Every news footage is a narrative, and that means, a story.
And it is a presumption of narrative theory that every story has someone telling it,
and that every story has a particular angle from which it is narrated or told.
This particular angle is called the perspective or the point of view.
Critically reading media messages means to be aware, to think, and to think critically,
about this angle that the story is being told.
For instance, media footage can be told by a narrator,
that is, say, a voice over telling the story or relating the news.
And this is, presumably, a reporter reading the news,
or in the behind a reporter who actually wrote the news.
It can also be told by a witness or someone who tells the story by its own voice.
And more often than not, footage involves both the narration by a news reader,
and statements from various officials, people on the ground, witnesses, victims etc.
And it is usually believed that, if a story incorporates, contains multiple agents or voices,
it is more objective.
However, it is worth reminding ourselves that in narrative theory there is no such thing as absolute objectivity
every utterance involves someone's particular, subjective position,
and every narration is made from a particular standpoint, whether
this standpoint is openly expressed or concealed in some way.
So, in a way, before we can even ask ourselves which story is more truthful from another,
we should become aware of these various strategies that the media use in order to be more persuasive.
Let us illustrate this by looking at several different footages of the Syrian crisis.
The Syrian crisis is a suitable example for discussing the role of the media
as it presently involves several domestic and international players.
Just to remind on the basics, In 2011, riots against president Asad
started in Syria as part of the so called Arab spring, that affects many states in Arab world,
which led to a full front civil war between Asad's government and the Syrian army
against the insurgents, who basically want him deposed.
In the last two years, radical Islamists got involved and gained control over large part of territory.
In addition, there is a sizable Kurdish minority and other ethnic groups in Syria.
Thus, while some are fighting the government forces, others are fighting mostly the ISIS or the radical Islamists,
while ISIS itself appears to be hostile to all parties involved.
International military involvement includes the anti-ISIL but also anti-government air strikes
and weapon provision by the US, France, Britain and Turkey,
and from 2015 Russia also launched air strikes in order to defeat ISIL,
however it supports Asad and his government.
So, it is a very complicated situation, which completely defies black and white description
and divisions to good and bad guys.
Each party, as it appears, fights for power and their particular interests,
with minority ethnic groups in Syria probably being at greatest risk
and thus having a more existential and less imperial motifs in the conflict.
So, let us see then how different media portray the situation in Syria.
The first clip is a homemade production of what appears to be a common Syrian girl.
In this first clip, we see what appears to be a common Syrian girl addressing Western audiences.
Her critique is targeted at Western powers and their involvement in the crisis.
Her claims are basically that the West plays a hypocritical role in the Syrian crisis - in a nutshell,
while Western media are allegedly sympathetic with the sufferings of a Syrian refugees,
they are overlooking the fact that it is precisely the bombing of Syria that Western states are conducting
which is causing for the crisis, killings and refugees fleeing the country.
It is certain that the role and ulterior motifs of the USA,
NATO and West for their involvement in Syria are questionable.
International interventions are certainly not triggered simply by ethical concerns,
but with economic and strategic interests of the Great Powers.
However, when we are faced with these touching images of people's suffering,
it is easy to overlook the agenda of this so called "common Syrian girl".
Namely, her anti-Western perspective is marked by an implicit,
and on occasion I would say rather explicit, support of the Syrian government and its president Bashar al-Asad.
According to her, it is only the government and the Syrian army that can fight the ISIL
and bring peace to Syria.
And towards the end, she thus demands that the West stops its war and sanctions against Syria.
All this creates an impression that there never was a problem in Syria before the US involvement.
But what about popular protests and riots against Asad's government that led to the civil war,
what about his authoritarian rule and the like...
This footage is a good example of how, while criticising one party in this crisis,
the US and the West in this case,
the narrator silently justifies another party involved, which is Asad's regime,
and denies its responsibility for the Syrian crisis.
Let us move to our second example, which consists of several CNN clips
from late September 2015 when the Russian air strikes in Syria begun.
What CNN did from the onset is to question Russia's motifs for engaging in the conflict.
According to their reporting, Russia is there not to fight ISIL but to support Asad.
The proof is that Russia's first air strike hit anti-government troops
which are actually not part of ISIL.
The reporter then has a correspondent who is a republican and who severely criticizes
official US policy as weak and insufficient.
The footage then expands to Afghanistan and turns into a rather strong critique of
the US Middle East policy as conducted by the ruling democrats.
Particularly striking is the correspondent's utter refusal of any possibility of cooperation
between the US and Russia in fighting ISIL.
This reporting seems professional, it is backed by video footages,
accurate data and correspondents, and also provide different views of the story.
However, such coverage still covers only part of the story
for instance, while CNN questions the efficiency of the US government and its actions in Syria,
it never questions the US role as such.
Thus, while we clearly see the question What does Russia want in Syria being asked time and time again,
we don't ever see the question - but what does the US want is Syria?
Why did they get involved in the first place?
Thus, what appears is that it is normal and self-understandable when the US bomb and conduct air strikes,
but not when someone else does it.
So, you can see that there is also a particular perspective, particular angle here,
which is not necessarily pro-US government, but it is certainly pro-US,
and overtly anti-Asad and anti-Russian a priori, which means from the onset.
Our third and final example - which I entitled "Who made this message",
is also a news story about Russian air strikes.
However, while it tells about the same event as previous CNN clips,
the point of view is by large different.
Already the first minute of the footage provides information with completely different sounding:
Russian air strikes are described as anti-terror, followed by the comment taken from the Russian secretary of defence.
Of course, to use a view of the Russian high official means to endorse their point of view.
Next, it is not specified who exactly were the Russians bombing,
and they are simply described as the militants.
Finally, it is concluded that these air strikes enables government forces
and Syrian army to advance on several fronts, as if this is intrinsically positive result.
It is easy to see that this reporting is pro-Russian and pro-government.
In distinction, American involvement is described as the so-called air strikes against ISIL,
while the Russian ones are described as very successful.
And, finally, they are having a correspondent from New York
who is representing an organisation called "Stop imperialism".
It is quite clear that imperialism they wish to stop is American imperialism, not the Russian one.
This footage is, thus, high production that is close to CNN standards,
but it is actually an Iranian TV called PressTv, which shows that the Iranians are favouring Asad
and Russian in the conflict.
All in all, it seems that not so much is told about the common people in Syria at all,
but that more efforts are taken to promote certain viewpoint and global interests.
These examples therefore provide an illustration about implicit or explicit points of view
that every narration, even news, contains.
This will help us understand the media better, and to train our ability to approach them critically.
But what does this tell us about the nature of modern media?
Are they all lying? Where is the truth?
The truth is a complicated concept in this context, and it is better to use this exercise to understand
that every narrative has a point from which it is told
and that even things that sound objective have a somewhat subjective nature.
This will also help us think critically and recognize if media are simply promoting certain agenda
or actually offering a balanced and multifaceted point of view
and multifaceted picture of events they describe, as they should of course.
Our next topic will thus be the essence of responsible journalism
or, more precisely and easily,
what are the things that good media reporting should contain or involve.