Media To The Public example essay topic

In recent times, the view of the world as a global village has taken hold. Globalisation and the formation of regional economies such as the European Union (EU) and the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) have consolidated the political structure. Furthermore, the events of September 11, 2001 and October 12, 2002 have brought the world together to face a common problem. New York and Bali were just the beginning of an international instability that persists till today.

The problem of Islamic extremism and the US led global war on terrorism have come to monopolise almost all global discussions. Security has become the primary issue on everyone's lips and the spotlight has fallen on the Islamic world to prove itself to be a religion of peace. The leading institution that represents the Muslim public is the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC). On the 16th of October this year, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad addressed the opening of the tenth session of the Islamic Summit Conference. The leaders of the 57 Muslim countries were gathered in Putrajaya for the tri-annual meeting of heads-of-state of the members of the OIC. As the host, Dr. Mahathir was required to address his colleagues and present the opening speech (for the full speech, refer to Appendix 1).

His speech and the Summit were extensively covered by the global media because it would be addressing the most pertinent of issues on the global agenda. The media was there to inform the world of the inner reflection of the Islamic world. The Summit, as a media event, linked the political elites to the public. In today's mediated society, politics and public life are irrefutably linked through the media to the public. The government and its leader, be him / her a president or prime minister, need the auspices of the media to facilitate a relationship with the public that that government is meant to serve. This relationship between the political establishment and its constituency occurs not in a spatial and temporal locale but is more a symbolic interaction with the public through the representations disseminated through television, radio, newspapers and other forms of media (Craig, 2003).

This representation has less to do with the policies of the political party and more to do with the nature of the leader of that party. Geoff Craig has noted that "political leaders and public figures, always conscious of their performative powers, have always cultivated 'images' for political consumption" (2003, p 112). Croteau and Hoynes have recognised that the changing nature of the media as well as the decline of the political institution have placed more emphasis on the leader of the party to represent his party (1997, p 206). They state that, "in presidential campaigns, the candidates' personality is of greater importance to voters, followed by the issues, party membership and group membership". This example clearly illustrates the increasing necessity of promoting an "image". In terms of image, Dr. Mahathir appears dressed in the traditional Malay attire of a Baja with a Song kok on his head, in keeping with his Malay heritage.

It illustrates image-management being practiced in political public relations (McNair, 1995). Mediated publicness While the notion of a political image is nothing new, it is the relatively new nature of mediated publicness that brings the political leader to the forefront of the public consciousness. The three differences that gave rise to the modern version of politics, in contrast to Habermas's public sphere model, are identified by Thompson. He notes that the audience capable of accessing the political messages increased due to improving technology, more literacy and social circumstances such as a larger middle-class. He also noted the emphasis on visual representation instead of verbal discussion and the changed political systems in the Western world towards more open democracies. He states that "in the social and political conditions of the late twentieth century, politicians in liberal-democratic societies have little choice but to submit to the law of compulsory visibility" (1995, p 137).

It was therefore necessary for a political leader of substantial weight to try to motivate the Islamic world to change. Dr. Mahathir might not be the most visionary in dressing, but his personality more than made up for it. The political challenge posed by the need for change in the Islamic world is one that has to be solved in the global arena. It is within this context that I will be analysing the politically charged implications of the speech presented by the Prime Minister of Malaysia at the opening of a summit of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC).

OIC Summit Firstly though, it is necessary to analyse the production of the event that Dr. Mahathir was addressing: the 10th tri-annual summit for the heads-of-state of the Islamic nations. The 57 Muslim heads-of-states were in Putrajaya to lay down policy for the OIC. The OIC was established in 1969 in order to unite the world's Muslims to face the challenges confronting them. Certain events in the world threatened the Islamic world at that time and unity was sought within the Islamic world to deal with the problem. The OIC has three operational levels. The day-to-day operation is carried out by the General Secretariat, the Foreign Ministers of the 57 nations meet every year and lastly, the heads-of-state summit conference.

The OIC represents 1.3 billion Muslims and it would therefore be valid to say that the events' targeted public was the Islamic world at large. The significance of such an event in relation to the notion of politics and public life should not be overlooked because it was inherently an exercise in media management. Media management is "the wide variety of practices whereby political actors may seek to control, manipulate, or influence media organisations in ways which correspond to their political objectives" (McNair, 1995). McNair points out the manufacture of "medial ities" as being "media-friendly events which will tend to attract the attention of media gate-keepers". Dr. Mahathir's speech certainly received coverage from all the major Western and Islamic media. The meeting of 57 heads-of-state would be a media friendly environment.

With the increased prominence given to the issues affecting the Islamic world due to terrorism, the media could even be accused of over emphasising the event. Nevertheless, "the management of the public images of politicians occurs prominently through the staging of events for media consumption" (Craig, 2003). The production of such an event would have incorporated the role of the media in its formative planning stages. This is because such events are organised so as to represent the Islamic world that is watching.

Dr. Mahathir said as much in his speech. His speech would have been rather unsuccessful, in terms of promoting change, if he hadn't had a public to preach to. Dr. Mahathir therefore put himself forward as a public figure in the Islamic world with the intention of stirring debate within society. This demonstrates the democratic functions of the media to society. After all, "the public is both a body within society and a domain within which debate about that society occurs" (Craig, 2003). By prompting debate, the issue would be placed in the public consciousness until a solution is found.

This management of conflict and power is what politics is all about. However, Dr. Mahathirs speech got attention for all the wrong reasons. His speech included several statements about Jews and their role in the world. The western media jumped on this and it made headline news around the world. In contrast, the Islamic media focused on the main issues raised by Dr. Mahathir such as the need for reform and non-violent force.

Media coverage The media coverage of Dr. Mahathirs speech was either supportive of him or it denounced him as anti-semitic. The difference was rather pronounced because of the sensitivity of the individual regional press. In England, the Guardian focused primarily on his "Jewish" statements. The paper accused Dr. Mahathir of telling the summit to fight Jews (Appendix 2). This was contrary to what he had said in his speech. It also reported the reaction from the West to his speech as being racism (Appendix 3).

The Daily Telegraph ran a story highlighting his "dark side" (Appendix 4) and CNN reported him as being "condemned" by many influential people and the government of the US (Appendix 5). There were a few Arabic newspapers that criticised Dr. Mahathir but they were mostly accusing him of nothing more than "general ising" against Jews when he meant Israeli (Appendix 6). The Al Jazeera completely overlooked the anti-semitic content and reported that Dr. Mahathir urged Muslims to "use brains not brawn" (Appendix 7). The BBC reported that the differing reaction had divided public opinion (Appendix 8). It also said that Dr. Mahathir knew the reaction he would get and that he had said what he did for that reason. The differing opinions would facilitate many debates and that might have been his ulterior motive.

My research on this issue began the day Dr. Mahathir gave his speech. I heard it on BBC world (FM 107.9) and followed it ever since. My main media consumption occurs online and I therefore visited the websites of the major media such as the BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and CNN. The differing opinions from the different media are the messages that the public will interpret. It could also be symbolic of greater struggles within society with anti-semitism and Islamic extremism. Differing public opinion is actually good for democracy because it signifies the need for attention to be paid to the issue.

It is through debate facilitated by the media that a resolution would be found. Denis McQuail states that "the mass media may rarely initiate change independently, but they do provide the channels, the means and an arena for the playing out of events in which many actors and interests are involved, often in competition with each other" (2000, p 472). Dr. Mahathirs speech was "framed" (Croteau and Hoynes, 1997) by journalists to suit their intended public as well as to sell newspapers. This ties in to the very meaning of the summit as a media event because it encompasses the "representation and interpretations" as being products of the event itself (Craig, 2003). Furthermore, we must not assume that the media does not have an active role in politics. Blume r and Gurevitch state that "the media have gradually moved from the role of reporting on and about politics, 'from the outside' as it were, to that of being an active participant in, shaping influence upon, indeed an integral part of, the political process" (1995, p 3).

In the context of Dr. Mahathirs speech, we can attribute this to him putting pressure for change in the Islamic world on the leaders of the OIC, as well as confronting those nations that he feels are threatening the Islamic world. Dr. Mahathir used the media to realise his strategy because it gave him a global audience. It must be noted that he has a vendetta against Israel for the atrocities committed in Palestine (Appendix 1 & 4). His goal of attracting attention to his cause was facilitated by his speech supposedly containing elements of anti-semitism. Any journalist worth his salt would have jumped at the opportunity to "frame" the speech as anti-semitic because it stirs controversy and that's what sells newspapers. However, the controversy served to distract from the many positives ideas Dr. Mahathir brought up.

This could be evidence of a "performance that back fires". Thompson states that "the problem stems not from incompetence or loss of control, but rather from a misjudgment concerning the ways in which the performance would be received and understood by the people who watch it and listen to it" (1995, p 143). Thus, the public that received the Western interpretation would most likely condemn Dr. Mahathir while the Islamic public would applaud him for being a strong leader. Thus, Dr. Mahathir would have made an impact with two publics instead of just one.

The negative press might even have helped Dr. Mahathirs cause by showing the growing disparity in the world in relation to media coverage. It just highlights a difference between to cultures. Furthermore, Dr. Mahathir had nothing to lose because he retired three weeks after giving the speech at the Summit. Mobilising public opinion The entire concept of the Summit as a media event and the immediate focus on Dr. Mahathirs speech serve to highlight the top down model of public opinion expression through the media. The media, always hungry for a 'soundbite', gobbled up his "Jews rule the world by proxy" line and predominantly focused on that point. McNair states that there is "a tendency for journalists to look for the 'essence' of the event - a particular phrase in the leader's speech, for example - and to organise coverage around that feature" (1995, p 120).

The Islamic media focused on the "brain not brawn" bit instead. This might have something to do with more sensitivity to anti-semitism in Europe than in Asia. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that political speeches delivered in a pseudo-event environment, "attempt to satisfy the journalists' need for easily-reportable 'bits' of political information, is such a way as to set the news agenda in the politicians' favour" (McNair, 1995). Thus we can justifiably say that the event and the media conspired to produce an outcome that worked to everyone's benefit. Democracy was being served because the differing opinions realistically reflected the different opinions worldwide and it contributed to greater understanding and hopefully, through rational argument, a sensible resolution. Dr. Mahathir therefore mobilised the differing public opinion to fulfil his role as one of the political leader of an Islamic world that is in need of reform.

There was also a case of attempted crisis management by the Malaysian Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Alba r. Attempted because he didn't apologise for the speech but he did apologise for it being "taken out of context" (Appendix 9). Crisis management is, according to Geoff Craig, "identification of possible crisis and response planning (and) a quick response to the crises when it occurs" (2003, p 136). The "apology" by the Foreign Minister came two days after Dr. Mahathirs speech and it was therefore a" quick response". It is part of the information management aspect of political public relations (McNair, 1995).

By denying the racist tag, the Foreign Minister attempted to deflect away condemnation of his Prime Minister as being ungrounded. He backed up his leader and this showed strong unity within the Malaysian government. Dr. Mahathir would also have received support form those who agree with the content of his speech. He let out a rallying cry that the Islamic public could not but notice, and act. Thus, he is strengthening his position by placing himself in the metaphorical line of fire.

We can see evidence of the public being mobilised in support for him when journalists from Malaysia and Iran supported his speech as being "true" (Appendix 8). Dr. Mahathir was fulfilling his role of a political leader: to symbolism and mobilise the public that he serves. Therefore, it would be fair to say that politics and public life are inextricably linked to the "management of visibility" and the mobilisation of public opinion. Conclusion In conclusion, the challenges faced by both the Western world and the Islamic world in coming to terms with each other, even if in the press, were the issues addressed by the Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. He stressed the need for Muslims around the world to modernise and focus more on their intellectual capacities than to waste their lives in mindless violence. The OIC, the media, the public and the event itself served to provide him with a platform from which to reach out to the world and elicit some attention from them towards his cause.

In his own words, "Rhetoric is good. It helps us to expose the wrongs perpetrated against us, perhaps win us some sympathy and support. It may strengthen our spirit, our will and resolve, to face the enemy" (Appendix 1, p 9). Blum ler J.G. & Gurevitch M., "The crisis of Civic Communication", The Crisis of Public Communication, Routledge, London, 1995, pp 1-11. Craig G., The Media, Politics & Public Life, Allen & Unwin, 2003, . Croteu D. & Hoynes W., The Business of Media: Corporate media and public interest, Pine Forge Press, California, 2001, pp 1-30.

Croteu D. & Hoynes W. Media Influence and the Political world, Media / Society: Industry, Images and Audiences, 2nd, Pine Forge Press, London, 2000, pp 229-260. Cunningham S. & Turner G., "The media and communication in Australia today", The Media and Communications in Australia, Allen & Unwin, 2002, pp. 1-23. Gross berg L., Wart ella E. & Whitney D.C., "The Media and the Public", Media Making: Mass Media in a popular Culture, Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage, 1998, pp 357-374. Herbst S., "Classical democracy, polls and public opinion: Theoretical frameworks for studying the development of public sentiment", Communication Theory, 1991, pp 225-238. McKenzie W., Celebrities, culture and cyberspace: the light on the hill in a postmodern world, Pluto press, Sydney, 1999, pp 128-136. McNair, B., "Party political communication 2: Political public relations", An introduction to Political Communication, Routledge, London, 1995, pp 110-136.

McQuail D., "Normative theory of media and society", McQuail's Mass Communication Theory, 4th ed, Sage Publications, London, 2000, pp 141-163 & 450-474. Thompson J. B, "A social theory of the Media", The Media and Modernity, Polity Press, UK, 1995, pp 125-140. Index of Appendices 1.) Speech by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia at the opening of the Tenth Session of the Islamic Summit Conference, 16th October 2003.2.) Aglionby, J., "Fight Jews, Mahathir tells summit", The Guardian Newspaper Limited, 17th October, 2003.3.) Aglionby, j., "West accuses Malaysian PM of racism", The Guardian Newspaper Limited, 18th October, 2003.4.) "Mahathir's dark side" Telegraph Group Limited, 24th October, 2003.5.) CNN, "Mahathir attack on Jews condemned, 16th October, 2003.6.) BBC News, "Mideast press cautious on Islamic Summit", 19th October, 2003.7.) AFP, "Muslims urged to use brains not brawn", Al Jazeera, 16th October, 2003.8.) Kent, J., "Muslim reaction to Mahathir speech", BBC, 18th October, 2003.9.) Spill ius, A., "Malaysia 'not sorry' for remarks about Jews", Telegraph Group Limited, 18th October, 2003.