- 01 Jun 2007 07:05
#1223641
This is something that bothers me a lot when I watch the news or current affair programs on TV or read the newspapers. In all fairness, I never expect the media explains in details what the historical backgrounds of the stories are. But I think it is justified to expect relevant and critical historical context especially those that could fundamentally change people's perception if mentioned.
To use the most uncontroversial example, while the media did an excellent job to follow the US government's script to portray Saddam as a dictator, it failed utterly to stress that the US government supported him all the way up until the moment of the invasion of Kuwait - including providing him with materials that could be used to manufacture WMDs. Had the media done that, it is resonable to speculate that would have created more critical public reflections on government's statements about promoting democracy etc..
I think you could go further to argue its failure is not just the absence of historical context, but of any meaningful context. I'd pretty much like to see what others think on this issue.
To use the most uncontroversial example, while the media did an excellent job to follow the US government's script to portray Saddam as a dictator, it failed utterly to stress that the US government supported him all the way up until the moment of the invasion of Kuwait - including providing him with materials that could be used to manufacture WMDs. Had the media done that, it is resonable to speculate that would have created more critical public reflections on government's statements about promoting democracy etc..
I think you could go further to argue its failure is not just the absence of historical context, but of any meaningful context. I'd pretty much like to see what others think on this issue.
Last edited by HoniSoit on 01 Jun 2007 13:07, edited 1 time in total.