In today’s world, when a country goes to war managing what goes out on the media is as important as managing its troops and weapons.
Managing the spread of rumours, controlling half-truths, and getting journalists to put a particular spin on stories, forms a significant part of every military’s arsenal.
This is because unless you are living under a rock, and presuming that you have more than one lonely brain cell, you cannot be neutral. No matter what official position your government takes, as an individual you know in your heart of hearts which side you’re on. Now presuming that you cannot be on the ground where the conflict is taking place, you will inevitably decide which side to back based on the media that you choose to believe.
But in our attempt to make head or tails of a situation that is happening beyond our shores, we have no choice but to filter countless confusing reports, from an endless number of sources. We sit there trying to compare, contrast, and read between the lines. We zap through the channels like mad cows, sieving and negotiating to somehow make up our minds about what is truly going on. However the sad truth is that we never really know, because whoever said that the first casualty of war is the truth, couldn’t have been more right.
In my own personal attempt to filter through all the media reports about the Libyan crisis, one thing that keeps getting my goat is the abundant use of euphemisms – they say ‘armed intervention’ instead of ‘war’, they use ‘freedom fighters’ instead of ‘rebels, they call ‘aggression’, ‘force’ or even ‘liberation’. They refer to ‘vast areas of land’ as ‘pockets’, and what is referred to as an ‘air campaign’ actually means ‘bombing’. My personal favourite is what is now being called ‘embedded media.’ This means ‘journalists who have been accompanied to the battlefield by one side or the other, and who have agreed to censorship rules, and threatened with their ‘safety’ – another euphemism for ‘life’.
We have come to accept the use of euphemisms, because they act like pain killers for the conscience; they shade the harsh truths in soft pastels, as opposed to highlighting them in bold bright alarming colours.
But the use of euphemisms is just one way in which our thoughts are manipulated. Another way is to remove the opportunity for debate, which is exactly what our government and the opposition did when they decided Malta’s position on the situation in Libya. With Muscat choosing to collude with Gonzi instead of demanding a debate in parliament, the true purpose of a democratic parliament was reduced to nothing. Whenever this happens the media tends to bow down and public opinion is manoeuvred to agree.
Both sides have said very little about the matter, because it is most likely that their reasoning and position would not survive under close examination, and those who like me, are smelling a rat, are given lessons in patriotism and caution.
The funny side of all this, (yes there always is a funny side), is that that the Institute for Public Dialogue (IFPD) have chosen six politicians from around the world to comment on a new form of international dialogue that they would like to see introduced when conventional conflict-related negotiations fail. Liberia’s President Sirleaf was asked to represent Africa, Taiwan’s President Ma was asked to represent Asia, Malcolm Fraser was asked to represent Oceania, Michelle Bachelet for South America and Bill Richardson for North America.
Guess who was asked to represent Europe? Our very own Prime Minister Gonzi who according to the IFPD, has been ‘demonstrably supportive of dialogue.’
Guess what? They have not yet heard a word back.
Correspondence from the IFPD can be found here - http://www.pmgonzi-publictalks.info/