> 00:12:04.400 it is easy to overlook the agenda of this so called "common Syrian girl". 00:12:04.750 --> 00:12:08.600 Namely, her anti-Western perspective is marked by an implicit, 00:12:08.700 --> 00:12:15.660 and on occasion I would say rather explicit, support of the Syrian government and its president Bashar al-Asad. 00:12:16.100 --> 00:12:21.900 According to her, it is only the government and the Syrian army that can fight the ISIL 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:23.500 and bring peace to Syria. 00:12:23.900 --> 00:12:28.900 And towards the end, she thus demands that the West stops its war and sanctions against Syria. 00:12:29.400 --> 00:12:35.100 All this creates an impression that there never was a problem in Syria before the US involvement. 00:12:35.600 --> 00:12:40.800 But what about popular protests and riots against Asad's government that led to the civil war, 00:12:41.250 --> 00:12:44.500 what about his authoritarian rule and the like... 00:12:44.900 --> 00:12:49.600 This footage is a good example of how, while criticising one party in this crisis, 00:12:49.900 --> 00:12:51.500 the US and the West in this case, 00:12:51.900 --> 00:12:56.650 the narrator silently justifies another party involved, which is Asad's regime, 00:12:56.900 --> 00:12:59.800 and denies its responsibility for the Syrian crisis. 00:13:00.400 --> 00:13:05.200 Let us move to our second example, which consists of several CNN clips 00:13:05.400 --> 00:13:10.000 from late September 2015 when the Russian air strikes in Syria begun. 00:13:25.500 --> 00:13:31.450 What CNN did from the onset is to question Russia's motifs for engaging in the conflict. 00:13:32.300 --> 00:13:37.350 According to their reporting, Russia is there not to fight ISIL but to support Asad. 00:13:37.800 --> 00:13:42.700 The proof is that Russia's first air strike hit anti-government troops 00:13:42.800 --> 00:13:44.900 which are actually not part of ISIL. 00:14:04.400 --> 00:14:10.000 The reporter then has a correspondent who is a republican and who severely criticizes 00:14:10.200 --> 00:14:13.700 official US policy as weak and insufficient. 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:19.200 The footage then expands to Afghanistan and turns into a rather strong critique of 00:14:19.400 --> 00:14:22.800 the US Middle East policy as conducted by the ruling democrats. 00:14:23.400 --> 00:14:30.200 Particularly striking is the correspondent's utter refusal of any possibility of cooperation 00:14:30.300 --> 00:14:33.600 between the US and Russia in fighting ISIL. 00:19:19.500 --> 00:19:23.950 This reporting seems professional, it is backed by video footages, 00:19:24.100 --> 00:19:29.400 accurate data and correspondents, and also provide different views of the story. 00:19:29.900 --> 00:19:33.950 However, such coverage still covers only part of the story 00:19:34.100 --> 00:19:40.800 for instance, while CNN questions the efficiency of the US government and its actions in Syria, 00:19:41.250 --> 00:19:43.950 it never questions the US role as such. 00:19:44.000 --> 00:19:49.300 Thus, while we clearly see the question What does Russia want in Syria being asked time and time again, 00:19:49.550 --> 00:19:53.100 we don't ever see the question - but what does the US want is Syria? 00:19:53.200 --> 00:19:55.400 Why did they get involved in the first place? 00:21:52.200 --> 00:21:58.300 Thus, what appears is that it is normal and self-understandable when the US bomb and conduct air strikes, 00:21:58.400 --> 00:22:00.500 but not when someone else does it. 00:22:01.200 --> 00:22:05.950 So, you can see that there is also a particular perspective, particular angle here, 00:22:06.200 --> 00:22:11.050 which is not necessarily pro-US government, but it is certainly pro-US, 00:22:11.200 --> 00:22:17.200 and overtly anti-Asad and anti-Russian a priori, which means from the onset. 00:22:18.000 --> 00:22:22.150 Our third and final example - which I entitled "Who made this message", 00:22:22.300 --> 00:22:25.100 is also a news story about Russian air strikes. 00:22:25.900 --> 00:22:30.000 However, while it tells about the same event as previous CNN clips, 00:22:30.200 --> 00:22:32.900 the point of view is by large different. 00:23:28.500 --> 00:23:33.900 Already the first minute of the footage provides information with completely different sounding: 00:23:34.100 --> 00:23:40.600 Russian air strikes are described as anti-terror, followed by the comment taken from the Russian secretary of defence. 00:23:41.300 --> 00:23:47.100 Of course, to use a view of the Russian high official means to endorse their point of view. 00:23:47.600 --> 00:23:52.050 Next, it is not specified who exactly were the Russians bombing, 00:23:52.200 --> 00:23:54.800 and they are simply described as the militants. 00:23:55.500 --> 00:24:00.950 Finally, it is concluded that these air strikes enables government forces 00:24:01.100 --> 00:24:07.400 and Syrian army to advance on several fronts, as if this is intrinsically positive result. 00:24:08.100 --> 00:24:11.800 It is easy to see that this reporting is pro-Russian and pro-government. 00:24:12.400 --> 00:24:18.800 In distinction, American involvement is described as the so-called air strikes against ISIL, 00:24:19.000 --> 00:24:22.300 while the Russian ones are described as very successful. 00:24:22.600 --> 00:24:25.700 And, finally, they are having a correspondent from New York 00:24:25.800 --> 00:24:30.000 who is representing an organisation called "Stop imperialism". 00:29:19.500 --> 00:29:26.100 It is quite clear that imperialism they wish to stop is American imperialism, not the Russian one. 00:29:26.500 --> 00:29:31.300 This footage is, thus, high production that is close to CNN standards, 00:29:31.600 --> 00:29:38.500 but it is actually an Iranian TV called PressTv, which shows that the Iranians are favouring Asad 00:29:38.600 --> 00:29:40.200 and Russian in the conflict. 00:29:40.600 --> 00:29:45.400 All in all, it seems that not so much is told about the common people in Syria at all, 00:29:45.600 --> 00:29:50.700 but that more efforts are taken to promote certain viewpoint and global interests. 00:29:51.200 --> 00:29:57.000 These examples therefore provide an illustration about implicit or explicit points of view 00:29:57.150 --> 00:29:59.950 that every narration, even news, contains. 00:30:01.600 --> 00:30:08.100 This will help us understand the media better, and to train our ability to approach them critically. 00:30:08.600 --> 00:30:11.900 But what does this tell us about the nature of modern media? 00:30:12.200 --> 00:30:15.300 Are they all lying? Where is the truth? 00:30:16.300 --> 00:30:22.550 The truth is a complicated concept in this context, and it is better to use this exercise to understand 00:30:22.600 --> 00:30:25.320 that every narrative has a point from which it is told 00:30:25.600 --> 00:30:30.600 and that even things that sound objective have a somewhat subjective nature. 00:30:31.100 --> 00:30:38.250 This will also help us think critically and recognize if media are simply promoting certain agenda 00:30:38.350 --> 00:30:42.720 or actually offering a balanced and multifaceted point of view 00:30:42.850 --> 00:30:47.600 and multifaceted picture of events they describe, as they should of course. 00:30:48.500 --> 00:30:53.400 Our next topic will thus be the essence of responsible journalism 00:30:53.700 --> 00:30:56.050 or, more precisely and easily, 00:30:56.200 --> 00:31:00.400 what are the things that good media reporting should contain or involve.