Randy Salim, Jakarta
Atlanta, Georgia, mid-May 2006. I was with a group of mid-career broadcast journalists from around the world on a training program. Our minders made sure that our weekends were devoted to taking in the sights and sounds of the South.
The driver helping us to do so was a somewhat friendly man, though closer to a redneck than a southern gentleman.
This was his umpteenth year driving foreign journalists from hotel to shopping mall to hotel again. By local standards, this -- plus his love for post Sept. 11 novels on Middle Eastern conflicts and terrorism -- made him a connoisseur of foreign cultures.
In the van, Abdulrahman, a technical director for Bahrain TV, was exchanging playful insults in Arabic with Badr, a political journalist from Kuwait. Their voices get louder, as the mock-argument escalates. At that volume, the Arabic language can sound very violent. But we know they're only kidding, so we laugh. Perhaps to join in on the fun, or merely to shut us up, Redneck Driver bellows out from behind the wheel, ""Now now. I hope there's nothing terroristic going on back there!""
I immediately felt a sharp pain in my chest -- the pain of biting your tongue so hard, you could feel it in your heart.
How I wanted to strangle Redneck Driver's white wrinkly neck. How glad I was that Abdulrahman and Badr didn't speak English very well. How I regret not lashing out in defense. How sad it was to think that Redneck Driver didn't realize how offensive his comment was (or did he?). How sad to think that in Redneck Driver Land, the words ""Islam"", ""terrorism"", ""bombs"" and ""Bin Laden"" would always be uttered under the same breath, same sentence and same train of thought. I shudder to think how big Redneck Driver Land actually is.
The above anecdote could be seen as proof that yes, there has been a lot of talk about creating interfaith harmony, but whoever's been doing the talking has not been talking to the right people. Redneck Driver is obviously aware of the unfortunate, negative connotations of Islam, because that's what he sees at the end of the day on Fox News.
I believe that one option to creating better understanding between Islam and the West is to talk some sense into the owners, news directors and chief editors of every major Western media company. They're the ones with the access to the masses, the taste-makers, the ones who cast a dark cloud over Muslims in Redneck Driver Land.
It probably wouldn't be an overstatement to say that the Western -- if not all -- media wields greater influence over the general public than actual governments. Jack Straw went from being an Iraq War-opposing former British foreign minister, to a bigoted MP that felt veils on Muslim women were menacing. Despite all the apologies and explanations, the media ultimately won by planting that one seed of thought into the public mind, irrespective of truth: Jack Straw is a bigot. Jack Straw could visit any Muslim country on official business months after this fact, and that is what the local media will be dogging him with.
Be it through the ritual of reading a newspaper over breakfast or tuning into the evening news, the media is an undeniable part of the modern human routine. News, essentially, becomes a consumable like food and drink -- something you need, but mostly in moderation. News gluttons are few and far between. That's why the international-standard TV news feature is just one and a half minutes long: It is the gauge of the modern human attention span. Anything beyond two minutes is considered too much information. Don't bore us, get to the chorus.
A two-hour dialog doesn't hold a candle to the 15 second soundbite, and what we hear during those 15 seconds is not decided by any top government official or religious leader. The recent controversy over the Pope's comments on Islam proved that even the Vatican is at the mercy of the soundbite.
But would the Western media be open to a forum in which Muslim leaders and intellectuals could verbally assault them for fueling Muslim rage and anti-Muslim sentiment? Keeping in mind that media companies are, after all, businesses that wish not to alienate any potential customers -- attendance alone should be guaranteed. The hard part is obviously driving the point strong enough to provoke evident change in editorial content.
There would definitely be a tug-of-war over how the media has positioned itself in the current political climate: A mere reporter of unfortunate events, or an aggravator with the tools to broadcast these unfortunate events across the globe, ad nauseum. Would the world be more peaceful without the media, or would it just be quieter as we all bask in the bliss of our ignorance? Under the current political climate, should the term ""responsible journalism"" go beyond telling both sides of the story, and incorporate the use of restraint? How would the world feel about the Germans if CNN existed during the time of the Holocaust? What if Fox News were embedded with U.S. troops in the Vietnam War -- would Oriental Asians face the same stigma felt by Muslims today?
Yes, the debate would be endless, the feeling futile. But that doesn't mean that efforts shouldn't be made, that questions shouldn't be raised, that the media can't be challenged.
The writer is a TV journalist.
| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|