What’s wrong with the Tayyar picture?
Posted by worriedlebanese on 18/11/2009
Let’s go beyond the article’s obvious polemical and partisan approach, and grasp its central argument: There are a lot of lies, fabrication and an obvious political agenda behind the pro “March XIV” media. In other words, there is very little information and a lot of latent and blatant political opinion. What the posting doesn’t say is that the same is true of the pro “Opposition” media. So if you take a step back and looks at the media landscape, you’ll notice that the overwhelming majority of journalists, editorialists and news-directors have taken sides. Then it becomes painfully obvious that we have a problem. The country lacks a fourth estate. Information has been dwindling for years, and what we are left with is an abundance of uninformed and emotionally driven stances.
Look closely at the orange banner in the previous post. Notice its claim? Don’t you find it strange that a party’s official internet platform considers itself a leading news source? Don’t you find it even stranger that its claim is actually true. Do you honestly see any difference (style withstanding) between it and actual news outlets (traditional and internet based) when comparing their content?
When traditional news outlets neglect their primary function of collecting and processing information, and work as simple relays in political communication, can you blame political platforms that work pretty much in the same way for claiming the same title?
Enough rants. Now let’s try to see what new info we can salvage from this opinion paper (the French have a better term for it “Billet d’humeur” that the practitioner in me calls “Billet de mauvaise humeur”).
- “March XIV” pundits have been relatively quiet lately.
- “March XIV” (power brokers, pundits and publics) is disappointed with the outcome of the cabinet formation (this is particularly true for the March XIV christians) while the “Opposition” is globally satisfied.
I think that’s about it. The anonymous author is so caught up in the national divide, so tangled up in his rhetorical battle that he fails to understand his own position and how much it neutralises his personal attacks against the “opposing” camp. He also shares with many analysts of local affairs (and maybe even some politicians, while I very much doubt that) the idea that politics is mainly a verbal game. While words and communication certainly do matter, it seems to me that they can only be understood within a power structure and a game as defined or understood by its players.