Media And Its InfluencesEssay Preview: Media And Its InfluencesReport this essayMedia and Its InfluencesThe dictionary defines media as a means of communication. It is the most useful approach to deliver information to the masses locally and internationally. Many people do not appreciate the importance of what the media has to offer. In fact, the media influences the decisions, actions, and opinions of each and every single person. There are different forms of media including analog and digital media, which are both equally prominent in the lives of people around the world. Although many rely on the convenience of media to inform and alert themselves about current events and other important information, they do not realize the deception the media carefully conceals. The media is intended to provide unbiased data to the public, although it can be unreliable. Whether the media scapegoats one party of a story or blatantly leaves one side of the story out, the media is not only a source of communication and information, but also a questionable resource. Americans and civilians alike are so dependent on the media and the news the media brings, that media has become a business. Television channels, magazines, radio stations, and newspapers will go through great lengths, or lack thereof, to sell stories and to sell news. One story that shocked many across the world was Prince Harry’s service in the military in Afghanistan. Not only was the story deliberately kept secret, but also portrayed differently from different countries. This story is a great example of the deceit the media conceals, the influence media has on its audiences, and the media’s cunningness.
The story about Prince Henry was all over the news media this past weekend: “Prince Harry вЂ?My Withdraw is a Shame,вЂ™Ð²Ð‚Ñœ and “Prince Harry Withdraws from Afghanistan.” The story came as a shock because “major news outlets agreed to keep the information [about Harry’s deployment] secret for security reasons,” as CNN.com’s article stated. The article continued to explain the disappointment Prince Harry felt after being pulled back from Afghanistan. “[He] didn’t see it coming, obviously it’s a shame,” Prince Harry quotes in the CNN article. Of course Prince Charles was “enormously proud” of his son’s accomplishments in Afghanistan, but because of the media, Prince Harry was asked to withdraw from combat (CNN). Obviously, the media has a great impact on the decisions people make and the perspectives people have on certain situations. Prince Harry’s deployment was kept from the media simply to avoid conflicting interests. The article even quotes Prince Harry condemning the media in general “that once again it came down to media, foreign media, that’s once again spilled the beans” (CNN).
The media is useful for communicating to its audiences especially with all the present technological advances. However, the media has given itself a bad reputation because of its widespread popularity, efficiency, and conveniences. Because news is now available to almost everyone via television, radio, and Internet, safety became an extreme issue for Prince Harry. Once the news of Prince Harry became accessible to the public, it was in the best interest of the Prince to expel himself from Afghanistan because of “foreign media” (CNN). It is interesting to note that Prince Harry describes the source of the leak as “foreign media,” which implies a bad connotation to both words. Ultimately, the media should take blame for the incident because if it were not for the media’s attempt to spread word of Prince Harry’s deployment, Prince Harry would still be serving the military in Afghanistan. In fact, shortly after Prince Harry was deployed from Afghanistan, “several Islamist websites posted messages alerting their вЂ?brethren’ in Afghanistan to be on the lookout for the royal soldier” (CNN). This article, let alone this story, greatly emphasizes the power of the media. Overall, CNN’s article was unbiased, focusing more on the facts of the story by mostly quoting Prince Harry or Prince William.
In another article presented in Dubai’s Khaleej Times, Prince Harry’s deployment is depicted in a similar way. In the Khaleej Times’ article “Britain Withdraws Prince Harry From Afghanistan,” the writer immediately places blame on the Internet leak that started the rumors about Prince Harry’s enlistment. Unlike CNN’s article, which presented only facts about the story, the Khaleej Times was quick to inform the readers of who is to be blamed. Fortunately enough, the article does include facts about the story and quote from Prince Harry. As a matter of fact, the article states that Prince Harry was “deployed to fight against the Taliban in December, seven months after plans to send him to Iraq were scrapped following threats from Iraq militants to kidnap or kill him” (Khaleej Times). The Khaleej Times also revealed that the military was infuriated after the “breaking of the embargo, a rare agreement in Britain’s usually free-for-all media environment” (Khaleej Times). Prince Harry agrees and is “very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting [them],” the Khaleej Times quotes.
Again, this source, like CNN, shows that the media can have a negative affect on dire situations such as these especially for high profile individuals. The Khajeel Times approached the story differently, but presented the story with an unbiased style more or less. The only difference between the American article by CNN and the article from Dubai was in the use of adverbs. The Khaleej Times focused on bringing the article to life by using vivid words that caught the reader’s attention such as kidnap, kill, and infuriated. Believe it or not, these words capture the attention of the audience because the words speak to the reader and spark the reader’s imagination. The article from the Khaleej Times may be unbiased, but it is written differently compared to CNN’s article. However, both are similar in delivering the facts. The quotes from Prince Harry are consistent, as well as the story in general.
The Saudi-led coalition for the Syrian government is the sole front in the civil war. Saudi Arabia operates an arms warehouse in Qamishli, and has provided heavy weapons and trained some of its elite security and counterterrorism forces who have been fighting alongside members of the opposition, which represents approximately 30,000 people. In the past few years, the Saudi-led coalition has provided heavy weapons and trained some of its elite security and counterterrorism forces who have been fighting alongside members of the opposition, who represents approximately 30,000 people. Last October, Saudi Arabia launched what came to be called an operation known as the “Jabhat Jihadi Terrorist Group.” This attack targeted more than 8,000 civilians in Syria, displacing 90,000 from their landmass, while also destroying a further 5,000 homes. Saudi forces continue to take large swaths of territory in Syria without having an effective coalition to fight back.
The majority of the Syrian rebels supported the coalition, including their own people but also, more recently, members of the Syrian Civil War.
All of this has led to several interesting questions. What exactly are the motivations behind the Saudi-led support for the conflict? and of course, what specific objectives are being served by the Saudi Arabian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)?
The Saudi Coalition is primarily concerned with getting the population of Syria ready and, as such, is in a position to secure the areas and potential oil fields the Assad regime needs. The FSA is primarily trying to end their opposition to the Syrian regime because it knows that the only way of fighting a moderate and powerful regime in Syria is if the government is defeated. The American Coalition is focused primarily on providing the country with weapons to defend its interests against Russian actions, but also, as the Saudis have put it, “to make sure that we can hold the Assad regime responsible.” In some ways, the Saudis are trying to prevent Syrian fighters from being able to participate in the fight against al-Qaida. It seems to be, at this point at least, that the Saudis are looking at “regime change,” where the Syrians would lose half their territory along the Syrian-Turkish border and make the country as good as good as the one that existed after the end of the war in 2007.
What is the main objective of the coalition? The stated aim is to help bring Syrians to the negotiating table and make it clear that they are not just trying to get Assad out of power, but, rather, to make sure that he doesn’t become a dictator after two years. Why is the coalition so focused on getting Syrians to the negotiating table and not Assad?
The Saudis want to take away some of Aleppo’s population and land. The idea behind the coalition was to take away Aleppo’s population. Why do so many Syrians come to rebel camps and have their land taken? And why do that so many Syrian migrants come to rebel camps and have their land taken?
The coalition could also use the opportunity to take all of Aleppo to defend Assad from future regime defections.
And why would so many Syrians come to rebel camps and find that their lands stolen from them by a foreign country?
The same question that the United States is asking Saudi citizens to answer is why did they take the risk of Syria being divided into regions that could be a battleground for regional powers rather than simply a geopolitical one. The result is “a very strong regional conflict with two camps that are very different from
The Saudi-led coalition for the Syrian government is the sole front in the civil war. Saudi Arabia operates an arms warehouse in Qamishli, and has provided heavy weapons and trained some of its elite security and counterterrorism forces who have been fighting alongside members of the opposition, which represents approximately 30,000 people. In the past few years, the Saudi-led coalition has provided heavy weapons and trained some of its elite security and counterterrorism forces who have been fighting alongside members of the opposition, who represents approximately 30,000 people. Last October, Saudi Arabia launched what came to be called an operation known as the “Jabhat Jihadi Terrorist Group.” This attack targeted more than 8,000 civilians in Syria, displacing 90,000 from their landmass, while also destroying a further 5,000 homes. Saudi forces continue to take large swaths of territory in Syria without having an effective coalition to fight back.
The majority of the Syrian rebels supported the coalition, including their own people but also, more recently, members of the Syrian Civil War.
All of this has led to several interesting questions. What exactly are the motivations behind the Saudi-led support for the conflict? and of course, what specific objectives are being served by the Saudi Arabian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)?
The Saudi Coalition is primarily concerned with getting the population of Syria ready and, as such, is in a position to secure the areas and potential oil fields the Assad regime needs. The FSA is primarily trying to end their opposition to the Syrian regime because it knows that the only way of fighting a moderate and powerful regime in Syria is if the government is defeated. The American Coalition is focused primarily on providing the country with weapons to defend its interests against Russian actions, but also, as the Saudis have put it, “to make sure that we can hold the Assad regime responsible.” In some ways, the Saudis are trying to prevent Syrian fighters from being able to participate in the fight against al-Qaida. It seems to be, at this point at least, that the Saudis are looking at “regime change,” where the Syrians would lose half their territory along the Syrian-Turkish border and make the country as good as good as the one that existed after the end of the war in 2007.
What is the main objective of the coalition? The stated aim is to help bring Syrians to the negotiating table and make it clear that they are not just trying to get Assad out of power, but, rather, to make sure that he doesn’t become a dictator after two years. Why is the coalition so focused on getting Syrians to the negotiating table and not Assad?
The Saudis want to take away some of Aleppo’s population and land. The idea behind the coalition was to take away Aleppo’s population. Why do so many Syrians come to rebel camps and have their land taken? And why do that so many Syrian migrants come to rebel camps and have their land taken?
The coalition could also use the opportunity to take all of Aleppo to defend Assad from future regime defections.
And why would so many Syrians come to rebel camps and find that their lands stolen from them by a foreign country?
The same question that the United States is asking Saudi citizens to answer is why did they take the risk of Syria being divided into regions that could be a battleground for regional powers rather than simply a geopolitical one. The result is “a very strong regional conflict with two camps that are very different from
Australia’s Herald Sun also posted an article called “Prince Harry Withdraws from Afghanistan.” The article focuses on Prince Harry’s experience and his frustration in not being able to finish his tour of