The News Media and the “Clash of Civilizations”

The “call to jihad is rising in the streets of Europe, and is being answered,” reported The New York Times in April 2004. The Times story quoted a Muslim cleric in Britain touting the “culture of martyrdom,” an imam in Switzerland urging his followers to “impose the will of Islam on the godless society of the West,” and another radical Islamist leader in Britain predicting that “our Muslim brothers from abroad will come one day and conquer here, and then we will live under Islam in dignity.” [1]

For those who believe that a clash of civilizations — particularly between Islam and the non-Islamic West — is under way or at least approaching, the provocative comments in the Times article were evidence that “the clash” is not merely a figment of an overheated political imagination. Ever since Samuel Huntington presented his theory about such a clash in a Foreign Affairs article in 1993, debate has continued about whether his ideas are substantive or simplistic. For the news media, this debate is important because it helps shape their approach to covering the world.

In Huntington’s article, which he refined and expanded in his 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, he argued that “the clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” [2] In the book, Huntington said that “culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilization identities, are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War world.” Huntington’s corollaries to this proposition, in summary form, are these:

• “For the first time in history, global politics is both multipolar and multicivilizational.”

• As the balance of power among civilizations shifts, the relative influence of the West is declining.

• “Universalist pretensions” are increasingly bringing the West into conflict with other civilizations, especially the Islamic world and China.

• If the West is to survive, America must reaffirm its Western identity and unite with other Westerners in the face of challenges from other civilizations. [3]

One reason that Huntington’s clash theory initially had appeal was that policymakers, the news media, and others were moving uncertainly into the post-Cold War era without much sense of how the newest world order was taking shape. They were receptive to a new geopolitical scheme, particularly one that featured identifiable adversarial relationships that would supersede those being left behind.

Quote:

It is difficult for Americans to make knowledgeable judgments about the existence of civilization-related clashes if the public knows little about the civilizations in question. Although the news media should not bear the entire burden of teaching the public about the world — the education system also has major responsibilities, which it consistently fails to fulfill — news coverage is a significant element in shaping the public’s understanding of international events and issues. Aside from their occasional spurts of solid performance, American news organizations do a lousy job of breaking down the public’s intellectual isolation.

The breadth of news coverage depends on news organizations’ own view of the world, a view that is often too narrow. Expanding it will require a surge of ambition and a reversal of the reductions in international coverage. Media analyst Andrew Tyndall reported that in 1989 the ABC, CBS, and NBC principal evening newscasts presented 4,032 minutes of datelined coverage from other countries. That had dropped to as low as 1,382 minutes in 2000. With the attacks on the United States and the war in Afghanistan, the figure rose to 2,103 minutes in 2002, which was still only slightly more than half the total of 1989. [19]

In any case, it's not just the number of minutes they spend on foreign news, it's how seriously interested they are in presenting the truth and avoiding cliches.

I can't imagine the MSM ever telling the truth about Islam, or honestly saying what they think about, let's say, Arabs or Indonesians. More coverage will just mean more America-bashing and truth evading, unless they change their ways.

For the sake of argument, lets just say that our leaders INVITE the sheetheads in to "convert" us forceably to Islam.

Methinks the sheetheads would quickly find they have bitten off more than they could safely chew.

A large minority of the American citizenry are atheist/agnostic, and would not accept Allah any more than they do Jehovah or Jesus.

A majority of Americans are freedom-loving, but embrace a live-and-let-live ethic. They would rebel massively at any imposition of a "foreign" theology.

Lastly, a large minority of the population would "take to the hills" to fight a guerilla-style insurgency. WE invented snipers, after all. A big bunch of sheetheads would die as they entered/exited their mosques.

We have been soft for so long that I'm not really sure if it's still in our blood to face genuine hardship. We just shrug when the judges release pedophiles and mass murderers into the streets, or when our legislators pass racist hate crimes legislation that makes some members of society twice the citizens as the rest of us. If the Arabs take over the country, will we fight tooth and nail like the Israeli's? I don't think so. They at least have the Biblical tradition.

We as Americans respect the rule of law. Doesn't matter what the rule or the law is, we are good citizens. We are all far more conditioned to obey the dicates of the state than we even realize.

Thank you for this post, quidnunc. Seib is rather off the mark in his commentary, IMO.

What Huntington was addressing in his superb "Clash" was the development of the global cultural and political dynamics in the Post Cold War era; when civilizational/religious schisms that had lain dormant for so long during the Cold War finally came to the fore.

Relative to Islam, we only have to study the Ottoman Empire to realize how recently this civilizational challenge had confronted Western Christendom (later Democracies).

I am in agreement with the political scientists who treat this ongoing conflict as essentially WW-IV -- a global challenge to Western Democracies from Islamism.

One only has to analyze the addresses and conference conclusions of the recent OIC meetings to get a flavor for the frustration and latent hatred the Islamic States manifest for the West.

Finally, just look closely at Europe -- essentially a lost continent! Sweden and Italy will go Muslim within two decades, shortly followed by France and Holland. Bernard Lewis's most recent projection of Europe "going majority Muslim" has been lowered to four decades. Leicester, England, an industrial city in the midlands, is over 50% Muslim now! A comparative birthrate of 1.0 (or less) to 2.4 will not cut it. And, so it goes. Europe is lost!

Western Democracy is in a cultural conflict for its survival. Not only does the Fourth Estate not "get it"; most of the members of our Congress are in total denial as well -- or too dumb to understand the seriousness of the threat -- which is even worse.

As far as Israel is concerned. What was once a convenient whipping boy in this protracted challenge, is now really a side show. There can never be a peaceful solution to that aspect of the conflict -- certainly not in my lifetime -- but that game must be played out by the Foggy Bottom crowd to appease the "one worlders" -- the Clintonians.

So much for Political Science 301, tonight. *S*

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Clash of Civilizatio, click below:
	click here >>>	Clash of Civilizatio	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)