This are some of the thoughts Calum Walker had on this paper and his discussion with Lisa Wade. Calum has an interesting blog (on the history of emotions ) here is the link http://scotinexile.blogspot.co.uk//
I guess it makes sense for me to write from the perspective of a journalist who tries to cover issues like FGM on occasion, and agreeing entirely with Lisa’s assertions of what happens, I hope I can shine a little light on why such things happen.
I suspect many of the reporters might consider themselves socially progressive and keen to see their work as contributing to a debate on a subject that does not get much airtime and so therefore they see themselves as good journos for just raising the issue in the national or even regional media and might be quite shocked to see their work analysed in such terms.
Many would suggest that they did not see such contextualising (ie putting in the parallels with western examples of oppression/mutilation etc) as directly pertinent to the story, and in the brutal confines of limited space they may have a point. However, the concept of ‘what is the story?’ itself often requires challenging and that is something journalism prefers not to do, citing practical matters as ways of not having to address such things more profoundly. Journalism and the media can be quite unforgiving environments for making mistakes and this can lead to a conservatism in approaching the format or structure of what is considered news.
Sadly very few writers and editors or NGO activists will have read Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’ and understood how crucial it is to avoid exoticising the other and lazily relying upon NGO’s as the new ‘experts’ to guide them through such things which means they do not have to examine the foreign and see how it might relate to issues in their own society, because they consider themselves the neutral or good norm by which other cultures fall short.
Lisa herself said in an email to me: “Despite the differences between what the journalists said and what they quoted the activists saying, in other forums some of the (especially early Western) activists did very much take a "exemplarist" tone. So I think the journalists were mostly parroting the activists they were most exposed to. I suspect they were also trying to be sensationalistic and, in this case, what got eyeballs to read their story also felt beneficial to the cause. I did interview a couple, but this is mostly my sense of what was going on.”
Another level to that relationship in practice is the relationship of journalist to editor. Often a journo (often, though not always a freelancer who relies upon the editor for commissions) will write a piece and then have to edit/rewrite to better suit the needs of space and tone of the publication and sensibility of the editor, which can be fickle and not always considered. This then means the editor is keen to hype and sensationalise a story in order to make it ‘stronger’.
Editors would tend to describe in terms of making the narrative more powerful, simpler and clearer for the reader to understand but context is often the first thing to go in this quest for what they consider is a more clear story. Activists then see the finished piece and try to feed such styles as they see that as a way to raise awareness, which is an alternate currency in NGO circles as it often translates into cash when fundraising. It’s been quite interesting speaking to NGO activists over the last 15 years or so. It’s purely subjective on my part but it seems like there is less and less railing against how something is reported and a greater willingness to engage with the media on the media’s terms rather than by trying to improve the terms by which a debate or issue is reported.
But that then becomes a sensationalising loop which picks up bad habits so it comes as no surprise that lack of wider cultural context is quickly sacrificed if indeed it was there in the first place…
No comments:
Post a Comment