News occurs on a daily basis in different time zones. Its development is quite fast that an individual cannot keep track of what is happening at any given time. Hence, media houses provide a summary of what happens in the world to the common user. Since the introduction of media houses, more people tend to cling on their stories as a source of information. Although most of the time their facts are right sometimes writers make up stories. In a way, they act as the reader’s eyes and feed them information as per their perspective. However, conflicting stories about a particular topic tend to discourage the common reader to follow up on the media’s perspective. People are slowly shying away from the news as they keep contradicting each other instead of providing them the real picture. In recent times, the story surrounding Syria’s civil war has had different perspectives drawn out by media houses. Each of the stories tends to focus on their side of the story, which alters people’s thoughts and actions towards the situation.
In most instances, media houses tend to focus on news that will captivate people and propel them above their competition. In their aim to conquer such goals, they devour their time and resources to capture news that will spike controversy and keep people in the loop or yearning for more information. The Syrian war has been around the media corridors for more than four years (Rodgers, Gritten, and Offer par 2). Media houses have made Syria and its surrounding areas a home for new information. Different pictures and videos about the occurrences in Syria continue to make headlines in most newspapers and news bulletins. However, despite its impact on the people, there is little effort done by international bodies and countries towards peacekeeping in Syria. Walter Lippmann describes these kind of instances as misinterpretations by the pictures stuck in people’s mind (Lippman p3). The media tends to portray different kinds of pictures, which the international world has to deduce. In the instance of Syria, one media house might portray the suffering in the country while another will illustrate the war. According to Lippmann, the real environment is too complex and big for the media to cover one story (Lippman p4). Hence, each entity turns out with a conflicting one. In the end, the real world interprets the pictures independently.
The Syrian war began as anti-government protests on President Bashar al-Assad’s rule (Rodgers, Gritten, and Offer par 1). In its beginning, the government was in a position to control the menace and ensure it does not erupt into bloodshed. However, the uprising matured to violence leading to the deaths of more than 250,000 Syrian nationalists. It became news to the world and media houses were on ground to capture each moment. However, few media houses sought to make the war a national catastrophe since they centered on watching the people harm each other. They sought to make a large profit in views and revenue by digging deeper on the harsh conditions that would befall the country.
CNN and BBC are among the major media houses that covered the stories. Their perspectives on the unfolding war would have a great impact towards the people who follow them. However, the two seem to aim towards different perspectives. Besides, they both shed light on how each media company seeks to broadcast the Syrian war. The CNN article by Frida Ghitis talks about the suffering of Syrian citizens in their country and refugee camps (Ghitis par 3). Ghitis’ main aim is to draw out an outline on how the world should react towards the Syrian crisis. Despite the various stories capturing the Syrian situation, most governments tend not to involve themselves in it. Ghitis provides an example of Aylan Kurdi; a three-year-old boy found dead on the shores when his family was escaping the civil war horrors (Ghitis par 3). Despite the picture doing rounds across the world, there was little action taken by the international groups.
Ghitis tends to feel as if the whole situation is just an excuse for nations to stay relevant in the global news broadcasted by international media houses. She points out the need for Arab nations to come together to help their neighbors despite the existing conflict among them (Ghitis par 5). Europe should make good ties with the United States and other major countries create an intermediary to chair the reconciliation. She concludes by stating the role of individuals towards the civil war and the importance for people to participate in the reconciliation processes. Hence, she aims to draw a calm picture to the world with the aim of seeking support for the end of violence.
The BBC article by David Gritten, James Offer, Patrick Asare and Lucy Rodgers provide an analysis of the Syrian war (Rodgers, Gritten, and Offer par 1). It dates back to the initial stages of the war and progression into the current situations. Unlike Ghitis article, the authors do not conclude by stating their stand on the matter. They prefer to sign out without shedding light on the need to end the war. Their focus is to educate people about the development stages of Syria war. However, it is important for people to have an understanding of what transpired in the war and how it developed into a national crisis. In a way, the BBC writers tend to deviate from showing the reasons why the war should end or shed light upon the sufferings of Syrian nationalists. The choice to focus on the war and its effects brings out a bad picture towards the international world.
One can view the two articles as showing the good and bad of the war. Ghitis focuses on showing the good side through pictures and context. She seeks to campaign for the end to Syrian civil war by showing people enjoying their current living standards despite the conditions surrounding them. Her article sells the heritage of Syria and what is at stake when it comes to the culture and people. Gritten et.al focuses on the bad side of war. They show the tussles between the people and government, the sufferings and aftermath. Their context and images do not spread the message on a need to end the war, despite their efforts in educating people about it.
The use of pictures in both instances shows the perspectives each article has towards the story. Ghitis’ article tends to focus on the positive side of the war and its previous form. The first image is of two young brothers who seem happy despite the civil war happening. The following images show the common lifestyle of citizens as they conduct their business. These pictures portray the good relations that may occur if the war was to end. They tend to compliment the article and reason as to why peace should be a key aspect in the whole situation. The BBC authors tend to use pictures of the war and current situation of the citizens. It tends to bring out the inhumanity in them as they focus more on selling their story and not the true cause of uniting people. The first image shows protestors on the street of Syria with objects and boards. From the environment, it looks like the beginning of protests when it was just a mere conflict between the two sides. However, the following images focus more on the suffering of Syrian people and the current situations that befell them.
The different perspectives drawn out by media houses and lack of action by governments lead to the decline in public participation in national matters. People continue to feel cheated by the government whenever they say that they are doing their best in making matters better. The Syrian Wars have been on headlines since 2011, yet neighboring countries and powerful nations have not found a solution to the issues. David Mindich points out that the young population is turning their backs of the current political news, as it tends to recur over a long period (Mindich p 36). The lack of progress in most international matters makes it hard to convince people that there is an already working solution towards the matter. According to the young people, most politicians only use the news as a selling point towards their campaigns.
However, the politicians are not the only one to blame; media houses tend to exercise their freedom in the wrong way. They should focus more on the human perspective instead of providing people with pretense. Despite their pursuit of relaying breaking news, they ought to stand on one side and portray similar pictures to the world. According to Walter Lippmann, the pictures drawn out by media sources have an effect on its readers (Lippman p 2). If they focus on the evil side of the war, people will react in a negative way. If they portray the realistic side of life, people will react in a positive way. In conclusion, the media houses ought to provide people with stories that will build and unite them, focusing on the negative sides of life serve only to insight people.
Works Cited
Ghitis, Frida. How World Should Respond to Syria Crisis. 4 September 2015. Web. 15 March 2016. <http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/04/opinions/ghitis-syria-refugee-response/>
Lippman, Walter. "The World Outside and The Pictures In Our Heads." Lippman, Walter. Public Opinion. New York: Penguin Publishers, 1922. 1-22. Print.
Mindich, David T.Z. Tuned Out: Why Americans Under 40 Don't Follow The News. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Rodgers, Lucy, et al. Syria: The Story of the Conflict. 11 March 2016. Web. 15 March 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868>
