How can Journalists Avoid Reducing Conflict to Spectacle - Assignment Example

How can Journalists avoid reducing Conflict to Spectacle? This paper will present arguments concerning how journalists can fight the urge tosensationalise conflict reporting and present factual and timely news. Works by Moeller and Chouliaraki will form the basis of most of the views put forward to show how journalists can compile and present news during conflict situations according to their modus operandi. The paper will also use other articles to provide a comprehensive outlook on journalistic practices and how they can be fine-tuned to suit a common agenda. Introduction For most of the 20th century, conflicts defined global geopolitics, economic dynamics, and social development. Although the 21st century has seen fewer conflicts, there are still concerns regarding the quality of reporting on this aspect. In Afghanistan and Iraq, where the United States and other western countries are involved in a seemingly never-ending conflict, there have been many instances where journalists have moulded their stories based on norms rather than the actual scenarios on the ground. This is referred to as formulaic reporting; it offers nothing new apart from stereotypes. Journalists know that news depends on the source. Conflicts generate different stories compared to famines and epidemics; the images and situations are completely different. As a result, there is need to tailor reporting to fit events. Discussion News reporting is more challenging than most people think. In the last few decades, there has been an increase in the number of media outlets across the world, but the “style of reporting has remained virtually consistent” (Musa & Willis, 2014:36). Despite an increase in the number of media platforms, a majority of them are still controlled by a few individuals with links to governments and other organisations interested in regulating what is reported. As such, there are very few news outlets that are truly independent. Considering that conflicts are inevitably and always linked to politics, factual reporting during wars is becoming increasingly rare. Most journalists have, therefore, been forced to abide by the wishes of their employers when reporting. However, politics is not the only problem. Effective conflict reporting “demands adequate training and experience” (Musa & Willis, 2014:36). Submitting credible and impactful news from conflict areas is extremely challenging, even for the most seasoned reporters. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that media houses need to train, equip and motivate their employees more in order to improve the quality of conflict reporting. In Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War, and Death, Moeller shows the significance of images in reporting and the mistakes journalists can avoid presenting quality photographs when covering conflicts. The first thing that journalists can do to avoid diluting conflict reporting is to be wary of and eschew the “formulaic pattern of content creation and presentation” (Moeller, 1999:49). For example, Moeller (1999:52) argues that too often, journalists tend to “adhere to stereotypes instead of creating novel images to depict actual aspects of events.” When reporting on poverty in Africa, stories are often packaged and presented in the form of starving, emaciated children and adults, dead livestock, barren lands, and sad faces. This is the normal image that a majority of westerners are used to; when they hear about poverty in Africa “this is the picture that comes to mind” (Boltanski, 1999:27). If famine were to break out in parts of Africa at the moment, then a journalist covering the story does not simply have to take images and use words that follow preset patterns. When taking pictures, the reporter does not have to focus on images that can be grouped together with others that have always been used to portray poverty in Africa. The same applies to conflict. Reporters should be wary of inundating readers and viewers with familiar stories about suicide attacks, ambushes, and casualties. In any conflict, there are usually so many “undercurrents that are not given the attention they deserve” (Wright, 2011:296). These include political, social, and economic impacts of war and efforts that go into submitting reports from the ground. Journalists should avoid being trapped in monotonous coverage of conflicts that generates publicity instead of presenting facts. This represents laziness and a disregard of journalistic principles. Moeller states that during the Bosnian War, for example, American media was obsessed with assuming a stance of reporting that compared the situation to the Holocaust or the Vietnam War. As such, journalists covering the conflict, including those who were on the ground, took pictures and submitted stories that “leaned towards either of the two historical events” (Moeller, 1999:53). Ultimately, many angles of the war were not covered, and that is why victims and participants are still coming up with new perspectives that were unfathomable during the conflict. In reality, those perspectives were evident but were ignored in favour of “stereotypes and bureaucratic machinations” (Moeller, 1999:55). Journalists should avoid bias in their reporting. Bias not only compromises the credibility of a story but also damages the reputations of reporters, media outlets, and the journalistic profession. When covering any story, journalists should focus on facts only. Sometimes, in the quest to prolong stereotypical patterns of reporting, journalists underestimate the intelligence of viewers. Viewers are knowledgeable enough to tell when coverage of a particular issue is biased, and, after some time, tend to ignore this kind of reporting instead of watching, reading, or hearing about the same perspectives round the clock. This is what Moeller (1999:55) refers to as “compassion fatigue.” Once it sets in, journalists cannot convince viewers to give them more audience. Their stories become irrelevant and their reporting uneventful. For example, millions of American viewers know that there are conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also know that they have a responsibility as citizens to support their troops, even if they disagree with the government’s decision to engage in a conflict that some consider needless. They have been asked to contribute morally financially to the betterment of active or inactive soldiers, and a majority of those who can have tried to. At the beginning of the conflicts, American viewers were “shocked by the images and news that came from Iraq and Afghanistan” (Musa & Willis, 2014:43). It is fair to say that most viewers were sympathetic to the troops who were on duty, especially when they read about or watched their experiences during the conflicts. However, rather than adhere to their codes of conduct by presenting factual and authoritative news that engaged viewers, journalists, and media houses decided to keep bombarding viewers with “repetitive stories” concerning casualties and other features of the conflicts (Burston, 2003:46). Over time, the American public has grown weary of the wars and this form of reporting. Viewers have “run out of compassion” regardless of the news they receive from the media unless it directly touches on their lives (Thomas, 2011:294). While they are now demanding accountability and a swift end to the conflicts, journalists are still running stories based on the same contexts they used at the beginning of the conflicts. This shows a weakness in the ability of journalists to engage viewers. Humanitarianism is a common feature of conflicts. In fact, to be precise, it is a constant feature of all past and current conflicts. Each time there is a war, the humanitarian dimension of it follows closely behind. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees are part of conflict and a major influence in the development of the humanitarian component. According to Chouliaraki (2013:26), the “theatricality of humanitarianism” has stifled journalists’ creativity and authority when it comes to reporting about conflicts. As a result, journalists should be knowledgeable enough to distinguish between the moral corruption and moral education aspects of humanitarianism. To appear credible and authoritative when reporting on humanitarian issues during conflicts, journalists must first understand the “context of the conflicts, the viewers’ perspectives, and the implications of the messages they will convey” (Chouliaraki, 2013:29). Humanitarianism is regularly exploited by different entities (politicians, lobbyists, etc.) to further their interests. This is the “morally corrupt” side of humanitarianism and humanitarian reporting (Cushion, 2009:127). However, some media and stakeholders have used humanitarian situations to educate viewers on important issues and relay positive messages to society. Journalists should always choose the morally educative aspect of humanitarianism when covering conflicts. Although the ambivalence is confusing and challenging, professional reporters, who understand the expectations of their practice will always opt to use humanitarianism to improve society. For example, when reporting on conditions on refugee camps and medical facilities in the aftermath of a conflict, journalists must avoid propagating stereotypes that are aimed at “evoking sympathy instead of inspiring action” (Veits, 2014:39). It is also important for journalists to focus solely on humanitarian aspects rather than engaging in sideshows. For example, although they should, most journalists find it difficult to avoid politicising humanitarian issues in order to “stir political debates that, ultimately, profit their employers” (Debord, 2000:68). When covering a humanitarian issue, all journalists must concentrate on the conditions, the people, the efforts being made, and the improvements that can be made to better the situation. These should be accompanied by facts pertaining to the situation and should be free of bias and irrelevance. A humanitarian situation like the one in Syria can be used to educate viewers on the importance of understanding such scenarios and what it means to their wellbeing. The Syrian situation has impacts that go beyond the country and viewers have a right to be informed about such dynamics. This is part of the “morally positive aspect of humanitarian reporting” during conflict that helps journalists to avoid reducing conflicts to a spectacle (Stahl, 2009:17). According to Moeller, the context of images (imagery) is also important in helping journalists to eschew relegating conflicts to spectacles. For example, the picture of the solitary Chinese who “stopped a convoy of tanks in Tiananmen Square” is regarded by American as a symbol of liberty and individual rights (Moeller, 1999:54). On the other hand, in China the same picture was used to show that the soldiers had demonstrated “humanitarian prudence by not running the man down” (Moeller, 1999:54). As Moeller states, for both the US and China, the photograph conveyed, in a variegated manner, a major aspect of their ideologies. It relayed a global viewpoint persuading enough to back the communal and personal dimension of identity (Moeller, 1999:54). Consequently, it is safe to say that imagery represents the ideology and self-awareness of its culture, as well as its connection to the world. What does this mean for journalists covering conflicts? When considered from a narrow perspective it means that they should understand the context of their images when reporting on conflicts. However, when considered from a broader perspective, it includes not only images but also live reporting and published. Journalists must maintain an open mind and consider geopolitical factors when covering conflicts in different regions. For example, in a situation like the one involving the single Chinese blocking tanks in Tiananmen Square, an American journalist working with an American media outlet, and who has a myopic view of the incident would classify it as a symbol of individual rights and freedom. While this would appeal to American viewers, it is likely to be rejected by a majority of Chinese. This not only creates tension between the two cultures but also puts the journalist’s reputation in jeopardy when “deeper examination reveals a lack of understanding of the situation” (Veits, 2014:26). A picture of warring clans in Africa may be blankly interpreted by a western journalist as just another episode in the continent’s long-running instability. However, for an African journalist working in the affected region and who has a comprehensive comprehension of such events, the situation could have a huge bearing in the political, social, economic dynamics of the country in which it is occurring. The difference in the two journalists’ interpretations may be viewed as a result of geographical and cultural contrasts, but this would be excusing the foreign reporter’s unprofessionalism. It is the responsibility of all journalists, as part of their profession, to “read widely and understand the contexts of the regions and cultures they cover” (Musa & Willis, 2014:108). The 1994 genocide in Rwanda has been cited as an example of the problems caused by journalists’ failure to understand fully the dynamics of their topics. While foreign journalists based in the country assumed that the situation was part of the “norm” and, therefore, did not deserve any more coverage than other issues, atrocities were actually taking place. The situation was reduced to a spectacle because of foreign journalists’ poor grasp of Rwanda’s politics and culture. Later reports even suggested that local journalists who understood what was going on did not receive the attention they required because their reports were not taken seriously by western media. Ong (2014:179) provides an interesting outlook of the media ethics and how journalists portray sufferers by citing the views of Orgad (2008) who argues against the perception that it is more “positive and ethical to portray sufferers in any conflict as active agents” (Ong 2014:182). For Orgad, portraying excessive agency in sufferers could be inhibitive to their cause, because viewers could perceive sufferers as capable and self-reliant and, therefore, in no need of support or humanitarian aid. For example, a comparative evaluation of newspaper reporting of the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and the 2005 London bombings revealed that the anguish and suffering experienced by sufferers in the Kashmir earthquake was depicted to be “more bearable than having practical remedies vis-à-vis the London bombings” (Ong 2014:182). Orgad noted that while the sufferers in the Kashmir earthquake were identified as survivors, the sufferers in the London bombings were described as victims, despite the fact that the earthquake had “more casualties than the terror attack” (Ong 2014:182). As such, her conclusion is that depicting sufferers as victims and characterising suffering at its height could relay a message of pain that demands “political action” (Ong 2014:182). What do these findings have for journalists reporting on and from conflict areas? Using Orgad’s analysis, it is safe to say that journalists’ depiction of sufferers should not be overly sympathetic to the extent that it dilutes the factual aspect of the situation. A journalist has a responsibility to both viewers and sufferers, which involves balancing the needs of both parties. However, modern journalism has tended to drift towards media owners’ interests rather than those of viewers and participants. This is what Moeller (1999:50) refers to as “formulaic reporting” and it is a major aspect of the urge to sensationalise news. As such, even though neither the Kashmir earthquake nor the London bombings can be described as conflicts in the true spirit of the word, both situations involved sufferers whose plight needed to be presented as they were instead of as they were supposed to be. Journalists should avoid bias when reporting during conflicts, as the consequences are usually grave for the participants. According to Knightley (2003:44), it is particularly worrying that western media tend to “lean towards Western interests” when covering situations in developing countries or when covering incidents in both contexts (e.g., the London bombings, and the Kashmir earthquake). It is important to recognise that although the western influence is more dominant than third world interests, journalists must not jump on the paternalistic bandwagon that involves choosing the “better” side. American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq do not warrant more sympathy than Nigerian troops battling Boko Haram, or Sri Lankan soldiers fighting Tamil Tigers, yet while the three engagements have been occurring almost simultaneously since 2003, the United States’ campaigns in the Middle East have received more favourable and considerable coverage from media. Watching and reading news, one would be led to think that the wars in Iraq and the Middle East are more “justified than others taking place around the world” (Güney, 2010:174). In her 2008 work, No one’s looking: the disappearing audience for war, Carruthers introduces two new issues involving journalists’ coverage of conflicts, how they influence the propensity of media to turn conflicts into, and how journalists can avoid reducing conflicts into spectacle. The first is the media’s “manipulation of conflict reporting" to suit their agendas or the interests of politicians (Carruthers, 2008:74). The second issue is the courage to go directly to the source to get the story instead of recycling familiar themes. According to Carruthers, the journalists who exposed the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib – a product of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – did not receive as much attention as they warranted. This is a direct result of American media’s “manipulation of the situation and their refusal to present audiences with the truth” (Carruthers, 2008:74). As a result, viewers initially refused to trust pictures and reports concerning the inhumane conditions at Abu Ghraib. However, that is beside the point. The journalists who exposed the reality at Abu Ghraib went to extreme lengths to uncover the truth about the situation. This is one way in which journalists can prevent the demotion of conflicts to spectacles. By going to the source instead of relying on formulaic contexts, reporters reduce or even eliminate the likelihood of governments or other complacent media sensationalising conflict situations. As one of the court-martialed guards at the prison stated during trial, there would have been no Abu Ghraib fiasco without the provocative and revealing pictures of prisoner abuse. “There would have been no investigation. It would’ve been, whatever, everybody go home” (Carruthers, 2008:73). This incident is the essence of true journalism; it represents one of the principles that all media should aspire to when reporting in conflict situations: first-hand information that is beyond disrepute. Due to the brave reporting on the story, the American government was forced to admit to the prison’s notorious practices and a tendency to conceal the truth using politically friendly media. The second issue highlighted by Carruthers’ article that can help journalists avoid stereotyping conflicts is a devotion to the truth at all costs. As she states, a popular post-war refrain among media involves soul-searching, self-criticism, and hand-wringing, especially when it becomes clear that they were being manipulated for the entirety of a conflict. “The Iraq War is far from the first in which many American news media have favoured an avowedly ‘patriotic’ stance over greater critical detachment” (Carruthers, 2008:73). This was witnessed after the Vietnam, Gulf, and Iraq conflicts, with the last episode being especially infamous for the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) rhetoric. In this case, the lesson all journalists draw from the media’s conduct during the three wars is that when politics and media mix, the truth is often the casualty. Journalists must steer clear of political schemes and interests because they always manipulate reality to suit their agendas. Professional journalism involves courage and resilience to convey the truth regardless of the implications. If viewers and sufferers or conflicts are owed anything, it is the truth. Media is not indebted to politics and should never be; it is a mirror of the society that, in its ideal form, is answerable to viewers. Finally, as Chouliaraki (2013:32) argues, journalists must understand the “ambivalence of solidarity and distinguish between its two forms: as an agent of social change and a source of bio-political power”. Conflicts are often a unifying factor in any context, but media must always exploit this unity to inspire social reforms than to allow vested interests to ambush it and use it to “promote bio-political influence” (Hayes & Guardino, 2010:63). This prevents the sensationalism in conflict situations. Conclusion Conflicts are highly divisive when it comes to influencing opinion. However, journalists should always remember that all conflicts are motivated and sparked by the selfish ambitions of politicians and corporations that put their interests above those of the electorate. As such, journalists owe voters honest, authoritative and inspiring reporting when covering conflicts. As shown in this article, there are numerous strategies that reporters can employ to remain steadfast to their journalistic principles. The examples provided are illustrative of the ease with which coverage of conflicts can be turned into a spectacle. During any conflict, there are usually many interests involved that are all scrambling to control viewers’ perceptions of wars. However, the most important interest is that of audiences, and it is the only one a journalist should serve. References Boltanski, L. (1999) Distant suffering: morality, media and politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Burston, J. (2003) War and the entertainment industries: new research priorities in an era of cyber-patriotism, In Thussu, D. K. & Freedman, D. (2003) War and the Media: Reporting Conflict 24/7, London, Sage. Carruthers, S. (2008) No One’s looking: The Disappearing Audience for War, Media, War & Conflict, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 70-76. Chouliaraki, C. (2013) The ironic spectator: solidarity in the age of post-humanitarianism, Cambridge, Polity. Cushion, S. (2009) Discouraging Citizenship? Young People’s Reactions to News Media Coverage of Anti-Iraq War Protesting in the UK, Young, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 123-143. Debord, G. (2000) The society of the spectacle, Paris, Black & Red. Güney, Ü. (2010) We See Our People Suffering: The War, the Mass Media and the Reproduction of Muslim Identity among Youth, Media, War & Conflict, vol. 3, no, 2, pp. 168-181. Hayes, D. & Guardino, M. (2010) Whose Views Made the News? Media Coverage and the March to War in Iraq, Political Communication, vol. 27, pp. 59-87. Knightley, P. (2003) The first casualty: the war correspondent as hero, propagandist and myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq, London, Andre Deutsch. Moeller, S.D. (1999) Compassion fatigue: how the media sell disease, famine, war, and death, London, Routledge. Musa, B., & Willis, J. (Eds.). (2014) From Twitter to Tahrir Square: ethics in social and new media communication (Illustrated ed.), Santa Barbara, Calif., ABC-CLIO. Ong, J.C. (2014) Witnessing or Mediating Distant Suffering? Ethical Questions across Moments of Text, Production and Reception, Television & New Media, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 179-196. Stahl, R. (2009) Militainment, Inc: war, media and popular culture, London, Routledge. Thomas, R. (2011) Media Morality and Compassion for ‘Faraway Others’, Journalism Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 287-302. Veits, C. (2014) Conflict coverage promotion: High quality or high concept? A multimodal analysis of claims-making in conflict coverage promotional spots of Al Jazeera English and CNN international (Illustrated ed.), Munchen, Anchor Academic Publishing (aap_verlag). Wright, K. (2011) Listening to Suffering: What Might Proper Distance Have to Do with Radio News? Journalism, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 284-302. Read More