Respond to the screening in 1-2 paragraphs. You may include what interested you, impacted you, or how your perspective on ME politics changed after watching the film.
14 thoughts on “Control Room”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
While I found this movie very interesting, I did not find the information it presented striking, or unexpected. This lack of surprise, however, indicates how truly media prompted our society has become, especially concerning such salient events as war. A journalist in the film said, “Can we really be unbiased?” This question really resonated with me after watching the film. If we think about war, one thing the war needs is support. Without support, a war cannot hope to survive. News channels that are targeted to a certain, religion or political group, has a strong interest in perpetuating the thoughts and beliefs of their viewers so they may continue their support base. Media has in many ways become the front line on which we fight out battles.
This film did a great job at showing why certain media sites/channels chose to show what they aired. The media has successfully condition many people to believe that their side of this war is the true, robust and right side; this was apparent with the comparison between Fox and Al-Jazeera, and also in the reactions to each channel (when the Sergeant felt more apathetic to the US soldiers than the Iraqi soldiers).
We like to believe in Freedom of speech, and that the Media has an interest not only in success but also in truth. However, I think Control Room takes a more pessimistic view on this belief, showing that self-motivation is actually at the root of any human relationship. I guess this film made me a bit angry with the Media (incase you couldn’t tell), but it also frustrated me because I fully agree with and understand their points, and reasons for reporting what they do.
Control Room was a fairly striking and informative movie. I think one thing that still resonates with me is something one of the journalists said. He said in being a journalist, “ can we really be unbiased?” I think, as much as newspapers try to be unbiased, it is also true that they cater to a certain audience. If Al- Jazeera’s audience were the American public they would obviously not portray the war in the same light as they do. And yes, like they expressed you cannot wage a war without media. I guess I’ve always known that, but it took on a different light when they actually uttered it. You need your people to believe in the fact that you’re doing the right thing and protecting their interests. It is more of a subconscious propaganda than was commonly used during WWI and WWII.
For me this movie ignited more questions about media and the role it plays in our daily lives. If Americans actually tuned into Al Jazeera would there still be American troops in the Middle East? I’d argue no. By Fox etc taking the stand they take and not fully reporting what goes on during the war they desensitize the American public from the very fact that they are at war. People dying in the Middle East seem like far off entities that will never collide with your own life. And yes to be honest, I was bothered by the images that I saw on Al-Jazeera, but maybe that’s what is needed. It reminded me that these are people dying. Furthermore, the fact that Al Jazeera broadcasts to the Middle East means that they are not desensitized towards the war and it makes sense that people are angry.
Anyways, due to the fact that we were talking about Gaddafi and Al Jazeera here is an article with some sensitive pictures reporting Gaddafi’s capture:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/10/20111020111520869621.html
Control Room does an amazing job of explaining why Al-Jazeera decided to broadcast the information that it did, and I would hope that regardless of whether one agrees with those decisions, everyone was able to come away with deeper understanding of Al-Jazeera’s position in the Arab World.
In my opinion, Sergeant Rushing touched on the root of not only Al-Jazeera’s decisions but all media broadcast policies when he compared Al-Jazeera to other news stations. There were two times during the film that this was particular evident. The first was when Rush discussed the differences between Fox and Al-Jazeera coverage of the invasion, both of which were located in the media center. The second came when he talked how much more the images of dead American soldiers on TV affected him compared to Iraqi civilian deaths.
The two instances allude to the fact that news agencies are businesses, and thus ultimately accountable to their audiences. Rush may have even said this explicitly, although I cannot remember. For me, this is the take home message of the movie; that a news outlet is always more likely to broadcast material that will engage their views; whether doing so is right or wrong is a whole different topic.
Three of the most interesting and thought provoking themes brought up throughout the movie were those of truth, objectivity and propaganda. As all are interconnected in some way, it was fascinating to watch Al-Jazeera grappling with these concepts at the onset of the Iraq War. It seems that they could please no one. While Bush regime accused them of being the “mouthpiece of Bin Laden,” Iraqi leaders often charged them with spreading Western propaganda. Yet obviously the two viewpoints are contradictory and could not have been executed at the same time—so who is right? Who’s “side” are they on? It is also interesting to question if by drawing equal ire from both sides of the conflict, are they in fact doing the “best” job as a news agency, and truly presenting both sides of the issue? To me, most striking was the reaction of the US military men to the news aired by the network. Their constant accusations seemed a bit petulant—“they’re not telling the truth” and “we just want them to show both sides” was often heard, which is interesting in contrast to the repeated observations of the military’s skill in manipulating and “playing” the media.
As such, what does “truth” in the media mean? Does it mean editing certain images and showing others? It seemed to me that the US military was extremely bent out of shape because of the images shown of dead civilians and soldiers. Yes, these are extremely disturbing images that are bound to upset the Arab’s watching Al-Jazeera (and maybe incite further violence). But I have to agree with one of the reporters when he said “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” You can’t kill civilians and expect a news agency to cover up this fact, especially when the network is one that is deeply and personally affected by the tragedy. Yes, objectivity is an important part of journalism. Yet if no images of the Iraqi government’s wrong doings are released, how is Al-Jazeera supposed to present the other side of the issue? And is objectivity indeed a plausible goal? Is anyone truly able to stay objective? I found the footage shown by Al-Jazeera to be extremely graphic and shocking. Censorship in the United States ensures that these images of war cannot be shown—but does that make them biased and unreasonable? I do think that Al-Jazeera struggled with both sides of propaganda, but perhaps this view of the war is not a bad thing at all, and one that many Americans should be aware of. Personalizing the brutality of war may make it a less-desirable course of action.
Near the beginning of the film it was exciting to hear Samir Khader- the senior producer of Al-Jazeera- basically say, “The [US Army] can’t have their cake and eat it too.” This film investigated medias’ lack of objectivity, but also how Al-Jazeera dove into reporting this war from an arab perspective with a western mentality (…they even spoke english in the newsroom). Khader stated that Al-Jazeera desires to “push for democracy, respect for others’ opinions and for free debate.” There is rarely a subject that is taboo for them. This is surprising to hear and caused a double-take on my part because I expected them to be a state-run news source. Instead, Al-Jazeera decided to become an alternative news source- one that provides perhaps a more complete story. In my opinion they presented their news in a more straight-forward manner that was not anti-American. Khander wanted to present the War on Iraq through an ethical and honest lens. One news reporter kept highlighting how the war was coming at a high human cost on both sides. Similar to Lieutenant Rushing, I did not feel the impact of the deaths until I saw the images of both dead Iraqi civilians and soldiers as reported by Al-Jazeera. I remember that at the time of the War on Iraq, I was in middle school and never even thought of the Iraqi civilians and their safety. I had believed that I was an informed citizen just by reading the Washington Post and I did not know that the word “objectivity” is a mirage.
In July of 2007, Journalist Christiane Amanpour said “I really do believe that journalists are motivated by, first of all, a commitment to the truth, and seeking the truth. But I also think w’ere motivated b ya sense of fairness. A the bottom of our hears, I think we’re people who are fair.” This quote takes on a new meaning in the context of the men and women portrayed in the documentary, “Control Room”, a film which depicts the careful balance a journalist in a war torn country must make between trying to present the truth objectively to their readers or viewers. The question becomes, is, as one of the Al Jazeera producers states “the word objectivity… a mirage”, a value that can never really be upheld? WIll history ever be written by anyone but the victors? What in the end, drives a journalist, a commitment to truth or a commitment to fairness, whatever that fairness looks like.
“Control Room” is at times incredibly frustrating because it exposes the reality that the answers to these questions are never at hand, but are rather constantly having to be re evaluated with every day by producers, interviewers, and writers. There is no point of contentment, where true objectivity will be indefinitely found. What also becomes apparent in the film, is the tensions which exists between journalism and diplomacy, between journalism and the effective execution of sound policies or military aims.
“During the days of Dresden” one reporter says “there was no television”. “Control Room” highlights the age old argument between transparency and effectiveness in political activity. How informed can a public be without jeopardizing it’s safety? To what extent does a government or military have the right to act under the guise of anonymity in order to produce effective results? Do we elect these people, allow these people, this right?
It is obvious from my post that this film invites its viewers to ask a lot of questions and perhaps that is what good journalism is supposed to do.
Control room gives insight into foreign military involvement in Iraq that I think is particularly powerful as an American. It is widely felt that American media outlets do not adequately portray an objective representation of current events, Control Room is a clear example of the politics that come into play with media, as well as the potential conflicts that arise when media outlets come into conflict with powerful actors. What I have always found endlessly interesting about Al Jazeera was the fact that it was formed in reaction to authoritarianism in the region, and was demonized by the heads of authoritarian regimes, and later through American press as well.
One of the most powerful scenes in the film describes the death of an Al Jazeera journalist due to United State’s air attacks. Though every death is of value, particularly those of civilians,I thought that the death of a journalist was particularly shocking. It is because Tarek, the Al Jazeera journalist, died at the hands of a military that legitimized its presence as one of stability in the region that I find his death particularly disturbing. The sentiment that followed Tarek’s death, to me, marked a shift in the relationship between the press and armed forces that made representatives of the press feel not only vulnerable, but targeted.
Control Room is a well-made film that makes me question the American military and government as an entity. I have heard of their atrocities and know that they certainly exist, however to see them on screen from another perspective made me continuously cringe throughout the film. It bothered me a great deal to hear the former President assure the people that Iraqis are being treated well, and then have the scene cut to Americans degrading Iraqis and abusing them. This kind of media is so watered down that we couldn’t even see coffins returning from war up until a few years ago, and yet this was considered by officials to be the paradigm of media. Of course it was, they defined it. That they considered Al Jazeera to be an enemy to the cause is hard to deal with. We heared the president of Al Jazeera, someone who grew up in Iraq, who oversees this corruption say that he still wants to send his kids to American universities. His rationality and objectivity of events assures me that the station really was about telling both sides of the story. For the head of Al Jazeera, the point was not anti-US/ pro-Iraq, it was anti-unethical/pro-truth. It just so happens that the truth does not make us look good.
Much of the film was about America skewing its media and its exposure to best propagate its cause. The “Iraqi” teens toppling Sadaam’s statue stick out in my mind as the most grandiose of the propaganda and are an example of the really unfortunate realities of war in relation to how citizens see it back home. One spin on American actions that then blew up in itself (no pun intended) was that the sergeant in the Control Center was very vocal about how “precise” the missiles used in Baghdad were, and yet when questioned about the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad, the casualties and the bombings were deemed to be an ‘inevitability of war.’ When his earlier point stressed how much care the US took to not harm civilians or non-involved parties, it seems like a huge cop-out to say “accidents happen” with regards to a target that clearly the US does not agree with, even if it cannot outwardly say this. Even if accidents do happen, this does not seem like one of those cases. Precision limits the opportunity for erroneous events and therefore makes the bombing of the headquarters seem much less like an accident. Even the US military, for all of its “cleverness” in tricking its citizens into believing that it is making progress in Iraq, can slip up and reveal its true colors from time to time.
I felt a very strong emotional reaction to this documentary. Many parts were hard to watch, and surprisingly the hardest bits to watch were not the gore and violence of the war, but rather the jarring juxtaposition of this violent and screaming reality in Iraq with the almost surreal calm and lightheartedness of Americans in the United States. The film made me question my own reactions to the war growing up, the distant feelings of nonchalance and unawareness I felt from 9000 miles away that, thanks to the “CNN effect,” gradually came to weather my reading even the most blaring of headlines in the papers. I felt moved by the documentary, and felt my perspective on American Foreign and Military policy shifting, as well as my views on Al Jazeera and the people of Iraq.
One of the points of the movie I found particularly fascinating was the reaction of foreigners to Al Jazeera’s portrayal of the war. American officers and politicians criticized their presentation of news and their use of montages of the war between commercial breaks, claiming both showed a bias towards Iraq and the Iraqi people, rather than a commitment to upholding the principle of impartiality they believed to be the objective of every journalist. While a dedication to impartiality is certainly a laudable endeavor, very few – if any – news stations around the world present news in an entirely unbiased fashion, whether their influencing factors be government or political leanings. Through the lens of the documentary, I thought that Al Jazeera’s choices in presenting their news were fairly two-sided, presenting both Iraqi civilian victims and US soldier victims. If their presentation of material showed prejudice, I thought it was understandable and natural, reflecting a pan-Arab sentiment and a sense of solidarity and pride in being of Middle Eastern descent, something colonial and western powers continually tried to rob them of throughout pre-modern and modern history.
The Control Room presented two sides of war: the ‘Arab Nightmare’ and the ‘American Dream’. Over and over again, Al Jazeera’s portrayal of the Iraq War—synonymous with death, destruction, occupation, and foreign interests —contrasts with blaring MSNBC images of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”—promising democracy, liberty, justice, and accountability for the Iraqi people. Together, the American media and the persistent voice of Al Jazeera articulate the dual narratives of an unwanted war.
One journalist mentions that these two worlds are ‘colliding at a rapid rate’. The Arab Spring may represent the first rumblings of this collision. As Western democratic regimes and Arab authoritarian regimes become increasingly enmeshed, the demands of ‘the people’ may begin to melt into one. I think the Media Central Command served as the experimental ‘melting pot’ in this film. For once, reporters were able to discuss the dual narratives of the war, and come to terms with the reality of death—as Lt. Rushing poignantly recounts—or the repercussions of ‘diplomacy by tanks’. I hope that these forums for discussion become increasingly common as the barriers to communication continue to diminish (via facebook, twitter, social networking). The contrast between broadcasted sound bytes and off-hand conversation gave me a lot of hope for rational, compassionate communication and very little hope for the future of self-interested state rhetoric.
I cannot even begin to comment on the ‘liberation scene’ in Baghdad. American soldiers scaling scaffolding up to Saddam’s face; dubious Iraqi teens celebrating in the streets; an Iraqi flag from 1991—the mere supposition that this event was staged by the American troops is so vile that I don’t want to linger here too long. If this event really occurred, it seems that American troops chose to abandon our nation’s ideology in the name of securing state interests.
Slightly divergent quote that peaked my interest: At one point, Lt. Rushing defends the ’American offense’ and admits, “we bombed the hell out of Baghdad [but we did it] with the most precise weapons in the world.” For me, this quote highlights the perverse nature of war. In order to make this argument, Lt. Rushing must see the war as necessary means to a greater end. We killed people, but we’re rich, so we splurged on ‘high tech weapons’ and tried not to not kill too many civilians.
The conflict between interests and ideology harkens back to George Kennan and the Waltzian idea of a ‘self-help’ state, where every sovereign actor prioritizes its own survival above all else. I would like to believe that universal human rights have helped state actors transcend the humanitarian limitations of the Waltzian state, but this event suggests otherwise. The dual voices of the media further emphasize the ‘self-help’ nature of large broadcasting networks, as producers frame media events to boost viewership. If both political institutions and information networks prioritize personal success over the values that the ‘American Dream’ espouses—namely truth, liberty and justice—how are citizens of any sovereign state expected to act with a broader lens of global peace and security in mind?
I found the format of the film to be quite interesting as it was both unconventional and effective in conveying the sense of chaos that characterized the initial stages of the war. The different perspectives of the media and the response of the respective governments to the portrayal of the conflict, also emerged. Al Jazeera often seemed to be derided from all sides with the exception of the Arab public, an aspect of the film that I think reflected the style of reporting employed by them. Although journalistic objectivity (or its conspicuous absence) is a strong overtone, the US military is not cast in a particularly positive light by its interactions with the media. Its overt attempts to manipulate public opinion through the use of supposed celebrations by individuals seen to be of dubious Iraqi descent and objection to the use of negative images stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric of openness and freedom that the USA so often preaches.
One aspect that resonated with me, yet seemed somewhat inconsequential in the greater context of the movie, was the admission of Al Jazeera’s senior producer that he would gladly take up a job in the United States and intended to send his children there for university. He states this despite questioning the US involvement in the Middle East on both an ideological and personal level and perhaps reflects the feelings of many educated, affluent Middle East residents who, while criticizing the involvement of the US in Middle Eastern affairs actually consider it to be politically and socially superior to their own states. This is again emphasized by the former BBC journalist Hassan Ibrahim who reiterates his belief in the restraint of the US armed forces that will manifest itself as a result of the constitution and the American people rather than military or political leaders.
One of the most interesting parts of this movie was the importance of media bias on the portrayal of any war. Both sides of the media admitted to only showing certain sides to many stories, often ones that would most appeal to their respective demographics. The documentary directly referred to each bias showing different portrayals back to back. In one shot they had the American Soldiers shaking hands with Iraqi villagers and US Officials insisting progress was being made, leaving out all of the bombings and civilian deaths. On the Al Jazeera side, however, they ran graphic images of women, children, and soldiers injured, maimed or dead, and interviewed outraged civilians without showing any US soldiers participating in non-violent or non-abusive interactions with Iraqi people. Although both sides of the media got along, there was a clear lack of trust between the US and Al Jazeera and controversy over what was important or appropriate to show, respectively, the citizens of the US and Arab countries. One point commonly brought up towards the end, however, was the issue of looting in the streets after the collapsing of Hussein’s regime. I thought that was a fair issue for the media to press. We helped initiate the government collapse, and it was only our responsibility to continue on fully in helping the country build itself back up.
One thing that especially impacted me was the screaming Iraqi child who, in his interview, referred to Americans as a bunch of animals. It was scary to see a child with what appeared to be so much animosity and hatred towards our country. Just as the American media may portray many Arabs in poor light, news and propaganda have the same effect over in the Middle East. Children can only be expected to hate a country they watch bomb and bloody up their homeland. The Al Jazeera showed, from their perspective, how our involvement only increased tensions and fueled the sense of bitterness towards the United States. Lastly, I thought it was cool that the media got along and could bond over the common themes of truth seeking and investigation. It was as if the US Central Command was a mini United Nations with representatives from countries all over the world brought together by this war. They all seemed to be able to get down to the issues with each other and converse/debate peacefully. I also think Lt. Josh Rushing handled interviews very well and was well spoken.
My thoughts leaving the film, Control Room, are disjointed and a bit frantic. Some of them are emotional responses to specific scenes; some connect the film to my own experience witnessing the Iraq War through American media as a middle school student; and some are broad themes that I see connecting the American military action in Iraq and other areas of American politics and economy.
Watching this film was the first time that I put myself in the position of an Iraqi, learning about the impending American invasion of their country. I hadn’t previously asked myself what it would feel like to watch the television and hear George Bush announce that if Saddam Hussein did not step down the US would invade, without announcing the date of that invasion. As Bush guaranteed Iraqis that their future fates would rely solely on their own actions, I never stopped to think how terrifying that message would be to an Iraqi, unsure of whose side he/she was on. The idea that the Iraq war and the American media galvanized Iraqis for Saddam if they previously had been against him is not foreign to me; yet, I never realized how logical that progression of ideologies would be.
While watching the film, I also reflected on what media messages I remember getting in the United States as these events were unfolding. I remember the Jessica Lynch rescue and the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein, but I have no recollection of the death of the Al-Jazeera reporter or much about Iraqi deaths in general. Of course, I was a middle school student without a television, but if anything, that fact makes me a better case study for which messages were strongest on the American side.
Finally (and a bit off topic), I couldn’t stop seeing parallels between the way the American economy functions and the way the military is run. Both institutions rely heavily on a lack of transparency to achieve their goals. Investment firms cannot release their holdings for fear that this would be equivalent to giving away their game plan, and military officers cannot release troops whereabouts or the names of top targets for fear that this would be providing intelligence to the enemy. But how is either of these systems to be held accountable if information is not made available to the greater public?
One of the most interesting people in the movie, Control Room, to me was the US CentCom Press Agent, Josh Rushing. In my opinion, he exemplified the stereotypical American soldier, one who espouses the US ideology when talking to the outside world, but questions it more in private. The differences in what he said when talking to reporters and what he said to the documentary filmmakers was astounding. Perhaps the most striking example was during the segment of the film about Al Jazeera showing the photographs of dead and injured American soldiers. While the other military officers were only portrayed as outraged that Al Jazeera had given the international community access to these images, Rushing explained his own realization: that just days before the same TV network had been showing images of dead and wounded Iraqis. He never said it outright, but you could tell that he realized that perhaps Al Jazeera was not as biased as the US Government wanted the people to believe.
Another interesting moment for me in the movie was the explanation of the fall of the statue of Saddam. It was explained not as a showing of celebration, but as a relief that the people felt. I think that this distinction is an important, and delicate one to make. On the one hand, it is a hugely meaningful moment in any dictatorship when the statue of the dictator is taken down. This is a moment for celebration when the people who have been suffering are the ones who are taking down the statue. When the statue is being taken down by a foreign power that is simultaneously bombing and killing your own people, there can be no celebration. There can only be a silent sense of relief.