May 4, 2005
Framing of media events
This blog posting will look at two examples of framing, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the AIDS pandemic in Africa.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is often painted in black and white, comprising the suicide bombers, innocent bystanders, and the terrorists hijacking the process and ruining any chances for a peaceful solution. TV broadcasts and newspaper articles describe in detail the destruction wrought by these bombers, the number of people killed or maimed, the women and children caught in the crossfire. The broadcast blames the terrorists but often does not adequately explain their relationship to official groups or their place in society. The portrayal of the conflict leads the viewer or reader to adopt a good-and-evil stance (depending upon the source, the Israelis are either defending their country against terrorists or are an expansionist people occupying Palestinian land, and on the other hand, the Palestinians are either a victimized people that has been left to squat in camps for 40 years since they lost their homes in the 1967 war, or are riddled with terrorists who are committed to destroying the Jewish people who inhabit their religious homeland). It is often the case in media issues as contentious as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that the frame profoundly affects the perspective of the viewer. This framing causes the viewer to categorize the people neatly into packages, to filter out important information, and to affect the way they view the issue.
This framing leaves important elements out, which is what, according to the WHO article on Basic Principles of Advocacy, in part defines a frame â€" what is included, what is excluded. This framework of good guys and bad guys ignores many nuances to the story â€" the influence of other countries in the area on policies and activities in Palestine and Israel (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc). The frame also simplifies the relationship between the conflicting nation and democracies such as Britain and the United States. This framing can separate the bombings and violence from the systemic conditions under which these extreme actions arose â€" underdevelopment, extreme poverty, and very significantly (but under reported), the scarcity and unequal distribution of resources among the two peoples (particularly water). In times of heightened violence, the continuous reports of bombings and mounting casualty figures removes the human dimension and makes the injured seem like numbers. This is the use of episodic framing in lieu of thematic framing, terms introduced in the WHO article. In other words, news items rarely emphasize the "root causes" of an issue, or the thematic frame, and opt instead for "eschewing passion," as Daniel Okrent wrote in a NYT article (elaborated upon in the following paragraphs).
I stumbled across a NYT editorial written by Daniel Okrent, a "Public Editor," called "The Hottest Button: How the Times Covers Israel and Palestine" (April 24, 2005). It was great to see the issue of framing discussed up front when framing decisions are usually made before an article goes to print. Okrent discusses what the Times puts in, and what it leaves out, of its coverage, which illustrates how an authors frame of reference of framing of the narrative can impact the reader: "have met with representatives of If Americans Knew, an organization that says The Times conscientiously reports on the deaths of Israeli children but ignores the deaths of Palestinian children -- children, they say, usually ''shot in the head or chest'' by the Israeli soldiers."
Okrent argues that the NYT uses mostly episodic and emotional frame in their structure of articles on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: "It's this simple: An article about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot appear in The Times without eliciting instant and intense response. A photograph of a grieving mother is considered a provocation, an interview with a radical on either side is deemed willful propaganda." He does admit, however, that the Times is criticized equally from both "sides" of the issue, which "suggest that the paper's doing something right."
Okrent hits the nail on the head when he argues that the Times "does not provide history lessons," meaning that it does not take on a contextual/historical look at the issue (i.e. a thematic frame):
"A report on an assassination attempt on a Hamas leader in Gaza that kills nearby innocents will most likely mention the immediate provocation -- perhaps a Palestinian attack on an Israeli settlement. But, says the angered reader, what about the murderous assault that provoked the settlement attack? And, says his aggrieved counterpart on the other side, what about the ambush that preceded the assault? And so on back to the first intifada, and then to 1973 and 1967 and 1956 and 1948 -- an endless chain of regression and recrimination and pain that cannot be represented in a year, much less in a single dispatch in a single day." Instead, these articles "eschew passion."
Okrent also highlights how the journalist's frame is affected by their surroundings, in particular the journalists who report from abroad: "The Times, like virtually every American news organization, maintains its bureau in West Jerusalem. Its reporters and their families shop in the same markets, walk the same streets and sit in the same cafes that have long been at risk of terrorist attack. Some advocates of the Palestinian cause call this ''structural geographic bias." This must, indeed, affect the journalist's framing of the issue.
The AIDS problem in Africa is also very dependent upon the frame used. Is it framed as a political issue? If so, the journalist would highlight Mbeki's refusal to link HIV with AIDS and thus his refusal to acknowledge that intravenous drugs could help the population of South Africa; this emphasis would show the disproportionate influence of political leaders in the AIDS problem itself. Similarly, the political frame could emphasize that totalitarian regimes on the continent are less likely to enact social reforms needed to curb the spread of the disease. Is AIDS instead framed as a cultural issue? In this case, practices of genital mutilation are highlighted since they increase HIV incidence rates. Or, one could emphasize that African populations are reluctant to use contraceptive methods because it goes against their religious or cultural beliefs. Is it framed as a socioeconomic issue? In this case, one would emphasize the profound poverty of African countries and the countries' inability to fund awareness campaigns, and distribute contraception and intravenous drugs. One could also emphasize the fact that many in sub-Saharan Africa are undereducated and have been known, for example, to re-use condoms without knowing that they cannot be safely reused.
Depending upon the framing used in a news item relating to the problem of AIDS in Africa, the viewer or reader could end up with an entirely different perspective on what should be done, if anything. As the WHO article explained, "framing affects the way an issue is defined and its identity as a public or private issue, with built-in signals about the role of government, if any, in fixing the problem." If the cultural/religious perspective is used, the viewer might sit back and sigh, saying that there's nothing that can be done because the United States has no right to push its cultural agenda on another people, and even if it tried, the populations would be reluctant to change their religious and moral value system to allow for the protections needed to stem the spread of AIDS. If the political frame is used, the U.S. might ramp up efforts to encourage democratization in the region. If the economic frame is used, the viewer might call on the United States to increase international aid to help fight the AIDS pandemic. If the social frame is used, the viewer might decide that the U.S. should allocate its funding to a widespread educational campaign in sub-Saharan African countries.
As one can see in both of these examples, the framing of an issue affects how the reader's understanding of and perspective regarding an issue. As a result, it also affects how the reader responds or feels the government should react and design policies to address the problem.
Posted by clare at 12:24 AM | Comments (1)
May 3, 2005
International News Story: The Canadian Government Could be Defeated by the Opposition?
Canadian politics is experiencing a shakeup more serious than any seen within the last decade or more. National Post journalist Don Martin called the series of events "Canada's Watergate," a crisis that can have profound effects on the United States.
Background to the International News Story
The crisis arose when high-level corruption within the federal government was unearthed in 2002 involving allegations of money laundering and kickbacks; this "sponsorship scandal" involved a variety of federal funds (taxpayer dollars) that were improperly and illegally dispensed and allocated between the 1995 Referendum and 2002. The scandal involved a $250 million project, of which Auditor General Sheila Fraser said "an estimated $100 million in commissions in relation to the program went to Liberal-friendly ad agencies for little or no work." The sponsorship program was designed "to promote unity in the wake of the 1995 referendum in Quebec," but turned out to be "little more than a vehicle to reward loyal Liberal supporters." This money was dispersed by the Public Works Department; Auditor General Sheila Fraser released a report on these funding allocations and stated that the Department "broke just about every rule in the book" when it came to awarding these contracts. Fraser determined that "the sponsorship program was designed to generate commissions for private companies, while hiding the source of the funding, rather than providing any benefit for Canadians." Basically the government wrote cheques to certain Quebec companies though the companies signed no contracts nor performed any work. The scandal is currently being studied by the "Gomery Commission" or "Gomery Inquiry."
Two examples of alleged misallocation of funds include:
- Jean Brault, the former head of the advertising company Groupaction, "reaped tens of millions of dollars in government contracts under the sponsorship program;" he testified before the Gomery Commission, stating how "millions of dollars â€" some of it in cash â€" found its way back to the Quebec wing of the Liberal party to pay expenses incurred during federal election campaigns."
- "The Globe and Mail on Thursday had an interview with Benoit Corbeil, a high-ranking Liberal organizer who told the national newspaper he received tens of thousands of dollars in cash from one of the advertising firms and funneled the money back into the hands of "fake volunteers" working on the Liberal campaign. Corbeil said most recipients of the cash were Liberal supporters who took unpaid leaves from their positions in ministries to work on the general election in 2000. "I liked to call them fake volunteers," he said."
Effects of the Sponsorship Scandal: Political Deadlock in the House of Commons and Potential Federal Election
The corruption has resulted in a decrease in public confidence in the government, and a political stalemate within the House of Commons. The current administration is a minority liberal government (it's the first minority government in 25 years). The administration is currently trying to pass the federal budget, and if it fails to do so, runs the risk of the opposition calling for a national election since the failure to pass the federal budget is in essence a vote of "no confidence" in the government.
The Progressive Conservative Party Leader, Stephen Harper, has stated publicly that the PCs plan to try to defeat the government in a vote of no confidence or the defeat of the federal budget. Today, Harper stated after a special caucus meeting that he wanted to force an election to decide the matter: "Let's have the vote now and get on with it…. Nobody believed we should prop up this government or support its program. Right now the only people waiting are the government." Harper stated that the Conservative caucus members "have unanimously agreed they can't continue under the Liberal's ruling minority government;" "I think there is a unanimous view that the Conservative party cannot support the government. We cannot support their programs. We cannot support a government that is mired in these kind of corruption scandals."
Overall, then, this crisis might result in a federal election in Canada that could, due to the costly mistakes of the liberals leading the country, result in the first conservative government in twelve years.
Whether there is enough support for the survival of Martin's minority government, or whether the government will be defeated is unclear. Currently, the Liberals and NDP can total 151 votes, behind the Bloc and Conservatives which (aligned) can add up to 153; there are three Independents, but it is unclear which way they will vote. The sponsorship scandal even caused one Liberal caucus member to cross the floor. In the event of a tie, the budget will pass because the Speaker of the House will break the tie (and he is a Liberal). This means that very few people control the fate of the Martin government: "The people who can collectively force him from power are Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, NDP Leader Jack Layton and the three independents: Chuck Cadman, Carolyn Parrish and David Kilgour."
If 154 MPs vote against the government on a motion of confidence or on the budget, an election would have to be held. Last week, Prime Minister Martin essentially bought the support of the leftist NDP party in the vote over the federal budget by increasing the proposed budget by $4.6 billion to include extra spending for NDP-supported programs. This change cut the original projected surplus of $9 billion in half, and informally created a voting alliance that could allow the Martin government to survive.
Further complicating the situation is the apparent reluctance of the Canadian public to undergo another election, since the previous federal election took place less than a year ago. The polls show that the Canadian public does not want to have another election, instead suggesting that "most voters wanted Paul Martin's minority government to have a chance to prove itself."
However, the polls show more support for the conservative party than has been estimated in a long time. An Ipsos-Reid opinion poll on Friday April 22nd showed "the Liberals had 30 percent public support compared to 35 percent for the opposition Conservatives." An April 15th CBC poll showed that an election could result in a minority Tory government. Support for the liberals dropped from the high 30s to the high 20s over the sponsorship scandal.
CBC poll votes:
· Stephen Harper's Conservatives are supported by 33 per cent of Canadians.
· Paul Martin's Liberals, who currently hold a minority government, are the choice of 27 per cent.
· The New Democratic Party under Jack Layton has 24 per cent.
· Gilles Duceppe's Bloc Québécois has 11 per cent support nationally, but that becomes 51 per cent in the province of Quebec.
· The Green Party, led by Jim Harris, is supported by two per cent.
Relevance to the United States and to U.S News Broadcasts
This international news story has huge repercussions for the United States and thus should be included in a national TV news broadcast to inform the American public. Canadian economic and political changes affects American people. First, political instability in Canada can adversely affect the United States economy.
Second, the current administration is not very supportive of American policies, and an election that could bring a conservative minority government into power would be more likely to cooperate with, and constructively interact with the U.S. administration. In particular, a conservative government would move security higher on the federal government's agenda, an issue that is very important to the United States given the threat of terrorist attacks on American soil. A Conservative government would allocate resources to improve border security, for example.
Third, the two countries rely upon each other for trade and natural resources, and a good working relationship is requisite for the continuation of these good trade relations. In fact, "$1.8 billion in goods and services crosses the Canada-U.S. border every day." The two-way trade in goods and services exceeded $441.5 billion in 2003, "making the U.S.â€"Canada trading relationship the largest in the world." Though some Americans might see this as an asymmetrical relationship, the United States depends upon Canada to a large degree in certain areas, such as natural resources, and in particular, energy and electricity:
- "Canada is the single largest supplier of energy to the U.S. at more than $41 billion in 2003 â€" nearly three times as much as Saudi Arabia. Canada supplied the U.S. with 88% of its natural gas imports, and 17% of its oil in 2003 â€" more than any other country."
- "Canada supplies close to 100% of the United States' electricity imports, and is the major provider of electricity to the Northeastern U.S., including New England and New York, as well as the Upper Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and California."
During a period in which American dependence upon foreign oil is a very salient issue domestically, it's important to note that Canada, a friendly nation, supplies the U.S. with more crude oil than any other country in the world, including Saudi Arabia.
Thus, although Americans might not realize the importance of the Canadian-US relationship, or the significance of news that take place within Canada, they should be kept abreast with political developments taking place in their neighbour country such as those being described here. In sum, policies in one country cannot help but affect those in the other, and as a result, the American public should be informed about the news taking place in Canada.
How to Cover this Story
The newscast storyline should be organized such that the context, or the relevance and significance to the American public, is clearly defined and explained. As such, the newscast storyline would briefly introduce the issue at hand, move quickly to the "so what" aspect (the relevance of this issue to the American public), before then continuing into more in-depth coverage, analysis, and interviews. That way, the viewer can view the report in the context of knowing and understanding the significance of the issue to Americans.
This is a very complicated and widely scoped issue, therefore the news coverage of this issue could vary depending upon the resources available. The newscast should include a summary of the recent events noted above, such as the stalemate in the House of Commons, the Progressive Conservative Party's recent press release pledging to push for an election if the federal budget is not agree upon, and the like.
Visuals
The newscast could employ visual support, such as displaying the division of the House of Commons along party lines in a pie chart that shows that out of 308 seats, the governing party (the liberals) hold only 132, the Conservatives 99, the Bloq Quebecois 54, the NDP 19, Independents hold 3, and one seat is vacant. The chart would also show the alliances, signifying that the Liberal-NDP alliance totals 151 seats, the Conservative-Bloc alliance 153, resulting in a potential deadlock. One can see that the opposition can form alliances to cause the budget to fail, depending upon how the three Independents vote.
The newscast should also touch on the Gomery Commission, which precipitated the debate over no confidence in the first place. One could include images of the various people interviewed during the Gomery process, alongside important quotes and sound-bytes of things these people have said. Another visual for the newscast could be the televised broadcast of Prime Minister Martin apologizing for the sponsorship scandal on national TV (a very rare event indeed; unlike the US President, who appeals to the public annually in his State of the Union speeches, the last time a Canadian Prime Minister went on TV was over ten years ago). Similarly, a snippet of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien giving testimony before the Gomery Commission can be shown; it is an important event as it highlights the severity of the scandal, because Not since Canada was a mere six years old has a sitting prime minister given testimony before a public inquiry.
Filler images could be video footage of the parliament buildings in Ottawa, taken from archives (to save money). To add a comedic element, one could include one of the many political cartoons that show a satirical view of this issue. Because this is an ongoing issue that is widely covered in Canada, the American newscasting program can rely upon already taped footage or AP/Reuters video footage. Traveling to Ottawa would not necessarily be required, given the volume of taped interviews. On-air interviews could be conducted by the news anchor as well; likely candidates for interviewing would be officials at the Canadian embassy in Washington or at Canadian consulates in other cities; Professors of Canadian Studies in American Universities (since they would probably be better able to explain the significance of these events to the American public than would Canadian experts and professors); and lastly, one could interview a policy expert at CSIS (Center for Strategic International Studies), which has a program that focuses on Canadian issues, the Canadian Project. CSIS is a nonpartisan think tank that will help to ensure editorial balance. However, it would still be wise to interview both politically conservative and liberal pundits to ensure legitimacy and a nuanced coverage of the news item.
This news item would show to the audience the precarious state of the Canadian government and the significant chance that the government could be defeated. It would also emphasize the close relationship between Canada and the United States and the significance of this news item on the U.S.
Posted by clare at 7:32 PM | Comments (1)
April 18, 2005
WorldNews Network
The media platform that I'm going to discuss is the World News Network; it is not experimental in the same way as Wikinews, which introduced a completely different way of collecting and disseminating news stories, but is instead unique because of its breadth, comprehensiveness, and internationalist perspective.
World News Network really took advantage of the opportunities provided by the internet by providing an aggregation of news stories from newspapers originating in all areas of the globe, and in a variety of different languages (Czech, Afrikaners, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Hausa, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Malay, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romania, Slovak, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Turkish). The website links to a significant number of newspapers that have their own websites. The site is well organized, with pages organized geographically (by region, country, even city), as well as pages organized thematically (pollution, business, entertainment, sports, science, society, inter alia). Here are just a few of the pages of sites within the website:
§ World Headlines
§ World Weather Forecast
§ World Political
§ Business Daily
§ Broadcasting
§ World City Guides
§ Todays Photos
§ World Photos
§ World News Archives
§ Global Current Affairs
§ Business & Economy
§ Industry
§ Energy
§ Maritime
§ Issues & Interests
§ Health
§ Entertainment
§ Nature
§ Science & Technology
§ Society
§ Broadcasts
§ Sports
§ Continents
§ Regions & Countries
The website is enormous, has an unbelievable amount of information; it uses "several hundred online news sources in 20 languages and presents them in over 500 subject and geographical categories." The wn.com website brings together such a scope of information and issues, via a diversity of sources; it's an amazing portal for international news. Though this website is not necessarily experimental in the same sense of the word, it does present the news consumer with an array of informational sources in one centalized location, which is particularly useful if the consumer wants a variety of sources. As well, in response to the previous blog on World Picture News, wn.com also has several sections devoted to communicating the days' news through photographs, which I found to be quiet interesting.
Posted by clare at 12:14 AM | Comments (0)
February 21, 2005
CNN article on ABC News Nightline
this article expands on several issues I brought up in my previous blog:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/15/apontv.nightline.ap/index.html
Posted by clare at 8:36 AM | Comments (0)
Report on ABC News
I did my research on ABC News, and have learned more than I could fit into a blog, but here are some relevant thoughts....
The ABC network was formed when NBC sold its Blue Network to millionaire Edward Noble (who made Life Savers candy!), who named it the American Broadcasting System (it was later changed to American Broadcasting Company, Inc). I won't go into details about the interim period, but it's noteworthy that in 1995-96 Capital Cities/ABC Inc was purchased by the Walt Disney Company for $19,000,000,000, creating the "world's largest media and entertainment company." The merger has been problematic for ABC news, because the new division became a relatively small share of Disney's entire business portfolio, meaning that ABC News' best interests weren't always prioritized (and sometimes Disney might not have even known what ABC News best interests were). There have also been controversies about ABC News broadcasting "news" about new movie releases that just happened to be Disney releases (Pearl Harbour was one notable example), inter alia.
ABC journalists sometimes feel they have to cover certain issues because of the connection with Disney, but as long as the journalist is honest and up front about the connection, and does not let the relationship affect the quality of reporting, then my contact does not consider it to be ethically suspect to cover Disney-related issues.
ABC is headquartered in NYC, and its second largest newsroom is located in DC (200-300 people), where my contact works. ABC's direct competition comprises NBC and CBS, which are also owned by major media conglomerates. In 2003, NBC "had a narrow edge in ratings, followed closely by ABC, then, farther back, by CBS." (Stateofthenewsmedia.org). So, here are the shows that are competing for viewers:
Broadcast Network Morning News Programs
(7 to 7:59 a.m. Eastern time)
ABC -- "Good Morning America"
CBS -- "The Early Show"
NBC -- "Today"
Broadcast Network Evening News Programs
(Full program as broadcast in New York market)
ABC - "World News Tonight"
CBS - "Evening News"
NBC - "Nightly News"
PBS - "NewsHour"
Regarding ABC's position in the market compared to NBC and CBS, there is a general trend of all three networks "losing their identity" and "all becoming more or less the same in terms of the stories that they cover." The reason for this, believes my contact, is that all three networks are increasingly concerned about ratings, and consequently gravitate towards stories that will generate ratings (eg. the Michael Jackson trial) , rather than others that might not (eg. Darfur). This tendency towards tabloid journalism is taking place across all networks, but ABC News likes to think (and we have to be the judge of whether this is the case) that it resists the temptation towards overemphasizing "soft news."
Another factor in this increasing trend towards tabloid news is that news networks are trying to capture a younger cohort of viewers. Examples of this were in 2003 when ABC tried to replace the very successful Nightline with Dave Letterman for the same time slot, and more recently (reported a couple of weeks ago in the WSJ) with the idea of replacing Nightline with an ESPN-type of show to appeal to a younger, male audience. One interesting tidbit is that ABC, like other channels, wants to attract viewers to its late-time time slot, because research shows that viewers are likely to watch the morning news on the same channel that they watched late the previous night before turning the TV off to go to bed. So, for example, viewers tune into Jay Leno, and then in the morning watch the Today show.
The issue regarding ratings and Nightline is an interesting one, particularly because Nightline is such a strong program, and "remains probably the most serious and distinctive news magazine program on television." Despite the fact that nightline does generate a lot of profit (ABC Nightline was at the time expected to generate $13 million in profit), Dave Letterman would have potentially attracted more revenue and a younger audience.
As was discussed in class, the network must balance between what the viewers want to see (and what will "pay the bills" and lead them to turn on their TV) and what the viewers need to see (what they will benefit from once they're already tuned in). The journalist's responsibility is balancing these two elements, acting as a "filter," and committing themselves to hard news "out of respect for themselves." It appears that the White House is trying to reduce the influence of, or rather circumvent, journalists and their "filter" to ensure that the intended message gets across to the public.
ABCs "strongest assets" are the experienced team led by Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings (who gained significant experience and exposure by covering the Vietnam War on the ground), and the very popular Nightline, which is, according to my contact, a "medium for which serious matters can be discussed in a relaxed but tough forum in terms of having a half hour to examine a single issue." The underlying philosophy of ABC can be characterized as "tough but fair," and also comprises the goal of reporting on stories that people need to know rather than what they want to know. My contact believes that this same overarching ideal can be attributed to NBC and CBS also.
In terms of controversy regarding ABC there is one recent issue of interest:
The ABC News special on Michael Jackson, aired on Primetime Live on Thursday: the NYT asserted that several interviewees were paid by third parties. (the NYT article is below, Appendix 1, along with the Associated Press article which serves as ABC's response).
As an aside, ABC News had a 24-hour news channel, called ABC News Now, which is currently off air but might be re-introduced in the next year. It's interesting to note that although the viewership of cable news has increased over the past several years, it is still relatively small compared to the network news. So, for example, Peter Jenning's world news tonight might garner 10 million viewers, whereas if Bill O'Reilly or Larry King Live attracted 2 million viewers, that would be considered stellar. Even ABCs off-peak or overnight viewers are still two to three times greater than the cable news' primetime slot viewership. So it's unclear why ABC would want to relaunch its 24-hour news channel when it would have to carve out a niche in a much smaller pie to possibly attract 500,000 viewers.
Well, there's definitely more to say but I fear this blog is getting quite long. So those are some tidbits on ABC News!
Appendix 1
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
February 19, 2005 Saturday
Section B; Column 1; The Arts/Cultural Desk; CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK; Pg. 11
Rehashing Old Secrets, With Little New to Tell
By VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN
Near the beginning of Thursday night's two-hour episode of ''Primetime Live'' on ABC, Martin Bashir, a network correspondent, broods under storm clouds on a deserted beach. In a voice-over, we hear that he's still bedeviled by an old fixation, Michael Jackson.
He has reason to feel unsettled. In 2003, Mr. Bashir, a British journalist then famous mostly for having interviewed Diana, Princess of Wales, brought a riveting and aggressive documentary to the British television network ITV called ''Living With Michael Jackson,'' in which Mr. Jackson could be seen holding hands with a boy and offering a haphazard defense of man-boy bed-sharing. Twenty-seven million viewers tuned in when that documentary appeared on ABC the same year. By contrast, an estimated 8.76 million viewers watched ''Michael Jackson's Secret World'' on Thursday on ''Primetime Live.''
Sitting by the sea, Mr. Bashir was perhaps contemplating what he'd given up in abandoning the nuanced, heavily verite films that made his name. At ABC he appears on camera for tightly scripted, strictly vetted newsmagazine segments that are produced mainly by other people. He's in an entirely new business.
Or maybe, as he perched on a striped deck chair, Mr. Bashir was wondering how he had become part of the news: because of what he witnessed while making his 2003 documentary, a judge has ordered him to testify in Mr. Jackson's upcoming trial on charges including child molesting.
Possibly, though, Mr. Bashir's voice-over told the truth. He -- like so many of us -- may simply continue to be intrigued by the enigma of Michael Jackson, the child-loving pop star with the inventively amended face whom Mr. Bashir frequently describes as bizarre.
If so, Mr. Bashir's work on ''Michael Jackson's Secret World,'' cannot have set his mind at ease. Largely rehash, the program featured a new interview with an uncle of the boy whose accusations Mr. Jackson is facing in court. There is also a scene of Mr. Bashir and the uncle listening to tapes allegedly made by the boy's psychiatrist, on which the boy describes hugs, kisses, masturbation and oral sex he says he had with Michael Jackson.
But the film didn't make any news, chiefly because the actual principals in the court case are bound by confidentiality agreements. And Mr. Jackson himself, though he has made some unstrategic television appearances in the past, wisely refrained from talking to Mr. Bashir again.
Nor did ''Michael Jackson's Secret World'' show any of the aesthetic keenness of Mr. Bashir's earlier Jackson film, in which the singer's character was as likely to surface in a scene of an extravagant shopping trip as it was in his formally lighted interviews. Without access to Mr. Jackson, the ABC program relies for excitement on clips from the old film, as well as excerpts from a recent, heavily publicized British documentary, ''Michael Jackson's Boys,'' which was produced by the company Tiger Aspect. These latter excerpts are a controversial component of the ''Primetime Live'' piece. Some of the participants in ''Michael Jackson's Boys'' received compensation for their interviews, according to a disclaimer at the start of the program on Thursday night. The disclaimer added, ''No payment was made for any of the interviews conducted by Martin Bashir or ABC News.''
That's comforting, sort of. But ABC derived so much of the interest of ''Michael Jackson's Secret World'' from the British production that it's surprising the program still received the network's seal of ethical approval.
At the close of the two hours, which are padded with repetition, Mr. Bashir appears in a white convertible. He's still confused. One thing he might contemplate is that formal and ethical limitations severely curb the license of British filmmakers whose reputations are often founded on the artful and intelligent use of that license. Or perhaps the conventions of American news simply make it more honest. As Mr. Bashir says, again in a voice-over, at the end of the mediocre program, ''What to think at the end of it all?''
Posted by clare at 12:15 AM | Comments (0)
February 15, 2005
a couple of quotes re: Outfoxed
After watching Outfoxed I did some database searching to see what journalists were saying, and I came across an interesting tidbit
(I'll provide a couple of quotes but not the entire article because I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that - propriety material - Professor Liu could you please clarify the rules on that?):
USA Today article, 07/12/2004, Film accuses Fox of slanting the news
About the "other memos" I mentioned in class that were absent from the documentary, which paints a slightly more objective picture of Fox News:
"However, Outfoxed does not mention other memos its researchers obtained from Fox News staffers.
Those memos, shown to USA TODAY, remind correspondents to give equal emphasis to speeches by President Bush and his opponent, Sen. John Kerry.
Another memo says, "Let's not overdo the appearances by Kerry swift boat mate John O'Neill," a man who raised questions about the senator's wartime record. "He represents one side of the 30-year recollections of what Kerry did, or didn't do, in uniform. Other people have different recollections," the memo says." "
----
On another note...
Maclean's, 10/4/2004, Vol. 117 Issue 40, p28, 2p, 1c, 1bw
interesting look at CNN vs. Fox numbers of watchers during the RNC and DNC (reinforcing that liberals go to more liberal channels to watch the news, same goes for conservatives):
"During the Republican National Convention in New York, Fox more than doubled CNN's Nielsen numbers. Conversely, CNN bested Fox on the first night of the Democratic National Convention during the three hours or so that climaxed with the speech by former presidential scandal-magnet Bill Clinton.."
Oh, and about Moveon.org being "nonpartisan" (right): full page ad in the NYT ad sponsored by Moveon.org, with the text "Communists had Pravda. Republicans have Fox." (same article as above)
Posted by clare at 12:52 AM | Comments (2)
another article on google employee fired for blogging
Another article on google employee fired for blogging.
Posted by clare at 12:48 AM | Comments (0)
February 14, 2005
news consumption
My consumption of news varies significantly depending upon where I am, which is a theme that has been running through a variety of blogs.
Mine differs markedly not only in terms of the medium (I rely more on TV news and hardcopy newspapers than internet sources at home, whereas I depend upon the internet at school), but also the type of source. At home (in Canada), I read the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen and the Montreal Gazette (dailies), depending upon whether I'm in Ontario or Montreal; I read the Economist when I have more time(weekly); I watch CBC news (not a 24-hours news channel), and BBC Canada; and I sometimes go to the BBC website . When I'm in Ontario (nuclear family) I don't rely on the internet at all (slow dial-up connection on the farm), and when I'm in Montreal, I am more likely to watch CNN or Fox News than get on the internet. At school, while I try to access the same newspapers online (National Post, Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette), I don't usuall manage to do that. What is great about the major online newspapers in Canada is that they are all within the same main site, canada.com, which means that you can easily choose a different newspaper from the pull-down menu to see how a story is covered depending upon the source.
At school, however, I don't have enough time to access too many different sources. So, my consumption of online news is very similar to everyone else's: NYTimes online, CNN online, BBC online, CNN and Fox on TV (rarely though, I don't have my own TV). I get the NYT email every morning and click on the most interesting stories during study breaks or when I have a free moment.
Another variance in terms of my consumption of news at home versus at school is how erratic it is at school. At home, my family watches the news every day during in the morning, again at tea-time and the late-night newscast before bed. They also have subscriptions to newspapers, so I read the front sections over breakfast. So it's a pretty reliable and ongoing stream of news consumption. At school, I consume news whenever I have a spare moment or access to a news source (which is not very often for sources other than the internet). As I mentioned before, I read my NYT daily email whenever I have the chance (usually when I need a break from work or as a procrastination tool), but to be honest, sometimes I just scan the headlines and don't have time to read the actual articles (I know, awful). Like Crystal, I have the challenge of getting access to news regularly, due to time constraints. I hate to admit it, but sometimes my only source of news on a given day is the CNN broadcasts I watch while I'm on the Stairmaster at the gym!
My erratic consumption of news at school is a concern for me, because having a reliable consumption of news is quite important in addition to consuming news from a variety of sources. Often breaking news stories are subsequently corrected or found to be completely false, but without the benefit of checking back on a regular basis, I miss out on some of these corrections. Take the example of the missing munitions in Iraq, for example, the portrayal of which turned out later to be exaggerated and overblown. I only learned this after I was emailing back and forth with my brother, and he sent me a couple of articles correcting my misconception. If I'd been consuming news on a more reliable basis, I could have caught that update.
This brings me to an informal but important source of information for me (how I neglected to mention this until now I do not know): my older brother. When he's not on army exercise (read: and does not have access to a computer), he often sends me newspaper articles and opinion pieces. He's compensates for the more liberal media that I rely on. We debate over email and send each other links to news stories on a pretty consistent basis. He's the person who taught me early on not to trust one or two sources, that I needed to read from a variety of outlets.
I agree with one of the readings that said the benefits of 24-hour news broadcasts are in their usefulness during crises. Although I do not have a TV, whenever significant news events take place (death of Saddam, tsunami, war in Iraq, etc etc), I find myself hanging out more in Frist watching the large-screen TV than I would normally do.
My consumption of news often centers around specific things that interest me, on a sporadic basis. So rather than reading the newspaper every morning, I'll go online when I hear about a topic that sparks my interest and research it more thoroughly that way. I wonder how cnn.com, nytimes.com and the like prioritze and cater to the different types of news consumers (those who read everything versus those who are interested in particular topics). I guess their toolbar really makes it easy on everyone, with the issue-based and geographically-divided tabs.
Posted by clare at 11:11 AM | Comments (0)