Can you help me in analysing the interview for example the techniques used by reporters - language used etc Interview with an Islamic Spokesman...

Can you help me in analysing the interview for example the techniques used by reporters - language used etc

Interview with an Islamic Spokesman

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4103227.htm

The above link is what I am currently trying to analyse.  I have included a marked document from my teacher.  however I am stuck and need help, clearly

Asked on by amanda53

Images:
This image has been Flagged as inappropriate Click to unflag
Image (1 of 1)

1 Answer | Add Yours

mwestwood's profile pic

mwestwood | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

The interview between Emma Alberici of Australia and Wassim Doureihi is certainly a contentious one, one in which contrary perspectives are involved. In fact, this interview exemplifies the difficulty of the Western mind's understanding that of the Middle-Eastern mind and vice versa. While Alberici insists that Soureihi answer the original questions, Doureihi equally insists that the historical context must be first considered,

Let's not forget that one million people lost their lives based on a lie...the charade around the weapons of mass destruction. [reference to Iraq war with U.S.]

Further, he accuses Alberici of asking a question that is bait for a particular response:

You've come to push a particular view.... Because you're not getting the answer you want....Why is the focus given the context of the war on terror entirely upon what Muslims are doing?

Wassim Doureihi contends that it is not Muslims who are occupying foreign lands. "It is not Muslims who are killing millions of civilians and it is not Muslims who are shaking hands with barbaric tyrants." Of interest is the fact that he says this in the present tense, when he alludes to the past. And, if some Western government official shook hands with a "barbaric tyrant," it was not in complete accord. 

Indeed, when Alberici accuses Doureihi of obfuscating the situation and the facts about it, she is correct. On the other hand, there is some truth in his observation that in a discussion about ISIS, one must consider the history of the region. "It is not Muslims who are occupying foreign lands." True: The British came and carved out Kuwait; the Americans invaded Iraq. False: ISIS. a militant MUSLIM group, has moved into Iraq and is killing other Muslims and Christians.

From the remarks of Wassim Doureihi, it becomes apparent that he measures the death of millions in the Iraq War against "a group, a handful of individuals" that ISIS has killed. Never does he answer the question of whether or not he condones the present situation. Instead, he eschews the question in a most circuitous manner, feeling that the questions of Alberici are made out of the context of a much larger issue,

My clear position is that we took a clear position on ISIS long ago before Westerners wanted to use it as the latest bogeyman. Let's not forget that one million people lost their lives based on a lie....the charade around the weapons of mass destruction.

The war on terror narrative works in this way: it presents the West as the good guy and Muslims as the bad guy and we are what represents an existential threat to the entire world. That's an absurdity. It is not Muslims who are flying B-52s. It is not Muslims who are dropping bombs from their fighter jets. It is not Muslims who are occupying foreign lands! Don't come to me ...

Again, Doureihi suggests that the focus should not be entirely upon what Muslims are doing at present. And, all that is "clear" in his ambiguous response about the current actions of ISIS is that he does not condemn their actions, and he is antipathetic toward "Westerners." 

Sources:

We’ve answered 318,991 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question