It's especially interesting to read Susan Moeller's concerns and questions regarding democracy within the Bush administration's definition and use of the term in light of Obama's recent election. Before reading this section I'd never really considered the ulterior motives a word like democracy can mask, but Moeller did an impressive job of outlining those possibilities.
During the Bush administration, "democracy," while a term comfortably familiar to all Americans, increasingly became part of the conservative foreign policy lexicon.
According to Moeller (and I happen to agree), the term "democracy" became a mask for a hidden agenda. It let that administration off the hook when they needed it most, and perhaps most disturbingly, the media let them do it. Instead of honoring their role as governmental watchdogs, the media (or much of it) simply regurgitated what the White House fed them. Moeller notes one leftist journalists' opinion that the New York Times should rename itself "American Officials Say."
When I was in the midst of Journalism school in 2003-2005, we were taught that media was doing a poor job of adequately reporting on the government. We heard horror stories of how reporters were basically forced to comply with the White House's idea of what they wanted reported or they were basically blacklisted from participating in future press conferences and other media events. Interestingly, Moeller's section "Without Fear or Favor" supports that same idea. Moeller explains that despite Bush's assurance that he applauded "'a society where people are free to come and express their opinion,' that statement didn't translate to the administration tolerating media coverage of information that it did not want released."
Moeller does have a positive view towards new media, with the provision that moving forward media discloses sources more often, does not play into the government's hands regarding what they want the news to be, and generally garners their responsibility toward the American public by taking responsibility for what they're reporting.
The case study of the 2004 tsunami raises some interesting questions: why was this so well covered when other, equally if not more devastating natural disasters were essentially ignored? It's interesting to think about how and why the media chooses the stories it chooses. At the time of publication, the Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) publishes a list of the top ten Most Underreported Humanitarian Stories every year. The MSF website has a backlogged lists but doesn't appear to have published any since 2007. Still, they provide an interested baseline for case studies on what is and isn't reported and the reasons behind that. You can see the 2006 list here.
Despite her harsh critique of the media, Moeller ultimately supports traditional journalism:
Despite their at times crucial failures, there is still no group better equipped than traditional journalists - whatever their journalistic platform - to ask the tough questions: of politicians and scientists, of corporate executives and social workers, of the military and doctors, of academics and children. There is still no group better equipped than traditional journalists - whatever their platform - to cover the big stories and to find the hidden crises.
Democracy on the Airwaves: An Interview with Amy Goodman
Amy Goodman's show, Democracy Now! is worth checking out - even if only as a point of comparison. They cover a lot of topics in a short amount of time and have a pretty cut-and-dry style. Goodman makes a point in this interview to explain how important access is and the many ways her show is available for viewing and listening. This combined with their grassroots level reporting is a wholly different experience from mainstream media. One of Goodman's points that especially resonated with me was the idea of tv news networks' responsibility (not privilege) to broadcast on public airwaves.
While reviewing some of Amy Gooman's videos, I came across a video of her arrest at the Republican National Convention. She later explained the arrest in an interview on Free Speech TV. To hear her tell the story, it's a classic case of unlawful suppression. Goodman is so narrowly focused on a very specific set of key issues that I find it difficult to take her narrative without a grain of salt, but regardless she does seem to have a point regarding the complete inappropriateness of her arrest.
The vide of the actual arrest:
And Goodman's interview about the arrest on FSTV:
Alternative Media Theory and Journalism Practice
This chapter, written by Chris Atton, is based on the overarching theme of citizen participation in media. He writes:
Central to empowerment is the opportunity for ordinary people to tell their own stories without the formal education or professional expertise and status of the mainstream journalist.
Atton cites a study done by the Glasgow University Media Group (GUMG) on how media reflects different socioeconomic groups. GUMG apparently found that there was a "hierarchy of media access where professional journalists uncritically represented the ideologies of elite groups to the public."
The first step, according to Atton, toward rectifying the problems of the current media landscape is using alternative media to enable citizens, thus allowing them to become politically empowered. I agree that empowering citizens to participate in the media landscape is an empowering and ultimately useful contribution. An interesting note on this topic is the study conducted by Matheson and Allan that found readers trust bloggers' account of events because they're transparently subjective. This is an interesting converse to the traditionally held viewpoint that journalists should be objective - a standard that is truly impossible to achieve realistically.
Community Radio, Access and Media Justice: An Interview with Deepa Fernandes
In many ways Deepa Fernandes reminds me of Amy Goodman in that she's a woman looking for an alternative way to present valuable, socially responsible news to the public. Fernandes hosts Wakeup Call, a radio show in New York City designed to deliver social justice-based news every morning. Fernandes discusses the frustrations she encountered while working for mainstream media companies - the ways they tried to tell her what story to report and the ways they censored the stories she felt needed to be told. I agree with Fernandes that these grassroots level voices really need to be heard. But I completely disagree with her stance on the story from Chiapas, Mexico. There was a massacre of indigenous people and Fernandes wanted to tell their story. Her BBC producer asked that she also get voices from the other side of the conflict - the Mexican military and government - to which Fernandes refused. She responded by saying, "Get another reporter to do that. Because this story is about the voices who are most affected." Fernandes is making a value judgment herself that is very similar to those she opposes so strongly in other media outlets.
Still, Fernandes has some really interesting points concerning net neutrality, access and the various ways we can make every voice heard. And Wakeup Call seems to do a really good job of being accessible (within its obvious limitations). You can listen to any episode at any time and can download them all for free.
See the list of shows and listen to them here.
Discussion Questions
1. How do you think Obama's use and definition of democracy varies from Bush's? How do the differences in these definitions and uses of the word change their overall messages and the way the public reacts to them?
2. How has the mainstream media treated Obama differently than Bush? Do you think they've been more or less neutral?
3. What should journalists' role in today's media landscape be? How can traditional journalists collaborate and coexist with alternative and citizen-produced media? How do these roles contribute or take away from our ideal American democracy?
4. Do you regularly view/read any alternative news sources? Anything along the lines of Goodman's Democracy Now! or Fernandes' Wakeup Call? Do you see value in these radio and tv shows and do you think you would regularly watch them? Why or why not?
5. How do you feel about grassroots level reporting? Do you agree with Goodman and Fernandes' opinion that citizens are best equipped to report on their own communities? Why or why not?
6. Do you agree with GUMG's study that major corporate media reports primarily the views of the elite upper class? Do you think media should attempt to be neutral or, like bloggers, be transparently subjective?
7. Do you think both sides of any given story should be told or do you agree with Fernandes' opinion that sometimes only one side deserves to be told?
The discussion of changing the notion from "objective" coverage to revealed and honest statements of bias is taking shape in more and more journalism forums.
ReplyDeleteJournalism Ethics 2.0
But there still needs to be an effective and consistent way in which the point of view a particular journalist is coming from and their relationship to the story can be stated on the various forms of journalism. Or can the audience be trained to assume these notions?