Objectivity is an Elusive Ideal that Can Never Be Achieved - Essay Example

Objectivity is an Elusive Ideal that Can Never Be Achieved- Discuss The de-regulation of the media ownership structures implemented by the Communications Act 2003 has led some to argue that whilst ostensibly aiming to take media control out of the public sector, the financial ownership structures within the private sector, further impedes media freedom due to the control of powerful minorities (Frost, 2007). In turn this correlates to Chomsky’s propaganda model and the hypodermic model of utilising the mass media medium to continuously deliver messages to the “passive audience” (Herman & Chomsky, 2008). This in turn reinforces the perennial question as to whether media objectivity is an elusive ideal that can never be achieved. Indeed leading Canadian-American journalist Peter Jennings commented that everyone had an opinion and subjective perspective on issues and that on this basis he was “a little concerned about this notion that everybody wants us to be objective”. In turn, this would appear to support the statement that objectivity is an elusive ideal that can never be achieved. The focus of this paper is to critically evaluate this proposition and it is submitted in this paper that the interrelationship between subjective interpretations of news, the intrinsic nature of individual perception and the mass media model render it inherently impossible to achieve objectivity. As a result, the method of news delivery and manner of subjective news consumption means that in reality, objectivity will arguably always remain an ideal. In further reinforcing this argument, this paper will also undertake a contextual analysis of the media role in the recent Iraq war and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If we firstly consider the structure of the mainstream UK media industry, the British media industry consists of various guidelines with a combination of legislation and practice to ensure it is socially responsible towards the audience targeted (Trowle, 1996). However, the entire concept of the regulatory framework highlights the inherent limitation of free press in any media. Nevertheless, a regulated “responsible” press is arguably necessary to ensure an appropriate balance with individual rights, which is also a fundamental part of a democracy (Barendt & Hitchens, 2000). The Communications Act 2003 (the Act) regulates technical, editorial and ownership of media and underlines the need to ensure a wide range of television and radio services (Tryhom, C 2003; Wells, 2003). However, in practice whilst intending to open up the market, the effect of the Act is that one media conglomerate can run various kinds of media outputs and cater for different audience needs; however the control of output and play lists and ownership integration deals on a wider scale arguably lead to further media control in powerful minority. As such, the impact of the Act is to follow the US pattern of ownership trend, which in turn limits the scope for objectivity (Barett et al, 2002). Alternatively, it is arguable that the proliferation of stations and DAB has led to more choice and therefore increased media freedom. However, again the numerous media channels facilitated by the digital economy facilitate expression of subjective opinions, which again reinforces the intrinsic flaw of the objectivity ideal in media reporting at any level (Silverstone, 2007). Furthermore even within the diversification of the mass media outlets, advertisers face increased competition (Broadbent, 1979). This highlights the point that money and power considerations will ultimately shape the media output post the 2003 Act (Silverstone, 2007). This could potentially pressurise TV channels and radios under de-regulation to produce more stable and reliably predictable output for audience reach to ensure advertisers would purchase spots for marketing campaign. Indeed Curren and Seaton comments that “the mass media are rather like the political parties in that they tend to gravitate towards the centre in response to competitive pressures” (Curren & Seaton, 2003). Furthermore, in reality there are a handful of media barons with influence and power of media to broadcast their ideology and increase of competition among channels for advertisers (Curren & Seaton, 2003). The effect of deregulation has effectively led to fewer businesses controlling the mass media. As such, it has been submitted that the shrinking media ownership has given way to the incorporation of a Marxist media model through the back door (Briggs and Burke, 2005). The most obvious example is the Murdoch empire where Rupert Murdoch owns Sky News, controls the Sun and the Times newspapers and owns almost 35% of distributed newspapers (Briggs & Burke, 2005). Moreover, Murdoch is unabashed in expressing his agenda “for better for worse, our company….is a reflection of my thinking, my character, my values”, which is in line with Chomsky’s extrapolation in “Media Control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda”(Chomsky, 1999). Furthermore, Chomsky argues that the UK is effectively a “spectator” democracy, which is regulated by an elite group to create a different version of reality as a result of media manipulation (Chomsky, 1999). To this end, Herman and Chomsky posit that it is effectively the elite consensus that structures every element of news distribution (Herman & Chomsky, 2008). However, rather than operate as a challenge to the establishment, Herman and Chomsky argue that “the media work hard to discover and mirror its assumptions” (Herman & Chomsky, 2008). As a result, this has lent itself to the mass media model being utilised to shape government policy agendas and Cohen highlights that this has led to the “moral panic” paradigm; where mass media influences societal concepts of morality through the hypodermic model (Cohen, 2002). In turn, Cohen highlights that not only does the mass media serve as a tool for shaping perception on crime; the interrelationship between political agendas and media means that the mass media can be disproportionate in highlighting specific crimes, again undermining the objective ideal (Cohen, 2003, p.7). For example, Cohen highlights that mass media specifically focuses on deviance through hyperbole and sensationalism (Cohen, 2003, p9). For example, Cohen refers to how a large proportion of the news focuses on deviant behaviour and the consequences; which in turn leads to the moral panic syndrome in shaping morality and the public conception of right and wrong. This in turn reinforces the hypodermic media model as evidenced by the interrelationship between media reporting and government youth justice policies. Moreover, whilst newspapers are important, television is increasingly important with the de-regulation measures implemented by the Act facilitating this. Indeed, it is estimated that a mere two minutes of exposure during peak times can aid politicians in reaching a larger audience (Curren & Seaton, 2003). For example, whilst traditionally the BBC has been perceived as impartial in its delivery of news, during the Iraq war, “viewers turned to the BBC as a source of news in overwhelming numbers” (ICM poll, 2004). With the BBC dominating the world of news in the UK, this clearly raises issues regarding the use of power in the public domain and objectivity (Michael, 1998). This is further evidenced by the overtly biased reporting of the BBC in the recent Gaza crisis and refusal to broadcast the DEC appeal, which begs the question as to whether an organisation whose funding is dependent on Government discretion can ever truly be impartial in its news delivery (Welsh & Greenwood, 2007). Conversely, from the private sector perspective whilst Murdoch’s private sector theoretically creates a shift in power from BBC dominance, the control of so many media outlets begs the question as to whether there can ever be true objectivity. Indeed, Sky news refused to broadcast the DEC appeal for Gaza, a decision that was heavily criticised for biased news reporting. Whilst it is not at all suggested that this decision was motivated by Murdoch’s private agenda, the risk of this permeating broadcasting decisions is clearly cogent. Curran and Seaton argue posit that “Murdoch wields considerable power…. and is often wooed by politicians to persuade him to favourably cover their campaigns” (Curren & Seaton, 2003). Furthermore, they refer to the political relationship between Tony Blair and Murdoch, which began a relationship in 1995 to switch allegiances. Indeed, in 1992, the Sun’s headline “it’s the sun wot won it for John Major” brought the question of press bias to the fore (Greensdale, 1997). If the media can switch alliances based on political incentives and in return can influence public voting minds, then this challenges the perception of Blulmer and McQuail (1968) that people do not react to political media messages (Curren & Seaton, 2003). This further highlights the fact that the purpose of the Communications Act 2003 in promoting self regulation and increased media freedom and choice has arguably created a paradox. Moreover, outside the arena of elections, Murdoch’s power extends beyond election time with continuous power in the private sector to manipulate stories (Curren & Seaton, 2003). This in turn enables domination over other media stations. For example, the 2003 Act was implemented to reform rules on media ownership and to promote competition and investment. However, this facilitates media manipulation and irresponsible reporting (Herman & Chomsky, 2008). For example, the Sun has been a known advocate of the Iraq war however the Government knew that it may not win another election due to the Iraq issue. As such, it has been argued that an anti immigrant campaign was hatched between Blair and Murdoch (Daily Mail, 2005). Indeed, it has been claimed that “Downing Street knew all about the campaign well in advance….three days later, bang on cue, the Home secretary came to the rescue” (Daily Mail 2005). Moreover, if we consider the Propaganda model extrapolated by Chomsky, the model centres on “the inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass media interest and choices” (Chomsky, 1999). Indeed a survey undertaken by Lewis, which was published in the Guardian found that “a survey of the main broadcasters’ coverage of the invasion of Iraq shows the claim that the BBC was anti-war is the opposite of the truth” (www.guardian.co.uk). It is submitted that the propaganda model highlights the risks posed by an unregulated media, which is paradoxically perpetuated by the impact of the Act. For example, the central criticism of the BBC is the degree of Government involvement. Indeed, when former chairman Garyn Davies was appointed, a highly contentious issue was his relationship with Gordon Brown (Curren & Seaton, 2003). Alternatively, the Propaganda model suggest that ownership of media institutions such as Murdoch’s empire is a reflection of his own view and agenda, much in the same way the BBC is accused of representing views of its regulators. The BBC is further dependent on Government funding and the renewal is at the Government’s discretion. On the other hand, the licence fee paying for the BBC creates a restriction on the right to freedom of choice, whereby the licence fee paying public resent paying a licence to access ITV and Channel 4. As such, the Act has arguably swung the pendulum too far in favour of media control, with questions remaining as to the true extent of media freedom and objectivity (Curren & Seaton, 2003). Moreover, in addition to the delivery of the news, the consumption of news and individual perception plays an important part and to this end intrinsically limits the scope for complete objectivity. This is particularly evident if we consider media reporting in relation to conflict. Indeed, the proliferation of multiple media streams has heightened the role of media in contemporary warfare and Simons argues that “coverage of a war can make or break a public’s will to continue to fight” and that the power of the media is “recognised by all sides involved in modern warfare, who target living rooms around the world in order to try and influence the outcome” (Simons, 2007). For example, whilst the official premise of the Bush Administration for military action against Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, the fallacy of this as a legal justification for pre-emptive military action became irrelevant in the public’s mind influenced by vivid media images of the tragedy of September 11. However, the result of a government exploiting public grief with a media propaganda blitz has in turn resulted in thousands of innocent Iraqis dying and “the deaths of hundreds of American/Allied forces, and the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructures – all of which were seemingly forgotten” (Kamalipour & Snow 2004, p.2). As a result, the use of the media has undoubtedly been integral in warfare campaigns, however the concomitant result of this is arguably that “it the dawn of the third millennium…. We as human beings have made no progress towards elevating humanity to its potential level of civility” (Kamalipour & Snow, 2004 p.2). This in turn correlates to assertions of McLuhan that the “medium is the message”, which is the famous phrase propounded by Marshall McLuhan in “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man”(1964). The central premise of McLuhan’s proposition is that the nature of the medium is what influences audience perception of the actual message regardless of content (McLuhan, 1964). In further developing this argument, McLuhan posits that the precise characteristics of the medium will engage an audience in different ways, which ultimately influences the communication of the actual media message (McLuhan, 1964). For example, if we consider the recent standoff between Gaza and Israel in foreign press access has been prohibited into Gaza since November 2008 notwithstanding a ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court ordering journalists to be allowed to enter Gaza (Bronner, 2009). Additionally, the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) refused to comply with the court order resulting in numerous arrests of foreign journalists on grounds of permissible wartime censorship rules in Israel. Indeed, the Foreign Press Association of Israel attacked the prohibition as unprecedented and a “violation of press freedom” and the International Federation of Journalists argued that the ban on foreign media entering Gaza combined with the Military Censor’s guidelines has effectively resulted in the world not seeing what is happening in Gaza (IFK, 2008; Erlanger, 2009). Moreover, the New York Times reported on January 10 that “Israel has also managed to block cellphone bandwidth, so very few amateur cell-phone photographs are getting out of Gaza” (Erlanger, 2009). As such, this further fuelled controversy regarding the nature of media reporting, with criticisms of the BBC and Sky News refusal to screen the charity appeal of the Disasters Emergency Committee to highlight the plight of those struggling to survive the aftermath of the Israeli attacks (www.dec.org.uk). This further highlights importance of responsible media and accountability in reporting due to the concurrent influence on the public opinion, which in turn undermines the objectivity ideal in line with the propaganda model. This is evidenced by the role of the Israeli media in the Gaza Conflict as Daily Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israeli Foreign minister Livni “instructed senior ministry officials to open an aggressive and diplomatic international public relations campaign in order to gain support for Israel Defence Forces operations in the Gaza Strip” (Ravid, 2008; www.haaretz.com). Moreover, Israeli consulates mounted campaigns in local media abroad with Israel’s consulate in New York holding online press conferences on Twitter in an attempt at damage control (Erlanger, 2009; www.haaretz.com). This was in response to Israeli Foreign minister’s criticisms that the international media were not showing the Israeli perspective positively (Jerusalem Post, 2009). Moreover, the various interests at play highlight the importance of the media’s in reporting and the requirement of responsible reporting, which in turn presses the need for equal access and the intrinsic flaw of the objectivity ideal (Shipra, 2009). Perhaps the best example of pro-Israel and unbalanced media reporting is the US. For example, in the first week of the Israeli attacks, including ground invasion and aerial attacks on civilians, the conflict was the top story on then nightly newscasts of three major networks (Tyndall Report, 2009). However, the Tyndall Report, which monitors weekday nightly newscasts from the US broadcast networks described the media coverage in the first two weeks as “an aberration in terms of coverage by American Broadcast networks” (Tyndall Report, 2009). Moreover, the amount of airtime a news story gets on television is important because of the demographic reached. Moreover, with an estimated audience of 23 million watching US news, networks such as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, their potential influence on the public is great. If the media can switch alliances based on political incentives and in return can influence public voting minds, then this challenges the perception of Blulmer and McQuail (1968) that people do not react to political media messages (Baum, 2003; Curren & Seaton, 2003). As highlighted above, Curren & Seaton highlight the power of the media, which further highlights the importance of impartial media reporting of the Israel attacks on Gaza. Indeed, the Tyndall report further commented that the use of quotes from both sides was not adequately representative (www.tyndallreport.com). For every quotation by a Palestinian official, three networks quoted 10 Israelis (www.tyndallreport.com). Additionally, the stark contrast in the disparity between casualties on both sides was played down or not mentioned by US major news networks (Tyndall Report, 2009). A detailed analysis of media reporting of the Israel attacks on Gaza is outside the scope of this paper. However, the nature of the crisis and political sensitivity of the conflict means that responsible and impartial media reporting is vital. Free press is a democratic privilege however this is currently compounded by the IDF’s refusal to follow the Israeli Supreme Court’s orders and allow foreign press access into Gaza. This has fuelled a worldwide debate regarding media bias of various networks and questions over the use of media outlets to perpetuate anti-Palestinian propaganda exploited by Israel for its own purpose. As such, this clearly raises wider issues of how the profit motivated control and power of the private unregulated sector and media powers clearly raises concerns for media impartiality and accountability, whilst the civilians affected struggle to survive the aftermath. In turn, this reinforces the power of McLuhan’s argument that the “medium is the message” regardless of whether the format is old media or new media and that ultimately, the interrelationship between the delivery of the message and subjective perception means that absolute objectivity will always remain an elusive ideal. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldgate, A. (1995). Censorship and the Permissive Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press Baum, M. A. “Soft News and Political Knowledge. Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence? Political Communication, (2003) Volume 20 (2), pp.173-190. Barendt, E., & Hitchens, L. (2000). Media Law: Cases and Materials. Longman Barett, N., Newbold, C., & Van-Den-Bulck, H. (2002). The Media Book. Arnold Briggs, A., & Burke, P. (2005). A Social History of the Media. Cambridge: Polity Broadbent, S. (1979). Spending Advertising. London: Business Books Burns, J (2009). BBC Assaulted for refusing to carry Gaza Appeal. The New York Times, Retrieved at www.nytimes.com accessed January 2011 Campbell, V. (2004). Information Age Journalism. London, Arnold. Chomsky, N (1999). Profit over people: neoliberalism and global order. Seven Stories Press. Cohen, S. (2002). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: Routledge Curran, J & Gurevitch, M (2000). Mass Media and Society. Arnold Publishers Curran, J., & Seaton, J. (2003). Power without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain. 6th Edition. London: Routledge. Erlanger, S. (2009). A Gaza War full of traps and trickery. The New York Times, Retrieved at www.nytimes.com accessed January 2011 Frost, C. (2007). Journalism Ethics and Regulation. 2nd Edition. London: Longman Herman, E. & Chomsky, N (2008). Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media. London: Random House Kamalipour, Y. & Snow, N. (2004). War, media and propaganda: a global perspective. Rowman & Littlefield. Luft, O, “Media Frustration over Gaza Ban grows”, (2009), The Guardian Retrieved at www.theguardian.co.uk accessed January 2011. Martin, P. “Reporting Risks leave Gaza neglected” (2007) retrieved at www.bbc.co.uk accessed January 2011. McGurran, A. “Hoodies Jail Plea”. Daily Mirror available at www.mirror.co.uk accessed January 2011. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Reissue (1994) MIT Press. Meerman –Scott (2010). The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Blogs and News. London: Wiley Ravid, B. “Israel to mount emergency international PR effort in the wake of Gaza Campaign”, (2008) retrieved at www.haaretz/com/hasen 27 December 2008 accessed January 2011. Shipra. D “Are the UK Media Partial Towards Israel”, (2009) available at www.abcnews.go.com accessed January 2011 Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and Morality. On the Rise of the Mediapolis. Cambridge: Polity Simons, G, “Mass Media as an instrument of war. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association” (2007) at www.allacademic.com accessed January 2011. Trowle, P. (1998). Investigating Mass Media. London: Collins Educational. Welsh, T., & Greenwood, W. (2007). McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yan, “Foreigners Asked to Leave Gaza after AFP journalist abducted” (2007) available at www.newsgd.com/news/world1 accessed January 2011 Websites & Legislation Communications Act 2003 at www.opsi.gov.uk accessed January 2011 www.haaretz.com www.tyndallreport.com www.people-press.org www.fpa.org.il www.keshev.org www.afp.org www.ifj.org www.dec.org.uk All accessed January 2011. Read More