Cody Meyer

Media Criticism

11/29/01

In representing the issue of race and middle-easterness, I will be reviewing the December issue of Newsweek magazine. This magazine is a mainstream corporate owned news journal, which I believe will be presenting the news from an American ethnocentric viewpoint. I will look at the specific issues of representation, sign, signifier/signified, connotative, denotative, myth, discourse, historicizing discourse, subject position, and non-neutral binary oppositions as they relate to the creation of otherness of race.
The representational practices that reveal racial and ethnic differences throughout the magazine are found first in the pictures, which use signs to signify such differences. On a general level of the magazine as a whole, the signifiers that represent middle-easterness are connected with the historical context of the war in Afghanistan; thus the stereotype of what is Middle Eastern is the Afghan soldier. This process of the creation of meaning in the context of history is known as historicizing discourse, and holds that meaning will change due to the context of history. The current events of the September 11th bombings and the subsequent war in Afghanistan are important factors in the representation of middle-eastern people. As a news magazine, the primary subjects of coverage for Newsweek are going to be of these events.

The first insight into what signifiers are used in the pictures to represent the idea of Afghan ethnicity can be found in the political cartoons (p.21). Cartoons are a great way to identify the signifiers because they must rely on the generalization of characteristics to create a sense of ethnicity, as well as having a long history in creating stereotypes. In the cartoons the Afghans are depicted with full facial hair, turbans or hats on their heads, baggy pants, long sleeved shirts with vests over the top, and perhaps most significantly of all, with gun belts and machine guns. It is through this cartoon that we can see the predominant point of view that the rest of magazine will follow, the subject of middle-easterness will be dealt with as a binary opposition of aggression, foolishness, and inability for self control vs. the defensive, objective, and paternal nature of the United States.
The cartoon at a denotative level depicts some men wearing the garb of Afghan soldiers at the Afghan government power sharing talks, welcoming warlords and tribal leaders. The men are seen pulling Three Stooges finger pokes, hot foots, using a joy buzzer on a handshake, and the ever-popular bunny ears. What this represents at the connotative level is foolishness and incompetence of the leaders that are responsible for the control of their country, coupled with the possession of the tools of destruction (weapons). It may seem that at first glance that, yes, this is only a cartoon and that is indeed intended to make light of the situation and make fun of political figures, but at the mythic level it represents the attitude of our country in dealing with the Afghans. The cartoon shows Secretary of State Colin Powell and his associate as the serious onlookers proclaiming that, this isn't going to be easy...î. They are the ones who must deal with these clowns to find a viable solution to the problem and save the Afghan people from the incompetence of the tribal leaders. The Afghan leaders are a hapless group of warring factions incapable of dealing with their problems in a serious manner; they have been too busy playing tricks on one another to see the big picture. Our government on the other hand is the serious on lookers in their business suits, ready to deal objectively and sensibly with the situation.

The article titled "Warlord Nation"(p47) begins with a photograph of a Northern Alliance guard beating a Taliban prisoner with his rifle. The meaning created by this photo is perhaps a statement of the brutality of war, yet when read in conjunction with the headline, "While the U.N. haggles, Afghan fighters are carving the nation up for themselves as the hunt for bin Laden goes on," a deeper meaning can be read into it. The distinction of who is a friend and who is an enemy is called into question. The article is about the warring factions that are acting in self-interest to grab power; the representation of the Afghans is consistent with the regime of representation that the magazine is presenting. Afghans are seen through the position of being a warring people, violently looking for self-interest. The leaders as well as the soldiers are not loyal to sides, as over two decades of was has brought many shifts of power, people are comfortable with switching sides. It presents the view that they are not to be trusted, even when they are supposed to be an ally.

This article also shows more dimensions than Afghan ethnicity, it also shows distinctions of class differences. On one end of the spectrum there is the lower class of the soldiers and gunmen who are reported as violent looters looking for what ever kinds of goods that they can get their hands on. There is a picture of the soldier opening up the article that is beating a prisoner and following is a picture of two smiling men riding in the back seat of a car, looking like carefree joyriders, signifying the reckless and unrestrained violence of this class. The upper class of warlords and tribal leaders are represented by much different photos, they are shown calmly sitting in discussion with looks of understanding upon their faces. They are not holding weapons, though some are surrounded by armed guards. However, the photos of these leaders conflict with the nature of the article, where they are depicted as "warlords," seizing power blindly in their own self-interest.

A counter to the binary opposition that places the Afghan people in the position of a hapless group of fighters, unable to control their own destiny, is that of the United States. The articles dealing with "us" that I will focus on are not going to be the in depth interview with the President and the First Lady, but instead the two articles that focus on the military response in Afghanistan (p52-53). In the interview with Colin Powell, the photo shows at a denotative level, Powell standing half way outside of a doorway with an ambiguous look upon his face. The caption adds, "Powell's advice: Stop harboring terrorists or pay the price." The picture of Powell gives a feeling of rigidity, he seems unable to step all the way outside of that door to greet the camera, and not too happy about having his picture taken. The subject-position that this article places us in is that of a captive audience, we should be thankful that he has made the effort to speak to us through the medium of this magazine and listen to what he has to say. It seems very much that he is in control of the situation. Short negations of the interviewer's questions such as, "This is absolute nonsense." "It didn't change. It never changed." (and) "Not the case.", appear in almost every one of his responses. These statements reinforce the subject-position of a captive audience to a leader who knows better than us or the journalist.
The second article entitled, "Face the Facts: Bombing Works," is also consistent with the regime of representation that is presented. It strongly endorses America as fighting a defensive war armed with the best in objective information. In the article, William Owens, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, proclaims that our military technology gives us, ì...information - really knowledge." Owens also says that, "What sets the United States apart from its adversaries is that we use information much better than they do." America is represented as a "knowledgeable" country, and therefore unquestionable in its actions. How can one question knowledge? When coupled with power, knowledge has the ability to create truth.
The regime of representation in Newsweek has created the binary opposition of the aggressive, hapless Afghan soldier vs. the controlled; knowledge based actions of America. These representations were presented through the images of Afghan soldiers behaving in a violent and unrestrained manner, along with the stereotypical image of the Afghan with his machine gun on one end of the spectrum. On the other end of the spectrum the United States is presented through images and articles that present an image of reservation and objective based knowledge. To counter this regime of truth the scope of coverage must be widened. Alternate points of view presenting not only the life of the Afghan soldier, but of the typical citizen in Afghanistan needs to be presented. The majority of the people in Afghanistan are not soldiers and warlords feasting on the bounties of war. There are many people who are adversely effected by war who are not represented. It is the story of these people who will help to shed light onto whether or not bombing really works for everyone. Creating a discourse that plays between endorsements and critiques of United States foreign policy will help people to create meaning of the war for themselves, instead of being told what to think. It is important to show both the positive and negative effects that the bombing campaign has. In the article about U.S. airpower, no mention is given to the misguided bombs that blew up the Chinese embassy in Serbia, nor the United Nations food warehouses that were struck twice in Afghanistan.