Prompt : It is ok for the government to mislead in order to promote security. I do not necessarily agree with this statement, however, I do not disagree with it either. For the purpose of this task, I would agree to the statement in regard to the aftermath of watching the documentary : The Control Room. Firstly it is worth noting that this documentary is by Al Jazeera, a media outlet in that focuses and is based largely within the Arab/ Middle Eastern community. Although it is described as being objective, no amount of pure objectivity can be measured and thus subjectivity is present.
The statement just contradicts the position and role of the government. Although some may see it as ok to mislead to promote security , it falsifies claims of governments misleading in general. Furthermore, equating this, proves that not only would people be upset, but it would start to question the integrity of the government and position in general. In a Democratic system, one would elect a candidate based on policy,social agenda and attitudes. It isn't till however, action is put into place and real work is actually done. The way governments handle and manipulate within society such as media, is a prevalent factor in asking "Why did we even elect him/her if all they say is lies". This ties into international disputes as seen through propaganda/media manipulation in the Control Room and reaction to people/public to solidify false reasoning on entering the Iraqi War.
One perspective one can look at this is : It is illegal for Advertisers to mislead/change info of their product or what happens with the product in relation to consumers. Isn't Propaganda by the government just in fact, false advertising, yet somehow legal? How do we know that the product we consume(media, speeches, propaganda) is right from both internal and external sources?
No comments:
Post a Comment