Final Blog Post

Throughout this class I have definitely learned more about writing and certainly acquired more knowledge about the news and its process in general. One of the key things I have reinforced about writing is that it does not always have to be a formal cut-and-dry process- there is various ways of writing that are used for different purposes. I’ve gained an understanding of what blogging is and what its significance is. At first, I had a sort of negative stigma towards blogging, but as time went on I started to enjoy it. It was an informal way of communicating my ideas to the world for free. I enjoyed being able to write in the way I felt was appropriate and I especially liked that I did not have to edit each post numerous times. Blogging has definitely enhanced by ability to get down my thoughts which is useful in its self but also it has increased my ability to write longer and more formal essays where writers block can become an issue. I will definitely be able to brainstorm for formal essays much more efficiently with this new understanding of writing. I always way able to enjoy news organizations in depth, like the New York Times, and it has not only given me insight into current events, but has rekindled my passion for news and debate. Overall, this class has benefitted me by broadening my understanding of writing and its various requirements and processes, and has also re-sparked my interest in the news.

Extended Essay 2 Draft

The Gaza Flotilla Raid

On May 31^st, 2010, the Israeli Government raided 6 ships who entered the Gaza Blockade that called themselves the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” and they were carrying $20 million in humanitarian supplies. The ensuing conflict led to the death of 9 activists (8 Turkish and 1 American) and the wounding of 10 Israeli commandos. After the catastrophe, there was an explosion of media coverage that set a clear divide amongst citizens of the world as to who was at fault. Original reports from all over the world have labeled the Israelis as being brute and excessive in their force, while others have asserted that the flotilla got what it was asking for.

The initial reactions by the media to the flotilla raid had a high disparity, but most condemned the violence. Fox News illuminated the conservative, right wing response in the article, “Israeli Officials Claim Aid Flotilla Had Ties to Al Qaeda…” In this article, there are numerous suggestions that the individuals on board, most part of the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), were linked to Al Qaeda. Though it seemed very unlikely a large group of humanitarians were aligned with a terrorist organization that does the exact opposite of what the activists stand for, Fox included a quote from Arthur Avnon saying, “ Before the flotilla entered Israeli waters, rumor had it that the organizers had links with the Al Qaeda terrorist network.” That was all the depth added to that crucial bit of evidence. Fox, however, made a good point by including a quote from the Israeli Ambassador to Denmark, “The people on board were not so innocent… and I cannot imagine that another country would react any differently.” The Ambassador makes a valid statement. The flotilla knowingly entered a military occupied restricted area and should have been well aware of the implications of entering that clearly defined zone. Additionally, what happened with this particular flotilla was very abnormal. Many vessels had been stopped and either sent back, or even allowed in to Gaza, without incident. However, the moment Israeli commandos touched the deck of the ship they were met with violence. According to video footage from the largest ship boarded, Mavi Marmara, the first commando was violently beat down with a metal bar, and one command is seen getting a table thrown at his head. Though Fox’s title may have been sensational journalism, it definitely provoked thought and emotion that pulled readers into following the story. Though the argument of who started the violence is disputed, one would be wise to see that this may not have just been a savage attack on innocent activists.

Contrasting the conservative viewpoint, was a much larger population of people who were appalled by the actions done by the Israeli government. The Guardian, a large United Kingdom news organization, headlined with, “Israeli attack on Gaza flotilla sparks international outrage.” If you were to analyze this title, you would already know the direction the author, Robert Booth, was heading. This article instantly assumes that this was an “attack” rather than a preemptive measure to ensure safety of citizens of multiple countries. Those numerous other sources put forth that the flotilla members started the violence, Al Jazeera, a large privately owned Arab news organization based in Qatar, reported that the Israeli’s fired on the deck from above before touching down on deck. Since footage did not show this, one would naturally assume that was the sound of the flash bang grenades that were tossed on deck to disperse any crowds. However, it had still not been ruled out since this was a report posted the day after the incident. A separate article written in the Guardian included in its title, “We heard gunfire- then our ship turned into a lake of blood.” Though this title seems somewhat sensationalized, it does the same job as Fox’s articles do- they provoke strong emotion towards a foreign affair and attracts a much larger audience base.

As the story continues more of the story begins to emerge. With the announcement of the United Nations Security Counsel calling for a full investigation into the matter two days after the incident, came many responses by the worldwide media.

CNN headlined with the article, “Israel begins freeing foreigners held after Gaza flotilla raid.” Within the content the Turkish Prime Mister Recep Tayyip Erdogen said, “We see clear murder taking place, and we see an aggressive country. We’re sick and tired of your lies. Be honest.” Later they included a gest towards the idea of the raid on the flotilla was provoked by placing provocation in parenthesis. CNN chose to stay on the side of believing Israel had acted wrongly by persuading the audience towards their general political leanings. In essence, CNN stayed with the moderate left even before knowing the truth of the situation because they have to cater to a set general audience of moderate left leaning citizens. All the news organizations stuck with their general audience- no reporter told the whole story, rather the selective truths of the ordeal.

Over the course of six months, many investigations were conducted and finalized with thorough execution. In one of many extensive reports, Israel’s actions were upheld:

The actions carried out by Israel on May 31, 2010, to enforce the naval blockade had the regrettable consequences of the loss of human life and physical injuries," read the report. Nonetheless, "the actions taken were found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law.

After all the official reports were released and Israel was not pressed with any illegal activities, All media organizations kept their same philosophy, regardless of official reports. Fox became very logos oriented with this article entitled, “Israeli inquiry: Flotilla raid, blockade legal” written January 23^rd, 2011.

            The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in an internationally televised speech, "I hope all those who rushed to judgment against Israel and its soldiers will read this report and learn the truth about what happened. The truth is that our soldiers were defending our country- and defending their very lives." This is a very unbiased way of presenting your case in an article. What was said was not speculation, but based off of reports conducted by third-party organizations like the United Nations who, as to common knowledge, had no agenda in creating a skewed report.

            Even after all was made official, the other sides maintained their points of view. The Guardian headlined the article, “Turkey expels Israel’s ambassador over refusal to apologize for Gaza flotilla raid,” on February 2^nd, 2011. Its contents lead the reader into the same political philosophy as they constantly have, as all the other media organizations do. They create a title of the Israeli Ambassador getting deported from Turkey for not apologizing for something that was officially said not wrong. Though he could have apologized for the bloodshed, he did not, and he received a violent response. The focus of the article becomes decentralized from the main topic and narrows the vision in attempts to fit the organizations socio-political agenda.

            Through following the news coverage of the Gaza flotilla raid it became evident that all the media organizations fit right into their political leanings. Regardless of the truth, the news kept its same wrapping of selective information and bias behavior. It seems as if the mainstream news organizations have become as powerful as politicians in terms of achieving their agendas.

Blog Post 14 (2.8)

          In Errol Morris’s article, “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire,” he goes into deep contemplation of what the significance of photos are- even without captions to explain the what, where, how, when, who, etc… The question he poses is as follows: “Is this true or false? And he shows a black and white photo of a ship. Providing no background information he denies the ability to know anything at all about the photo for certainty because only eye witnesses could tell you. Even if there was a caption provided it could have been a picture of the Lusitania or the Titanic. This was a very strange provocation of thought for me as I never really thought about photographs in the way Morris suggests. He describes how we might call upon memories when information is not presented directly to us. 
          The author then reveals the true identity of the vessel as being the Lusitania right before being sunk by a German U-Boat in 1915. This was one of the key incidents that sparked the escalation of World War I. However, Morris then writes, “to modern viewers, this image of the Lusitania is emotionally uncharged, if not devoid of interest. But to a viewer in the summer of 1915, it was charged with meaning.” This is an insightful view into not only photography but the human psyche. In modern times however, the question of whether or not a photograph is “true or false” can bring us to a whole other discussion. 
          With the ability to digitally edit photos comes the possibility of malice, but in this modern age where millions of photos are uploaded to the internet everyday, the “truth” of what the image actually is, and the story behind it, will most likely be found. Ultimately, Morris may be stretching the issue a little too much because questioning the “truth” behind every photo is a bit like being a philosophical skeptic- its hard to argue with them because their claims are so broad. Sometimes an image can be “false” but may be done harmlessly invoke a stronger emotional response.

Blog Post 13 (2.7) Taking an Approach

Harris is a firm believer in self-interpretation and analysis and approaching a story from a unique angle. This approach to writing makes forwarding and countering much easier and much more effective and useful, and also makes for a better piece of literature all around. This form of approaching writing is more difficult because you cannot fall back on the ideas or information previously gathered by other people, but it allows for a greater impact made on the audience. The approach that is more common is following what others have written and providing a counter or agreement with the referenced works. This makes the process of getting information out to an audience much easier and faster because not as much though is required to go into it.

            The New York Times has a collection of articles that are both ideal and not in terms of Harris’s view. Many articles that the New York Times has published have been independent from most other big media posts because they are less biased and influenced by internal and external sources. They maintained a very centralized forwarding process throughout the presidential debate. They did not just attack Romney and they did not just praise Obama. They provided as close to a balanced progress of journalism as you could find in a big news organization. Although they do stick with the main crowd with many topics of discussion, that is not an issue because they are still a business and they still have to provide hundreds of articles a week. Overall, the New York Times does an excellent job in their approach to writing.

Blog Post 12 (2.6) Countering

The goal of countering, according to Harris, is to evolve the conversation and your viewpoints in correspondence to new information. This process of countering is brought about by forwarding- or the progress of a story that is made by additions made in articles. Countering becomes a sort of questioning of one’s own beliefs and analyses by examining the progress presented by forwarding. The process of countering can take place over many articles or pieces of literature written by the same author, or it can take place inside the same article by means of providing questions and counter-examples that steer the flow of the story.

Another side of countering is the uncovering of values within a subject. When one counters in literature he or she is not only finding opposing information and analyzing it, but he or she is also discovering new values in the subject. This supports forwarding in a very positive way and makes countering less about contradicting one’s own understanding and more about pursuing the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/world/americas/hugo-chavez-of-venezuela-dies.html?pagewanted=all

This story presents a divide between two different sides of a debate. There have been many arguments in terms of interpreting the Venezuelan Constitution and what is to become of the country now that the president has passed away. Throughout the New York Times article, the author, William Neuwman, presents information that steers the reader, and himself, back and forth between the arguing parties. This is a good way of providing balanced journalism while maintaining objectivism in pursuit of the truth of what is right or wrong, or who will win or lose the debate in Venezuela.