Ivy Lee and Lazy Journalists
Ivy Lee is credited with modern public relations. He was a son of a minister and a former reporter at the New York World (Sullivan 1-18). Lee informed reporters about the train accident in Pennsylvania. Prior to Lee’s press release, railroads had engaged in different strategies to cover up accidents. Lee understood that a massive crash was difficult to hide and therefore it was important, to tell the truth. The railroad had no choice but to release a statement about the accident.
Lee’s action resulted in a profound influence on modern journalism. When press releases can find their way into newspaper and news Web sites almost unchanged, then it is a clear case of laziness and gullibility in journalism. Journalists must not engage in transcription, but they must actually report. Journalists must conduct research and verify stories to ensure that they exist.
Unchanged press releases by journalists show that lazy journalists no longer observe the rules of journalism. While journalists cannot admit that they have engaged in press-release journalism, it is not acceptable for journalists to present directly quoted press releases as news. Press release people offer information, slanted and propagandistic one, but not false information. A good journalist must verify such information. While sensational news depends on time, on speed, and on getting the first bit of information up quickly, journalists have failed to give readers or listeners adequate information for making independent judgments and to ensure the credibility of their sources. They have uncritically repeated the same press releases to the public without any verification, which could be unethical.
Laziness and gullibility are some of the serious challenges that have plagued modern journalism. Consequently, modern journalism has failed because they are unable to verify and research stories that originate from self-interested parties producing their own stories.
‘De-Americanizing Soft Power Discourse’
Countries are getting into the public diplomacy game in ways that were not possible before. The media community primarily drives soft power discourses and public diplomacy globally. In this case, the global south (third world countries) or emerging economies have become critical for analysis.
The global media and soft power aim to attract the ‘the rest’ without any forms of coercion in terms of cultures, political values, and foreign policies, all of which must be attractive to others (Thussu 5-29). Previously, governments relied on public diplomacy and public relations experts to attract foreign investments and promote national values. However, these approaches have changed with ‘the rise of the rest’.
Many countries, including China, Brazil, India, and Russia (BRIC countries), and other African nations have sought for presence in the international news arena to promote their values and cultures. These countries aim to appeal to the world as peaceful and progressive, but without exposing their weaknesses, specifically suppression of human rights and freedom of expression.
The rise in global media promotes soft power. While the US still dominates the global media and entertainment industry, the global south has continued to rise in terms of viewership and production. These are new opportunities for soft power discourses as emerging economies continue to change and reflect their importance to the world.
Scholars have asserted the shift of power from the US to the rest of the world. This is not necessarily anti-America, but a post-America world controlled by many stakeholders and from several places. However, the rise of China presents profound implications for soft power and global media. These countries have grouped to challenge Western dominance through various means, including the formation of BRICS bank.
The soft power has challenged the notion of public diplomacy, and governments must adopt ‘smart power’ that has neither hard nor soft approaches, but both. Ultimately, there is a need to engage with ‘the rest’.
Public Diplomacy and Propaganda
There are profound differences between propaganda and public diplomacy, but in some instances, commentators have equated public diplomacy with propaganda. States may have other organs (other than those established by themselves) to handle information, external communications, and explain policies. The most vital aspect of these efforts is the interaction among people, groups, and cultures through various means, which can influence thinking and reaction to foreign policies of governments. Sports diplomacy has played a critical role in this case.
Public diplomacy may have elements of propaganda or use the same tools of communication, but the two are not identical. It is difficult to define both propaganda and public diplomacy, but one can observe the differences in what they do.
Public diplomacy offers honest, factual accounts and explanations of a country’s foreign policy and cultures to other nations. In addition, it aims to enhance international understanding and dialogues. Public diplomacy is an objective approach to display a country’s achievement to other nations.
Conversely, propaganda compels information to people through well-phrased slogans and repetition. Propaganda tends to conceal the truth and glorifies a nation irrespective of its wrong actions. It offers a simplified approach to complex issues, misrepresents facts, truth, and deliberately provides false information.
These differences show both propaganda and public diplomacy at their best and worst, but one must recognize that when these tools act as state machinery, they simply serve the interest of a nation and therefore not altruistic. Nevertheless, the best public diplomacy must attain trustworthiness through a truthful demonstration of facts. Still, propaganda can attain credibility by sensationalism and utter misrepresentation of facts. Hence, one cannot exactly understand whether Rodman is using propaganda or public diplomacy to represent America overseas (Stone 1-3).
A Lobby Group and Public Diplomacy
One cannot deny how US foreign policies have shaped major events globally. The US national interest is at the center of any foreign policies. This also applies to other nations in the Middle East, but the same cannot be said of US-Israel foreign relations. It is all credited to the works of the ‘Israel Lobby’ (Mearsheimer and Walt 29-87).
Scholars have pointed out that were it not for the Israel Lobby, the relations between the US and Israel could have been completely different, perhaps far less intimate. The lobby, in this case, refers to a loose group of individuals and organizations that influence the US foreign policies towards pro-Israel. The Israel Lobby is powerful, and it has mastered power games by playing interest-group politics. First, it has a firm grip on both the Congress and the Executive and influences these arms of the government to support Israel. Second, the Lobby influences public discourses. It aims to portray Israel in positive terms by reflecting its foundation and relevant policy debates. Consequently, the Lobby has inhibited any critical commentary on the US-Israel relations or activities of Israel. This approach ensures unquestioned US support. In addition, the Lobby manipulates the media, endorses group think strategies, discourages academic discourses, and does not allow any critical discussions of its operations. As a result, there are some adverse outcomes, which are increasingly difficult to hide, because of the Lobby’s influences on policy issues.
One can observe that the lobby and public diplomacy are not identified based on their strategies to influence, modes of operations, and intents. Thus, no strong lobby group can replace public diplomacy.
In fact, governments have relied on public diplomacy to influence public opinion, Congressional decisions, achieve support through providing information and persuasion, and skirting legal constraints with issues of national security. In short, a lobby group may not achieve these outcomes because of their controversial approaches.
Successful Twitter Public Diplomacy
Governments, the public, and scholars have acknowledged the widespread interest in Twitter and its role in promoting public diplomacy. A major challenge, however, is that current policies for twitting diplomats are not favorable and may hamper their conversations.
Successful Twitter public diplomacy requires one to understand elements that constitute successful public diplomacy. It requires bi-directional communication strategies that promote greater understanding and appreciation of the US cultures, values, society, and policies among others. In this regard, listening efforts must be both tactical and strategic (Yepsen 5-43).
Successful Twitter diplomacy must demonstrate elements of both the US and the host nation. Listening offers tactical value to the diplomats in their roles, but it would not help in influencing any policymaking for the diplomat.
The case of Venezuela demonstrates that the current Twitter diplomacy approach needs modification to promote public diplomacy. The US requires a model of two-way communication to allow its public diplomats to engage in foreign policy discourses. That is, public diplomacy must move from the current one-way broadcast use of Twitter to the bi-directional communication model supported by academics and other professionals. The opinion leader network model offers an approach for identifying users who may influence public discourses.
A successful Twitter public diplomacy must account for the use of gathering information, which must be analyzed and synthesized to reveal useful insights that can influence policy formulations. Action is one way of transforming discourses and it should be institutionalized and routine. This will make Twitter a robust public diplomacy tool.
Arab Women and Cinema
The analysis of the portrayal of Arab women in the US cinema shows that there was a near absence of Arab women in the American film industry. Their appearance was limited. While Arab women had limited appearances on the screen, their roles have evolved relative to roles of Arab men who continue to be sleazy and tend to display terroristic tendencies. Despite their limited appearances, Arab women have continued to be one-dimensional characters. However, their one-dimensional roles have changed with the political landscape. Arab women have continued to play roles that American women cannot, particularly that of being sexpots (Picherit-Duthler 225-243).
American movies tend to depict Arab women in the same manner the Arab nations have been viewed in the dominant political discourse. That is, Arab women and the world lack any diversity relative to the US position in the world. Today, however, Arab women in Hollywood are extremely portrayed as sexless blobs in black, with limited exceptions.
Although Arab cinema has emerged to portray Arab women as a matriarch, a beauty to a smart-mouthed fiancé, these movies have depicted Hollywood notions of Arab women. Nevertheless, Arab cinema has portrayed Arab women as the hope, dreams, and fear of their world, often with rather heavy-handed symbolism.
Since politics and social changes have also impacted Hollywood’s portrayal of women, Arab cinema could play critical roles in public diplomacy. Their films should aim to reflect the national cultures and values of Arab nations and influence the global opinions about the role of Arab women in society. While there are notable improvements in the portrayal of women, much needs to be accomplished in the representation of women in films.
Works Cited
Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt. “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Middle East Policy Council 13.3 (2006): 29-87. Print.
Picherit-Duthler, A. Yunis. “Tramps vs. Sweethearts: Changing Images of Arab and American Women in Hollywood Films.” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 4.2011 (2011): 225–243. Print.
Stone, Daniel. “Does Sports Diplomacy Work?” National Geographic. 2013. Web.
Sullivan, John. “True Enough: The second age of PR.” Columbia Journalism Review. Web.
Thussu, Daya. De-Americanizing Soft Power Discourse? Los Angeles: Figueroa Press, 2014. Print.
Yepsen, Erika A. Practicing Successful Twitter Public Diplomacy: A Model and Case Study of U.S. Efforts in Venezuela. Los Angeles: Figueroa Press, 2012. Print.