I'm sure that phrase will warrant a collective groan from all the legitimate nations of the world. As you all remember, Syria, under the regime of Bashar al-Assad, launched multiple hideous chemical weapons attacks against its own citizens in March of last year. After US threat of military retaliation, the Syrian regime agreed to terms laid out by Russia and the US that dictated a planned destruction of its chemical weapon arsenal. As of today, that plan is behind schedule.
Regardless, many experts are impressed that Syria has made as much progress as it has with the destruction. The real issue isn't that Syria isn't destroying chemical weapons fast enough; rather, the problem is Syria continues to USE chemical weapons.
Reports indicate that Syria is continuing to use chlorine gas-filled bombs on civilians. Chlorine gas is not technically a chemical weapon, but its use would almost inarguably go against the agreement Syria signed last year in Geneva.
Here's my question: Do you guys feel like Syria has been inappropriately out of the news lately? It is my contention that since the events of last year, the media no longer seems interested in covering Syria. If you agree that this is the case, would it be fair to say that the American media is failing it problem recognition (or agenda setting) function? Is Syria a bigger issue than Americans are currently regarding it? Let me know your thoughts.
8 comments:
Considering that there is still a civil war going on in Syria, it does seem somewhat inappropriate that it's been out of the news lately, especially if it is true that chlorine gas is being used in the war now. An explanation for this could be that the crisis in Ukraine has been hogging all of the headlines lately. Syria may still be a big issue for Americans, but Ukraine is a more recent and perhaps more pressing issue for the United States, and this is why it's been grabbing media coverage away from Syria.
Some Americans may feel that our involvement in Syria only extends to negotiating the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons and that we should focus our attention elsewhere now that our task in Syria is completed. For some, Syria is also, in a sense, more distant and less relevant to US interests as is Ukraine. In Ukraine, we are directly confronting another international superpower, whereas in Syria, we were indirectly in conflict with Russia over the arms embargo on the Syrian government. Additionally, in Ukraine, we are dealing with the issue of a country effectively taking over another sovereign nation, whereas in Syria, we seem to be content letting the civil war play out on its own. And the crisis in Ukraine seems to be escalating daily, while there seem to have been fewer new developments in the Syrian civil war. For these reasons, the media may feel that the events happening in Ukraine are more newsworthy than those happening in Syria. In my opinion, Syria is still a very important international issue, but it may not be getting as much news coverage as it should because the crisis in Ukraine is deemed by the public and the media as a more pressing and newsworthy issue.
I agree with you, Jack, once Syria agreed to destroy its chemical weapon arsenal, the media seemed to lose interest in what was going on there in general. The media has only started up its coverage of Syria now that they are once again inflicting harm on their people through the use of weapons that violate the agreement they made in Geneva. I believe that this counts as a failure to properly recognize the importance of the situation; yes, Syria agreed to destroy their chemical weapon arsenal, but that doesn't mean that it will be an easy, violence-free process. The media should have continued with their coverage of Syria in order to make sure that people knew what they were doing, and to make sure that Syria knew that people were waiting for them to come through on their side of the agreement. Based off of this article, Syria is definitely a bigger issue than what we made it out to be; they are willing to go against the agreement they made, and their acts of aggression need to be covered by the media so that the world knows what they are doing, and so that people feel compelled to take action to make them honor their agreement.
Syria has definitely been out of the news lately even though there is still much conflict within that area. Although there has been progress since last year, as Alex pointed out, the government is still using inhumane attacks on their own citizens. Previously, the Syrian government has used starvation as a weapon of war. It still however, is blocking foreign aid and supplies from reaching civilians. There is also the massive refugee crisis which has been taking its toll on Syria's neighboring countries. The lack of media coverage definitely prevents Americans from being informed about what's going on within Syria, which is why many Americans believe that the problems in Syria aren't too extreme.
According to government-media conspiracy theorists, one could argue that the media (and thus the population) lost interest when the government realized that it couldn't just march in and make things democratic.
The media's role as gatekeeper is sometimes abused or misused. There are many other important issues these days that the media declines to cover for various reasons. As Colbert said in his legendary speech, "Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!"
Although I hate to dive into speculation, it seems that the media simply covers whatever political agenda that's being pushed, frequently instead of more important issues. Who here knows about Riley v. California, , Hedges v. Obama, Schuette v. Coalition, or Whitley v. Hanna? These cases are all relevant to what's happening here and now, but none of them are particularly important in the eyes of the media. Perhaps before we worry about not knowing what's going on abroad, we should figure out what we don't know at home.
Celine, it's really interesting how you brought up the fact that Syria is blocking aid to use starvation as a weapon. That truly sums up Assad's methods-- I'm astounded the ongoing abhorrent tragedies of this conflict aren't receiving more attention.
Pat, that's a good point. Ukraine has been filling headlines. But I'd argue that Syria was out of the news cycle since before the Ukraine problem. I'd almost see Syria as Ukraine Pt 1.
I think a lot of the reason why Syria is out of the media--and why we can't march in their with 90 tons of democracy (Thanks Nathan)--is because of the stalemate we have with Russia.
It seems absurd to me that Putin can claim legitimacy in his actions in Ukraine while he continues to support Assad's regime.
But Russia is at war time levels of propaganda, and Russian nationalism has been reborn. It's not just Putin who is delusional; it's his whole country.
John Mcain has been using the same joke a lot lately: "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country." Anybody wanna weigh in on what that means?
I would attribute some of the under-coverage to a false sense of closure that the American public felt when the U.S. gave Syria an out by allowing them to destroy their more nasty chemical weapons. Not to go back to the events of this winter, but the President and the media definitely dropped the ball there by implying/assuming that the major newsworthy portion of the conflict was over after Assad agreed to stop using Sarin gas.
It's also concerning that the American public is up in arms over Russian intrusion into Ukraine but doesn't seem to object to the use of Chlorine against civilians in Syria. While maybe not recognized as a controlled chemical agent by international agreement (I trust Jack), there's absolutely no doubt that its use warrants a greater amount of media attention than it is receiving. Sarin kills your nervous system, Chlorine makes you drown on dry land... the distinction made in terms of what is crueler is lost on me.
Also, it wouldn't be fair to discount the possibility of subconscious racism (and boredom) in determining what news gets coverage. Ukraine, to many Americans, warrants more attention because it's a "civilized" western country. We can relate more to the Ukrainian people, we share closer religious beliefs and the average American doesn't approach European issues with the same biases that they do Middle Eastern issues.
Syria on the other hand, comes off as the standard third world country civil war. For a lot of people, the lives of Syrians are less valuable than those in Ukraine simply because we associate the region with the War on Terror and Islamic extremism. Rather than a battle for democracy and independence, we just see it as simple third world violence. To us, Ukraine is an example of Soviet era oppression while Syria is just seen as an internal fight in some backwards far off country.
I think we all agree there's been a definite lack of coverage on Syria. After not hearing much about it for a while, I sort of assumed that Syria was not as much of an issue as it was before. That was a little ignorant, as I just read about this the other day:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/world/middleeast/syria.html
I don't think the media's lack of coverage means that they don't care, and I wouldn't say they are failing at their role in problem recognition, but they definitely could be doing more to show the American public that Syria is not a resolved issue.
Post a Comment