U.S. media hails Sept. 11 as turning point<\/p>\n
Ati Nurbaiti
\nStaff Writer
\nThe Jakarta Post
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
It is eerie that journalists in the U.S. are referring to --
\nalmost hailing -- the Sept. 11 tragedy as a turning point toward
\nbetter and \"serious\" journalism. Embarrassed by coverage of the
\nClinton sex scandal and so much trivia in the press, journalists
\nand media observers say now the public is turning its attention
\nto coverage of public affairs, foreign news and also to
\nnewspapers.<\/p>\n
Skepticism is raised as to how long this will last -- given
\nthe seemingly entrenched culture of \"infotainment\", the belief
\nthat news must be \"dumbed down\" to maintain people's attention
\nspan, and hence, the major emphasis on maintaining advertiser
\nloyalty and profit.<\/p>\n
Nowadays, \"people are reading more,\" says Virginia Hamill of
\nThe Washington Post. Good examples abound in the media, yet
\nsenior journalists and media professors shared recently with
\nvisiting Indonesian journalists their concern over the more
\ndominant shallow media content.<\/p>\n
Readership had declined to the alarming level of 55 percent of
\nthe adult population by 2000, compared with 81 percent in 1964.
\nSenior television anchors testify to shorter and shorter news
\nprograms, with lesser foreign news over the years, for fear of
\nlosing viewers. The desperate scramble for audience attention,
\nand thus advertisers, has led to journalism products that not all
\ntheir practitioners are proud of.<\/p>\n
The factors blamed so far include a public bent on (or
\nattraction toward) consumerism (one form of \"relaxation\" after
\nthe Vietnam War, journalists Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G.
\nKaiser write), and a feeling that not much was important on the
\nforeign news agenda after the end of the Cold War. The result was
\na culture of \"amusing ourselves to death,\" wrote social critic
\nNeil Postman.<\/p>\n
He wondered whether Americans preferred to be entertained
\nrather than informed -- which explains the shouting, screaming
\nand applauding on the likes of the Jerry Springer show.<\/p>\n
Another factor is the shift from family to corporate ownership
\nof media companies, resulting in editors forever seeking
\nefficiency in the newsroom -- even to reach higher profits than
\nnonmedia industries. While General Motors would be content with a
\n5 percent profit margin on total revenue, Downie and Kaiser of
\nThe Washington Post write, a nationwide owner of newspapers and
\ntelevision stations, the Tribune Company of Chicago, wants 30
\npercent.<\/p>\n
Particularly in television, Downie and Kaiser describe how
\nsubstance gives way to dramatic footage, and how owners willingly
\ninvest huge amounts of money in the technology that enables
\ndramatic, on-site coverage -- while saving on reporters who must
\nrush from one story to another.<\/p>\n
And consultants were proved right: Ratings were high for
\nprograms with dramatic footage regardless of the quality of the
\nreporting, so the few experiments by TV stations to maintain
\nquality were dropped, the journalists wrote in their book
\nsubtitled American journalism in peril.<\/p>\n
The U.S. public has had a wide choice of media since the
\narrival of cable television. Independent radio channels,
\nperiodicals and nonprofit broadcasting stations also abound. The
\nC-Span (City span) channel airs unedited Congress hearings; local
\nchannels also air city hall and city council meetings.<\/p>\n
But even nonprofit media have been forced into the direction
\nof commercialization, researchers say. However, the ads on public
\nbroadcasting stations, insists Peggy Scott Laborde of the New
\nOrleans-based, are not \"in your face\" commercials -- none of them
\nsays \"Buy now!\". Laborde was in the middle of preparing auctions,
\none of the station's regular fund-raising activities.<\/p>\n
The need for funding led to dependence, so powerful patrons
\nwere spared controversial coverage. Such signs were revealed in
\nan earlier study on the U.S. media, first published in 1988 by
\nlinguist Noam Chomsky and finance expert Edward S. Herman.<\/p>\n
Senior journalists lament a \"shrinking diversity\" of views,
\ngiven increased concentration of ownership. In 1988 there were 24
\nmedia companies (down from 50 large firms in 1983); by 2002 media
\nindustries were centralized within nine conglomerates.<\/p>\n
Because broadcasting is regulated by the Federal
\nCommunications Commission (FCC), the body has been lambasted for
\nhaving relaxed its rules regarding public service content, which
\nmust be provided apart from entertainment.<\/p>\n
We hear repeated warnings of what might happen if few
\ncompanies controlled the media. Says advocate for democratizing
\nthe media Martha L. Allen, \"those few corporations have economic
\ninterest and have a stake in international and local policy.\"
\nAllen leads the Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press in
\nWashington D.C.<\/p>\n
The Internet and cable have great potential to produce a more
\ndemocratic press, Allen noted, as they are beyond the control of
\nthose with power over the flow of information. But regarding
\ncable, she added, instead of allowing election candidates to pay
\nmillions of dollars for airtime, much more airtime must be for
\nfree for public dialog, because \"it is the people who own the
\nairwaves\" through the FCC.<\/p>\n
Critics say that the flourishing community media in the U.S.
\ndoes not guarantee adequately diverse views on national issues --
\nsuch coverage is dominated by the few media giants.<\/p>\n
Allen's concern is more strongly articulated by Chomsky and
\nHerman, who say the media practices propaganda (though not always
\nintentionally). In the book Manufacturing Consent, they refute
\nthe argument underlying the trend of global media business since
\nthe 1980s to open up the market of media ownership -- to provide
\na wider choice for the public.<\/p>\n
It is advertisers, they say, that determine the preferred
\nmedia, which led to the closure of, for instance, the labor-owned
\nmedia in Britain. The preference is for uncontroversial media
\nthat will not spoil the \"mood to buy,\" they write.<\/p>\n
Their proposed solution was also to make much better use of the
\n nonprofit cable channels, and other independent media, through
\nmore self-educating and organizing among the public. As Allen
\nadmitted, by the end of the 1980s the ownership of film,
\npublication and broadcasting had consolidated while \"we were not
\norganized.\"<\/p>\n
Competition for the media audience, who is more importantly
\nconsumers than an information-seeking public, has led business
\nrepresentatives to even join editorial meetings, one media
\nprofessor says. This may explain the products popping up in the
\nmiddle of various shows, such as a new Wendy's salad being
\nsampled by host Rosie O'Donnel last month.<\/p>\n
Since last year's economic downturn, advertisers have sought
\nunconventional ways to reach potential consumers, who would
\nlikely switch to other channels come every commercial break.
\nAdvertisers, a marketing consultant told The New York Times in
\nMay, are not fooling the \"savvy\" American public who will most
\nlikely accept such approaches in a TV show, whereas advocates for
\nmedia improvement say such \"betrayal\" of viewers is unacceptable.<\/p>\n
Since Sept. 11 alarm bells have been raised at the dangerous
\nsigns that Americans are much more willing to give up precious
\nliberties -- also regarding information.<\/p>\n
The Freedom of Information Act passed in 1966 was virtually
\nabandoned via a recent ruling of Attorney General John Ashcroft.
\nThis overturned a 1993 ruling of the same office to release all
\npublic papers unless government could demonstrate potential for
\nserious harm. Ruth Rosen in the latest issue of the journal,
\nDissent, wrote that this change regarding one of America's
\n\"greatest democratic reforms\", was largely ignored by the media.<\/p>\n
She added, \"Coupled with Bush's Nov. 1 executive order giving
\npower to seal all presidential records since 1980, the crackdown
\non information is chilling.\"<\/p>\n
In the face of such business and political pressure
\njournalists say they can only try their best (\"though we could
\nhave been more critical after September\", muses one).
\nEncouragement of more good journalism includes the presentation
\nof peer-group awards, monitoring by journalists and media watch
\ngroups, training and sharing information within the profession. A
\nday after Sept. 11, the Asian American Journalists Association
\ninformed colleagues at websites on Arabs and Muslims to avoid
\nstereotyping in their reports.<\/p>\n
As journalists in the U.S. grab the opportunity to prove that
\ntheir good work can make money, the opportunity in Indonesia is
\nwide open -- given so much public expectation now based on
\nsupposedly newly found press freedom.<\/p>\n
The above article was produced following the writer's
\nparticipation in the annual International Visitors' Program of
\nthe U.S. government last month. The theme of this year's program
\nwas press freedom.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/us-media-hails-sept-11-as-turning-point-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}