Presence and Myself

By Samuel Shorty

After I was born, my maternal grandparents, who followed Navajo tradition, buried my umbilical cord on the homestead to strengthen my bond to the land. Moreover, my parents frequently brought me back to the reservation to take care of my home, practice tradition, spend time together, and become more familiar with the land. As a result, I have acquired an interest in the boundaries between the environment and the person in my art. Often, we think that we are independent of life, death, and sensation and forget our connection with ourselves and the earth. There are a couple of ways I have seen this during my photoshoot.

First, every time it snows for the first time, my parents always remind us that our people practiced a tradition called the Snow Bathing Ceremony, which involves stripping naked and bathing in the snow to strengthen your mind and body.

We are so busy that we often forget to connect to our world: to touch the Sun with our hands or feel the sting of the snow. These things connect us to the present instead of the future or past.

Second: long ago, there was a farmer who struggled with watering his crops, so he had the idea to use the snowmelt from the mountains. He created a dam made from concrete and flat plate-like stones from around the ditch; however, he did not expect the strength of the carving floods.

Eventually, the dam was destroyed, ripped from its location, and sprawled like disemboweled guts.

Time rushes like a flood...

...sweeping and violently tumbling everyone away like polished stones.

Queen Elizabeth II: A Death that Enraptured the World

An analysis on the media coverage of Queen Elizabeth II’s death in the context of the propaganda model and British imperial history Gillian

On September 8, 2022, a humble wooden frame was hung on the gates of Buckingham palace that read “The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon. The King and Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow” (Buckingham Palace as cited in BBC, 2022). And with those two sentences, an event long anticipated but nonetheless shocking was realized. This investigation seeks to understand the tonal differences in global media coverage analyzed through the lens of British imperial history, as well as the framework of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s propaganda model and concept of worthy victimhood. Specifically, I will analyze media coverage in the U.K., the U.S., and Zimbabwe. To evaluate the general tone of each nation’s reporting, I will analyze an article from a prominent news media company in each country.

For the U.K., I will discuss the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC); for the U.S., National Public Radio (NPR); and, finally, Al Jazeera English, specifically the subsidiary headquartered in Harare, Zimbabwe. If media coverage behaves according to the propaganda model, the BBC will publish favorable coverage, NPR will present slightly less favorable but still overwhelmingly positive coverage, and Al Jazeera will report unfavorably on the event. Ultimately, this investigation seeks to follow how structures of money, power, and influence, all with their foundations in British Imperialist history, impact news media today.

Queen Elizabeth II assumed the throne in 1953 at the age of 27, ushering in the second Elizabethan era. In total she reigned for 70 years, passing at the age of 96. This tenure of seven decades secured her position as the longest-reigning monarch in British history (BBC, 2022). Queen Elizabeth II’s death interrupted news broadcasts across the globe and quickly became the top news story. According to Google Trend, the top three rising search queries on September 8 were “Queen Elizabeth, Reina Isabel, and Rainha Elizabeth”

Barkhurst

(Google, 2022). While the significance of her passing is obvious to Britons, why did the news so enrapture the rest of the world?

The answer lies in part within Britain’s Imperial past. At the beginning of the 20th century, Britain, a small nation of 41.5 million, occupied approximately one-quarter of the habitable world. The Great British Empire had 400 million subjects globally — many of them unwilling (Parsons, 2014, p. 5). The British Empire formally ended in 1997 with England finally, and officially, relinquishing its hold on Hong Kong; however, the ripples of British Imperialism are still felt today (Parsons, 2014, p. 1). With colonial history hardly in the rearview, the Queen can reasonably be understood as a painful symbol of oppression in formerly occupied nations.

While the United States has enjoyed a nearly 250-year-long separation from the British dominion, Zimbabwe only officially gained its independence in 1980 (Henkhaus, 2022; Lloyd, 2002, p. 220). Time, however, is not the only factor differentiating between the United States’ contemporary “special relationship” with Britain, and Zimbabwe’s relatively sour one (Winston as cited in Henkhaus, 2022). While both nations’ citizens were subjects beneath the British Empire, the American Revolutionary War was headed by “sons of Britain” — White men — as opposed to the Black men of the Liberation Movement in Zimbabwe nearly 200 years later (Henkhaus, 2022; Lloyd, 2002, p. 220). At its core, white supremacist ideologies inherently separate these two independence movements. While it was the white Rhodesian settlers who initially declared independence from Britain in 1965, it was Black nationalists who would ultimately win the day. The Zimbabwean independence movement is also markedly different in that Britain took a hands-off approach to the affair. The conflict was more so a civil war between the White settlers and the native nationalists than a direct revolution against Britain itself. In fact, it was Britain that orchestrated the negotiations between the White settlers and native Zimbabweans in 1979 which led to liberation for the Zimbabweans in 1980 (Lloyd, 2002, p. 220). This is not, however, cause to absolve Britain, who through their colonization of Zimbabwe and brutalization of its native people, created the conflict in the first place. Moreover, while the U.S. has held close economic ties with Britain prior to and since its independence, Zimbabwe cannot say the same (Henkhaus, 2022; Lloyd, 2002, p. 220). During the aforementioned negotiations which resulted in the Lancaster House Agreement, Britain agreed to fund land-back purchases in Zimbabwe. However, when then-President Robert Mugabe attempted to enact such policies, Britain defaulted. Mugabe, a revolutionary turned autocrat (and admittedly controversial figure), then forcibly seized White-owned farmlands much to the chagrin of the international community (Lloyd, 2002, pp. 220-221). Political ties between the U.S. and Britain have also strengthened over time, especially during World War II and the Cold War. Zimbabwe, however, has only grown more distant from Britain in its short separation. In 2002, Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth, a political entity composed of former British colonies, because of Mugabe’s regime; in 2003, Mugabe formally withdrew (Lloyd, 2002, p. 221; Muronzi, 2022). Despite both nations being former British colonies, the United States and Zimbabwe have vastly different political relationships with Great Britain. The U.S. has emerged as a tried and true ally of Britain, while Zimbabwe has a much more complex and dark history with its former ruler. Naturally, because of these varying relationships, I anticipate the news coverage of the Queen’s death to differ in both countries. I expect the coverage in the U.S. to be largely favorable and the coverage in Zimbabwe to be more critical.

To further understand the media’s cult coverage of the Queen’s death, we will place it in the context of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s propaganda model and concept of worthy victimhood. Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman originally published their book on the failings of U.S mass media titled Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media in 1988 at the tail end of the Cold War; however, their ruminations on the complex and often insidious nature of mass media are just as relevant today.

Beginning with the propaganda model, Chomsky and

Herman define their model as a means to trace “the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public” (1988, p. 61). Chomsky and Herman propose five of these aforementioned filters, the first of which is “the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms” (1988, p. 61). This first filter focuses on the interests, profit, ideological and otherwise, of the wealthy elite at the helms of media conglomerates. The second filter is the use of “advertising as the primary income source of the mass media” (1988, p.61). With media companies beholden to advertisers, content is further limited, particularly critical and nuanced content that might dissuade potential consumers from the desired “buying mood” (1988, p. 77). How might this requirement have altered coverage? Consider the audience’s vulnerability to nostalgic, emotional appeals from advertisers due to the news of a well-known, and admittedly well-loved, figure’s death. The third, and especially relevant, filter is “the reliance of the media on information provided by [the] government” (1988, p. 61). How might the symbiotic relationship between media correspondents and government gatekeepers quash critical reporting? Moreover, does this relationship expand beyond national boundaries? Do international histories of conflict or concord influence journalists who fear ostracizing key government sources? This fear runs congruent with the fourth filter, “flak,” defined by Chomsky and Herman as “negative responses to a media statement or program…[in the] form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, lawsuits, speeches and bills…, and other modes of complaint, threat, and punitive action” (1988, p. 86). A preemptive fear of “flak” causes censorship before news is even put to print, and retaliatory “flak” serves to bury stories and discredit journalists after the fact. The fifth and final filter is best described as the common enemy. Chomsky and Herman refer to this filter as “anti-communism,” which is not as relevant following the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent end of the Cold War. However, the underlying concept rings true; the common enemy has merely shifted over time. This filter lets through content that is critical of the out-group and blocks any content that might erode the moral high ground of the in-group, be that through outright positive, or simply nuanced, coverage. Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model and its five filters will be the primary framework through which the coverage of Queen Elizabeth’s death is analyzed.

The crucial secondary concept borrowed from Chomsky and Herman is that of a “worthy” or conversely “unworthy victim.” A worthy victim is distinguished by “the extent and character of attention and indignation” given by media coverage (1988, p. 97). The victimization of the worthy must also support preexisting societal institutions. While it would be ill-conceived to claim that the passing of a monarch at the generous age of 96 is victimhood, it qualifies according to the more abstract conception of “worthy” victimhood in the media. Through sympathetic, in-depth coverage of a monarch’s death, a blind devotion to the structure of imperial power they represent is fostered. This certainly “meet[s] the test of utility to elite interests,” a prerequisite for any worthy victim (1988, p. 94). Furthermore, the total media eclipse caused by the rather timely death of a monarch in the face of much graver suffering elsewhere reinforces the ironic priorities of the media machine. With Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model as our primary framework, we can begin to critically analyze the media coverage of Queen Elizabeth II’s death.

The paradigmatic BBC article is titled simply “Queen Elizabeth II has died,” authored by George Bowden, Marie Jackson, and Sean Coughlan (2022). It has a simple, but effective title, saying no more and no less than is necessary, and opens with a regal, yet familiar and nostalgic photo of a middle-aged Queen Elizabeth on its front page. The article is largely biographical, illustrating a life of service and commitment. It especially lingers on outpourings of grief, citing not only many members of the royal family, but also allies of Great Britain such as Canadian Prime minister Justin Trudeau, U.S. President Joe Biden, and French President Emmanuel Macron, placing emphasis on the global impact of the event (Bowden et al., 2022). The tone is largely reverential, patriotic, and mournful. It avoids scandal and noticeably omits any serious criticism of the Queen or the empire she represents. The article is exactly what the propaganda model would predict it to be.

The BBC was the very first to report on the Queen’s passing, with the national announcement occurring only three and a half hours after Her Majesty’s death. Meanwhile, articles from the U.S. and Zimbabwe were published six hours and 26 minutes, and 54 hours and 26 minutes following her death, respectively (Bowden et al., 2022; Langfitt, 2022; Muronzi, 2022). This is the third filter in action as the

BBC’s inseparable relationship with The Crown provided insider knowledge and therefore publishing advantage. This long-standing relationship began in 1926 when King George V, the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II, founded the corporation. The BBC is maintained and governed by a charter, renewed every ten years and passed before the monarchy and Parliament. The current charter, presented in 2016, reads in bold font at its opening “ELIZABETH THE SECOND by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith” (Great Britain Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2016, p. 1). With this context, despite its idealized proclamations that “The BBC must be independent in all matters concerning the fulfilment of its Mission and the promotion of the Public Purposes,” the network’s fidelity to The Crown was pledged in the charter’s very first words (Great Britain Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2016, p. 2). This loyalty is a prime example of the first and third filters. This interdependence of the BBC and The Crown further explains the BBC’s role as the trusted confidant and the first receiver of all pertinent news concerning The Crown. With the first filter, ownership, or in this case dominion, and the third filter, reliance on government sources, the BBC is left in a bind. There would be absolutely no reason to report critically on the death of the very figure who signed their continuity into existence for decades. This would incur a lethal risk of “flak” on a national scale as a vengeful government could simply decide not to renew the charter.

The NPR article, written by London correspondent Frank Langfitt, is titled “Queen Elizabeth II, the monarch who brought stability to a changing nation” (2022). This article is largely similar to that of the BBC: when placed side by side, the first thing one would notice is the similarity between the two chosen cover images; they’re both noble, side profile shots of the Queen in full regalia. The article begins with and ends on a vow from 21-year-old Elizabeth pledging herself to a life of service (Langfitt, 2022). The article summarizes the Queen’s accomplishments with an air of admiration, although it does delve into darker aspects of the royal family, mentioning many of the domestic scandals that the BBC article omits. Langfitt is unafraid to discuss the alleged sexual assault of a minor by Prince Andrew as well as Prince Harry’s wife Meghan Markle’s allegations of racial discrimination within the royal family (Langfitt, 2022). The general positive tone of the article is maintained, however, because in none of these scandals is the Queen ever painted as complicit.

Across the pond, NPR fares much better in its editorial independence than the BBC. Without direct ties to the monarchy, NPR is free to criticize the institution without fear of “flak.” NPR is, however, vulnerable to the second filter, as 37% of its revenue is generated from corporate sponsorships (NPR, 2013). As previously mentioned, journalism that dissuades consumers from the “buying mood” is undesirable to advertisers (Chomsky & Herman, 1988, p.77). Harsh criticism of the Queen might alienate American audiences who, according to a public opinion poll conducted by analytics firm Gallup, largely view the Queen favorably. In 2003, her favorability rating among Americans was at a high of 77% (Brenan, 2022). NPR is therefore incentivized to cater to public opinion. Moreover, the article suffers from a national bias caused by the United States’ close ties to the U.K.. According to the concept of worthy victimhood, “We would anticipate the uncritical acceptance of certain premises in dealing with self and friends — such as that one’s own state and leaders seek peace and democracy, oppose terrorism, and tell the truth — premises which will not be applied in treating enemy states” (Chomsky & Herman, 1988, p. 95). Because of the U.K.’s friendship with the U.S., the monarchy is observed with a less critical eye — a luxury not afforded to monarchies of more adversarial nations. Simply put, the U.S. perceives the Queen and her monarchy favorably because it is convenient to do so. While this article enjoys a greater separation from the monarchy, it still caters to public opinion to appease advertisers and upholds the concept of worthy victimhood by protecting the figurehead of a close national ally.

“Remembering Queen Elizabeth II in Zimbabwe,” written by Zimbabwean journalist Chris Muronzi, for Al Jazeera English, is an example of Zimbabwean media coverage (2022). The first notable distinction between this article and those previous is the cover image. The image is not a gracious photo of Queen Elizabeth II, but rather, a photo of former President and Autocrat of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. The subhead reads, “Some Zimbabweans criticise the late monarch for failing to ‘promote the interests of Africans in the colonial era,’” automatically signaling to the reader that this article will not be a glowing review of the Queen’s life achievements (Muronzi, 2022). The article spends some time paying dues to the monarch, citing the

Queen’s “celebrity-like” status within the country and the many schools, hospitals, hotels, and even children named in her honor (Muronzi, 2022). However, that revelry is quickly cut short as the article then dives into the tense conflicts between Britain and the Mugabe regime. The article, in sum, spends nearly as much time discussing Mugabe as it does the Queen herself. The article ends with several perspectives from academics, journalists, and everyday citizens alike all assigning the Queen with varying degrees of complicity in the nation’s suffering (Muronzi, 2022). While the article is not entirely inflammatory, the tone is relatively negative and it’s hard to imagine that its contents would ever be published by the BBC.

This negative tone is easily explained not only by the history of British imperialism in Zimbabwe, but also by the power structure of Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera English is a subsidiary of Al Jazeera, a media company funded by the Qatari state (Ustad Figenschou, 2013, p. 27). This places Al Jazeera in a similar category of dubious ed- itorial independence as the BBC; notably, however, Qatar is considered to be an absolute monarchy, while the U.K. is a constitutional monarchy (Ustad Figenschou, 2013, p. 27). Despite this structural difference, both media companies lie within equal reach of their respective governors by nature of their state funding. While Al Jazeera claims that it “is an independent news organization” merely “funded in part by the Qatari government,” this is a dubious claim, according to the propaganda model’s first filter (Al Jazeera, n.d.). Anglo-Qatari relations are complicated by a history of imperialism which likely influences the tone of the news coverage. Prior to 1971, Qatar was a British protectorate (Smith, 2010), and to this day, according to Simon Smith, historian, and professor specializing in British Imperial history, “the Al-Thani ruling family [are] reluctant to be seen to be tied too closely to the former protecting power, let alone being perceived as puppets of the British” (Smith, 2010, p. 844).

This is a huge motivator to report negatively on the British Monarchy. This, in tandem with Britain’s history in Zimbabwe, predictably culminates in a tense tone.

Ultimately, each article reflects the political tensions and national identities of their respective nation. For example, because of the BBC’s ties to the monarchy, the tone is reverential, endearing, and patriotic, painting the Queen’s death as a global tragedy and the Queen herself as a worthy victim. NPR, despite its greater degree of separation from the monarchy and editorial independence relative to the BBC and Al Jazeera, firmly remains within the bounds of the national status quo. Although it mentions the more inflammatory domestic scandals that the BBC article omits, it sanitizes the Queen’s inextricable connections to British imperialism to stay in bed with the United States’ national ally, Britain. This qualifies the Queen as a worthy victim through a largely nostalgic and reverential tone. This affirms Chomsky’s concept of worthy victimhood by highlighting the tragic loss of a leader of a close international ally. Al Jazeera, on the other hand, predictably delivers a more nuanced and ultimately negative opus. As the only of the three to so much as mention the cruel history of British Imperialism, it, at a first glance, might seem the most honest and independent work of the trio. However, it is crucial to remain critical of Al Jazeera in regards to the propaganda model. Just as the BBC is under the purview of its monarchy and parliament, so is Al Jazeera to the absolute monarchy and Al-Thani family. Al Jazeera seeks to provide a voice alternative to that of the domineering Western world, the foremost figurehead of which was, at a time, the British Empire. It would be naïve to deny this bias even if the article itself is more nuanced and balanced in nature than the former two. The underlying power structure behind Al Jazeera’s operations must still be questioned. In conclusion, these three articles affirm Noam Chomsky’s and Edward Herman’s propaganda model as all three behave as expected given the underlying national interests, imperial histories, and insidious structures of money and power behind each media company.

2, 2022, from news.gallup.com

Google. (n.d.). Google trends. Google Trends. Retrieved December 2, 2022, from https://trends.google.com/

Great Britain. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. (2016). Broadcasting: Copy of Royal Charter for the continuance of the British Broadcasting Corporation. H M Government. downloads.bbc.co.uk

Henkhaus, L. (2022, July 1). How the US became independent (and inseparable) from Great Britain. Texas A&M Today. Retrieved December 2, 2022, from https://today.tamu.edu/

Langfitt, F. (2022, September 9). Encore: Queen Elizabeth II, who brought stability to a changing nation. NPR. www.npr.org

Lloyd, R. B. (2002, May) Zimbabwe: The Making of an Autocratic “Democracy”. Current History, 101(655), 219-224. JSTOR. Retrieved December 2, 2022, from www.jstor.org

Muronzi, C. (2022, September 10). Remembering Queen Elizabeth II in Zimbabwe | News. Al Jazeera English. www. aljazeera.com

NPR. (2013, June 20). Public radio finances. NPR. Retrieved December 2, 2022 from https//npr.org/

Parsons, T. (2014). The Second British Empire: In the Crucible of the Twentieth Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. unm. on.worldcat.org/

Smith, S. C. (2010, February 10). Imperialism after empire? Britain and Qatar in the aftermath of the withdrawal from East of Suez. Middle Eastern Studies, 58(6), 843-858. 10.1080/00263206.2022.2032674

Ustad Figenschou, T. (2013). Al Jazeera and the Global Media Landscape: The South is Talking Back. Taylor & Francis. unm. on.worldcat.org/

References

Al Jazeera. (n.d.). Who we are. Al Jazeera Media Network. Retrieved October 30, 2022, from network.aljazeera.net

Bowden, G., Jackson, M., & Coughlan, S. (2022, September 8).

Queen Elizabeth II has died. BBC. www.bbc.com

Brenan, M. (2022, September 16). Gallup Vault: Queen Elizabeth resonated across the Pond. Gallup News. Retrieved December