Audience Imagined and Its Consequences - Essay Example

?News Production – Audience Imagined and Its Consequences The 21st century has seen tremendous transformation with all aspects of the society and news production is no different. News production has transformed over the last century from being just a one sided channel for news delivery to a more conversational and interactive form of demand media today. The advent of internet and other modern technologies have influenced every aspect of our life and made it more interactive. News production, and mainly media, is not independent of these effects and the media industry today is more vibrant and has more reach than ever. News today not only reaches the local audience but also global audience. Globalisation has made the world a small place and the effects of an incident in one part of the world are felt in other parts of the world. News production is today a global phenomenon and the process of how the news is gathered and showcased to the audience has undergone a complete transformation. The important aspect of news production is the way the audience are imagined by the journalists or the news companies. Even though, technology has made it possible to have a more interactive news production process, that hasn’t been the case. There are various reasons why the technology hasn’t been used to best effect to improve the overall news production processs. This paper discusses how the audience are imagined in news production and what its consequences are. In order to do so, first how the perception of the audience has changed over the years or stages of the journalism-audience relationship is addressed. News Productions – Imagined Audience There has been a fundamental transformation in the understanding of the audience by journalists. The professional or traditional view of audience is in complete contrast to the modern view of the audience. The advent of the web has increased the responsiveness of the audience to the news and this has now been incorporated into the DNA of news production. The traditional approach was that the desires and wants of the audience were not of much important and the journalists decided what news the audience needed to know. It was the journalists and the management at the news companies that decided what stories that need to be told to the audience. There was very less interaction and also very less the journalists and companies could do to understand their audience. But with this new level of audience responsiveness, which is made possible by the web, the journalists have better tools to understand their audience and their preferences. But the main question remains whether they have used to best effect. This has impacted the way the audience is imagined during the news production. It is claimed that the web has now lead to audience responsiveness in news production which was earlier audience ignorance. That is, the real audience perception was completely ignored in traditional approach. Now the audience responsiveness has bought in a certain reality into how the audience are imagined in news production. But this is most often limited news channels on the internet. The press and the television news channels haven’t completely utilised this. The audience have been imagined differently during different stages in the last century and this century. The professional view in the last century was that the journalists had very little understanding of their audience. As Ettema & Whitney (1994) state that there was an industrial construction of audience. Industrial construction is the way people who create material (for news companies, agencies, etc) think of the people on the receiving end of their material (Turow, 2005). This had serious consequences or implications on the news that the audience would get. Audience would get material that was not contained of the actual facts but was a perception of journalist about the facts. That is, the audience were fed with news that the journalists thought was right. This was the case most of the times. Gans (2004) in his study makes a very interesting observation. He says that when he started working on his study he believed that journalists, from a commercial perspective as an employee of a News company, would take direct and serious consideration of the audience during the process of selection and production of news. But to his utter surprise, he says, the journalists had very little or no knowledge of who the actual audience was and what they wanted. He also points out if there was any feedback that was discarded. The journalists had a very vague image of who the audience was but paid very little attention to it while news production. Therefore, news production was done mainly keeping in mind what they and their superiors wanted (Gans, 2004). This complete discarding of the audience would lead to drastic consequences when the news reaches the global audience. The views of a few cannot be forced upon the whole reader base. This can work in a local setting but not on the global stage. Gans (2004) also goes on to point out why is there disconnect between the journalist and the audience. One practical reason that he points out is that it is intellectually impossible to imagine an audience of millions. It is not practically possible to imagine an audience who are spread across the globe and write content and views to fit everyone. Instead, the easier path is taken, where in the news is written for themselves and their superiors and the audience are allowed to choose from a variety of sources and views. Another important factor is that the journalists are the news makers do not trust the ability of the audience to judge the news. The intellectual capacity of the audience is doubted and the journalists believe that the audience need to be told what is important and qualifies as main news. Audience are imagined to be incapable of making the proper judgement on the criticality and importance of the news. The corporate success is another factor that forces the journalists to discard the audience when it comes to news production. Irrespective of what is the motive of the journalists and editors, news organizations are run by corporate executives who at the end of the day have to register profits to keep the show running. Hence, corporate economics and political pressure both act on the journalists to write that sells on bigger scale. Hence, what sells becomes more important that the actual audience. Hence, some argue that the audience images play only a minor role in influencing the performance of the journalists as compared to the other influential sources (Ettema, Whitney, & Wackman, 1997). But there are other scholars who argue that there is a bigger role played by the audience in shaping the news (Hujanen, 2008). There has been a radical change in attitude of the journalists very recently. Even though the above explained perception of the audience still exists, the change in attitude in now spreading. The advent of the web is the main force that is driving the way in which audience are imagined. News production has now gained a whole new dimension. News production now is not just about creating the news put it in front of the audience. News consumption itself has become a part of the news production process. It is no more a one-way system of communication but as become a two way system (Rosen, 2006). The audience are not passive anymore and are actively involved in the whole process. New web technologies such as social media which include twitter, facebook, have opened up an entirely new news distribution channels. It also has created freedom for individual expression through podcasts and blogs. News is no more one-to-many broadcasting system but has now conversational many-to-many system (Rosen, 2006). Audience are now not only on the receiving end but are also capable of expressing themselves through comments. This has new model has threatened to completely displace the old one-way communication systems and put a lot pressure on the traditional view of the imagination of the audience (Shirky, 2008). Journalists who write for their superiors and themselves, and believed that audience would like what they like are under serious stress. These new social media tools have made it possible to now understand, if not the perception and attitude of the audience, behaviour of the audience with respect to news consumption. But this is still not completely used by the journalists their agenda setting is not completely influenced by the explosion of social media (Delwiche, 2005). Journalists still believe in their power to decide what news is and continue to imagine the audience the way see it best rather than understanding the actual audience (Domingo et al., 2008). Now that we have established how journalists imagine the audience of their content, let’s get back to the impact globalisation has had. As mentioned earlier, due to globalisation, the world of media has opened up and even local newspapers and websites like New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, etc have a global audience. So this makes the exposure to the news content immense and the imagining of the audience even more critical. Assumption of the Audience and Ignorance There is a belief in the broadcasting committee of the western world that the audience are not interested in factual representation of the third world countries. Truth or facts are not of much interest to the audience. This can be understood by the following three comments: Steve Hewlett, Director of Programmes at Carlton Television: “I know from past experience that programmes about the developing world don't bring in the audiences. They're not about us, and they're not usually about things we can do anything about.” (Philo, 2004). George Alagiah, a senior BBC journalist: “Programme editors are driven by audience interest, but this can lead to a fixation with home, leisure and consumer items instead of the broader agenda.” (Philo, 2004) George Carey: “I try and guess what the audience wants. Most people switch on to be entertained not to get a message. Instinctively I feel domestic stories will be more interesting than foreign ones.” All the above statements convey the same thing. The news media assumes that the audience are not interested in what is happening elsewhere unless it is entertaining. Actual facts do not mean much to the audience and hence any news that is built on the actual facts does not draw or attract audience. The following comments take the ideology to the next level: Alex Holmes, editor at BBC: “Audience interest is very important, second only to a good story, but we don't know exactly what people want. I imagine what they want. It's blissfully unscientific on Modern Times!” (Philo, 2004) Charles Tremayne, Grand TV: “We're past the days of giving audiences what they should have — now it's all about what they want.” Even though the above two statements contradict each other, it is quite clear that the understanding of the audience is very less and more is imagined about the audience. It is believed that the audience want to actually see only the half portrayed truth. For example, African is mainly in the headlines for its poverty and chaos, while India is still showcased as a developing country and the perception still remains the same with the audience. Next is the explanation of the news. Is there accurate and detailed explanation of the news? The answer to this is NO. There is only a limited explanation and the rest is left to the imagination of the audience. The view or the opinion is expressed but the actual story is not conveyed. For example, many news channels and press covered the crisis and revolution in the Middle East over the last year. The number of strikes, deaths and other happenings were covered but there was very little coverage to the actual reason why the crisis or revolutions took place. And even when these reasons were addressed, they weren’t accurate enough (Philo, 2004). News Production – Transnational and International Structures With globalization, the process of international news coverage has become a subject of great research. Many scholars like Gans, Tuchman, etc have tried to understand the process of news production. There are various factors that affect the news production process such as the hierarchy in decision-making, the news division’s internal structure, professional codes, social control, lines of communication and criteria of news selection. Another important factor that affects the process of news production and selection is the interaction between editors and producers. Therefore, news production is solely dependent on the imagines audience. But when it comes to transnational and international news coverage, the news media have little or no control over it. News is made by the economic and political structures. International news coverage is mainly dependent on the correspondent’s location and communication channels. And the correspondent’s location is high correlation with the cultural, economic and political relationships among nations. Therefore, the news net is formed based on the political, historical, commercial and strategic importance of the location. These factors which can be both transnational and international in character influence the news coverage. Therefore, such news coverage will only allow the journalists to have limited imagination of the audience they are writing to and hence can have wide range of effects. Mainly international news coverage, irrespective of the medium and the targeted audience, influences public opinion and their knowledge about international affairs. This is with respect to the general public. Another important aspect of international news coverage is that it influences is its affect on the process of public diplomacy and foreign policy. The effect of news coverage on public knowledge and opinion in best put forward by the following description of the press’ agenda setting power: No Major act of the American Congress, no foreign adventure, no act of diplomacy, no great social reform, can succeed in the United States unless the press prepares the public mind (White, 1973, 327). In the light of the above description, it can be seen how important the role of the news production is. From this it can be understood that more than the journalists imagination of the audience, it is the journalists perception of what is important that results in news production. The news sources are not just used by the general audience but also foreign policy elites. Foreign policy elites in the government also depend on major news sources for information. Even though they have various other sources at their disposals such as intelligence networks, government agencies, etc, they depend on the major news mediums for information. Top foreign policy makers of a country are dependent on the major news agencies for information and also become major sources of information for some news agencies. Therefore, agenda setting during news production plays an important role in foreign policy and international relations. The agenda-setting power of the news agencies also has political implications on the foreign policy of the nations. But the main issue that arises is whether the news that is put in front of the audience does justice. There are instances, where the news coverage enforces the view of the journalists on the audience. As mentioned above, news coverage plays an important role in forming public knowledge and public opinion. How public opinion and public knowledge is formed as a result of news coverage will be discussed later. The imagined audience to which the journalists write can include the wide range of audiences that actually consume the news (Larson, 1984). Therefore, it can both influence the audience negatively and positively. The public knowledge and opinion might only be the views of a few whose set the agenda in news making. This is especially true in when it comes to transnational news as the news setting agenda is different in different countries. National news agencies try to interpret the view that would be more popular and sell in the country and vice versa. The commercial incentive also influences the kind of news that is covered and showcased. News Production during September 11 – Imagined Audience and Emotional Response How the audience are imagined and how it can have consequences can be best understood by taking the example of September 11 terrorist attacks. September 11 was an unplanned media event of gigantic magnitude. The whole world was glued to their television sets and other sources of news. The limited journalists on ground zero and New York fed the world with images, videos and reports of what was happening (Sreberny, 2002). The news articles and reports on the D-day and the following days were mainly addressed to the United States audience while the number of global audience watching the news outnumbered that of the US audience. The journalists even though were aware of the fact that they would be telecasting or writing to the global audience, their imagined audience was limited to that of US. This imagination of audience and the news targeted at them, lead to articles and reports that were not accurate and biased. There were even opinions from experts that were too biased and limited to the imagined audience. There are many journalists and experts who regret for their lapse in addressing the global audience. There was an over individualised approach to the whole event. The same was the situation in other countries that were at the receiving end of this. There was a complete lapse of the regular frameworks of journalism. The actual politics and economics that needed to be discussed was replaced by feelings and emotions of the many who had suffered, for example, the fire fighters, kin of the victims, etc. This was inaccurate but showcased as raw and political truth (Sreberny, 2002). The material in the media was produced in a hurry with a false image of the audience among the journalists but then showcased to a large audience. The negative consequences of this were immediate hatred among the audience towards Islam among the western countries and vice-versa with the audience in the Islamic countries (Sreberny, 2002). Sikhs (who resemble Muslims with respect to attire) in the US were attacked. The news was dominated by content that was written rapidly and was emotionally very expressive, and reflected the mistrust and anxiety which was the result of trauma caused by the attack. When it comes to global news production, the most important problem that arises is the indifference between the audiences on a global stage. For many years before the September 11 attacks, the western audience did not have any sustained interest in that horror that was happening elsewhere in the world. The incidents in the other parts of the world did not have deep meaning or much importance. The audience react differently in different parts of the world and more importantly the audience tend to identify themselves more deeply with the matter in hand. There are various examples of this. The Asian population in Britain is more agonised and diverted towards the violence in India or the racial attacks on Asians in different parts of the world. Similarly, Arabs in America have a different view point and watch the news about the Middle East in a different perspective. Therefore, from the above argument it becomes very difficult for the journalists to do justice to the concept of imagined audience on a global scale. This again brings the argument of Gans (2004) into picture. It is intellectual impossible to cater to such a large audience with so many different perspectives. So there is bound to be lapses in the way audience is imagined. But with respect to the September 11 attack it was over identification with the tragedy than the indifference. The journalist and audience worldwide, mainly western countries identified themselves with Americans. This was all again witnessed in the news about the event. This shows how America mainly comprises the global universe. The people from the western world, who would not react to the horror in smaller and lesser important parts of the world, showed a deep cultural proximity towards the tragedy in the US. The attack on the financial capital of the world induced feeling of fear among other developed nations and fostered an emotional response that was showcased in the news around the time. The analysis of the news production during the time gives raise to serious questions. The journalists were confused about who the audience was and why they were writing those articles (Sreberny, 2002). The analysis of news production after September 11 attacks have shown that how over identification with the incident can lead to personalised and emotional responses. In this case, the articles where written considering the imagined audience to be same as the journalists. The scale of the incident and unawareness also lead to lapses in the way the journalists imagined their audience. There were millions of responses and each had a different viewpoint. News Production – Controlled, Censored and Manipulated by Transnational Corporations News production is dependent on the way audiences are imagined by the journalists along with various other factors. And journalist’s perception of the audience has various consequences, some positive and some negative. But there has been questions raised from various quarters about the actual content of the news. Many scholars and experts in the field argue that transnational corporation have a major say in the process of news production. The issue of censorship of news has been debated on a global stage many times. Due to commercial interests, a system has been created by the powerful which completely disregards the audience and disturbs the whole fabric of journalism. The following examples will highlight the fact that there is pressure on the media to censor the news content that they publish or broadcast: Dan Rather in his talk says that the US government during the Watergate scandal had pressurised his bosses to underplay or censor the scandal. He also goes on to say that news media with looking for commercial returns has become completely corrupt and flawed (Rather, 2008). Monetl Williams (2008) says that the media today tries to sideline important issues and these are covered by bringing about discussion on celebrity gossip which are of no importance. The media is sometimes pressurised and some time deliberately stays biased on issues withholding the truth from the audience. There have been complaints about channels such as Fox News that that have even bribed their reporters to keep their stories under wrap. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson complain that they were bribed to not indulge too much detail in the story on Monsanto Corporation’s bovine growth hormone and when they refused they were fired (Wilson & Akre, 2008). Media is accused of covering up the lies of the governments. Jesse Ventura says that the mainstream cannot be trusted with the broadcast or publish the facts. Instead, he says that, the media is more involved in creating the news rather than reporting the news. According to him, the news media today has become a giant corporate system that is corrupt and flawed (Ventura, 2010). There are numerous such examples worldwide. In most of the above cases, it was claimed that in some way or the other, their work was censored or manipulated. There have been numerous conspiracy theories that have doing the rounds since ages. All this leads to the idea that news is not reported but created. This makes the imagined audience less important in the whole process. The news agencies imagine the audience as people who are looking for sensation and entertainment rather than actual facts and stories. With progress in time this practice has been completely adopted by media as a whole and has left the audience wanting for more of such news. Today, the audience look for more sensationalism and entertainment, and most importantly accept what has been put in front of them rather than questioning them, The views of a few have been misunderstood to be the views of the whole. This creation of news, wherein the actual facts and stories are censored and manipulated, has numerous negative consequences. The public knowledge and opinion is altered and based on assumptions rather than actual facts. The audience are bound to be biased towards the source of information that they trust. So news from other sources are discarded irrespective of whether they are true or not. The biased view of the news sources becomes the actual view and opinion of the audience. This is very dangerous for any country. Audience Responses In the above paragraphs, we have seen how the audience are imagined by the people in the media, how the perception of the audience has changed over the years, the process of news production and its evolution. Now let’s see the responses of the audience or the consequences of the above discussed news production process and imagined audience. For example, due to the above discussed news production process; the audience in the developed countries associate the developed countries with negativity. The developing countries were mainly associated with war, conflict, refugees, famine and poverty. The same was the case during the September 11 news coverage. Due to the over identification of the Media with the tragedy and sympathy towards the American public, there was an emotional response and inaccurate journalism. The audience in the western countries reacted with hatred and violence towards the Islamic countries and the religion Islam in general. The mistakes of a few extreme religionists lead to the criticism of the whole religion. The reaction of the audience is the same to censored, biased and manipulated journalism. The audience react to the biased views and opinions and form their own public opinion based on these views. These reactions can harm the whole fabric of the society and international relations. The racism attacks in the UK and Australia have lead to people in the Asian Subcontinent to view the whole nations as racist. This is not true but sensationalised journalism hungry of corporate success leads to this. Bibliography Delwiche, A. (2005). Agenda-setting, opinion leadership, and the word of Web logs. First Monday, 10(12). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1300/1220. Accessed on 23 Dec, 2011. Domingo, D., Vujnovic, M. Paulussen, S., Quandt, T., Singer, J., & Heinonen, A. (2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 326–342. Ettema, J. S., & Whitney, D. C. (1994). The money arrow: An introduction to Audiencemaking. In Audiencemaking: How the Media Create the Audience (pp. 1–18). New York: SAGE. Ettema, J. S., Whitney, D. C., & Wackman, D. B. (1997). Professional mass communicators. In D. Berkowitz (Ed.), Social meanings of news: A text-reader (p. 31). London: SAGE. Gans, H. J. (2004). Deciding what's news. Chicago: Northwestern University Press. Hujanen, J. (2008). RISC monitor audience rating and its implications for journalistic practice. Journalism, 9(2), 182. Larson, J.F. (1984). Television's window on the world: international affairs coverage on the U.S. networks. NJ: Albex Publishing Corporation. Philo, G. (2004). "The mass production of ignorance: News content and audiences" in Paterson. C. and Sreberny, A. (Eds.) International News in the Twenty- First Century, University of Luton/ John Libbey. Rather, D. (2008). Dan Rather talks about the corrupt Corporate media. [Online]. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ckeqIoZz9c&feature=player_embedded. Accessed on 26 Dec 2011. Rosen, J. (2006). The people formerly known as the audience. PressThink. Available at: http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html. Accessed on 22 Dec, 2011. Sreberny, A. (2002). "Trauma talk: Reconfiguring the inside and outside" in Zelizer, B. and S. Allan, (Eds.), Journalism after September 11, Routledge, Chapter 12, pp.220- 234. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Press. Turow, J. (2005). Audience construction and culture production: Marketing surveillance in the digital age. The Annals of the American Academy of Political And Social Science, 597(1), 103. Ventura, J. (2010). Jesse Ventura: Corporate media, Censorship and American Conspiracies. [Online]. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzhdMgI3Z9I&feature=player_embedded. Accessed on 22 Dec 2011. White, T. (1973). The Making of the President1972. NY: Bantam. Wilson, S. & Akre, J. (2008). FOX News Whistle blowers. UNBELIEVABLE!!!. [Online]. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc&feature=player_embedded. Accessed on Jan 2 2011. Read More