Essay on Mainstream Media Agenda Setting Through Staged Chemical Attacks

Introduction

The propaganda that Bashar al-Assad ordered a chemical attack on his people emanated from mainstream media sources. Mainstream media sources that include newspapers and reputable traditional television stations are very trusted among wide audiences. Therefore, the tactic used to advance this narrative was to set the agenda about the evilness of a regime and repeatedly present the supposed facts for the audience. Given the trust accorded to this media, it is apparent that the people would trust them as the most reliable sources and take note of the sense of urgency in which they reported the developments in Syria. The repetition of this narrative from mainstream media houses eventually became the truth for a lot of people. Surprisingly, these sources did not investigate or question the truthfulness behind this propaganda because they set the agenda to reflect the narrative. Many had headlines that presented this narrative as the truth and, therefore, helped to sell the propaganda even though there were holes in the story. However, other journalists who visited the chemical attack site provided evidence of the lack of

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

For instance, the Telegraph is one of the leading newspapers in the United Kingdom. It was among the first to feature this story and continued to put emphasis on it making headlines. The newspaper has a massive audience and its covering the story for more than a week communicated the need to spread this false propaganda (Sawer 3). It used images of children with foam appearing in their mouths to cause sympathy and anger in the audience. In one article, the Telegraph cites that there is overwhelming evidence that can confirm Bashar al-Assad gassed his people. The Telegraph presented evidence from the United Kingdom, France, and the United States about the involvement of the Assad. The evidence included corroborated statements from supposed eyewitnesses who asserted that they saw many barrels of gas and bombs emanating from the sky. The witness accounts as reported by this newspaper cited that the barrels that fell from the planes belonged to the Bashar al-Assad. It is interesting to note that while reporting all of this, the Telegraph did not bother to probe the assertions and merely reinstated the words from the intelligence services of these three countries. The newspaper had more than seven articles dedicated to this story and none of them questioned the evidence against Bashar al-Assad.

Additionally, the narrative appeared in The New York Times that carried the following headline, "A Hard Lesson in Syria: Assad Can Still Gas His Own People (Sanger & Hubbard 1)." The very rhetoric of this headline indicates that the journalists were already convinced of the guilt of the Syrian president. The heading showcases the lack of any impartiality in this matter since the newspaper appears to carry the voice of the interested parties. The article in the New York Times proceeded to opine that no one can stop Assad from gassing his own people since previous efforts to prevent his self-interests had failed (Sanger & Hubbard 2). Therefore, this trusted newspaper already sold the narrative of Assad being behind the gas attacks and sought to make people angry to force retaliation.

Another mainstream source known as Channel 4 news also assessed the evidence in place that would connect Assad to the attack. In a bias approach, Chanel 4 news said that it wanted to evaluate the evidence in place to determine the involvement of the Syrian government (Williams 3). However, this analysis merely repeated what the other media houses said as directly reported by intelligence services from the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. For instance, Channel for repeated the assertion that the barrels carrying the gas had symbols to showcase they belonged to the Syrian government. In all this evidence, the news station does not appear sceptical enough to question some of this evidence. Hence, it is mere repetition that intends to ensure everyone believes that Assad gassed his people.

A headline in The Guardian also read, "Syria gas attack: Theresa May condemns 'barbaric' targeting of civilians (Crerar 1)." Just like the rest, this newspaper repeated the rhetoric of blame in which the government of Syria was at the centre. It put emphasis on the word "barbaric" to ensure that this is the manner in which individuals would regard the Syrian government(Crerar 2). It communicated that the Syrian government had sinister motives that prompted its attack on its citizens. The title reflects the politics surrounding the issue by highlighting statements from Theresa May and her belief that Assad attacked his own people.

Moreover, news outlets like CNN, and BBC also had the same headlines. They all associated the chemical attacks with the Assad government and none asked the core questions that would lead to more informed conclusion. For instance, CNN has always provided itself as a news station with the highest standards of integrity in the practice of journalism. It has often looked at the issues from both sides and investigated whenever needed. However, this was not the case with the chemical attacks. The headlines in CNN did not reflect any investigation and merely repeated what had already been reported by many other stations. CNN talked about the videos available that associated the attack with the government, the witnesses, and satellite imaging of the origins of the barrels. The same information appeared in BBC just like it was the case with other media houses like channel 4. In all of these stations, there is very limited explanation of the motive that Bashar al-Assad had in attacking his people.

The Daily Mail that is among the most reputable media houses in the United Kingdom was also a perpetrator of this narrative. It featured the following headline in one of its many articles that covered the chemical attack, "Instruments of extermination': Pope joins Britain and US in CONDEMNING Syrian 'nerve agent' bomb." The words are very strong when used to describe the association of the Syrian government. The paper chooses "extermination" to reflect that Assad was on a mass killing agenda (Stickings 2). He is presented as having exterminated his citizens in a way that a person would do to pests. Hence, the nature of this headline illustrates the position of mainstream media on this matter. It illustrates that they had an agenda that included painting the Syrian regime in a negative light without the process of verifying claims about the attack. Mainstream media carried the voice of those who controlled it for their political ambitions.

Hence, the repetition of the themes surrounding this narrative such as the presence of evidence against Bashar al-Assad present propaganda that serves political ends (Murthy 12). It is not surprising that all these media sources showcased unanimity by arguing the same things (Tracy 3). They all had the same story of the overwhelming evidence against Assad and the death of many young children while none went to the extremes of substantiating the claims. In fact, no media outlet questioned what Russia said about the attacks. In this case, Russia that is an ally of Syria claimed that the attacks had been staged. Putin named Britain and the United States as the masterminds behind this political manipulation (Tracy 4). In spite of such strong words, these media outlets that are well-resourced did not perform any further research and merely repeated the same rhetoric through more articles and news coverage (Doucet 15). The media houses refused to address any inconsistencies in the evidence provided because they acted as puppets of the masters as they created the agenda and made the this falsehood possible. Soon, new media through platforms like Facebook and Twitter became aware of this propaganda and spread it to millions of individuals who believed what they heard. However, mainstream media conveniently failed to ponder on the possibility that the attacks did not emanate from the Syrian government given the political climate at the time. It is a possibility that ought to have been explored with the same intensity as was the case with accusing Bashar al-Assad. However, mainstream media did not do this because it needed to paint the image of an evil Syrian regime and sale it to the people to provide reason or justification for a war.

Counter-Narratives that Prove False Attacks

Moreover, there are other counter-narratives from different sources that provide different accounts of what happened in Syria. The sources reported from the ground after assessing the situation as opposed to repeating the same aspects because of the need to spread propaganda. For instance, Pearson Sharp of the One American Network was in Douma and saw first-hand everything that was taking place. He found no evidence to support the narrative that Assad had facilitated the chemical attacks on his citizens or that they had taken place (Lavender 1). Mainstream media had indicated that there were witnesses on the ground who could provide an account of what happened. In fact, the media presented these accounts as having been corroborated to prevent people from asking questions about the statements that the witnesses had supposedly given. However, Mr. Sharp did not find a single witness who could support the stories about seeing barrels with the names of the Syrian regime. Sharp exposed mainstream media by interviewing normal people on the streets who remained unaware of any attacks to such magnitudes (Lavender 2). It is preposterous that even the staff from hospitals remained oblivious of any attacks in which all these people had died. Hospital staff would have all the information about an attack that had such a big impact on the people. In fact, some staff even cited that several unknown people had sprayed children with water and shouted that chemical attacks were taking place in an effort to create panic (Lavender 2). Pearson Sharp had full videos of these interviews and confessions from people in Douma who remained surprised about the attacks taking place. His videos were raw and unedited, which means that they showcased everything and highly contradicted the ones presented by mainstream media (Church 3). In fact, many of the residents thought the warnings of attacks were part of a television show because no one seemed to be injured.

The story of Pearson Sharp was not an isolated one. Other journalists from news sources like the UK Independent also interviewed people on the streets who remained ignorant of any chemical attacks in Douma (Lavender 3). For instance, Robert Risk presented videos of more than 20 people who all seemed surprised about the attack. Risk also highlighted that it seemed odd that some refugees had already escaped to Turkey when no one at home knew about the attacks. The situation presented evidence of the fact that mainstream media houses were lying because they are puppets with an agenda to cause havoc and justify war.

Moreover, news reporters like Louise Callaghan of Sky News were part of the spread of this propaganda because they used half truths when talking about the supposed gas attacks. For instance, the reporter showcased a video consisting of former terrorists who were on a bus to Idlib after surrendering (Lavender 3). They confirmed the gas attacks and went ahead to represent it in ways that would implicate President Assad. However, the reporter failed to inform her viewers that most of the participants were in fact terrorists who had a personal grudge against Assad for continually fighting them. She purposely failed to divulge this information because she knew it would create doubt. Such reporting exposes the agenda of mainstream media that was presenting weak evidence...