Network breakdown…
Yesterday I said, agreeing (in a particular way) with Max Boot, that we don’t yet know what Katrina means. And I suggested that a little critical thinking is on order. I didn’t put any meat on those bones. Jay Rosen has. He says in regard to recent assessments of media coverage:
Now here is what I think. Spine is always good, outrage is sometimes needed, and empathy can often reveal the story. But there is no substitute for being able to think. What is the difference between a “blame game” and real accountability? If you have no idea because you’ve never really thought it about it, then your outrage can easily misfire.
…
What are the proper responsibilities for city government, state government and the national government? If you haven’t thought about it, and come to some conclusions, all the backbone in the world won’t tell you where to aim your questions.
…
What is it realistic to expect in a chaotic situation like New Orleans faced in the week after the hurricane? An intelligent and nuanced answer to that is worth a lot more to journalists than righteous indignation, because if your rage overcomes your realism you will eventually sound ridiculous even to those who share the feeling.
…
What are the differences in the way our political system handles a problem that is real and manifest (present to the senses) vs. a threat that is real but not manifest at all (abstract until it’s right upon us)? If you haven’t thought about it, you might find “lack of preparation” inhuman and incomprehensible. If you have, lack of preparation begins to seem all-too-human, and more like a policy choice.
We can call a given news organization a number of things. For example, it is an industrial concern that manufactures a consumer product. It is a culture within a socio-political context. It is an imperfectly understood “profession” with unique relationships (economic, political) to the public sphere. But it is also a social network, and by that I do not mean a club for meeting friends. It is people working together, sharing information, for the purpose of _______ (you fill in the blank). Whatever purpose you care to assert, it doesn’t happen outside the social network of the organization.
Now, one might think that, being communicators of a certain sort, journalists might be pretty good at using the social network as a big brain with which to think. You’d be mistaken, at least in part. This is how I see Rosen’s complaint. I have a difficult time being too critical of journalists working “on the ground” (I hate that metaphor) in horrendous circumstances. But there exists, or should, a social network behind them that can (?) and should do the critical thinking.
News organizations don’t leave their people wanting for certain physical necessities in dangerous situations. Shouldn’t part of the logistics and compliment of gear include putting the social network to work thinking about the complex situation and feeding them the knowledge they need, and perhaps would acquire on their own if not for having to deal with issues of catastrophe.
To be sure, splendid work is being done by American journalists on the Gulf Coast. But those trips into pathos seem to me to be a breakdown of the network.
The point is, though, that news organizations (at least on television)today do not exist to provide thoughtful reporting. Instead, they exist to provide an emotional catharsis that boosts ratings. The on-air reporters have now discovered that viewers like to see emotion (perhaps harking back to Walter Cronkite’s teary-eyed announcement of JFK’s death). So, now it’s appropriate for reporters to express outrage at the situation just as the suffering people do even though they don’t really know what the underlying situation is. Instead of providing some balance and some perspective, they simply provide personality. It was absolutely outrageous, IMO, for Brian Williams to conduct his ridiculous interview with Harry Connick.
Increasingly, as I have complained about before, news organizations have less ability or willingness to present complex stories with any nuance or sophistication. Their technology allows them to present more vivid images, but they don’t provide context. Whether this is intentional to increase ratings or a lack of ability, I don’t know. But there seems to be little incentive for journalists to practice restrained and thoughtful journalism.
Marc… You won’t get an argument from me
But what you will get is my attempt, however insignificant, to make journalism the way I think it ought to be.
Yes, except that, Andrew, you should do a post on this idea that a persistent failure of journalists is to “provide context.” There is no such thing as Context with a capital C. Which context to add is a debateable decision that cannot be governed by any existing rule set in journalism.
Instead of developing new and necessary rule sets, what journalists usually do in that situation is ignore the fact that they’re making an (arguable) decision. Of course it only leads to more arguments.
If I want to add historical context right to Katrina coverage (“come on, provide some context”) is it the history of Gulf Coast Hurricanes? Of other public disasters? Or cities that died? Of Levee funding? Of race and class in New Orleans? It sounds good, “provide context.” But it’s actually just a name for a big black box with unsolved journalistic problems in it. Thus the need for your post.
Maybe you can figure out what people mean when they say it.
Jay… Well, that sounds like a book to me
But, okay, I’ll give it go. Look for it on Monday.
I’ll give it a shot…
Jay Rosen, from the comments to yesterday’s entry: Yes, except that, Andrew, you should do a post on this idea that…
I’ll give it a shot…
Jay Rosen, from the comments to yesterday’s entry: Yes, except that, Andrew, you should do a post on this idea that…
This is sorta OT, but sorta not. As I’m sure you know, FEMA is asking photographers not to take pictures of the dead. Per usual, the press went into a First Amendment frenzy. Personally, I don’t think the government should suppress information, but on the other hand, I certainly understand how the press could be seen as a distraction to the important work that is going on. But that is not my question.
I’m asking you these questions Doc, because I know you have experience in photojournalism. So many in the press think the “story” can’t be told without photos of dead people. I know that other cultures routinely show death in their media, but for myriad reasons, we sanitize death and destruction. Do you think this contributes to the Disneyland mentality of so many in the press who thought “this couldn’t happen in America” and who thought NO was like being in a “third world country”? I’m sure a review of news stories would show that death and destruction is every bit as common here as abroad, but the press shelters us. Another questions for you is, should this change? Why do those in the press believe we are above the laws of God & Man? Are they letting us down by not showing the 9/11 photos of people jumping out of buildings?
The most disgusting thing I ever heard from a network news anchor was last year when Brian Williams said that pictures of flag draped coffins were like a “drug” for the press. I suppose like many “drugs” the attaction is unavailability. How should the press use these images?
R- I think I’ll try to answer your questions on the blog early next week. We’re talking about these issues in class. And I’d like a little time to collect my thoughts.
But, quickly: Earlier this summer I heard an interview with a photographer on NPR on the topic of photographing war and genocide. And he made an interesting point: Sometimes the photos get in the way of the story. This was a reaction to the pathetic appeal of photography. The rhetoric of photography can’t do logos (medium doesn’t use words) and ethos (of the photographer) seems to me to be largely ignored by the medium (i.e. who pays attention to photo credits?).
That’s not to say photos can’t be factual, but, then, remember that facts belong to the inartistic proofs (the artistic proofs being ethos, pathos and logos), i.e. we don’t have to construct them.
I have photographed the dead on just a few occasions. I hated it. And I’ve pointed my camera at some emotional scenes that made me ashamed of myself later on. But the camera is like the hole in the sand for the ostrich…when I’m behind it, it’s like I’m not really there. I’m concentrating on what I see playing out on a little screen. It’s this phenomenon that costs photographers their lives. I tell students about the time I was photographing a protest march in Charleston, WV during the ’78 coal miners’ strike. I was right up on a guy, walking backwards, getting some great shots of an angry face–thinking: “Man! This is great stuff!” Well, the guy was getting angry at me. And I didn’t realize it until he hit me with his sign. I never saw it coming.
Where is this going? Okay, this: Shooting is a complex and emotional experience.
In terms of the pictures themselves: I think the press should make the pictures and then think long and hard about how/if to use them and under what circumstances. And, for the most part, I think editors do a good job of agonizing over these issues even if the public isn’t always happy with the result. What the public doesn’t see is that there is nearly always contention in newsrooms about how/if to use such pictures. There’s no standard.
I’ll try to address your questions specifically next week.
I’m glad I commented here rather than PressThink. I don’t think my testosterone level is sufficient today to do battle at Jay’s site.
I’ll be looking forward to your comments next week.