The Poisonwood Bible, which I'm reading in my English class, has much to do with the political turmoil in the Congo in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. One of the main points of conversation is the brief leadership of Patrice Lumumba and his undercover execution, which, according to the book was facilitated by the CIA.
Much of the information about Lumumba in Poisonwood is told from the perspective of Leah, a Lumumba supporter who scorns the United States' fierce and uninformed opposition to anything that resembles socialism or communism.
This is an interesting perspective, that of an anti-American American living in Africa. I was interested to get an idea of the picture of Africa that Americans were being exposed to in 1960. Two articles, one from the Los Angeles Times and one from the New York Times, contain some signs of the United States' Cold War anti-Soviet, anti-communist fears.
The LA times article is headlined, "'Death to Lumumba,' Mob Cries." The article reads, "'Gentlemen, you are now making contact with Congolese reality,' he said. 'There is no compromise between liberty and slavery.'" This quote is placed in the article completely out of context. It makes Lumumba sound like a monster, but we don't really know what the circumstances were. Lumumba's press aide is described as a "leftist expatriate." An anti-Lumumba person is quoted as saying "'Down with communism, down with the government of Lumumba.'" It seems that the media is doing its best to feed the terror of the Red Scare and point out another evil communist threat.
The NY Times article describes Lumumba's government as being in possession of planes which have "markings of the Soviet Union."
When, in Poisonwood, Rachel, Leah, and Adah are talking about the turmoil in the Congo and in other parts of Africa, Rachel says, "'...I read the papers. Ronald Reagan is keeping us safe from the socialistic dictators, and you should be grateful for it.'" She goes on to say, "'I never said I was the expert. I just said I read the papers.'" While this part of the book is happening in the 80's, it still demonstrates the influence of the newspapers on people's thinking. Rachel, living in Africa, is still getting her information from American papers, and is thus convinced that people around her are "socialistic dictators."
It makes me wonder why newspapers do this. Who do they have to answer to that is forcing them to add to the overwhelming American sentiment? Aren't papers there to tell the facts in an unbiased way, allowing people to form their own opinions? It's as though the papers feel obligated to fuel drama. These articles show just how present the Red Scare was in American society.
Nicely said. Wonder if all media was taking the same position, or if there were non-mainstream voices interpreting the activity differently. Still amazing how little we hear in the US about Africa at all -- so no wonder that people reading will assume that what they read is true.
ReplyDeleteI think that journalism, at its truest, noblest form tends to steer clear of any unsubstantiated positions or commentary. But we know that most media organizations actually carry a political bias. For years NPR wore the mantle of left-leaning, and only through diligent efforts has gained more credibility for balance. Fox News propagated the idea that Obama favored death panels during the health care debate. The NY Times tends to lean left, the Washington Post right. And so it goes. I guess while we will continue to rely on journalists for our information, increasingly (especially in the internet age), we have to know the source from which the news came in order to gain more confidence in the news itself. It seems that in the age of information, we become not more informed, but perhaps more cynical or tuned out.
ReplyDeleteI think media bias is not a phenomenon of the information age, but an issue as old as media itself. Editorial opinion has been influenced by power for generations. A couple examples: It was bought so stocks could be sold to support a French bid to build the Panama Canal, and British intelligence inveigled the US press to push to end our country's isolationist policy in WWII.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, Kingsolver's work of fiction is meant to be provocative and those successfully provoked owe it to themselves to try to develop their own view of Truth by reading from a range of sources. In this way, facts can be cross-checked so that one can form an independent perspective, free from editorial influence.
Happy Reading!!!