How does mass media influences and navigates European societies opinion on political/armed conflict based on the geopolitical interests particularly?
Аrе the news we view every day accurately represents what is going on in the world? Our culture’s prevalence of violence is one of the few constants in our community. Consequently, how we see the conflicts in which we participate significantly influences how we comprehend them. In their lives, most individuals may anticipate at least two battles. Only our media outlets, such as television, radio, and newspapers, can offer us with first stories of a battle. This platform has to be evaluated to see whether it promotes understanding of the problems or is more of a propaganda tool designed to make our participation in these conflicts more tolerable to the general public, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Тhe media play an essential role in society as a source of information and as a “watchdog” or inspector. However, the media strive to filter the information received and present information in a way that they think best represents the “story.”
Media studies have traditionally concentrated on the role of mass media in spreading misinformation and influencing public opinion. However, in more recent years, researchers have turned their attention to the psychological effects of media on society. Mass media use scientifically proven ways when presenting information to society to get a particular point across. The agenda-setting hypothesis holds that the press, rather than the people, decides what problems are essential. As a result of this notion, audience members are more likely to think critically, argue, and provide rapid and practical solutions in the direction media have set for them. Symbolic interactionism is another popular media theory that holds that human contact creates and expands the self. A person’s understanding of a situation might influence their actions toward others. People employ generally accepted culturally specific signals to get their point across. It is possible to generate symbolism with everything from physical objects to the way people communicate. According to the cultivation analysis hypothesis, those exposed to too much of a medium’s most common and consistent themes acquire a false sense of reality. This theme is most often employed in television analysis because of its unusual pervasiveness and recurrence. People who spend much time watching television have a distorted view of reality.[1]
According to a large amount of empirical evidence, the media significantly influences political and legislative outcomes. According to a study by Strömberg , broadcast increased vote share in gubernatorial elections and had a positive impact on the government budget in the 1930s, with a one percent increase in broadcast penetration in a county contributing to a 0.61 percent increase in government expenditure per person in the United States.[2] According to the writers, the press would impact not just during the combat but also from the background of the piece. The influence of foreign radios on postwar patriotism and collaboration was investigated by DellaVigna.[3] Their research examines the impact of nationalistic and anti-Croatian material broadcast on Serbian public radio in the 2000s on radio listener behavior in Croatia. According to statistical data, many tribal Croats trusted Serbian broadcasts despite being hostile to them. Second, in areas where Serbian broadcast was available in the 2000s, people were more likely to vote for extreme nationalist groups and attract patriotic posters. Third, in a field-based scientific experiment, Croatian subjects expressed more anti-Serbian sentiment after hearing Serbian airwaves. Even neutral Serbian media had a beneficial and statistically significant impact on anti-Serbian sentiments in the experiment, providing valuable insight into the research. [4]
Overall, the findings in this section imply that, at least in specific contexts, the media may have a significant impact on the occurrence of critical outcomes such as aggressiveness and nationalism and the suppression of post-war reconciliation and reconciliation after conflict.
The conflict between Ukraine and Russia makes the Middle East torn between showing solidarity with Ukrainians escaping the Russians that are destroying their homes. On the other side, the Middle East also remembers how the public turned their back when a similar armed conflict was the reason for the war in Syria and Libya only a few years ago. Likewise, the real struggle has increased the pricing of vital resources worldwide, but other nations, including governments and populations, continue to support the war. Meanwhile, when the Middle East war broke out, all Muslims and individuals from the region were labeled terrorists, and Europe refused to welcome all people who wanted to flee to safe and secure land. Although the media is not entirely to blame for this problem, they play a significant role. [5]
Conducting tragedies regarding middle east wars in western mass media became more evident after the recent conflict in Ukraine. What role does media play in people’s response to these tragedies? An example is the series of protests in cities throughout Europe against Russian troops invading Ukraine. People all throughout Europe are expressing their support for Ukraine, with throngs swarming the streets of many cities to express their solidarity with the country. When it comes to showing our solidarity with the people of Ukraine, it is vital that we do so in whatever way we can, especially as global citizens. immediate gestures of solidarity from individuals all throughout Europe who are doing all they can to help. A slew of initiatives have been created to offer clothes, medicine, food, and shelter to those in need. In comparison, in 2015, to keep “irregular migrants” from the Middle East out of Hungary, Croatia, and Poland, the countries have tightened their control over their borders.[6] During CBS News, Charlie D’Agata called Ukraine “relatively civilized” and said, “this is not a place, with all due respect, you know, like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades.”[7]Many Europeans referred to Middle Eastern refugees as “people with a murky past,” making it more difficult for them to enter Europe. Those escaping the turmoil in Ukraine have been welcomed by Poland’s government, which suffered heavy international censure last year for turning away a swarm of migrants who crossed the border from Belarus, most of whom were from the Middle East and Africa. [8]
The question is, what differentiates these people from one another, and how can governments be certain that all Ukrainian refugees are more “intelligent, educated, and highly qualified” than those from the Middle East? This use of words by media could suggests and support the theory media has power over society and how media in the different geopolitical present the truth in different ways. What is the difference between Ukrainian and Iraqi refugees? The color of their skin, eyes or religion. The reality is that they all were running from their homeland to find a place where their lives were not in danger. However, it is how their actions were represented in media that shaped societies’ opinions and set the base of how people feel for those ‘refugees.’ In 2015 on of the most trusted UK’s newspaper‘Guardian’ was describing those looking for new safe home as ‘illegal’, ‘illegal immigrant’ or ‘illegal migrant’ meanwhile British Conservative Daniel Hannan, wrote “They seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. Ukraine is a European country. Its people watch Netflix and have Instagram accounts, vote in free elections and read uncensored newspapers. War is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations.” In France, Ukrainian people were regarded as “an immigration of great quality, intellectuals, one that we will be able to take advantage of”, which subconsciously suggest that other “immigrants” those from middle east are unqualified and burden to France.[9]
Mass media represent the war in the Middle East, and Ukraine, which must be noticed when comparing European media is the Kosovo war. When it came to the Iraq war, the media in Europewas far more critical compared to when it supported the conflict in Kosovo. As a result, even the press adopted a moralistic tone. They were particularly concerned about civilian casualties. The number of civilian deaths recorded by German, Italian, and Polish television stations was more than twice as high as the number reported in the United States by ABC news. [10]According to this argument, the media’s freedom of expression is limited, and the way political disagreements are portrayed in the media reflects the range of political viewpoints represented in Parliament. When Parliament votes solidly in favor war, like in Kosovo, the media will back it.[11] A consensus implies that critical voices will not be highlighted, and the traditional divides between left and right-wing media will be bridged. Media sources will criticize a war that Parliament at least partially opposes, as was the case with the Iraq War. The media has found out how to keep going about the problems with content and its data. In the situation of uncertainty, they gave two versions of the truth, not without expressing the rationale for each. To better cover the Iraq conflict, the media concentrated on themselves. Less attention was given to actual battles and more to the media’s working circumstances, distrust of some sources, and difficulty obtaining genuine. Throughout the Iraq war, we had to deal with unprecedented media reflection. On television, 11% of programs focus on the media and propaganda rather than the actual conflict or its consequences.[12]
After the Gulf War in 1991 in the region of Iran-Iraq between German news, there was a change in the media attitude forwards the issue. Let aside establishing the truth is a continuing issue, now is likely to be revealed alongside the reporting news. A panel discussion with prominent members of Germany’s quality media led other European countries to look at the issue.[13]They were all confident that they had handled information seriously in a unique way and appropriately alerted the public. According to a German and US print media coverage study, the European media’s appraisal of embedded journalism strategy was more hostile. The closer a media outlet is to the left half of the political spectrum, the more critical the portrayal of embedding becomes. Even when not reporting the events but merely discussing the role of the media in that coverage, this exposes the significant national and political slant of war coverage. Today, there are no embargoes on media resources like back in the past during the Middle East war, meaning that reporters and journalists have easier access.