Tweet
TWO SIDES OF THE STORY
by Heydar Mirza
Sunday's Zaman
Dec 5 2011
Turkey
Every day we are exposed to political, social and scientific articles
that argue strongly for a particular stance, or even stories that
express one side's position. This type of partisan news reporting
results in increased polarization through the mechanism of biased
assimilation; that is, groups readily accept evidence that seems
to support their position, while material that could threaten or
undermine their standpoint is subjected to critical scrutiny.
In this respect, bias in the media does not provide a view of both
sides of the story, but rather "opposite sides of the story." This is
most problematic when the international media reports as an outsider
on a bilateral conflict, or when it reports on the internal politics
of another country.
Much has been written on the Azerbaijan-Armenia Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict -- for example, a Google search offers over 1 million unique
references. But here it is not simply the volume of material that is
the issue; the interpretation of reports is of primary importance.
Azerbaijani scholar Rauf Garagozov in his paper "The Nagorno-Karabakh
Conflict from the Postmodernist Perspective: Cultural Grounds
for Biased Interpretations" (published this year in Caucasus and
Globalization) examines biased interpretations and their impact on
conflict resolution. He uses the example of the BBC Russian Service's
report "Karabakh: Two Versions of the Story," alleging that while the
report claims to be neutral, it demonstrates the same bias (conscious
or unconscious) that is inherent in the majority of past and current
coverage of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Garagozov's conclusion makes clear his anxiety about this issue:
"The report illuminates only one side of the story, but it is the
reporter's story that readers will read as history." In this type of
"dialogue," conflict parties are likely to hear many unflattering
stories about one other. But only a truly neutral attitude can create a
space for genuine dialogue (a space where journalists and international
organizations claiming impartiality should not interfere in conflicts,
but seek to help each side). We can only hope that the mutual hate
and mistrust between the parties that the author talks about at the
end of his report will be overcome.
The BBC is not the first news source to present biased information.
Recently, the well-known magazine The Economist ("Conflict on
ice," Nov. 12) attempted to describe the issues surrounding the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. However, for true neutrality, readers
would expect the author to have visited the settlements of internally
displaced people and refugees in Azerbaijan, in order to evaluate
the current conditions. Instead, the magazine's depiction of the
conflict's aftermath was shaped by a single visit to Khankendi (which
it called "Stepanakert," the Armenian name). This portrayal confuses
readers. The Armenian occupation has resulted in the displacement of
approximately 1 million Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh.
In addition, the political aspect of such partisan reportage also needs
to be considered. Over recent days, the local media has covered the
Azerbaijani government's discomfort with articles published in the
UK press. The editor-in-chief of Azerbaijan's 1news Agency, Rahman
Hajiyev, referred to "perfidious Albion" in his article on the British
press. He asked, "When reading articles in British newspapers that
distort the political situation in Azerbaijan by exaggerating single
cases of detention of persons charged with criminal law offences
(either due to ignorance of the details, or deliberately), the real
question is -- who are they to judge us?"
British Petroleum owns the largest shares in Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli
(ACG), which is the biggest oil field in Azerbaijan, and also Shah
Deniz, the largest natural gas field in the country. More importantly,
the second phase of development of the giant Shah Deniz field and
long-term production from the ACG lies in the near future, which will
be advantageous for British companies. In addition, different British
media outlets say different things when discussing domestic issues. In
this respect, the public does not understand what lies behind the
perceived partisanship, or whether political bias is at play.
Finally, in terms of Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan's domestic
situation, the British media is trying to adopt a stance that sheds
light on the situation. But the examples mentioned above demonstrate
their bias and lack of neutrality. The question now is: Who wants to
damage UK-Azerbaijani relations, and if the Azerbaijani government
uses its resources to protect its national interests, what will be
the impact on bilateral relations? And what will be the reaction of
those who pen these biased reports?
*Heydar Mirza is a research fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
by Heydar Mirza
Sunday's Zaman
Dec 5 2011
Turkey
Every day we are exposed to political, social and scientific articles
that argue strongly for a particular stance, or even stories that
express one side's position. This type of partisan news reporting
results in increased polarization through the mechanism of biased
assimilation; that is, groups readily accept evidence that seems
to support their position, while material that could threaten or
undermine their standpoint is subjected to critical scrutiny.
In this respect, bias in the media does not provide a view of both
sides of the story, but rather "opposite sides of the story." This is
most problematic when the international media reports as an outsider
on a bilateral conflict, or when it reports on the internal politics
of another country.
Much has been written on the Azerbaijan-Armenia Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict -- for example, a Google search offers over 1 million unique
references. But here it is not simply the volume of material that is
the issue; the interpretation of reports is of primary importance.
Azerbaijani scholar Rauf Garagozov in his paper "The Nagorno-Karabakh
Conflict from the Postmodernist Perspective: Cultural Grounds
for Biased Interpretations" (published this year in Caucasus and
Globalization) examines biased interpretations and their impact on
conflict resolution. He uses the example of the BBC Russian Service's
report "Karabakh: Two Versions of the Story," alleging that while the
report claims to be neutral, it demonstrates the same bias (conscious
or unconscious) that is inherent in the majority of past and current
coverage of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Garagozov's conclusion makes clear his anxiety about this issue:
"The report illuminates only one side of the story, but it is the
reporter's story that readers will read as history." In this type of
"dialogue," conflict parties are likely to hear many unflattering
stories about one other. But only a truly neutral attitude can create a
space for genuine dialogue (a space where journalists and international
organizations claiming impartiality should not interfere in conflicts,
but seek to help each side). We can only hope that the mutual hate
and mistrust between the parties that the author talks about at the
end of his report will be overcome.
The BBC is not the first news source to present biased information.
Recently, the well-known magazine The Economist ("Conflict on
ice," Nov. 12) attempted to describe the issues surrounding the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. However, for true neutrality, readers
would expect the author to have visited the settlements of internally
displaced people and refugees in Azerbaijan, in order to evaluate
the current conditions. Instead, the magazine's depiction of the
conflict's aftermath was shaped by a single visit to Khankendi (which
it called "Stepanakert," the Armenian name). This portrayal confuses
readers. The Armenian occupation has resulted in the displacement of
approximately 1 million Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh.
In addition, the political aspect of such partisan reportage also needs
to be considered. Over recent days, the local media has covered the
Azerbaijani government's discomfort with articles published in the
UK press. The editor-in-chief of Azerbaijan's 1news Agency, Rahman
Hajiyev, referred to "perfidious Albion" in his article on the British
press. He asked, "When reading articles in British newspapers that
distort the political situation in Azerbaijan by exaggerating single
cases of detention of persons charged with criminal law offences
(either due to ignorance of the details, or deliberately), the real
question is -- who are they to judge us?"
British Petroleum owns the largest shares in Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli
(ACG), which is the biggest oil field in Azerbaijan, and also Shah
Deniz, the largest natural gas field in the country. More importantly,
the second phase of development of the giant Shah Deniz field and
long-term production from the ACG lies in the near future, which will
be advantageous for British companies. In addition, different British
media outlets say different things when discussing domestic issues. In
this respect, the public does not understand what lies behind the
perceived partisanship, or whether political bias is at play.
Finally, in terms of Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan's domestic
situation, the British media is trying to adopt a stance that sheds
light on the situation. But the examples mentioned above demonstrate
their bias and lack of neutrality. The question now is: Who wants to
damage UK-Azerbaijani relations, and if the Azerbaijani government
uses its resources to protect its national interests, what will be
the impact on bilateral relations? And what will be the reaction of
those who pen these biased reports?
*Heydar Mirza is a research fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress