One of the more objectionable characteristics of modern mass news media is the unacknowledged cant of every organ and organisation. The organisations themselves don't acknowledge it. Yet every media organisation has a "house ideology" of some sort or other. It is inevitable. It is necessary if a media organisation to be, well, organised.
Think for a moment about how TV reports are often structured. The host introduces a piece from "our reporter, John Doe, reporting from Eketahuna" John Doe comes on screen and dutifully tells us what has been happening. Then the host asks a follow up question, to which good old John just happens to have a ready answer. We all know that the questions asked by the host and the responses are all carefully scripted by the editors to get the "storyline" wanted by the editorial team.
But the "storyline" cannot help but reflect the bias and cant of that particular team. The story is being framed in subtle ways and some not so subtle. This is not a criticism so much as a statement of reality. It is always the case. The best way is for an organisation to be both self-aware of the institutional cant, and publicly acknowledge it. The acknowledgement should take the form of a standard disclosure of interest.
What is more amusing is when so-called media experts fall into the trap of not being self-aware or not being willing to admit their own biases.
We have had a brouhaha in recent days in New Zealand where a particular radio and TV host has been attacked by politicians as being too supportive of the government of the day. There are charges that the particular host (Mike Hosking) is "right wing".
Into the debate steps a media expert, Dr Sarah Baker who has written a PhD thesis on the evolution of the news media in New Zealand over the past forty years. Dr Baker portentously informs us that news media have changed over that time from "serious news" to "entertaining current affairs" programmes, by which she means "opinion pieces" or editorial comment on the issues of the day. She counsels that when such commentators as Mike Hosking is opining, the piece should carry a warning that his opinions are not necessarily those of the organisation he represents.
Baker - who completed her doctorate on TV current affairs shows - said there had been a stark deterioration in the way issues of balance and opinion were being treated by the media. If TVNZ did not aim to correct it, they should at least include a disclaimer for opinions expressed by Hosking, she said, spelling out that they were not the opinions of the state broadcaster. [NZ Herald]Mmmmm. "The opinions expressed by Mr Hosking do not necessarily reflect the views of Television New Zealand." OK. Fair enough. But this is not necessary, implies the academic, when we have "serious news", as opposed to "news infotainment". Apparently investigative journalism ("serious news") is free from bias and editorialising. This distinction is naive at best, purblind at worst. Rather, it is far more realistic to expect that "serious news" carries just as much bias, and just as many ideological pre-commitments in its back pocket. It is also more subtle and expert at cloaking them.
So, let's have the following disclaimer attached to all "serious news": "the framing of this programme and the ideological pre-commitments of the journalists do not necessarily reflect the views of XYZ Corporation". Ah, but that would be so distasteful to the journalists and the editors. For time immemorial they have told themselves that they are objective and professional. They go where the facts lead them. They are not influenced by ideology of any kind, etc. etc.
This is not just professional priggishness. It is more perverse than that. It is wilful self-deceit.
No comments:
Post a Comment