What to read in the media, and what not to read?
Bijgewerkt: 28 jun 2019
After I published my book 'Searching for an Enemy', with critical outcomes for mainstream media, my readers wanted to know: what media should we read, and what not?
In my book I explain how biased they are, mainly because they rely too often on Western sources when they write about issues of war, terrorism, and security. The result is that our mainstream media, like Reuters, AP, but also The New York Times mostly embrace the narrative of Washington DC. This narrative is often 'pro-war', I would say: it often propagates military interventions/responses, and not other solutions, like diplomatic talks. Connected to military solutions is an enemy, of course. Often, mainstream media embrace the idea of the portrayed enemy (my book is about that)
The readers I meet during my lectures are asking me: if there is so much bias in the reporting, what are the sources I can rely on?
First of all (and that is maybe the sad news): the outcomes of my book are not very new. Good reporters have done similar work before, but their work is still not mainstream. There are critical analysis available. About Vietnam, for example. Many, many things have been said about how media failed dramatically in the Iraq-war, and why.
This blog aims to collect the work that is done to give you a more complete view on these wars - and potential wars. In the list you will also find analysis on how media act in times of war. Also, if you have suggestions, please don't hesitate and let me know. Email me email@example.com or post them here in this blog.