Discussions
Can the Media Contribute to a Solution?
Posted by Nomadic • 5/19/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: bonn, conference, conflict, media, new media, news, propoganda, reporting, solution
I am off to a "Media in Peace Building and Conflict Prevention" conference next week, and I thought I would first canvas the views of you hot "new media" types. I am pasting this here as the specialist group discussions don't seem to get much traffic. So your musings, if you would be so kind:
What carries more weight: PR-machinery or objective journalism? Does anyone let the other side speak?
In today's media-saturated world, every party to the conflict can spread their message. Countless TV stations, internet sites and weblogs have cropped up in recent years. But the dramatic rise in media access has not led to better knowledge or understanding. The conflicting parties hold fast to their hostile perceptions. Propaganda outweighs journalism, prejudice defeats dialog.
Can the media contribute to a solution?
User Comments
-
The media can contribute but won't. I find the most knowledgeable, interesting and thought provoking journalism on TV for example can be found at 2am - who's watching? I find the best newspaper journalism in individual columns tucked somewhere between second hand cars and the X-Factor reviews. It's a sad fact that should I choose to go looking for information on East Timor and Britney Spears I'll be blinded by bling long before I'm blinded by the explosive situation there.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy freak - we live in an age where the potential Presidential candidates in the USA can appear on LIVE television and yet one of them mysteriously disappears from the images? Where, because he topped the viewers voting polls the polls can be closed and his name just 'drops off' the voting list...where the polls can mysteriously re-appear with a newly worded poll question slanted to ensure he can't win....the mass media can get the message across - but only when that message happily co-incides with prevailing view of the Govt of the day or the view of an editor in chief.
Ben-
I find excellent reporting earlier in the evening too. Do you watch PBS? How about shows like NOW? www.pbs.org/now/ You can find others too, and I'm finding more and more of this stuff online, which allows the message to be magnified. How about Frontline? www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
-
-
Thanks for putting some thought into it, Ben. In the information I was given about the conference they clearly separate journalism from propaganda - though in my mind they CAN be the same thing. It is a sliding scale and not a black and white thing. I would say what you describe above is clearly gray!
-
It's hard to generalize about new media and traditional news sources. Seems to me that some blogs have broken stories, but many of them serve a useful function simply by helping to create more buzz about a topic. Blogs can help magnify a message, as the New York Times has recognized, insofar as it offers permalinks for all its stories. The Blogger Unite campaign is also predicated on this concept.
I know nothing about it, but I hear media have also helped to kill. Radio in Rwanda was a big example here. New media are also being used by terrorists, white supremacists, and so on to communicate and coordinate, so it is a double-edged sword. -
Sometimes Nomad I despair at how little press coverage is genuinely representative of the facts - It's not that the pressing issues are avoided - they are addressed, but it's also 'who to trust?' which is a major issue.
The current political posturing between Iran and the USA over Iran's alleged intentions to build nuclear weapons for example - it's bedevilled by propoganda from both sides and to get a true handle on it one has to go to the UN and actually start looking for Inspector's reports which portray an entirely different picture to the one most of us have been fed by western politicians and western media - I despair, I really do.
Ben -
Great question. I especially like this statement:
"Propaganda outweighs journalism, prejudice defeats dialog."
Independent, objective media can create a solution & mainstream could do the same if they'd back off from supporting corporate interests and those in power.
I am off to start my day but will give this some thought and will report back in tonight. -
I subscribe to the theory that, because they can, people are gravitating toward media that aligns with an underlying ideology (liberal, conservative, etc). There are objective media, but increasingly readers and viewers are loyal to the new more specialized media (especially online). Therefore objective, positive news about the current administration will not receive the same attention from the more liberal press. It's all part of agenda setting and gatekeeping.
Additionally, popular criticism of today's mass media is that they don't report the truth; they report what people say is true. The truth often requires investigative journalism, which is expensive and difficult. I personally don't agree that most media don't print the truth, but I do believe that truth is becoming harder to find.
It's tougher than ever to reach the masses because they've segmented themselves, but it can be done. When a tragedy happens, we all hear about it. Because readership habits are changing, especially with younger folks, I would recommend the following to anyone interested in getting the truth out to the masses. Shock and awe: give it to the people from all sides in many different ways. Use all the media and use it often. PR can help with what I call "gorilla warfare" -- the sort of old town crier "read all about it" approach.
(For example, when I need to reach all my students in a hurry, I've learned email, webpages, posters, newspaper and radio only have limited success, but I can get them all if I use facebook)-
@Robert: Interesting ommission here. You write, "Therefore objective, positive news about the current administration will not receive the same attention from the more liberal press. It's all part of agenda setting and gatekeeping."
This is only a "liberal" media problem? I would be interested to know what the so-called "liberal media" is supposed to be comprised of. Some versions of it I have heard include excellent reporting.
Be that as it may, the broader phenomenon you talk about, our tendency to only read what we like, is a real problem that the spread of new media on the internet is magnifying. Ethan Zuckerman calls it homophily: www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/05/02/04 . -
In response to your question: There is only a "liberal" media problem?" No, not at all. I didn't mean to imply or omit anything. I just picked an example. I could have easily picked Clinton not receiving fair comment on the No Spin Zone as an example.
I couldn't say what the liberal media is comprised of. I don't know. I would say the NY Times is liberal. I read it; I even had an article publish in it.
-
-
For those of you in the UK (and beyond) interested in the broader view - I can recommend The Week. It is a summary of news stories from the main nationals. Far preferable to sticking to one type of paper (that said, like political parties in the UK main stream polarisation is now slim)
-
Another thing I find helpful is reading media in other countries, simply because it helps to subvert the ideological divides in my own country.
-
Hey, yes - The Week covers foreign press too. In a limited fashion.
-
-
“Propaganda outweighs journalism, prejudice defeats dialog.”
Any place the media is monitored by the state we’ll have that. In china even bloggers have to be registered with the state.
I believe a free media helps remove prejudices by educating on differences and alleviating fears. It’s just that communications are limited where we need them. And that it will be slow progress when dealing with culturally entrenched ideological prejudices.-
Every state in the world with the capacity "monitors" media. That's fine. It's the control of it that is the problem and the generation of it (especially when it is portrayed as being "independent"). And negative control is not limited to state it includes powerful business too.
That said, when responsible governments push out "information campaigns" via the media (eg. the promotion of peace or health initiatives)it is applauded. Maybe is the the MESSAGE that we have a problem with and not the method? -
I’m off in a million fragments.
I believe it is very challenging to offer a purely neutral viewpoint. As the world modernizes and as politics and economics globalize there seems an increased polarization in global social-economic ideology. Increasingly I am viewing the main media outlets as slanted or allied with …………
Joseph Campbell said one nations Hero is another’s Villain – or something like that.
Citizen journalism has lots of potential. It’s a new development that I don’t think can be fully realized or measured yet. But I think its usefulness is largely reserved to developing countries or in reporting immediate and developing events. Otherwise it’s just another opinion broadcast in the name of righteousness.
-
-
I feel PR machinery carries more weight. Like roberstevenson said, you will read in the news what you like to read. You will gravitate towards articles that affirms your own convictions and try to avoid those who tend to shake your foundations.
The media knows this, and they downplay unpopular views. It's like fineprint, it is there, just not necessarily on the front page. -
PR machinery will be working to SOMEONES agenda. It's just the middle man that delivers the message to the channel - which is the media (but not always).
-
Unfortunately, mainstream media is rather biased - both left and right. NPR and PBS are good resources for more balanced journalism, but most will not turn to those stations. Many Americans are rather lazy when it comes to understanding politics and the issues of the day and ratings and big dollars end up driving the message.
I wish there were some sort of legislation/regulation which would require disclaimers before and during opinionated reporting. Cigarettes, beer, medications, auto adverts and other items have warnings/disclaimers. I find biased news to be just as dangerous to my health in some cases.-
Yet there seems to be a thirst in the US, as much as anywhere with 24/7 news coverage....interesting to hear your views, I have only been to the States a handful of times and then only NY (not sure if that counts as representative).
-
-
The media has the option of presenting honest news but it is easier for them to use what is fed to them through press releases. Am I right or what?-
Depends who is issuing the press releases. I used to work for the UK government and the press releases they issued weren't worth the paper...most news rooms get hundreds of press releases per hour. Generally the producers of a station will have decided a line to take and will be looking for evidence (reporters, the public, releases, etc )to support their already formed argument - an "agenda".
-
One U.S. cable news network in particular has an obvious political agenda. Check out the movie Outfoxed if you get a chance.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w39FnpuMRfo&feature=PlayList&p=2C93EE912FAA6DCB&ind...
-
-
I'm really not sure how U.S. media compares to a lot of other countries, so my comments are only from that perspective. Of course, I know we have more freedom to say and report on what we want here than in many countries and for that I am grateful. Since you are outside the U.S., you should know that NPR and PBS are non-profit entities and do not have the same concerns or influence that our mainstream media has. See more here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS
Mainstream media (MSM) has to answer to it's corporate sponsors and company shareholders. Some media giants have been consolidating thus raising antitrust concerns and may receive additional scrutiny after the upcoming presidential election. -
I've had to think this question over a bit - because I am torn.
Yes, I think it could make a difference, but only under certain conditions.
One, the media would have to find a way to regain the public's trust. Otherwise, whatever is played by the media even if it is true - will be seen through the BS filter we all seem to have with regards to the MSM.
Two, they would have to shrug off the need for corporate gains - as the truth may or may not actually "sell".
Three - you'd have to get some different reporters
-
So you are talking about re-branding the media....it's an excellent concept...one that I will take with me. Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions.
-
"...will be seen through the BS filter we all seem to have with regards to the MSM. "
I would argue that many U.S. citizens don't even register the bias in MSM. It's obvious for those of us covering politics, but I've spoken to so many that are unaware of any slant which is a bit scary. -
Anok - you don't think the media has the trust of the majority?
But your right. Producers put pressure on reporters when big ad accounts are on the line.
I have had some business where the point of advertising was really about getting an editorial feature which = media endorsment, much more covented that advertising. -
Nomadic, yes re-branding is a great way to phrase it.
RR - I would say that we only put our BS filters on when the MSM is covering something we are opposed to. When they are covering something we agree with, it's all just "good reporting". SO, when the MSM starts reporting the actual truth, those of us who have been waiting for it will rejoice, while everyone else will put their BS filters on
KG - I think that some of the MSM has the trust of some of the people, while others have the trust of other people, and some folks don't trust any of it, while others trust it all. -
@Kevin. Right. I spend a lot of time writing Op Eds and features......which shows you how "independent" they are.
-
-
PR-machinery or objective journalism? It certainly has become a very powerful "fight" in the last few years. From my experience (and as I said in another post, I am a journalist and blogger) I would have to say objective journalism is more powerful. And yes, I realize how bias that statement is. :-)
It's been my experience that when something goes wrong with a politician or company, the PR machine spins the story and won't tell the whole truth to the public. At one time, the public would accept what the PR spin was and move along.
But then journalists kept digging deeper and expose the lies or half-truths of the PR machine and I think because of that, most of the public don't trust the PR machine, at least in America and maybe the U.K. Other countries I don't know, but as I told Nomadic, I'm going to Japan in a few days and I'll ask around.
But because journalism has exposed many lies of the PR machine, it has created a bias in the public. Whatever goes wrong, now the public just assumes the company/politician did something wrong and will not believe the PR machine. And because of that, those parties are presumed guilty until proven innocent. It's certainly not fair to those parties, because sometimes they are in the right.
Now Robertstevenson hit on something. He said the media doesn't report the truth, but what people think is the truth. And in a sense, he is right. Mostly broadcast journalism is guilty of this. Now it has become a ratings game for them and the most viewers means more money. So, how is it done?
Wait until Thanksgiving rolls around and you'll see the typical homeless story that gets reported on by the local TV networks. Now, broadcast media will show you homeless people that look like people your know, such as family. They know in order to get good ratings, they need to have their viewers tuned in to their stations, so they need to report on people like their viewers.
They're not going to do a story about the homeless man who smells like pee and barking his madness to the skies. And from what I understand, neither do homeless organizations. I've heard they fudge their figures to get more public support and funding. "Reality" is subjective.
In the end, I think both are huge factors on what's bringing the public together and tearing it apart.
timesobserver.blogspot.com-
Thanks Timesobserver.
Like kevin I feel fragmented over all this. I will surely put something together in coming days that better articulates how I feel. And I will let you know how the conference in Germany goes.
It's great to have some comments from people "in the business". Note, I AM in the PR business myself. But don't prejudge us. I call it "ethical PR" as we are primarily about promoting peace and freedom of expression, so don't tar all PR machines with the same brush. And journalists - I have met exceptional ones who still strive to discover the truth and I have met lazy greedy ones who just go for the cheap scoop.
Just wondered if 80% of your homeless are from the armed forces like they are in Britain? It's a tangent I know.
-
-
I agree with robertstevenson and flamingpoodle that many people choose the media options that confirm their biases. If you have a existing point of view, how much effort and education would be required to change your view - and would you allow this to occur before you switch channels or resume your life?
In dealing with peace building and conflict prevention, perhaps the media could start with the presumption that each side has its story regardless of the side and that war should always be the last resort. It sounds like a truism but I don't think that North Korea's and Saddam Hussein's stories have ever been presented...in fact, I am quite sure some people would be horrified at my suggestion even after thinking that it is a truism! This seems to be the cognitive dissonance - the principles of truth and fairness we take for granted being at odds with the case by case of this villain and that enemy being too vile to consider their stories (and hence, let's rain down fire and brimstone on their countrymen).-
Some very good points you raise. In fact I am working a lot on "active listening" at the moment...we learn from it....we understand the perceptions....we engage.....
Here is another country we should be hearing from www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/iran/
Like you, I'll probably be shot down in flames stateside for suggesting it.
-
-
Well, Linmei, another problem with people who select certain media that reflect their bias, is that these people see things that they want to.
As I wrote in another post, I once wrote an editorial about the 2004 U.S. presidential election and I had two women write to me about my editorial: One accused me of being for the president and the other one accused me of being for his rival.
Sometimes I believe that it isn't the fault of the media or the PR machine, but the public themselves. They'll see things they want to see and they don't care about the facts.
And don't worry Nomadic, I don't paint all the PR machine with the same brush. :-)I've known many who truly care about the public.
Now, what type of problems do you think the media and PR can over come? What type of conflicts do you think they should be resolving? There are many different problems and conflicts.
Sadly, the media and PR, for the most part, share a common goal: Money. We all need it for whatever reason. The New York Times has a strong liberal following. They're not going to shift the coverage of their features to heavily favor conservatives. The same is true with FOX News. Sure, the two media giants have interviewed both groups of the political spectrum, but how they select their stories also reflect the views of their readers/viewers. And thus, that is how the cash flows.
Once we nail down the certain conflicts and goals that both the media and the PR can solve, then that would be a big step. -
-
Gee thanks for your insight! -
I like to keep an open mind about these things. Kevin has obviously had a bad experience. You weren't in a tunnel in Paris about 12 years ago were you?
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
