Communications and Media

Monica Lewinsky came to the white house as an unpaid intern working in the Chief of Staffs office in June 1995 when she was just a twenty one years old. Their relationship with the then president Bill Clinton began in November 1995 as unveiled through the recordings in the tapes provided later by her former friend, Linda Tripp. Later that year, Lewinsky was given the job as a secretary in the Legislative Affairs Office meaning that he usually handled and ferried the letters of congress to and from the oval office. Lewinsky was later transferred as one of the assistants to Ken Bacon who was the Pentagon spokesman. The reason that the chief of staff gave for the transfer was that Lewinsky had an inappropriate and immature behavior and did not concentrate in her work. In 1996, she informed a workmate, Linda Tripp that she had a relationship with President Clinton (CNN 1998).
The ClintonLewinsky scandal however exploded when Linda Tripp met Kathleen Willey as she was coming from the oval house with her face red and her lipstick off. There was an allegation from Willey that Clinton had groped her, an allegation that Clintons lawyer denied. This prompted the Linda Tripp to start taping Lewinskys details about her affair with Clinton. Later, Tripp met with the Newsweeks staff and made them listen to the tape. Later in 2007, Lewinsky left Pentagon with one of the Clintons personal secretary, Betty Currie, approached Vernon Jordan, who was the presidential pal, requesting him to find work in New York. Paula Jones lawyers sued Clinton in 17th December on charges of sexual harassment and subpoenaed Lewinsky (CNN, 1998).
Paula Corbin Jones who used to work as a state worker had claimed that Clinton had harassed her sexually when he was still the Arkansas governor in 1991. Jones lawyers wanted to show that Clinton had done such acts before and thus interviewed different women who were believed to have had a link with the president (The Columbia Encyclopedia 2008). Clinton was questioned on 17th January 1998, making the record as the first sitting US president to give testimony as a defendant. Clinton was quick to deny to have ever had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky between1995 and 1996. Lewinsky had already denied before the testimony of ever having an affair with the president. The independent counsel during the whitewater case, Kenneth Star, had already been given tape recordings from Linda Tripp. The counsel described that there seemed to be a pattern of deception and thus obtained permission to probe this case (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2008).
President Clinton went ahead and publicly denied of having a relationship with Lewinsky and also denied the covering it up charges. Even his personal advisor, Vernon Jordan refuted the claim that he had advised Monica to lie in the case involving Jones and that Jordan had ever organized for her job in New York. The wife of the president, Hillary Clinton claimed that there was a vast right wing conspiracy to bring his husband down politically. The republicans came out strongly describing Clinton as a liar and immoral. Many other people including Jordan testified and the Lawyers for Jones presented some papers indicating that Clinton had earlier admitted having a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers a fact he had denied. Susan Webber Wright, an Arkansas federal judge dismissed this case stating that Jones had been subjected to boorish behavior and not sexual harassment as she had claimed (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2008).
The confession
On 18th August 1998, Bill Clinton confessed in a televised address that he indeed had a relationship with Lewinsky described it as not appropriate. The president remained defiant stating that this matter had now become a private family issue and nobodys business but ours(BBC 1998). Before this, several lawyers who were led by Kenneth Starr had questioned the president for more than five hours in a session that took place at White house with the grand jury watching via video connection. In the address that lasted four minutes, Clinton described his relationship with Lewinsky as not appropriate and that constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part, for which I am solely and completely responsible (BBC 1998). This was in fact the first time that Clinton was confessing of having had a relationship with Lewinsky. It is interesting to note that he had previously all along denied both under oath and on television (BBC 1998).
Clinton use of the Face negotiation theory
Before and during the four minute speech that Bill Clinton gave and that ended his Sexual harassment case, it clear that he utilized the face negotiation theory.
Face negotiation theory
Face negotiation theory was hypothesized by Stella Ting Toomey with the aim of explaining how diverse cultures communicate and manage conflicts. Since then, this theory has undergone several iterations being lately updated in 2005. This theory generally explains that conflict is as a result of identity management on both cultural and individual level. The different facets of cultural and individual identities are referred to as faces. Faces can be described as the public image that a group or an individual has as seen by the society (Cupach  Metts, 1994). The society base the public image on cultural values and norms. A conflict occurs when the face of an individual or a group is threatened. In collective cultures what matters most is the face of a group and not that of an individual. On the other hand, individualistic cultures see an individuals cultures to be significant of the group. The major assumption is that how people manage conflicts and communicates is determined by the culture (Cupach  Metts, 1994).
Other assumption of this theory is that behavior is influenced by relational, situation and individual factors as well as cultural variances.  Also face will become problematic if whenever there is questioning of the identities. According to this theory competence in communication that is intercultural is as a result of mindfulness and knowledge (Cupach  Metts, 1994).
How face negotiation theory applies to Bill Clinton
Bill was in real conflict and had to find ways of solving it and at the same time save his public images as the president of a global super power. The crisis that was legal, political, cultural and constitution started in January 1998 and came to a halt in December (Richard, 2009). The real struggle began when it was reveled that a private investigator named Kenneth Starr had launched investigations against President Clinton. The charges were that Clinton had lied in addition to other crimes with the aim of obstructing justice so as to hide a sexual relationship between him and Monica Lewinsky. This investigation ended with the impeachment of the president in the House of Representatives for testifying falsely. This was the second impeachment to have been successful in US after that of Andrew Johnson more than one hundred years before. The impeachment vote was 228 against 206 in the House of representative (Richard, 2009).
Clinton after impeachment
Despite the fact that the case had lasted for about a month, it is only during one day that the defense and prosecution produced the pertinent clips of videotaped evidence from Sidney Blumenthal, Vernon Jordan and Monica Lewinsky all who had been authorized by the senate to be called. The real problem here was that this trial was used in context of impeachment in reference to the all the Muhammad Al-Durrah was a Palestinian boy killed in the crossfire between the Israeli and Palestinian armies on September 30, 2000.  The events leading to his death were captured on tape by a French 2 cameraman and later broadcast over multiple media channels. The images of the Palestinian boy huddling beside his father, as both crouched to avoid being hit by bullets and eventually dying from what was presumed to be Israeli bullets, left nothing to the imagination of the viewer (Campbell 64).  The cameraman working for the French television network captured Al-Durrah and his father squeezing behind a water barrel for protection, the father reaching out to protect his son, and finally bullets hit both the father and the son. The final scene showed the dead al-Durrah lying across the lap of his unconscious father.
Although the al-Durrah incident left many questions unanswered, the effects of the television images were, according to the ABC news anchors words, Going to haunt everyone (Norris et al 59). Beyond the images however, an observer would be justified to question the ethics behind capturing the incident on tape and airing the same on international media.  As such, did the images help resolve the conflict in the Middle East, or did they contribute to more animosity between the Israelis and the Palestinians therefore leading to more loss of lives
This paper will look at some of the questions arising about the journalistic ethics involved in this incident.
Conflicting parties and the media feed on each other. While warring parties as is the case with Palestine and Israel need the media to amplify their messages, the media need such conflicts to personify the evils facing the society (Norris et al 59).   The Muhammad Al-Durrah case was not only a conflict story, but more interesting because it involved the brutal killing of an innocent child.  The Al-Durrah image thus became the personification of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Israeli side used the Al-Durrah image as the representation of human suffering under the Israeli army in the international circles. The Israelis however, on the other side, although initially apologetic about the incident, later declared that there was a reasonable probability that Al-Durrah was killed by Palestinian bullets (Lasson 16). It was not proven, whether this was true or not. However, questions about how the boy and the father ended up in the Israeli-Palestinian crossfire and how the photographer was so well situated to capture everything on tape still remain unanswered.
It is however the wisdom of broadcasting the chilling and brutal killing of the boy that raises many questions. Although many people agree that it was important to inform the world on the level of atrocities going on in the Middle East conflict, it is questionable whether the airing of the same has served to worsen the situation or improve the same. Just days after the Al-Durrah killing, two Israeli reservists were seized from a Palestinian roadblock and executed by a Palestinian mob in broad daylight. Once again, the incident was captured on tape (by an Italian TV network) and broadcast worldwide through an international feed (Lasson 16). At this point, the journalist union in Palestine issued a warning against international media for reckless reporting.
Reporting deaths is one of the ethical dilemmas that face journalist on a daily basis during their work (Richards 135).  They have to balance between satisfying the general public right to know and the risk of intruding into personal privacy of the concerned people. In Al-Durrahs case, it was more a case of informing the public about atrocities in the Middle East, at the risk of fueling more animosity between the warring parties.
Defenders of the tell it as it is concept in journalism would argue that the broadcasting of the Al-Durrah case was the true image of uncompromising journalism, whereby, the viewer or reader is shown everything and the verdict of who to blame left to them. By doing this, the journalist and the broadcasting or publishing media houses left the impact of the entire horrifying effect that hit the audience. However, to those criticizing the action, the question was what was the ultimate cost to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
In the Al-Durrah case, one can conclusively state that the losses were evident hours later, when the Palestinians killed the two Israeli reservists. Further, it was documented that between the time of the Al-Durrah killing and 2003 2,200 people died in the conflict (700 Israelis and 1,500 Palestinians).
Besides, there were sentiments that the killing of the Al-Durrah was staged by the Palestinian side in order to attract sympathy from the international community. A French lawyer in 2007 accused the France 2 channel and its correspondent Charles Enderlin of staging the killing (Patience).  This led to the court asking the news channel to release the unedited video footage of the al-Durrah shooting.  If indeed the shooting was staged (and I use if  because the truth may never be known), it can only serve to effect negatively the particular journalist and to some extent his media house. The effects of the footage can, however, not be redeemed because many people (both in Palestine and the international community) would not accept the staging of the shooting as true.
In most countries media are protected by constitutions through clauses concerning freedom of the media, thus meaning that they are protected against reproach from the society regarding the things they publish. However, journalists are not beyond reproach as the freedom given to them does not automatically mean that they are immune to criticism. In most countries, journalists abide to specific journalism ethics, which helps them avoid defamation, libel or copyright related suits.
Supposing that the incident was indeed staged, then the journalist as well as the news channel he was working for would have been liable to breach of journalism ethics. Any staged events in journalism have the capacity to make the audience lose trust for its audience (Sanders 103). 
The Al-Durrah case seems to have escaped the trust issue mostly because of its emotive nature. However, this did not prevent a French watch dog named Philippe Karsently from questioning the authenticity of the shooting tapes. Karsentlty called upon the directors of France 2 networks director and the news correspondent who reported the story for promulgating a hoax.  The two however sued Karsently for defamation and in October 2006, the court ruled in their favor (Glick).
It is noted that within minutes after receiving the Al-Durrah tape, the France 2 network gave away the tape for free to other media networks for immediate broadcasting. This raises the question about just how objective the news channel was concerning the incident.  According to Lasson, much as the media educates, informs and entertains its audience, the profit motive is always first in their priorities (Lasson 9). In other cases where news channels have an exclusive story, they charge other channels to have the footage.   This raises another question, was the France 2 news channel objective or neutral towards the shooting incidence Further, why is it the France 2 correspondent that captured that particular incident on tape, despite there being hundreds of news channels represented in the conflict area on that day (Fallows 8)
Conclusion
The Muhammad Al-Durah case is shrouded in mystery. However, judging from the reaction from the general response in the international media, it is evident that the correspondent and the news channel that distributed the tape to other media houses breached journalism ethics by failing to look at the greater effect that the footage would have on the already intense Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
According to Fallows, the tape was most popular amongst Arabic countries, which are sympathetic towards the Palestinian cause (Fallows 8). Whether staged or not, every time the Al-Durrah killing was aired stirred raw and resentful emotions against the Israeli army. This means that any possibilities of achieving peace in the Middle East were pushed even further.
As the conveyers of information to the general public, it is evident that the journalists have more responsibilities in their hands to protect further worsening in a conflict situation. Although this does not mean that they should deny the public their right to know what is happening on the ground, it means that the report should only be aired if  its accurate, objective and most of all, not damaging to the greater peace in any specific region.