CNN Silences War-Skeptical Soldier (VIDEO OF THE WEEK)
Music Video of the Week, 12 Mar 2012
Watch what happens when 28-year-old Cpl. Jesse Thorsen touches a neuralgic nerve by suggesting that Israel can take care of itself. It’s impossible to say exactly what happened to the remote feed that suddenly got lost in transmission back to CNN Central, but the minute-long video is truly worth a thousand words. The interview, which dates back to Jan. 3 2012, is symbolic of how the US Corporate Media treats dissident voices that clash with the prevailing pro-war-on-Iran bias.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJb0cQ14NgE
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 12 Mar 2012.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: CNN Silences War-Skeptical Soldier (VIDEO OF THE WEEK), is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
One Response to “CNN Silences War-Skeptical Soldier (VIDEO OF THE WEEK)”
Read more
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
Music Video of the Week:
The right of freedom of speech/expression is a complicated right. In the case of the above mentioned video of CNN, it can be said like this: “The interviewee has the right to express whatever he chooses to speak. On the other hand, those who edit the interview to air it (i.e. the TV broadcasting company) has the right to edit the interview and to choose what they would like to air. The broadcasting company has no obligation to air everything what the interviewee has said.” This also indicates, however, that the TV news broadcasting company airs their programs “with fear or favor.” The broadcasting company airs their news programs according to their corporate policy. They do not air things that may become disadvantageous to them. The above mentioned video, for example, shows that CNN refused to air a part of the interview, which could have deemed to be disadvantageous to CNN.
Any human rights, including the right of freedom of speech/expression, are to be guaranteed through relevant laws on human rights. Accordingly, the above mentioned case of the CNN interview can be discussed if CNN’s act (i.e. cutting the interviewee’s opinion) breached the law on the freedom of speech/expression. This will be a difficult debate if the case will be brought to the court, because CNN will argue their case as mentioned in the above paragraph. That is, first of all, the broadcasting company has the right to edit the interview and the right to choose what the company would like to air. Secondly, it is probable that CNN will also argue that the company has no obligation to air everything what the interviewee has spoken. Furthermore, it is highly likely that CNN will claim that the company has its own broadcasting policy, as mentioned above, which does not breach any relevant laws and that, in accordance with that policy, the company has no obligation to broadcast things that may become disadvantageous to the company.
Now, think the other way around: Imagine that TMS was a “TV news broadcasting company.” If, during an interview program, the interviewee was expressing his opinion on supporting Israel’s violent policy over Palestine for instance, what would TMS do, then? Would TMS not cut the interviewee’s words during the interview program? Then, the argument that could be applied to CNN could also be applied to TMS. That is, first of all, the broadcasting company (TMS) has the right to edit the interview and the right to choose what TMS would like to air. Secondly, TMS has no obligation to air everything what the interviewee has spoken. Furthermore, TMS may claim that TMS has its own broadcasting policy which does not breach any relevant laws and that, in accordance with that policy, TMS has no obligation to broadcast things that may become disadvantageous to TMS. If CNN could claim their own rights, TMS could also claim its own rights. If TMS would criticize CNN for cutting the interviewee’s opinion not supporting Israel, possibly CNN would also criticize TMS for cutting the interviewee’s opinion supporting Israel (if TMS had cut his words). While TMS promotes peace very much, CNN does not necessarily so. This is the definite difference between them. But the logic of both of them is essentially the same.
Apart from the (possible) legal view-point that was mentioned in the above two paragraphs, it can be said from the professional (or journalistic) point of view that one of the news media’s main roles is to present both (or all relevant) aspects of the issue in order to let the viewers formulate their own opinions on the issue. This is how mass media can contribute to democracy. The viewer has the right to formulate his/her opinion that could be either for or against (or something else) the interviewee’s view-point.
One of the essential ingredients of the right of freedom of speech/expression is that people must be well-informed on whatever things, matters or incidents in their society, “without fear or favor.” In this regard, let me give you three essential questions and answers as follows: First: Why is the right of freedom of speech important? Because it constitutes a vital part of democracy. Second: Why is it important for people to be informed “without fear or favor”? Because if they are not informed without fear or favor, either they cannot form their own opinions or it would be very difficult for them to form their own opinions. Third: Then, why is it important for people to form their own opinions? Because democracy works according to people’s opinions. If it works according to a dictator’s (or a small group of ruling/dominating people’s) opinion, it is not democracy; it is dictatorship.
It is often called that mass media are the fourth power, after the political power, the military/police power and the economic power. Know the extraordinary power of mass media in every aspect — from politics, to economy/finance/business, to science, to art, to culture, to everyday life; from human rights, to fundamental freedom, to democracy — of the contemporary world. It is no wonder, therefore, that mass media are called the forth “power.”
Mass media play a vital role in the world today. Let CNN prove what mass media company it is. Let any mass media prove what media they really are. Alcuin said, “Vox populi, vox Dei.” But today, would he say, “Vox mass media, vox Dei”?
May mass media today contribute effectively to peace, democracy and well-being of the whole humanity.