April 25, 2005
A Framing of Darfur
In class, we've noted that the crisis in Darfur has not received much media attention. We've stipulated various reasons â€" paucity of journalistic sources, lack of interest in the region, racism, etc. - for the absence of this story in mainstream and alternative media. And while the situation is not getting the attention it warrants, articles about it occasionally appear. Recently (April 22), Marc Lacey of the New York Times wrote a piece entitled "Nobody Danced. No Drums. Just Fear. Some Holiday!" The headline, with its informality and sarcasm, immediately suggests a particular frame for the story, one which encourages readers to sympathize with the people of Darfur. Such a frame is probably necessary for an urgent story that isn't getting enough attention.
This article appeared in the Africa subsection of the International news of the New York Times, under the additional heading "Abu Sroug Journal." While it directly addresses the celebration (or lack thereof) of the prophet Muhammad's birthday, a Muslim holiday, the reporter uses this particular episode as a lens to the broader issue, the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. He compares the current solemn and tragic atmosphere in the village of Abu Sroug to the traditional celebratory one, contrasting the past and present and thereby illustrating the terrible events that are occurring in the region right now.
Interestingly, the reporter does not state explicitly that the holiday is a Muslim one (I'm nitpicking, but Lacey could have written Muslim in the first paragraph). Perhaps he assumes the audience would already know that the Sudanese are mostly Muslims. If not, Lacey conveys this by providing us with revealing details â€" it is Muhammad, after all, the founder of Islam, that the holiday is based on, and the usual place of celebration is the mosque. Also, a few lines into the article, Lacey mentions the Koran. Again, this may not have been intentional, but perhaps the absence of the word Muslim itself was meant to enable non-Muslim readers to connect with the plight of the African Sudanese in Darfur. It is a subtle detail, but might have an impact on some.
Other words are clearly intended to arouse sympathy in readers. In the first paragraph Lacey writes of "the beseiged people in this hardscrabble village in Sudan's war-ravaged Darfur region," relying on adjectives to make his readers understand, on an emotional level, what is going on.
All celebrations in the village of Abu Sroug, Lacey reports, have changed. He writes that weddings, and not only holidays such as Muhammad's birthday, cannot be celebrated as they otherwise would be. Burials, too, are not performed in the same manner as they had been before the current crisis. He personalizes these issues by telling individual stories and weaving them into the bigger picture. Readers find out about Bushra Ismail, for example, a health worker who did not mourn her brother for the traditional forty days after he was killed because she was urgently needed at the hospital.
And rather than simply report that the last militia attack had occurred a few days before (on April 18), the author follows that fact with a description of the burial sites of the victims (many aren't even buried, he points out). The article ends with a quote about fast burials.
But the article, though it focuses on the strange and sad atmosphere on this holiday that is usually so different, places this event in a wider context. The reporter also incorporates the findings of a new study into his article. Released that day, the study estimated that 400,000 people had been killed in Darfur. This article does not provide background on the crisis in Sudan, but it still directs attention to the atrocities. He does mention that the militia is known as janjaweed, but does not provide an in-depth explanation of them. In this article, it is more important that the reader understand that these militias "have wreaked so much havoc in Darfur" than understand who the janjaweed are and why they are there. The episodic and emotional framing of this story is likely a reaction to the general apathy in the world regarding Darfur. Lacey probably wrote the story in this way to get people's attention and to elicit an emotional response from his audience. The tone of the article (as the headline, again, suggests) varies from the usual straight news piece, and the rhythm. likewise, conveys the "grim fate" of the people of Darfur. After reading this article, readers may be more apt to seek out hard news about the situation in Darfur.
Two photographs accompany this article, and the captions, like the pictures themselves, are telling. One, which shows three children, reads "Poor, fearful refugees in Abu Sroug were somber on the day marking the Prophet Muhammad's birthday." The other photo is of a man pointing out the site of mass graves which he had dug.
On the same day that this article was published (April 22), an article about Darfur was posted on the CNN website. This piece, entitled "Sudan Defends Its Handling of Darfur" has no byline and is credited to the Associated Press. It is a much more straightforward piece than the NY Times article, without the atmospheric description and individual stories. Rather than addressing the current conditions in small villages ("the very culture of the place," as Lacey writes), this CNN article deals thematically with Darfur, and reports on the Sudanese government's position (as expressed by the Sudanese Foreign Minister at a summit in Indonesia). While Lacey quotes the people of the village of Abu Sroug, the AP report quotes the Sudanese politician. It reflects the macro, rather than the micro level of the crisis. And no photos accompany this AP report. The focus of this article is different than the Lacey one, and certainly they are meant to convey different information about the situation in Darfur. The contrast between the two articles, however, is not simply a matter of content, but one of framing as well.
Posted by asilver at 11:58 PM | Comments (0)
April 21, 2005
Indymedia
Indymedia (The Independent Media Center)is a website similar to Wikinews,and in fact preceded it (Indymedia formed in 1999). The creators describe it as "a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth."
Like Wikinews, Indymedia allows anyone to publish articles, under the Newswire section. The features section is separate, however, and is "compiled by local IMC editors worldwide."
According to the website, there are over 150 Independent Media Centers in the world, which can also be accessed online. There's everything from the New York city Indymedia to the Ambazonia Indymedia.
In the FAQ section of the site, the organizers acknowledge that Indymedia voices tend to be left of center (reading the FAQ, in which the Bush administration and Al-Quaeda are equated, more than supports this). They refer to Protest Net as an "ally."
Still, anyone is allowed to post. Indymedia is not corporate or government sponsored. They work off of donations, and server space provided by Loudeye.com
It is telling that they refer to themselves as "independent media activists" rather than independent journalists.
Months ago, the Wikinews co-founder made comments about Indymedia, distinguishing Wikinews from Indymedia by stressing the former's neutrality, and the latter's leftist bias. Wikinews also reported these comments.
Indymedia has been investigated by the Justice Department more than once. NYC Indymedia was investigated in relation to the Republican National Convention last August, and several of Indymedia's websites were temporarily shut down last October.
Posted by asilver at 3:52 PM | Comments (0)
April 14, 2005
Al Jazeera
This past Tuesday, a lecture entitled "Al Jazeera: How It Sees the World," attracted more people than could fit in Dodds Auditorium. The main speaker was Abderrahim Foukara, the New York bureau chief of Al Jazeera.
Foukara, like many of his colleagues, came to Al Jazeera from the BBC. He mentioned the "editorial baggage" that much of the staff brings from that station, but insisted that Al Jazeera maintains its own tone. Still, the presentation of the news broadcasts â€" the graphics, sounds, etc. â€" is undoubtedly Western. What about the programming?
Foukara discussed two programs on Al Jazeera. "The Opposite Direction" is the flagship show on the channel, and Foukara described it as a "mix of…Crossfire…and Jerry Springer." This kind of program is "unprecedented in the Arab world." Like Crossfire, The Opposite Opinion has its share of critics.
The other program he singled out was a religious one. In "Shari'ah and Life" a Muslim cleric addresses domestic issues as well as broader ones, such as martyrdom. Foukara insisted that "religious broadcasting is hard to get away from."
When asked about airing the bin Laden tapes, Foukara replied that Al Jazeera gives Bush a showing, and that bin Laden should get one too. The station wishes to present "both sides" of a story. This did not seem to be a big issue for him â€" he spoke of it rather matter-of-factly.
As part of his presentation, Foukara showed clips of the same event covered by three different news outlets â€" Fox, BBC, and Al Jazeera. The clips were from Election Day in Iraq. Fox would likely be biased no matter which clip Fakoura had selected, but he did choose the most outrageous one: Geraldo Rivera, next to the body of a dead woman, opining about the insurgents futile and wrong actions. BBC came off as much more balanced. The clip showed Iraqis casting ballots. Al Jazeera also showed the voting, but it was noted that before this clip, there had been lots of coverage of the violence in Iraq.
Professor Doran came closest to expressing my views on Al Jazeera, which are conflicted.
Doran, professor in the Near East Studies department, said that he sees Al Jazeera as "both wonderful and not wonderful." He agreed with Foukara that it has "shaken up" the news there (which had basically been "bulletins" of what leaders were doing any particular day). He also noted that an Al Jazeera journalist had asked the Saudi royal family directly about hypocrisy, which they were not expecting.
But Doran had also spoken to some people in the U.S. military, and asked them for hard reasons why they disliked Al Jazeera. He found out that in one instance in Afghanistan, Al Jazeera reporters had been dispatched to the Afghan-Pakistani border to cover the defeat of US soldiers by Taliban forces. When they realized the US had actually defeated the Taliban, they left without reporting the story. To this, Foukara responded that Al Jazeera still needs to improve its training of journalists.
But Doran also said that as a pan-Arab station, Al Jazeera seems to be able to tell only two stories: anti-American and anti-Israeli ones.
Foukara responded â€" and this is depressing - that the "sad reality of it is that anti-anything sells on television." He said there is anti-Americanism on Al Jazeera, and there's anti-Islam in American media.
Here's my question: doesn't the media, be it Fox or CNN or Al Jazeera, have a responsibility to steer away from anti-anything even if it is financially lucrative? Objectivity may be impossible, but journalists should still strive to not spread hatred.
The event ended before I could ask this, but I spoke to Foukara afterwards and asked him what he thought. I wasn't entirely satisfied by his answer. He said there are people who watch who don't go along with it, who don't like the anti-Americanism or anti-Islam slant of a story. He went back to the Geraldo clip. He said it was terrible. But when I asked if it was going to change, if stations would try to get away from negative biases, he said, without hesitating, no. Anti-anything, it seems, is here to stay.
While American media may have anti-Islam reporting, I don't think it is anything like the anti-American and anti-Israeli coverage of Al Jazeera. After watching the documentary "Control Room," I was curious to find out more about the station. I went to their website, Al Jazeera.com, and couldn't believe the filmmaker hadn't mentioned it. There's a section called "Conspiracy Theories" which includes the topics "Was Tsunami a Natural Disaster or Man-Made?" and "Israel assassinated al-Hariri to 'face-off' Hezbollah."
The title "Conspiracy Theories" does not excuse Al Jazeera from fostering unresearched, unfounded claims that further hatred.
Then there are the actual news stories. In the section entitled "Reviews and Profiles," is a three part series on "Israel: A Jews Only State." The writer says it is practically impossible to join the Jewish religion (which is untrue) and states that there is a "Zionist domination of the media."
Readers are invited to post comments after each article on the website, and reading these heated arguments â€" and they seem always to be heated â€" can be fascinating and incredibly disturbing as well. I like the idea of a dialogue. People from all over the world who would otherwise never speak to one another are able, in this forum, to debate. But people also make wild claims. One poster said he wished that Hitler were alive today to get rid of the rest of the Jews. This is frightening stuff. Fortunately another reader responded. Again, these are not the Al Jazeera articles themselves, but there is little doubt that those articles contribute to these attitudes.
If we are serious about democracy in the Middle East, then free media is essential. But the ant-Americanism and anti-Israeli stories, which, as Doran pointed out, dominate Al Jazeera, are damaging to everyone's interest. There's a way to report on anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Islam sentiments without irresponsibly furthering them.
Posted by asilver at 3:57 PM | Comments (1)
April 11, 2005
Jonathan Glater's Views on the Future of News
When asked if he fears for his job, Jonathan Glater, a business reporter for The New York Times, said "of course." The business just isn't doing as well as it used to.
Subscription numbers are down, and younger people are going to the internet for their news rather than buying hard copies of the paper. He doesn't know if NY Times digital can support the entire NY Times organization.
He was less concerned about the notion, and practice, of anyone reporting and posting the news. Blogs don't seem like much of a threat (blogs have been the subject of some of Glater's articles). Regarding Wikinews type news, and the possibility of false information that might come from it, Glater insists that "something is going to survive." Someone has to be providing the content.
Rather than distinguishing between professional and unprofessional journalists (noting that journalists often don't consider themselves "professionals"), he differentiates "between those people who run corrections and those who don't." Even established organizations have not been entirely accountable. His standard, however, is a place for corrections, whatever the medium (be it print, TV, or internet).
A couple of years ago, Glater was on the committee that investigated the Jayson Blair scandal. While there still aren't any fact-checkers aside from the reporters themselves (the daily production of news stories is too fast-paced) he says "a lot of us are more cautious." Though the credibility of the Times has taken some recent hits, Glater points out that individual journalists have their own credibility as well, and so it hasn't effected them that much
But even when the news stories are right, are they always news? My mom, a once avid Times reader, laments the increase of soft news and lack of hard news in the paper. She cites a fairly recent example as evidence: on the front page was an article about a producer, while buried at the end of section A was an article about the NAACP being under investigation by the IRA, because the former does not support President Bush.
Glater, however, does not think that soft news is overtaking hard news, at least at the Times. Though other sections (style, arts, etc.) are expanding, he believes that the news is still getting the resources it needs. Interestingly, he said that in fact there is plenty of hard news reporting, but it is not getting as much attention as it should. For example, we do know about Abu Ghraib. (He noted that he didn't have a personal experience to compare the state of investigative journalism to, since at the time of the Vietnam War he "was busy getting born").
Probably because of his beat, Glater is most attuned to the business side of the issue. The question is, how will news be paid for? Every merger, he points out, is bad for the papers, because it means fewer potential ads from major companies.
In a blog entry at Asymmetrical Information, Jane Galt also argues that the business problems are the most threatening for the Times. She alto touches on the Jayson Blair scandal, but, like Glater, doesn't see that as a major problem. After the blog entry there are several comments from readers across the country, discussing the future of the Times.
A reporter himself, Glater soon turned the questions back to myself and our class. He was curious to think what we thought of the future news, since we have been studying mass media for months. And he also wanted me to let him know if we came up with any solutions to guarantee his job's existence.
[Also, the subject of countless media outlets came up at the Nation panel held on campus last week. Juliet Eilperin, a reporter for The Washington Post, said that she is also concerned with "financial pressures" since subscription numbers for the Post, like those for the Times, have decreased. She said that it is a "scary time for mainstream media." She also noted that a new editor who emphasizes "accountability journalism" joined the Post recently, and sees this as the role of mainstream media at the time and probably in the future.]
Posted by asilver at 12:02 PM | Comments (0)
February 21, 2005
The [New York] Times
"The Times is like [a certain Boston-area university starting with the letter H] or the New York Yankees. It so dominates our imagination that it has become an archetype of what it means to be a journalistic enterprise." So writes Seth Mnookin in his book Hard News: The Scandals at The New York Times and Their Meaning for American Media.
This is not simply the pronouncement of a proud New Yorker; in addition to the NY edition, the Times has northeast, national, and electronic versions. It has been in existence for over one hundred and fifty years, and has won ninety Pulitzer Prizes.
The New York Times is the "flagship paper" of the New York Times Company, which also owns the International Herald Tribune, the Boston Globe, and sixteen other papers. The company is not limited to print media; it also owns TV and radio stations, in addition to many websites. Recently the company announced that it would add About.com to its holdings. Like most media outlets, it strives to increase financial assets without sacrificing its journalistic integrity. Last year's World Series Baseball Championship would have been front-page news even if The New York Times Company hadn't bought a minority share in the Red Sox.
According to its website, "The Company's core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information, and entertainment." The statement suggests that these three areas â€" news, information, and entertainment â€" are separate entities. This implies that news is not simply information. It also implies that though there is a distinction between news and entertainment, the media company intends to convey both. Under its newest leadership, that of Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the paper has been expanding its reach, including more special features and sections rather than concentrating on hard news. In his book, Mnookin discusses this expansion and the politics that have accompanied it. While the positions of publisher and executive editor are separate, the Sulzberger family is generally credited with establishing and maintaining the Times.
Sulzberger Jr. took over the roles of Chairman and publisher from his father, Arthur "Punch" Ochs Sulzberger. The New York Times has run in the family, passing from father to son or son-in-law since 1896, when Adolph Ochs bought the paper. It had been founded by Henry Jarvis Raymond and George Jones in 1851.
The New York of the title was hyphenated when the first issue of the New-York Daily Times came out in September of that year. The NY Times Timeline traces the history of the paper, and highlights some of the events it covered, including the close 1876 presidential election between Tilden and Hayes. Rather than calling it too soon â€" most of the Times' competitors were reporting Tilden as the winner â€" the Times waited it out. Months later, Hayes was declared the 19th president of the Unites States.
Currently, approximately twelve-hundred people are involved in the operation of the New York Times. Seth Mnookin describes the newsroom as an intense, unfriendly environment, in contrast with the calmer and more posh offices of weekly and monthly magazines. Mnookin also depicts a typical day in the newsroom: reporters get to the office around 10, section editors make their rounds, and "by noon, reporters write up 'sked lines,' one-or-two sentence summaries that their editors can use at the daily page-one meeting to pitch their stories." Often, breaking stories make for late nights.
The circulation of the Times' weekday paper is approximately 1.1 million, while that of its Sunday paper is roughly 1.7 million. More than half of its audience are college graduates (the numbers vary â€" estimates include 57%, 67%, and 76%) and over forty percent of its readers have a household income of at least $100,000.
Though it has enjoyed a long reputation as New York's premier newspaper, and has long been regarded as a trusted source, recently there have been several scandals at the Times. In 2003 Jayson Blair, a reporter for the paper, was found to have plagiarized or fictionalized thirty-six of his articles. The paper held an investigation and top editors resigned (including executive editor Howell Raines). Around the same time the reporter Judith Miller was accused of playing up the presence of WMDs in Iraq. In May of 2004, the Times published an apology, recognizing that it did not always succeed in its investigative reporting about the war and the administration's reasons for declaring it.
So what of "The future of the New York Times"? In the introduction to his book, Mnookin refers to the Times as "the bible of the American elite." But he wonders if it will remain an icon. As it branches out, the paper might be spreading itself too thin. Some New Yorkers (my Mom included) are dissatisfied with the direction the paper is taking.
Posted by asilver at 1:35 AM | Comments (0)
February 14, 2005
Journalists and Pseudonyms - a bad combination?
Perhaps there's currently too many media scandals for one class to follow. We haven't yet mentioned the Jeff Gannon controversy. This article from the Washington Post sums up what happened, and various reactions to it. It also includes selected questions Gannon asked in the White House press room.
Posted by asilver at 6:01 PM | Comments (2)
February 5, 2005
Papers and channels and blogs, oh my….
I've already admitted to being a cable news addict....
Somehow the repetitive cycle of stories and talking heads entrances me. I usually switch between CNN and MSNBC, with the occasional nod to Fox. That television is my primary source of news whenever I am around a television set does concern me a bit - I used the word "entrance," after all. And even with my eyes on the screen I doubt that news should have such an effect.
When at school, I depend more on the computer than the TV. I'll occasionally visit CNN or the New York Times online. I also receive two newsletters from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: the Daily Alert and the weekly Israel Campus Beat. While focused on certain issues, these newsletters include links to a variety of news outlets. As a result of these emails I read articles from international papers and assorted university campus publications; in other words, outlets I would otherwise seldom look to. I've registered for these newsletters because of my interest in Israel; the newsletters contain news reports as well as opinions.
Finally, I still get news from good old-fashioned newspapers. The New York Times, at home and at school, is the paper I tend to hold in my hands. I usually read the front page and the op-ed section in the most detail. Now I don't read it as much, but I also like Newsweek. I am not a regular reader of tangible papers, but I would not discount print media.
Though I watch the news and visit the websites, I am skeptical of the value of such sources. Of course transparency and availability are important in a democracy, but there can be a downside to the constant stream of "news." My dad has noted that 24 hours of news makes everything significant; any development has equal importance to any other. Instead of an evening report summarizing the day's events - or, even more primitive, a weekly newsreel show in a local theater â€" we have real-time news. Yet because of the immediate report, perhaps we lose perspective. How does this event fit into the bigger picture? Of course, one might argue that we are not asking for perspective; we just want the facts, when they happen. In that case, do 24 hour news stations contribute to objectivity? Do they encourage the straight reporting of events as they happen? Or do they twist them into possessing a greater significance than they do?
There is one show that both summarizes the day's events and twists them, not into having greater significance, but having less. I'm talking about the Daily Show, my favorite source for fake news. The Comedy Central show did not come up in our class discussion - possibly out of respect for the show's claim to be just entertainment, possibly out of respect for seriousness - but many people our age say its their main source of news. Whether or not Comedy Central is a reliable news outlet, we might agree that graphics and dramatic music are more appropriate for a parody of news than the real thing.
Posted by asilver at 3:10 PM | Comments (1)