I
As we all know, states do not govern the whole media channels in western countries. In ME countries or other totalitarian regimes it's not the same. States govern the media and decide what should be published and what should not. Social Development criteria may suggest the ratio of official state tribunes to independent tribunes as a good factor. Of course by independence, I don't mean some ultimate independency for this kind of media; we all know that media giants are divisions of multinational companies that may also have news agencies, movie distributors, weekly magazines, newspapers, and websites and so on... Not at all a direct result of democratic states – it's a wonderful truth that if you've enough money you can make a dog to be the next president of United States – it's a matter of the historical background that puts western media channels over their national governing systems. It's not also the economical power, in ME we've ha large number of men who have top rates in economical power ranking but they never think about media. Al Jazeera network is the first step to create and to manage some kind of independent media in the Middle East that is not a spokesman of the government. So, we can put Al Jazeera in the first lane and ignore the rest. On the other hand, Bin Laden is the man who knows well about media and their effectiveness out of his limited boundaries. By now, no Islamic state – even the most hard-liner - have not any attempt to support Bin Laden directly, but that's not the case that why he chose Al Jazeera for his use. It's a modern point of view to choose an independent media – as we described what we mean by independency – to have a voice in the modern world. (I do not like Al Jazeera personally, because of its Pan-Arab ideology, but we do not talk about our very personal interests here of course!) So we can see that Bin Laden has the most modern method to deal with the West through the media channels!
II
Lack of awareness causes more serious problems for that second group of states they have been attacked by western media and they reply to their respective countries! A, hits you and you hit back B who is a partner of A. But they attack you if your media has been attacked them. This relationship results in premature behavior of the second group of states. Simply they cannot defend themselves. By restricting the media inside their own countries, these states dig their graves by opposing the public opinion across the world. It's like a slow decay, some kind of stigmata! May be it's the end of the age of traditional totalitarian regimes forever. They have no way to escape from this reality that if they allow the media inside to act normally they will face the danger of criticizing and need to be replaced, and if they do not allow this, on the other hand, the pressure of modern connections will smash them from outside. As I noted in the first section and due to our recent review, Bin Laden has more chances to survive in the modern world! Saddam was the second victim of the closed ring of official media system after Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and Bin Laden still exists on the face of the planet. I like to note here that by this analyze – like the case of Al Jazeera – the origin and the goal of some terrorist team like Al Qaeda are none of our business. However Al Qaeda is not a state and there are a lot of difference here between him and i.e. Bahrain government, Al Qaeda has fans to care about all over the world.
III
Most of the second group states have a fake image of a so called "public support". Presented in mass exhibition of protests and meetings hold by governments themselves, they count on imaginary support and believe in an illusion of certainty. It has been written in NWO bible that changing the first group as independent islands in the world to a subgroup of the first group is unavoidable. The second group media publish those public supports and instead the first group, not criticizing the rule of the second group media, just proofs the inefficiency of the states and not their media directly. This can be the third reason for how difficult is to survive in a modern world full of media connections for traditional totalitarian regimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment