Response to Reading for Jan 26th

Overview of Reading: Digital Media and Democracy

Chapter 6: Media and Democracy

This chapter opened with a discussion of the Bush administration’s co-opting of the work “democracy” as a tool to describe his actions while making it difficult for critics to appear to be, in any way, patriotic. The loaded meaning given to “democracy”, “family” and “terror” (or “terrorist”) became a consistent part of the White House’s policy statements; these words became an important part media statements, because they could imply a lot of meaning into the short sound bites reported by the media.

The chapter went on to discuss the problems of the mainstream professional media, describing problems with the media business (both regarding profit motive and the 24/7 media timeframe), the difficulties presented by new technologies and the changing audience expectations. The chapter concludes with a compelling description of the Asian Tsunami as a widely covered (and easy-to-report) story that did not challenge media goals and expectations. My overall feeling after reading this chapter was primarily a negative one toward current mass media.

Chapter 7: Democracy on the Airwaves

This is an interview with Amy Goodman, the host and producer of Democracy Now!, as well as author of many books on reporting issues. She spends much of the interview talking about fairness of reporting and public empowerment. I was encouraged by seeing the following: “You don’t have to agree with someone to let them speak” – something that is often forgotten in the highly politicized media of today. Some of the technology discussed is somewhat out of date, but her descriptions of local public-driven media outlets were heartening.

Chapter 8: Alternative Media Theory and Journalism Practice

In this chapter, Chris Atton covers some of the changing theories of alternative news media as related to production participation. His critique of the GUMG and Herman/Chomsky views of media seems appropriate in the light of current trends; he points out that the production of media by smaller (or local) groups is easily ghettoized by researchers that view widespread distribution as a prerequisite for serious study. He makes many good points that the alternative media outlets provide a new media mechanism that improves diversity and discourse in reporting.

Chapter 9: Community Radio, Access and Media Justice

This is an interview with Deepa Fernandes, most widely known as the host of Wakeup Call on WBAI (part of the Pacifica Network). Some of the interview was focused on her history and the particulars of creating a show on the Pacifica network. She also has a bit to say about media availability (especially the Internet availability in low-income areas) and local activism. But, in this reading, the thing that popped out most for me was the blurring of journalism and activism (which I discuss below).

Specific Areas of Note

The Business of Media

The very first “Problem” that is listed is titled “The Business of Media is Profit Not News in the Service of Democracy”. This is an often-stated theme, and something we’ve already seen several times in the discussion of “Old School” media. While I respect the difficulties presented by for-profit news media, I think that this underplays one point: while the managers of media businesses are focused on profitability, I’ve met few journalists that are profit-centered. The business issues may be reflected in a reduced number of foreign desks, limits in the scope of coverage and difficulties with unpleasant stories, but we still often see reporting that could only exist because of the vigor and dedication of professional journalists.

To my mind, a good example of the dual issues can be seen in today’s headlines. In most American news streams, there is little world news outside the Haitian earthquake. This, like the Asian tsunami, has little in the way of moral issues, and a built-in feel-good story in the coverage of relief efforts (via money collected).

Slid very deeply in the world news is a short article about a sole lawyer trying to get attention for a Hong Kong dissident, Zhou Yongjun, who was inappropriately turned over to Chinese authorities. This story is a complex web of events, including alleged bank fraud, a student protester stripped of his nationality and the separation of Hong Kong rule from mainland Chinese rule. The reporting journalist, Edward Wong, did a good job of wedging in many of the details into a painfully short article, and helped raise (some little) awareness about the sad state of dissidence in the Chinese sphere.

Dealing with the Problem of Sources

The issues of Sources, described in Chapter 6, resonates strongly with me, and represents problems I have with both mainstream and public-driven journalism. As stated in the book, most bloggers literally site no sources – meaning that the statements made could just as easily be a cute quote made for effect by the blogger as a statement heard on the TV. In any case, there seems to be little requirement for backing up blog and public forum statements with journalistic source standards – it’s just not part of the plan.

The discussion of the “expert” source as used by mainstream media is equally troubling. I probably never worried about this in the past, since I always assumed there was a trusted editor making sure the sources were appropriate (ala All The President’s Men); it would seem that current conditions have led to a breakdown in that (especially based on the various bogus articles published by respected media sources over the years).

Embracing the public as reporters

Atton, in Chapter 8, does an excellent job of discussing the new importance of small, alternative media mechanisms. The specifics that he discusses (Wiki-based media and especially Indymedia) helps me understand a useful space between “Big Business” media and crotchety individual bloggers. The fact that independent, alternative media systems are replacing major news outlets (especially for local coverage of political issues) points to the importance of these systems within the gamut of news sources.

Journalism vs. Activism

I found the enthusiasm of Deepa Fernandes to be exciting and fun, but I also found some of her statements a little disconcerting. Maybe I fall under too many illusions about journalistic standards, but when she states that she refused to get the Mexican military’s and government’s view of the Chiapas massacre, it seemed to jump from having a journalist’s stance to having an activists stance. While I won’t (actually, couldn’t) support the Mexican military in its actions, it does seem like having the government’s statements on the subject could have been useful for a complete story – even if it ended up being used to display the delusional views of the government.

I would like to discuss this, in particular, in class.

Link(s) and discussion

NY Times link for dissident story
Indymedia link
NY Times link following up on the Chiapas massacre