Post 9-11 Journalism

After reading what Brent Cunningham and Bob Stevenson wrote about how the media responded to the attacks on September 11, 2001, I realized how little I know on the subject. We've discussed this event endlessly in and outside of class for years since that very day when I was a freshman in high school. When we talked about it in Issues and the News, I wasn't exactly sure where I stood when it came to how the media covered the event.

It's a hard thing to judge, especially since I was only just starting high school at the time. Stevenson acknowledges the tremendousness of the event. This was an unprecedented event. You can't knock journalists for how they reacted too much, because this was something completely new and unfamiliar. I can't believe the executive editor of the NY Times had only been working that position for six days when the attacks rocked the city. These reporters did amazing things covering these events. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to do something like that. Stevenson brings up the personality profiles the Times did; how they really tried to show who these people were who lost their lives.

This side of the story sounds just too outrageous to criticize or analyze the media. When the news is, as Stevenson put it, "recent occurrences of familiar events," it's easy to make judgments and analyze the quality of journalism and coverage. This is familiar territory. The other side of the story that I've been thinking about is more related to what Cunningham's article was talking about.

Cunningham discusses the power of language. By calling the attacks "acts of war" versus "criminal acts," you are building an idea or forming an assumption. This is the part I realized I don't know enough about. A few years after the attacks I read a book about how the media was being used as a tool to promote the war in Iraq. I thought this was horrible, but I also realized who ever wrote the book was illustrating an opinion as well. Propaganda is everywhere. I've never really figured out what happened after the attacks. I never quite understood why we went to war. I remember it all happening so fast at the time. And I remember not understanding what was happening. It wasn't until my friend came home dead from Iraq when I really began to question it.

So, what I'd like to know, is what was happening in the world of journalism? Weren't people asking these questions? I know many people in the media were fired from the mainstream for bad-mouthing and questioning the war, but what was actually happening during that first year following the attacks. Once journalists were done covering the grief and the drama and allowing public officials answer the questions, did anyone stop and realize something was going on?

Maybe I should know the answer to this question by now, but I really don't. I know how strong language is, and I realize words helped promote the war; but with so many voices, there had to be someone analyzing things more deeply. Sometimes I wish I had been a little older when it happened. But then again, I'm probably lucky I was just a thoughtless freshman in high school. It's probably better that way.

Vladimir Pozner Interview on Frontline

There were a few points Pozner made in his PBS Frontline interview that I really liked. First of all, he pointed out the obvious fact that network television is a tool used by the government to promote what the government wants. Jeff Cohen, in Issues in the News class, mentioned Phil Donahue too. The United States really can't knock Putin for controlling network TV if Fox fired people who didn't agree with the Iraq War. Of course, from what it sounds like, Russians don't seem to care about other sides. They don't care about free press because they've never had it.

What I'd like to know is how much access to other sources of information do Russians actually have. Americans don't have to listen to Fox solely for information. We have billions of voices on the internet and other forms of media with different views. It sounds like whoever controls TV has the power; especially after hearing about the people who squashed the potential return of the Communist Party. That amazed me. But is this control because of media and press limitations in Russia, or is it only because the people don't try to find other answers? If they are happy with Putin, maybe they are not searching for someone saying he's wrong.

In a way, this isn't a terrible thing. In America, especially as a Journalism student, there's a lot of pressure to question, analyze, and always seek as many sides to one story as possible. We are supposed to be skeptical. I know that being educated grants us this freedom--the ability to be skeptical and try to make a difference--but just living happily might be okay too. I wouldn't mind a world where I wasn't required to read every page of the newspaper every single day and worry about what is going on in every corner of the planet. I won't take for granted that I have the ability to do so, but life was probably a lot simpler fifty years ago when the gatekeepers were less than ten.

Another thing I thought was interesting was when Pozner said, "I am not cynical, but I tend to have serious doubts that, deep down inside, they care about democracy in Russia; [they care] only in that they think a democratic country is easier to deal with than one that is not democratic."

I couldn't agree more. I've always wondered why the United States tries so hard to make everyone mimic their ways and their government. Clearly, we can't be these purely altruistic country who wants everyone to be as "happy" and "luxurious" as we are. We always have a motive. We are not perfect.

"The Rhetoric Beat. Why journalism needs one"

Brent Cunningham reminded me of something I've heard before; something I don't know if I would've ever thought about until professors or others pointed out to me. After listening to the horror stories Jeff Cohen told about working in the mainstream media at the beginning of the War in Iraq, I'd believe anything I heard about the government's link to the media. I've read books outlining ways the media are used to manipulate, rally, and gain support. Cunningham brings up one of the most subtle form of this deception--which goes way more undetected than canceling the Phil Donahue Show. This is the power of words; the power of language. The smallest word--like that three-letter word beginning with a "w"--can make all the difference. Language in the mainstream media has the power to create ideas.

With events at such an astronomical scale, like the 9-11 attacks, it's hard to be the person to fight against the tide of how what is happening is meant to be perceived. As Cunningham points out, it probably wouldn't have been possible to question why these attacks were called "acts of war" versus "criminal acts" or "mass murder."

But I think there's a good side to all this. There is hope. Just as democracy, during its inception, brought hope to nations controlled by corrupt and oppressive leaders, something new is on the rise. This is the independent media practitioners. There are people out there now filling in the gaps the mainstream is missing (whether it's deliberate or not). Someone out there is watchdogging the media as the media watchdogs the government. With the amount of analysts voicing opinions these days, the power of language used by the media might not be as effective. The device can be used by anyone. What we need is someone to keep an eye out for misunderstanding created deliberately to promote skewed images. I'd say in the competitive world of journalism growing today, it'll be much harder for corporate media to gain so much control over people's thoughts.

Tabloidization of the News

I'll be honest. I'm sick of hearing people complain about sensational, celebrity, and entertainment news. Let's be real here. Not everyone really cares about Paris Hilton. But some people do. The New York Times doesn't need to spend columns talking about her, but someone out there has every right to. I read Runner's World, but this isn't something everyone needs. It educates me, but not everybody really wants to or needs to know how to train for a half marathon. That's why we have so many forms of media. That's the best thing about the rise of independent media. As long as every individual media outlet recognizes its role and knows how to cater to the audience, the lines won't be so blurry.

It's hard to balance the business and public service sides of journalism. There are plenty voices out there to provide information and analyze current events, so it's hard to accuse anyone of covering something that shouldn't be covered. Of course, celebrity news belongs in the media outlets it was designed for.

Independent Media Setting us back On Course

After reading "Off Course" by Michael Massing and "Facts, Fallacies, and Fears of Tabloidization" by Linn Washington and listening to both Josh Marshall and Jeff Cohen talk about independent media, I've come to a conclusion. All the talk about the mainstream media being too sensational, basing their story content on business models or large corporate agendas, or working towards making a profit versus serving democracy is becoming a bit tiresome. Everyone has an agenda, a purpose, and an opinion. This is unavoidable. The world is not perfect. I think the best answer to these complaints is the rise of more independent journalists.

People spend so much time criticizing what is being covered in the news (which is fine because there's nothing wrong with criticism). But the more voices and opinions joining the conversation, the more news is being covered. It allows for people to see the many sides to one story. We are not limited to mainstream media, so it's not so horrible if they are not covering exactly what they should be covering.

Of course, even independent media groups, such as Josh Marshall's team of ten, are out there to make money. That's how you survive in this world. As long as we realize everyone has a reason for saying what he or she is saying, we can gain the information and examine a story from multiple angles unlike ever before. So, all this worry about tabloidization or worry about Britney Spears coverage dominating the news isn't something to be too concerned about. It's a new age; an age with an unlimited amount of sources of information and perceptions of an issue.

Re-thinking Objectivity

The ideal of objective journalism began in the 19th century. It's been questioned, it's been defied, and it's been pushed to it's limits. Yet, it persists. Brent Cunningham points out, in "Re-thinking Objectivity," that nothing better has come along to replace it. It's a good thing to strive for. Avoiding opinion in news, especially hard news, has it's advantages.

Of course, as Cunningham argues, the desire to be objective can sometimes affect the quality of investigative journalism. Tonight Josh Marshall spoke about the solution to this problem. If mainstream media is afraid to bring up issues or doesn't have the time to dig for more, there are other voices out there filling in the gaps. Independent media has less restriction, though there has to be rules to gain credibility and trust from a readership, so it can take the time and the chance to reach a little further.

Objectivity and subjectivity are both important parts of delivering and analyzing the news, but it's important to know whether your news source is meant to be factual or editorialized. Nobody is perfect and no single media outlet or individual journalist can report everything perfectly, so it's good we have a million of voices in one vibrant conversation.

Globalization: Good or Evil?

I've always had mixed feelings about globalization. There are plenty of reasons why it's good for the world and plenty of reasons why it's bad. If I was asked to write a persuasive argument either for or against globalization, I wouldn't have a problem coming up with evidence to support each case. But when I think about globalization subjectively, or when I look at it for what it is from my perspective rather than others; I don't feel too badly about it.

If I hadn't been overseas before and I hadn't met people from around the world, I might even think globalization is merely the United States and other dominant countries forcing their form of government, culture, and economy on the less developed nations. In some ways, this is the case. But I see it differently.

When you meet people from different cultures, the two best things to talk about are the things you have in common and the things you don't have in common. No matter how "standardized" or connected we become, every country or group of people within a country will have differences. Liking similar movies, TV shows, activities and music give you common ground with the rest of the world. It shows we really are not that much different. We are all human and find the same things funny, scary or entertaining. There's nothing wrong with that. We still have differences that make us unique.

Less developed countries might not be joining the race; there's nothing wrong with that. Others are eager to jump on the band wagon. There's nothing wrong with that either.

The Evolution of the News

Listening to endless conversation about the doom print news is facing is really starting to depress me. I have no intention of working for a newspaper. I actually hate reading the newspaper. It's too big and obnoxious to read. I would prefer a smaller version of print to get my news. Going online to get my news is almost as annoying. Who wants to stare at a computer for longer than necessary?

Basically, the news industry in general is really just bugging me. The video we watched in Issues in the News class didn't make it any better. There are so many why to figure out what is going on, people should be able to figure it out despite uneven coverage. I hate hearing the clashing debates where some are talking about how media is a business and others referring it to a courageous and honorable service to the public of a democracy.

What rose my spirits during the video was the talk about independent journalism. I wrote down every single online independent journalism site, so I can check them out. I would rather get news from something like that. People are not always reliable. You don't have to trust them though; you can just listen to what they have to say. It's nice to know there are people out there reporting without a hidden agenda.

Development Journalism

As Thomas McPhail outlines clearly in Global Communication: Theories, Stakeholders, and Trends, the world has experienced four eras of colonialism; they are military, Christian, mercantile, and electronic colonialism. The powerful use the means of the time to gain and spread their influence and domination to weaker human societies and civilizations. When British Empire spread across the globe, they didn’t stop and think about what they were doing to indigenous people as they conquered and overtook foreign lands, such as Australia or the Americas. As in many of these lands during this era of colonialism, Aboriginal Australians were forced inland to more remote parts of the large island. Their development as a group was disrupted; their lifestyles changed. They had to adjust to a new world brought on by a more powerful sect of the human race.

Today is the age of electronic colonialism. No longer is military force or industrialization being used to control the world. Core nations, which are more dominant and powerful, have the ability to disrupt the lives of weaker and less influential nations through mind control. With the imbalanced flow of media and information, the West has the ability to dominate how people in other countries think, what they value, and why something they are doing is wrong.

Development journalism is an attempt to counteract electronic colonialism. There are many ways to look at this. Many believe trying to control what the media is saying about peripheral countries is a violation of journalistic rights and traditions. The purpose of journalism is to keep governments in line and to report on what is happening in the world.

When Dominant countries overtook the lands of indigenous people, nobody stopped them and said, “Hey these people have yet to grow scientifically and technologically. We shouldn’t try to disrupt their growth.” Over the course of history, the powerful will overtake the weaker. It’s just how it goes. Western media has this ability to influence the minds of people in peripheral countries, forcing them to question their governments and causing fragile nations to crumble or fight internally. It just seems like human nature to continue to flourish personally at the expense of others. Or, in this case, to point out to someone who is inferior exactly why her or she sucks. We can always apologize years later for the damage we did (Look at Australia: they just enacted “Sorry Day,” a public holiday that openly apologizes to Aborigines for past abuse and injustices).

Another way to look at it is a sports game. When playing against a much weaker opponent, it doesn’t help anyone if the stronger throttle the weaker. The developing team will never learn how to improve if they are just constantly getting hammered. The better team may be doing its job by playing hard and winning, but it just doesn’t seem right to destroy the other team.

Development journalism as a theory or a plan probably won’t work. After all, there is so much information flying around the world these days, nobody can hide. Everyone is talking about everyone and there’s very little stopping it. I think it comes down to the journalist or media organization. This isn’t something that can be internationally regulated. I would have a hard time publishing stories about a developing country’s never ending problems without being extremely thorough. McPhail refers to some international journalism as “parachute journalism.” This means the reporter spends little time in a foreign land. They collect the drastic, disastrous, or corrupt information or event and relay back to the rest of the world. If a journalist is going to analyze and report on happenings in LDC’s, they have to be sure to do a thorough and mindful job.

It is something to think about. It’s nearly impossible to balance the flow of information, but, as journalists with human brains in our skulls, we have to be mindful of what we are doing. We are infiltrating vulnerable and uneducated minds. It’s a claustrophobic world. Just because something is our job, doesn’t mean we can’t take a moment to consider the consequences. It might be against human nature, but who said we weren’t allowed to defy human nature?

The Rise of the Rest

In an excerpt from Fareed Zakaria's book, The Post-American World, he claims Americans have more chance of drowning in their bathtub than being attacked by a terrorist. This is just one of my many interesting points he talks about.

I've been reading a bit of Zakaria lately. I really like his optimistic perspective. Even his recent article commenting on Russia's invasion of Georgia was enlightening in some ways. He sheds light on parts of issues I, and I'm sure others, don't always see. After reading "The Clash of Civilizations" or the "Coming Anarchy," it's nice to hear positive theories about the world's future.

It's nice to hear someone point out that the world isn't as horrible and violent as it appears. According to the excerpt, there is far less violence today than usual. The amazing availability of information just lets us know what is going on on an hourly basis. He even reminds us our fear of Iran is nothing compared to the threat Germany had 70 years ago.

"If this is 1938, as some neoconservatives tell us, then Iran is Romania, not Germany."

Maybe violence will continue to decrease. It's hard to say, especially with realities Kaplan and Huntington talk about looming over the globe. With better means of communication, disputes might be more easily settled. Of course, I might be too idealistic. Zakaria is really going to my head. Well, for another few paragraphs, I'm going to let him hang out up there.

One of the coolest things he talked about was the third major power shift: the rise of the rest. It's great to hear other countries are growing. No longer are we the top of the heap in every category. This is excellent news for the history of the world. Things can never be even in this world. But the more balanced, there might be less confrontation and conflict.

When I went to Australia last year, where I lived for six months, I wrote a paper about "Americanisation" (they don't use "z" as often as us in their version of English). It was a big discussion in an Australian sociology class. Apparently, this is a big concern around the world. We dominate the entertainment industry. Everyone loves our TV shows, movies, and music. I didn't think there was anything wrong with this. After all, when something is quality, you can't not like just because it's from America. I loved "Summer Heights High," an Australian TV show, just as much as they loved watching "The Biggest Loser."

But it did bother me when they complained about American dominance. This is a problem. America shouldn't be the only voice anyone can hear across the globe. It makes it sound like the only reason everyone loves our stuff is because it's the only stuff anyone knows. This could be the case in many circumstances.

According to Zakaria, we are still dominating in the entertainment industry. With his talk about the third power shift, i feel less bothered by American or Western cultural dominance. As countries grow, I believe their voices will be heard. At least I know I'll listen.

What is the future of the world?

As of 1997 when Zakaria published "The Rise Illiberal Democracy," more than half of the world's nations had some form of democracy. According to Fukuyama, we'd long since reached the final form of ideology. Now the only problems facing the human race were clashes between civilizations or even the coming of anarchy as Huntington and Kaplan both wrote about during the '90s.

But as Zakaria points out, democracy isn't used universally. Free elections and the protection of our inalienable rights isn't exactly what democracy means to everyone. He claims democracy might mean having elections or granting the people some say in how the country is run, but constitutional liberalism is what protects the people by giving them basic human rights.

Many democracies don't honor their citizens with these rights; these are what Zakaria considers illiberal democracies. As he says constitutional liberalism "is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source--state, church, or society."

Everyone has their own version of democracy. Some countries, such as China, have economic liberalism but don't have a democracy. Sweden has a democracy but restricts its citizens' individual property rights. This is expected. As Zakaria says, "cultures vary, and different societies will require different frameworks of government."

But Zakaria also points out that illiberal democracies, which make up about half of the democracies around the world, are dangerous:

"Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war."

Maybe it's dangerous because of how different each form of democracy is. Differences in civilizations may be able to account for the differences in democracies. Huntington's theory, the "Clash of Civilizations," may help explain this. The United States likes to spread its liberal seed, but it's hard to create the exact form of government in every nation in the world. There is no ideal democracy because every society requires something different. Civilizations unable to understand one another's differences may be the exact reason why they will continue to clash and cause war.

After reading Fukuyama, Huntington, Kaplan and Zakaria, I fear what the future brings. Kaplan is probably the one who struck me the most. Yes, civilizations will continue to clash, especially with differences in government and culture, but Kaplan's "Coming of Anarchy" might be shining light on the true problems of the future. His view was extremely pessimistic, but he was right about the environment, the diminishing of resources and the inevitable problems this will someday bring. The increasing population ensures this future will always be a possibility.

I really can't predict what will happen to the world as natural resources begin to run out. When you live with as much luxuries as middle class America lives with, you can't imagine a world where survival is the first concern. My main concern is making enough money at my part time job to pay rent and the gas and electric bill. I have no idea what it's like to live in a Third World country.

More wars will probably litter the future of the world. Civilizations will consider to clash as everyone creates their own personal style of democracy and as cultures continue to cross one another. These tensions will never disappear. And if these tensions never disappear, they will only worsen when the Earth begins run out of supplies. I suppose we can only hope science and technology grows faster than the world's resources run out.

The Power of the News

"Newspapers and television news, even the tightly edited pages of a tabloid paper or internet web site do considerably more than signal the existence of major events and issues."

That comes from McCombs's article on media's agenda setting role.

Of course they do more. They tell us how to think about these prominent news issues. The media is not only responsible for telling us what to pay attention to; it analyzes these issues and even helps the public form an understanding and even an opinion on a particular topic in the news.

"Throughout their day by day selection and display of the news, editors and news directors focus our attention and influence, our perceptions of what are the most important issues of the day. This ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda has come to be called the agenda setting role of the news media."

It's frightening and realistic all at the same time. The reality of the amount of power the media has over what and how we think is incredible, but it's also how democracy works. The purpose of the media are to keep the public informed. They are the gatekeepers. With a world as vast as ours, gatekeepers and information providers are necessary.

The theory of agenda setting may seem scary at first, but it makes sense. What else can we do? We are not capable of investigating every part of this world ourselves.

The Agenda-setting role of the mass media

Maxwell McCombs talks about the relationship between what the media's agenda is, or what the media covers, and where public attention lies. The studies and the evidence he provides to show the strong correlation between these two things are extensive and stretch across the globe. But like I wasn't so surprised to find that the public agenda strongly reflects what the media is covering, how much the media is covering each topic, and what attributes and images of each story is being discussed or shown.

That is the job description of the mass media. The purpose of journalism is to keep people informed on what is going on and what is relatively more or less important. Unless the every individual in the general public has the time and the resources to find out exactly what is going on throughout the world, one has no choice but to rely on the media. Of course, skeptics and people who wish to dig deeper, seek more than one news source may be able to gain a stronger grasp on a particular story, but this doesn't mean the public, in general, is limited to what the media provides.

I'd like to know who started this cycle between media and public agenda. If journalists look to polls to see what the public cares about and if the public turns to journalists to figure out what to care about, it's hard to say if everyone is giving and receiving the most essential news. Journalists are people too, so they should be able to determine what people want or need. But they also have the power to steer their audience's interest in a particular direction.

From other things I've read, it seems like the general public hasn't been receiving the correct portions of relevant news stories. While most of the media are covering the War or the Presidential Campaign, people want to know about health insurance and gas prices. This means the media doesn't have complete control. People still have somewhat of an individual opinion as to what they want to know about. Images of the War and of the candidates may be strictly created by the media, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing the public is going to care about.

One important part of this article mentions a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the news is highlighting the health of the economy, the people may act according to what the news says is true. This can in turn validate what the media said was the health of the economy. What they said becomes more of a reality. I found this an interesting twist to the cycle.

No matter where the cycle begins and how many twists and turns there is along the way, you really can't argue with McCombs when he claims how closely related these two agendas are. After all, even without the evidence, it just makes sense that way.

The Clash of Civilizations

A few years after Fukuyama published "The End of History?" Samuel Huntington shared his own theory on the future or even the end of mankind. Now that the battle over ideologies has reached its limitations, according to people like Fukuyama, Huntington believes the latest clash will be between civilizations.

Some people may consider Huntington a fortune teller for predicting major culture and civilization clashes like 9-11 or the War in Iraq. Or he could've just been stating the obvious. People haven't been getting along since the beginning of people. As long as there is something to fight about, people will fight. If it's not about what type of government can lead a country best, it'll be something else.

I guess that means I didn't find Huntington as enlightening as Fukuyama. I agree with him though. From the way things are going these days, it doesn't look like everyone will all get along anytime soon.

What I want to read now is an explanation. Why are people like this? Why are people so afraid of variety? When we talked about what the United States with do if a new ideology emerged that threatened to overtake liberal democracy, it sounded like we would have to do something to stop it. It just doesn't make sense. Just as people shouldn't complain about "Americanization" around the world, they shouldn't complain if others don't like to live the same way. If someone in Bangladesh wants to watch Gilmore Girls, so be it. If Jews want to fast, let them fast. I know my examples are a bit extreme and I'm being a bit idealistic, but I'll just never understand how we let common human conflict erupt into something as catastrophic as war.

I'm not sure what that tangent means. I agree with Huntington and I find most of what he says understandable--despite his shady definitions--but I just hate that he's right I guess. But I'll just pull my head out of the clouds and get back to the present; a present with real clashes between people among the world.

A Year in the News

The Project for Excellence in Journalism published "A Year in the News" to summarize what the media was up to in 2007. I found it quite shocking. I wasn't too surprised to find most of the attention was given to either the War or to the Presedential Campaign. Even when I was living in Australia last semester, those were the two topics I heard and read the most about. The article seemed to basically keep pointing out how narrowed news coverage has become despite the growing number of media outlets. It's amazing.

While I was reading the statistics that clearly stated coverage on Iraq, Obama, Clinton, Iran and Pakistan, I kept wondering why this was happening. Education, the economy, health and medicince, transportation, and other stories that affect people's daily lives only had a small percentage of American media's coverage. I always figured news was driven by what the people wanted to know versus what they needed to know. According to the article, this is not happening. If journalists working in supposedly dying media like newspapers, you would think they would want to boost their sales and give the people what they want. People do want to know about gas prices. This affects them every single day.

I guess none of this was making sense to me until I went to class today. Apparently, the resources are tapping out. There are not enough journalists and reporters to cover stories in depth or cover these ongoing stories. This is sad. Something needs to be fixed. More people are turning to the internet to gather their news, which doesn't seem to be profitable to do important news coverage justice. Hopefully, someone will think of a solution soon enough. The world is changing and journalism has to change with it. It takes some good innovative ideas to bring on change like this. I'll do some brainstorming and get back to you on that one.