Face Value: what we think we see and hear

We have come to a point in post-modern history where the assumptions of honest, accurate, and truthful media presentations are non-existent. No longer can we wander into the realm of mainstream media and drift ignorantly on the presumptions of accurate face value presentation. With growing vertical and horizontal monopolization and the permeation of corporate conglomerates and multinationals, media reports are continually being marked (and rightly so) with heightened suspicion and skepticism. We, as citizens of a democracy, are finding ourselves incessantly questioning and doubting the information spewed out by the dominant beholders (Yes, I am speaking to you Leonard Asper). Ulterior motives and underlying agendas are becoming customary assumptions that we all necessarily have to be mindful of; it is idealistic propaganda at its best.

Consider two diverse examples as points of clarification and demonstration.

Firstly at the most frivolous and one may say insignificant level, consider the story of Richard Branson and his conflict with British Airways. For those of you who have seen the latest Bond flick, you are most likely aware of the cameo role that Mr. Branson plays. Furthermore, you are likely to known that Richard Branson- billionaire- is the owner of Virgin Airlines (among many other things with the prefix “Virgin”). This is where the conflict takes place. Recently, British Airways, while playing the latest Bond film on one of their national flights, decided to travel into the audacious world of selective presentation. Justified under the title of “conflicting interests”, British Airways airbrushed the scene where Branson has his 15 seconds of fame; they completely removed his presence from the film. Moreover, they blurred out the Virgin Airlines logo that appears on one of the jets. They claimed that they did this with their shareholders in mind; in other words, they didn’t want to piss anyone off. As an anonymous employee of British Airways bluntly put it, “We screen all films before they're used on our aircraft so that we can control the content of what is displayed. We have full control over what is shown."

Wonderful to hear, how reassuring (sarcasm intended); here I am thinking that it was only the Asper family deciding what we see and don’t see in mainstream news media, but movie culture as well; shit, not just movie culture but tampering with Hollywood, as many of their followers would say, “SNAP”.

Importantly, it must be said to validate my point, that I say the above not because of some deep admiration for Virgin Airlines or some underpinning animosity towards the owners of British Airways, I present this case to simply demonstrate the extent of selective presentation and the surreptitiousness by which it is done. In no way were the passengers of the airline notified of this intentional content tweaking nor where their interests ever considered. Come on people we should know by now: stock holders always find themselves at the top of the hierarchy of care.

A further example that clearly displays the fabrication of presentation and hence, need for greater skepticism can be extrapolated from the recent March conflict between Iran and Britain. Throughout this entire confrontation we as ignorant viewers where bombarded with images that we assumed as fact, yet were later conflicted with further images and tales; there was a never-ending cycle of presentation, confliction, and rebuttal.

The standoff began when Iran seized 15 British Royal Navy personnel from what they claimed where “Iranian waters”. Resultantly, they were taken into the custody of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and temporarily detained in Tehran. For the next week, diplomatic efforts were furious. Back and forth, Iranian and British authorities were attempting to resolve the dispute in a non-violent diplomatic way. During this time, we were shown various images of the detained Naval personnel; whether it was a taped confession to their entering of Iranian waters or the seemingly humane and benevolent treatment they were receiving, news media around the world unremittingly presented these clips. At face value, one may have originally interpreted the detainment as simply that, a detainment with no torture or inhumane care. The naval personnel seemed content and even nonchalant about the whole thing. Furthermore, during the release of the naval personnel (or what Ahmadinejad called a “gift” to Britain) we were presented with the iconic images of the soldiers in well-suited garments jovially conversing with Ahmadinejad. At one point he even jokingly claimed to one soldier, “You ended up on a compulsory visit, didn’t you?” A saddened and distraught face was not to be found, the 15 British soldiers seemed as though they were transfixed in an unequivocal admiration for the Iranian President. As expected, it was not soon after that British authorities labeled these displays as pure propaganda; an attempt by Iran to manipulate the minds of all by providing misinformed and falsified images to the major media networks.

Once again, as expected, Britain responded to this claimed manipulation of the conflict (more specifically, the detainment) as their armed forces decided it was their turn to play the role of information beholder. By means of employing a calculative and strategic method, they allowed the 15 British soldiers to tell their stories for the world to hear. Tactically positioned and semantically contrived, the soldiers went on to label their treatment as “interrogative; mistreatment”. Words like “rough handling” and “aggressive questioning” were peppered throughout as the British media seemed to unquestioningly accept what the soldiers had to say (despite its clear contradictory nature). The picture painted by the British soldiers during this conference can be best summarized by the following: interrogative tactics; forced confinement; and consistent mistreatment. Leading to the ultimate question, who are we to believe?

I do not know the answer to the aforementioned question, nor do I believe it is of critical concern. The crux is simply to say that, indicative by the above tales of clear contradiction, taking information or the stories of others at face value can no longer be. It will not suffice for media to play the role of personal tape recorder and simply regurgitate what they have been told (as the British media seemingly did). Skepticism and rigorous investigation must be revived from its place of suppression back into the minds of all. For quite simply, the idea of accurate, truthful, and honest face value presentation is virtually extinct.