True to the well-known media adage, “If it bleeds, it leads,” the conflict between Lebanon and Israel is at the top of the news.
There are indeed many bleeding on both sides — although the ratio is around 10 Lebanese dead for every one Israeli. That has prompted a lot of people to ask me why it is that the Western television networks seem to send most of their resources to Israel, when most of the “action” is across the border. These critics — both armchair and professional — also point out that the big-name correspondents are in Israel while the lesser-known ones are in Lebanon and Syria, with the exception of those members of the journalistic community who report from the comfort of Cyprus.
It didn’t take long for Internet bloggers to join the chorus. Blogs berated the big networks for what they considered to be biased coverage that left the story of Lebanon and its people largely untold. That seemed to change things somewhat, and Lebanon started getting a little more airtime. Still, it is on the web that the grisly horror of this conflict is most graphically depicted. Television news, believe it or not, appears rather sanitized compared with the reality.
To these critics, I could only reply that most Western television networks have most of their resources focused on the Israeli side of the equation, perhaps for reasons of safety and accessibility, or perhaps because there is a feeling that more viewers in the Western world are interested in what is happening to Israel than to Lebanon — unless it involves the emergency evacuation of Westerners from Lebanese shores.
The American media’s sanitization of the conflict is ironic, given the fact that in recent years Hollywood has gone to great lengths to depict war movies as realistically as possible. Scenes of killing and mutilation have produced a wealth of jobs for makeup and special-effects artists, while advanced sound technology has producers and directors boasting that the realism of battle scenes has been boosted to the point where the audience can almost feel the bullets whizzing by.
In the real world, however, television news has to follows moral and actual laws that restrict what can and can’t be shown. There is a preset limit to the gore and gruesome pictures. What gets on air has been heavily cut in order to make it more palatable to those observing war from the safety of their living rooms. As a result, in the relatively peaceful West the reality of what is going on every day in Lebanon and Israel comes to them in controlled and packaged sound bites.
For those actually living through the conflict, it is a very different story. Each limb torn off, each child severely maimed, each dead baby covered in blood held in the arms of grieving parents is a reality that changes lives for generations.
In this lies another irony that many moderate Middle East observers are quick to point out. America wants to weaken the hold of extremist and militant groups, pointing fingers at Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet the superpower’s lack of intervention and, if anything, support for Israel’s use of military force has only fuelled another generation — perhaps generations — of people full of hate for what they feel is an obvious injustice committed by those in power. I have spoken with a number of top Arab diplomats lately, and there was an echo of concern that Israel’s widespread bombing of Lebanon will only fuel support for the militants and make it harder for the country’s leadership to have a valid role in representing its people.
In recent years a new phrase started to appear in Western media: “The Arab Street.” This term refers to the view of the average Arab (whoever that might be in such a diverse region), and its importance is finally being taken seriously. It’s about time. The views of this “community” will shape the destiny of Arab countries. It was, after all, the Arab Street that elected Hezbollah members to government positions in Lebanon. It was the Arab Street that elected Hamas to lead the Palestinians.
What shapes the views of the Arab Street is a daily life marred by political unrest, lack of rights, limited freedom of expression, and a strong sense of injustice that the West has let them down. Arabs in the Middle East and outside the region have access to both international and local television, and they see how differently the stories are covered depending on the channel. The Arab media is not as willing to sanitize graphic coverage from the Lebanese side of this conflict, and the result is inflamed emotions.
Western media coverage also does a great disservice to the region’s progressive, peaceful and politically stable countries that are home to happily mixed communities. The American Street, if there is such a thing, has limited access to international news. When a story such as the current one does make it into US headlines, the banners scream something like “Conflict in the Middle East” or “Crisis in the Middle East.” Oh! It’s that dangerous place again — the Middle East.
Cynics will argue that Americans don’t have to worry about being better informed, because the news gives the people enough of what they want. Besides, if it is important enough, it will make the headlines. Which means that for now, Israel and Lebanon will continue to be in the news, carefully packaged and sanitized as it may be.
If it bleeds, it leads.
— Riz Khan, formerly an anchor on CNN International, is host of the “Riz Khan” show, which will air on Al-Jazeera’s pending English-language channel. He is the author of “Alwaleed: Businessman, Billionaire, Prince” (William Morrow, 2005).
