After readings on the nation-state, globalization and the role of the media we are now moving ahead to look at the connection between these different things. We are talking about networks and one thing that is important to remember is that the network society is not limited to media and the internet. It could be viewed as the connection between different nodes with a focus on the exchange (either information or something else). But this week we are actually looking at media and its symbolic power. I have chosen to comment on the Chouliarki article that highlights how the media representation can either bring people together because the distance to suffering are closer. We can not say that “we did not know” on the other hand broadcasting can be portray a fragmented picture of the world.
The article focus on three different ways of broadcasting news:
• Ordinary News
• Extra Ordinary News
• Emergency News
Chouliarki explains that ordinary news often has a minimal narrative of suffering, refuse to humanize the sufferers and there is interruption of emotions. This kind of news coverage does not evoke any emotions and the news segment usually just show a map as a symbol of the distant. Also the picture is often a panorama picture and the narrative does not invite the viewer, instead it delivers the message that the harm is already done and there is nothing you can do about it.
On the other hand we have got the Extraordinary News that is usually captured “here and now”, the camera is rolling combined with the human voice and it is not groundbreaking news but it is being portrayed as history. One example would be 9/11. I still get the chills every time I see the planes crashing into the world trade center and at the time when it happened I was about 15 years old. Some news articles had the headlines “we are all Americans” and that was actually what I felt at that time, maybe not that we are all Americans but that we are all humans, we are all the same.
Some examples of Emergency News would be the demonstrations by the Monks in Myamar in 2007 and also the Tsunami that hit Indonesia in 2004. These stories are cosmopolitan, they are highlighting the collective responsibility we have to react on it, and there is something we have to do. They are often citizen generated which makes us think that they are not bias and the stories are more personal and are not represented as a news story. We are no longer consumers of the news; all of a sudden we have become witnesses. Another factor that makes it seems more real is the transmedia aspect of it, we are not only watching the story on our TV but there is a cloud of images in other forums for example on blogs, facebook groups etc etc.
So what does this mean, could we say that Emergency news are moving in the direction of cosmopolitanism or is this just a way that media represent certain stories that has been selectively chosen because of the Western interests?
I would say that it is moving in both directions, consumers push for another from of representation and at the same time media are using symbols in a way that frame the story. I know that one of the reasons that the Swedish media had such a huge coverage of the Tsunami was because Thailand is a popular tourist destination for many Swedes. I have to say that if it would have happened today and even though no Swedes would have been there I think the coverage had been huge anyways because of the fact that many people can identify – Thailand is no longer just a dot on a map. I think it is important to recognize that media is only one tool within the process of globalization and we have to take into account all of the other sectors that also play a role internationally. I am sure that just as discussed in class the tremendous floods in Pakistan did not get the coverage that I think it should have because of the US and Pakistan relations and also because the demand for the news by the consumers were not that big.
I would like to say that since the network society play an important role internationally I have hope for the future that we will be able to cover more stories worldwide and also come together for the global good because of the fact that we are all human beings no matter where we are located.
"We can not say that 'we did not know' on the other hand broadcasting can be portray a fragmented picture of the world."
ReplyDeleteThis point really stuck with me. I've heard a lot of people in my travels, referencing Americans in particular, expressing both shock at being uneducated about world events/history, but also a sense of "Well, what else can you expect." This isn't an exclusively American issue, obviously, but I think to an extent educational systems as well as media are responsible. But that's neither here nor there, just a bit of a tangential thought.
What I don't think the media has done is live up to its responsibility to be fully informative, not selectively. Obviously not EVERY story in the world can be covered equally, let alone at all, but the selectivity for extraordinary and emergency news clearly omits other events that are important to KNOW about, even if individual action isn't an option.
"the demand for the news by the consumers were not that big"
I think this is another problem with media having become so corporatized - what news is produced has become simply another exercise in supply and demand, and not producing what's necessary, only what information for which there is immediate demand. Unfortunately, like many tangible goods, what news is being produced is not always necessary for the consumer - and there is a lack of other goods (or information) that could be of service.