On the power of images

So the whole of the middle east region is caught in the grip of ‘revolutions’… talks of rebels trying to bring down their current governments or dictators are all over the news, but it has become most impossible to discern true facts from propaganda. There was that long video being shown on Sky News last night showing rebels in Libya running in the street screaming when suddenly firearms are heard shooting in their direction, forcing them to retreat back running. They have the time to gesticulate in front of the camera and show the few people who fell from shot wounds in the distance… then an ambulance arrives at once on the scene to pick up the wounded and the journalists hop in to follow them on the journey back to the hospital.

And then they showed us inside the hospital and a few people being treated for gunshots. At some point the camera zooms in on a little boy screaming and kicking as he is being held down against the stretcher by nurses… He had a large gash on his head, and I just thought: “Why are you showing us things that may well have nothing to do with the struggle?”

I mean, ok, showing wounded kids will always sway public opinion into thinking the conflict is a horrific one… but for all we know, that kid was in hospital because he fell from a tree and hurt his head. So of course that leads us to the big conundrum of video footage and just how much can be trusted when really one needs to bear in mind that whatever is shown in images is invariably selected by the person recording the images. Watching a video, or a clip, only means that we are shown a limited perspective, and certainly not the whole picture… and that, on a psychological point of view alone, means that such recordings have a very big influencing impact as to what a viewer will end up thinking about a situation.

It was also interesting to notice that while journalists will show us at length ‘rebels’ screaming and chanting in the streets, they hardly ever bother to translate word for word what is being said by the crowds. No, instead, in yesterday’s report, they just handed one man, who clearly didn't speak one word of English, a placard with the English words spelling something like: Gaddafi must go down. That certainly makes for compelling viewing, and I guess in terms of images, those were striking ones that viewers would remember… but again, what a viewer ends up remembering is based on one limited perspective, and while that can’t be avoided, it makes it so much easier to use mediums such as video recording with the intent of controlling exactly what you’ll end up believing in a matter - from your understanding of it down to the very opinions you will adopt in your mind.

What we end up watching, and whether we choose to believe it or not, depends solely on whether we think we can trust the source, or even just the person who made the image selection.

One other thing made me ponder further what is actually happening in that region (and I’m nowhere close to knowing, therefore my thoughts on this subject are just that, thoughts and questioning) and reminded me of just how much media outlets are intrinsically biased to re-enforce the idea they have of our ‘democratic’ system as the best one in the world by selecting and showing only what conforms to such an idea.

What I mean is this: if journalism, especially the reporting type, is by definition supposed to bring to the public’s attention what is happening in the world without prejudice (allowing for facts to speak for themselves and inform us) then surely it would be able to show us both sides of a story to give us a clearer perspective and the actual possibility for our minds to decide on the issue. Showing ‘both sides’ of a story is actually what they teach students over and over again, it’s even one of the BBC’s pledges, after all. If you go on their website and look at their journalism guidelines, you’ll see what I mean.

Now, it was interesting to see some of the reports dealing with what Gaddafi had to say, or rather his reported speech. In itself, it was good for us to get a glimpse of what the man had to say, just to give a more balanced view of the whole affair. However, at a closer look, one would notice how the journalist him/herself would make use of negative adjectives to surround the quotes. The effect? While they allow you to see what the man has to say, they can at the same time ensure that you will be left with a very negative view of him regardless of what he has to say.

For instance, he was quoted ‘rambling’ on and on about how the enemy was from outside. First of all, an unbiased report would not have used the word ‘rambling’ - because all it does is infer that the man must be insane and not worth listening to. He wasn’t just quoted as a rambling man, but also as someone who makes crazy, unintelligible statements. One only needs to have a look back in time - at a time when the dictator wasn’t regarded by most western governments as a threat, but more as a potential ally - to see that far from being some stupid lunatic, the man had an education and philosophies attached to his politics. Beyond the fact that he may or may not be a monstrous dictator, what I’m highlighting here is how media influence works. The scariest part of all is the great possibility that we are actually being told what is happening, but in a way that is filtered and controlled to make us see or understand a situation as if we were wearing blinkers - the blinkers of the power above us intent on making us think and agree with them especially where ideologies are concerned.