🚀 go-pugleaf

/* Written  6:24 PM  Dec 12, 1994 by twn in igc:twn.features */
/* ---------- "Global media & its logis" ---------- */
From: Third World Network <twn>

THE GLOBAL MEDIA: CAUGHT IN A WHIRLPOOL OF BAD LOGIC

Parachute-journalism,  which  flies  in journalists  as  soon  as
stories  break, ends up with two victims: accuracy  and  context.
Across the globe, the news media are notorious for  pigeon-holing
and  reinforcing  stereotypes of race, class  and  gender.  Media
ownership  is becoming more and more concentrated.  Being  highly
competitive also affects the way the media work. Offbeat  stories
stand little chance of being picked up. Coverage of international
news -- especially of the Third World -- has dwindled.  Political
and  corporate links mean less autonomy for journalists and  edi
tors. Business interests either openly or covertly set the agenda
of what should be reported and how.

By N John
Third World Network Features

When was the last time you read a positive story about the  Third
World?  How  often does a story that has been ignored  for  years
suddenly get picked up  by several media at once, which then fall
over themselves trying to find `new angles'?

There is something deeply amiss with the media worldwide, and the
slip is clearly showing.

This  is what comes out from an interesting,  recently  published
issue  of the London-based magazine New  Internationalist,  which
devotes an entire issue to the subject of how the media function;
and why they do so in this way.

The New Internationalist monthly itself seeks to report on issues
of  world inequality and poverty, and focus attention  on  unjust
relationships between the powerful and the powerless in both rich
and poor nations.

Modern  technology has made `live' coverage almost essential  for
radio  and  television  networks, with journalists  flown  in  to
report stories as they break. Accuracy is the first victim. There
is no time to check facts.

Context is the second; journalists don't understand what is going
on behind the action.

`Do  you  need to have the news as it's breaking?  What  are  you
going  to do with it? How often are you left with a feeling  that
you don't understand what is going on? How often has a story been
left  hanging because it's not seen as "news" anymore?' asks  the
magazine.

Globally,  the news media are notorious for pigeon-holing  groups
and  individuals, and reinforcing stereotypes of race, class  and
gender.  This  is why it could be ages before the reader  of  any
major  international newspaper reads a positive story  about  the
Third  World.  Nor is there much likelihood of coming  across  an
expose of the middle-class or of corporate violence.


Media ownership is becoming more and more concentrated. Independ
ent  outlets  are  being swallowed  up  by  larger  corporations.
Advertising  determines the viability of most of  the  commercial
media,  and it influences editorial policy in ways that  are  not
always obvious.

Being  highly  competitive also affects the way the  media  work.
Typically, a reporter's worst fear is of missing a story that the
opposition got.

`Rather  than watchdogs, most journalists are running  dogs,  all
going after the same stories. Offbeat stories stand little chance
of  being picked up -- except by unusual or exceptional  journal
ists,' the magazine comments sardonically.

Most on-the-ground foreign news stories are filed from the  capi
tal cities of nation states. But what happens when news is  being
made  by  people  to whom those states  and  their  artificially-
created boundaries mean little or nothing?

This  is the case of millions of indigenous or  colonised  people
whose  civilisations may stretch over a number of boundaries  and
who may speak languages that have nothing to do with the national
language.  When  these people are making news  the  nation-state-
obsessed media often cannot see it happening, or else do not know
where to slot or how to angle these people's stories.

The result: they don't get told at all.

Protecting  the  business interests of the powerful is  the  most
pervasive  form  of  press censorship in  today's  post-Cold  War
world, adds the New Internationalist.

Governments,  their  friends and large corporations  can  have  a
powerful  influence in determining which stories get told.  Large
corporations  can withdraw advertising or, increasingly,  buy  up
media outlets.

For media who dare to criticise corporate giants, there is always
the  fear  of  libel action. Big business has  the  resources  to
invest  in  a  posse of wily libel lawyers;  the  smaller  media,
action groups and individual whistle-blowers do not.

Journalists  or civil servants who expose dubious  links  between
government  and  business  may find  themselves  facing  criminal
proceedings  for disclosing information deemed to be  harmful  to
`national security' -- especially when the government in question
gets mixed up in arms deals.

Changing  technology  has  also brought in change  in  the  media
world. But is it change for the better?
Desktop publishing and video technology enable more people to set
up their own small production companies. Third World video making
is  a growth area and small groups can more easily produce  maga
zines and newsletters.

But in 1945 more than 80% of the US media outlets were  independ
ent. Today just 23 corporations own more than 80% of the US media
outlets. And withdrawal of advertising by multinational  corpora
tions can break a publication, regardless of circulation.

Both  the  size and outreach of the world's media  have  kept  on
increasing  all the time. Yet coverage of international  news  --
especially  the rich world's coverage of the Third World  --  has
dwindled. Thirty years ago the major Western media had  reporters
based in most African countries. Today, of the American TV compa
nies,  only  CNN  has a bureau in any of  the  African  countries
between the Sahara and South Africa.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union there is more press freedom
in  former Eastern Bloc countries and the former communist  coun
tries  of the South. But political and corporate links mean  less
autonomy  for journalists and editors. Business interests  either
openly or covertly set the agenda of what should be reported  and
how.

With electronic, fibre optic and other developments in communica
tion technology, international networking is made easy and  imme
diate. In theory, the villager in India can have the same  access
to  information (such as fluctuations in the international  price
of  cotton) as the New York stock-market dealer. But  there  have
been  many  technological  revolutions which  promised  to  bring
education  to Third World villagers; even  with  well-established
technologies like radio and TV vast inequalities of access  still
remain.

In  the rich First World, there are 1,023 radios and 492 TV  sets
per  thousand of population, compared with 175 radios and 59  TVs
per thousand in the Third World. The US has 814 TVs per  thousand
of the population compared with just 0.8 in Burundi.

Concludes  the  New  Internationalist:  `Recent  GATT  free-trade
agreements  allow companies like Murdoch's Sky satellite  network
to  swamp the Asian and Indian markets in spite of  the  prolific
efforts of local producers.'  -- Third World Network Features

                            - ends -

About  the  writer: N John is a contributor to  the  Third  World
Network Features.

When reproducing this article, please credit Third World  Network
Features  and (if applicable) the cooperating magazine or  agency
involved  in  the article, and give the byline.  Please  send  us
cuttings.


Published by Third World Network 228, Macalister Road, 10400
Penang,     Malaysia.    Email:    twn@igc.apc.org;     Tel:
(+604)2293511; Fax: (+604)364505.