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.
10 thoughts on “Control Room”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Control Room” was a fascinating look at the media coverage of the Iraq War. As someone who has been interested in journalism for a long time, I found it to be a powerful, engaging and though-provoking movie.
As I continue to learn more and more about the Middle East, I find myself realizing how truly little I know about the attitudes and mentalities of the Arab people. Reading “What Arabs Think” and then seeing this movie has been an enlightening experience. For example, I never considered that images of the Israeli soldier — who, in their European appearance bear similarities to the coalition soldiers — could influence Iraqi sentiment toward American soldiers. As he explains, the images blur together until they are the same image, and the connotations and feelings about each image are blended as well. Thus, two separate issues become the same issue, amplifying the tension and conflict.
I also found the US Military’s engagement with the media, at times, to be baffling. Especially in the case of the Top 55 cards, I could not understand the logic behind what the Sergeant did. I don’t even understand why they would print those cards in the first place — it seems like sensitive information (like our 55 most wanted enemies) should be kept more on the down low than that. Besides that incident, though, it seemed like the military officials were highly aware of even the most minute bias perpetrated by Al Jazeera, but utterly blind to the same biases coming from American media. Even the soldier who seemed to be trying so hard to understand the Iraqi point of view throughout the film took major issue with the bias he perceived from Al Jazeera. I think this raises the interesting question of whether war coverage by an involved party can ever be truly neutral — as the young Jazeera journalist explains to an American at one point, he is not just a journalist but an Iraqi, and those two identities cannot be separated from one another.
Ever since the beginning of the war, I have heard many media and government criticisms of Al Jazeera. The criticism always fell back on its Arab bias and choice to show videos released by Al Qaeda. Clearly any news reporter has some form of bias. All it takes is to read a variety of news sources to realize that. As Samir Khader points out early on, Al Jazeera exists to educate people about world events, most importantly those that affect the Arab world. “Control Room” did not just show that one side or the other was biased in some way. Instead, the documentary pointed out the bias on all sides, American and Arab. Media bias is universal and what can be construed as bias is not necessarily bias. For many Americans, the choice to air the video of Americans represented extreme bias on the part of Al Jazeera, but the channel did not just show American injured and dead. They showed their own as well. I found Lt. Rushing’s comment about the relative effects of the footage interesting. When the injured and dead are people you may know, the reaction escalates rapidly and in most cases that element of personal connection cannot be erased. The general American audience does not expect to see the aftermath of any violent act in that great of detail in news coverage. Sure the facts and figures are given but not the image of a bloody child. For the Iraqis and the Arab population, showing the “human cost” of the war solidified a view of the American presence as one of occupiers. Some Americans viewed it as an attempt to gain sympathy for the outgoing government.
“Control Room” brought the use of the media in launching a war to the forefront. It reminded me of the media’s position as the so called “fourth branch” of government. Samir Khader pointed out at the beginning that it would be impossible to start a war successfully without the media. The American military was forced to walk a narrow line between giving the media the information the media wanted and making sure that nothing too large was given away. It was obvious when the military attempted to put a spin on the situation, such as focusing on Jessica Lynch. Al Jazeera wanted everything to be shown, whether the various governments wanted it or not. “Control Room” emphasized the importance of having many voices in the media field no matter the issue. Outlets are willing to push some stories over others, making the entire field just a little more complete.
I found this film fascinating, and I think it provided a unique look into the media’s role in conflict, and the differences between Western and Arab media broadcasting. Towards the beginning of the film, Samir Khader describes the goals of Al Jazeera: to educate people about current events, to allow people to see the other side, and to awaken people to the fact that there is something happening in the world. I think that the rest of the movie demonstrated that Al Jazeera is true its word. Yes, Al Jazeera may at times express an Arab bias, but as pointed out in the film, American news sources express an American bias. I think that is an important thing to realize–news broadcasters may not always be able to separate national/regional identity and news coverage, but that does not necessarily diminish their credibility. I think Al Jazeera is especially important because it provides the Arab perspective, which Western news sources, for the most part, do not. This film made me doubt if objectivity, while valuable, should really be considered the most important thing for the media. I think what is more important is that each side has a voice in the media, and that populations have access to all of those voices.
Another aspect of the film that I found interesting was the continued references to Arab association of American occupation of Iraq with Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. I was not aware that these two conflicts were so commonly associated, but it makes sense. I also thought it demonstrated the strength of the Arab identity that all Arabs in the Middle East, not just in Palestinian territories or Iraq, feel affected by American occupation. This is illustrated by the use of “we” in the film to refer to the Arab community.
I agree with what my classmates have said. James pointed out that the film highlights how the American media is not the omniscient machine that we think it is when we go to war. In war time, in war zones, the media is shut out of important information or stonewalled when asking certain kinds of questions. Al-Jazeera, which in many respects is foremost identified as NOT an American new organization, is not hampered by these same restrictions.
I remember, as Nejla mentioned, the strict censoring of images from the American media. Al-Jazeera showed things that American news outlets dared not, or maybe they just decided we didn’t need to see everything. Al-Jazeera showed, again as Nej mentioned, perspectives not even imagined by many Americans. The connection between the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Second Gulf War is specifically mentioned, but Al-Jazeera is not limited to only showing this otherwise unrecognized link in foreign affairs.
The film overall showed, as Will mentioned, the essential elitism of the US in the reporting and thinking about the war. The censored pictures that Nej mentioned got terrible reactions by the US soldiers, but the hypocritical irony is that there was no reaction to the pictures of dead Iraqis. As I remember it, the feeling amongst most Americans during the beginning of the war was a weird mix of mutually exclusive emotions. We knew that we were at war and that the Iraqis were our enemies, thus we hated them. Also, we went to war to liberate Iraq and make life better for them, and thus they were our partners in democracy. Two me, this film brought back many of the conflicting emotions of the beginning of the war, when I was not sure why we had gone to war, what our goals were, or even the broader picture of what was really happening.
Control Room was a unique perspective on the perils of covering war today. Since Vietnam, media has had an important role in telling the other side of the story: the effect that decisions by those in power has on civilians and victims. Al Jazeera did a great job showing images and points of view that are often not depicted in U.S. mainstream media or in many world networks for that matter. Al Jazeera’s commitment to provide a credible and balanced outlet for people whose lives have been impacted is honorable.
One important point about the film was the idea that media is in reality not always objective. Reporters are human, and some have emotions that they take with them to the warzone. The excitement of some American/British reporters when they saw the tanks in the main square of Baghdad is a case in point. At the same time, many Al Jazeera correspondents have sympathy for the civilian casualties in Baghdad and the death of their fellow reporter Talik. One of the female reporters was shocked at how fast the invasion and the capture of Baghdad occurred. Nevertheless, many reporters were trying to get facts about the events in Baghdad, unable to go into the city out of danger. No matter the point of view, journalists have a duty to report the truth.
Certain actions such as the bombing of the Al Jazeera station were particularly disturbing. Rumsfeld’s constant condemnation of Al Jazeera coverage points to the U.S. administration’s frustration over how to deal with images and news that did not fit their story. It was an attack on the institution of freedom of the press while ironically fighting to liberate Iraqis. Most importantly, the film questions the role of media and whether it serves as more of a propaganda machine than a reliable source of relevant information.
This most important message of this film for me was uncovering the inequality in information that persists in times of war. In Iraq, as in every other war, the US military had information that would prove invaluable in reporting the war back to America. It therefore had the upper hand in negotiating what information the media could have access to, adopting a “if you don’t like it you can leave” type mentality when journalists pressed for more.
Al Jazeera represented a threat to that inequality that served the military well. On the ground, with a distinct understanding (both geographically and socially) of the region, Al Jazeera was able to offer insights and revelations in their broadcasts that escaped Western media. Coalition forces no longer had a monopoly on information, and that idea scared them, perhaps scared them so much that they launched attacks on media headquarters.
In war zones, the US media does not have the same privileges, same abilities, or same resources that make it “fourth branch of government”-esque in the US. It’s capability to influence the proceedings or have a political impact is severely hampered because its investigations nearly always hit a dead end when answering to military authority. It took Al Jazeera, with its unique access, to demonstrate how actors outside of the military or political sphere can impact events.
The responsibility then fell to Al Jazeera to use that influence fairly and professionally. They made great strides in this sense showing casualties that the American media were unable or unwilling to broadcast and demanding answers for the exact location of military forces they knew had not yet entered Baghdad. Control Room did a superb job demonstrating how it is nearly impartial for media to be objective, and given this, Al Jazeera, in its relatively fledgling state, made a promising attempt at solving the information gap that has so long plagued war-zone reporting.
This is a fascinating film, profoundly insightful into the way that TV and images in the news have come to dominate our thoughts and beliefs about so much of the world. I was fascinated by the discussions with the AJ reports in which they tried to explain how the images being played impacted Arab’s minds and in junction with the images of Israel in Palestine created an idea of the oppressive and violent West. While I think that AJ was certainly accomplice to this fact, the reality is that we provided them with more than enough material in the form of pictures and video for them to need to produce propaganda (though I’ve read and watched enough AJ to know they do a fair share of that). All they have to do is tell the truth, or even better stream the images with no explanation to give us an image we have largely earned. Plus I do not think we have a whole lot of room to talk given our usage of the footage and images from 9/11 in creating an imaginary monster.
It is depressing to see the degree to which the knowledge available to the masses is so doctored and censored for political purposes. It is inspiring to see people who seem to genuinely care about the truth, and even while admitting that objectivity is something of an illusion, make an earnest attempt to present the world as they see it, despite pressures and censorship from both home and abroad. It is revealing to see how deeply Americans are affected by the images of dead Americans and at the same time numb to images of dead foreigners. Maybe if our news agencies would show us what the real affects of the decisions we make look like we would take it slightly more seriously when considering who to vote for. It reminded me of the recent debates on releasing the images of Osama and some of the comments Jon Stewart had on the subject: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/face-off .
I am continually amazed and intrigued by the role of the media in global affairs. This documentary reinforces the idea that modern wars are launched both my military and media operations. I think the sequences of shots was brilliant on behalf of the filmmakers, because they managed to show the perspective of AJ, American media reps, and American military representatives in a clear and understandable manner. I don’t think the film tried to depict AJ as a completely detached and objective news source, because as we have observed, it is nearly impossible for one to exist.
Nonetheless, I believe that it was important for AJ to focus on the human cost of war, even if exposing harsh realities received negative attention across the globe. If American news sources were censoring these images, then how were people supposed to know what was really happening in Iraq (civilian casualties, home invasions, anti-American sentiment.)I am not advocating the use of graphic images to harness anti-American sentiment and anger, only that if America was so concerned with giving Iraqis democracy, then they should probably be aware of how American “help” actually effected the Iraqis
It is astonishing how much of an impact AJ has had on the Arab world. Although there is a underlying pessimism among many Arabs who see their stories as continually being written and directed by the victors who hold power, one can hope that truth will eventually prevail and motivate change in the right (or a least more humane) direction. With increasing developments of technology and media sources, and more accessible information out there, perhaps multi-perspective truth will eventually trump biased victory in writing the future chapters of world history.
One aspect that I found particularly interesting was how Arabs saw the context of the Second Gulf War as connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict, while Americans seem to not connect the two issues at all. This again demonstrates the lack of understanding on the American part, because American occupation in Iraq and America-backed Israeli occupation in Palestinian territories are completely intertwined in the broader context of MENA affairs.
I’ve been an avid reader/viewer of Al Jazeera English for a few years now and it still really bothers me that most Americans think it’s some terrorist news network. Luckily, we’re spared this sentiment at Middlebury since most of us are educated enough to know otherwise. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that AJE is still only broadcasted in Burlington, VT (yay!), Washington, DC, and most recently, New York City. And this is only Al Jazeera ENGLISH. Imagine how most Americans feel about Al Jazeera ARABIC.
I think “Control Room” really emphasizes the ridiculousness of these claims. This was my second time watching it, but it was just as inspiring and convincing as my first. One point from the film really hits home for me: many countries in the MENA region actually CENSORED Al Jazeera at some point because the news channel was too critical of their regimes. This, to me, completely debunks American assumptions that AJ is “the mouthpiece for Osama bin Laden.”
“Control Room” also supports many of the findings in Amaney Jamal’s study of citizen attitudes in the Arab World. Samir Khader, the senior producer of AJ, said something along the lines of: “Al Jazeera wants to spread democratic values to Arab world…” This reminded me of Jamal’s assertion that “although citizens tend to view the United States with skepticism and tend to favor Islamism, they also seem to believe that democracy is the best form of government” (Jamal 195). AJ is prototypical of this ideal: still Arab, not anti-Western, but still an advocate of democracy and values of liberty, freedom, and human rights for all. I think “Control Room” does a great job showing the true side of AJ.
I was really surprised how the US media criticized AJ journalists for their “lack” of objectivity, regarding their Iraq war coverage. It was, I thought, ridiculous, and it made me remember an interview I’d seen a while back. Someone asked a US journalist if he could objectively report on the US invasion, to which he responded, “Of course not” or something to that effect. “I am a patriot, and when my country goes to war, I will support it,” he concluded. It was a very scary and very revealing admission.
I thought the journalists use of the word “we” was also fascinating. The Al Jazeera journalists used it when describing the Iraqis’ plight. The Iraqis were not being bombed or shot at. Instead it was “we were being bombed and shot at” even though the AJ journalists talking were sitting hundreds of miles away in air-conditioned offices. As the AJ producer mentioned, the US invasion had succeeded were Saddam had failed for decades: it united the Arabs behind Saddam and his regime. The US journalists and military men, on the other hand, used “we” when describing the US soldiers invading Iraq. The pictures showing captured US soldiers were outrageous, they said, while the images of injured Iraqis did not get any reaction. While that observation certainly is not novel, it is still interesting and is, I think, worth noting, because it explains how despite all the talk about cross-cultural understanding, Middle Eastern and US officials often find themselves talking at—rather than to—each other.