This question frequently appears in my mind when I watch the news at 6pm. to be more precise it has crossed my mind 1,460+ times in the last 2 years and yet I am still unable to even begin to answer this question. The last time I got stuck pondering this question was the night before last when I was once again watching the 6pm news on channel 3. I watched the circa 10 minute story on the volcanic eruption in Iceland, which covered a Wellington School group stranded in London for an extra week, a NZ company who is now exporting its fish to the US instead of Europe, and the thousands of travelers who are stranded at airports around the world. But not one word was mentioned of the hundreds of people who had to evacuate their houses and flee their homes in order to survive. The ground on which channel 3 prioritise its airtime baffles me, and begs me to raise the question: what is wrong with journalists?
Have journalists degraded their position from reporters to entertainers in order to keep their ratings up? Sadly this is the only explanation I have. I guess it makes sense. Who wouldn't rather watch a School group walk through a museum in London talking about the benefits of their cancelled flight, than watch people talk about the loss of their homes and livelihoods, devastation and fear clearly showing on their faces? But what does this make journalists? Reporters or entertainers? Or do they merely manipulate events by choosing the most sellable perspective and fail to mention anything else?
This is interesting, as it outlines the down side of having an independent media and reveals a lose-lose situation. A media financed by the government creates a breading ground for propaganda, but a media financed by private individuals creates a business with the need for profit. Therefore strongly influencing the selection of news headlines and the angle at which it is presented. So is there such a thing as a free and independent media?
Journalists are really faced with large hurdles and many problems when it comes to getting the news out there. They can be criticised for pretty much everything because everyone is watching their piece from their own perspective. You may complain as to why 3 didn't explore the plight of Icelandic locals, but someone might equally complain that it would be a waste to include it because it is not relevant to New Zealanders. I know that is not such a great example but the point is is that telling a story which trying to remain relevant, interesting, engaging, informative and objective as possible is key is not always possible. I would agree with you that the quality of journalism had decreased recently, this could be as much to do with the privatisation and profit focus of media organisations as it does with a perception that the news is entertianment and people aren't smart enough to care (vicious cycle?).
ReplyDeleteThe fact that hundreds of thousands of passengers are stranded in not just Europe, but Asia, America, Africa, Australia... Every country imaginable is possibly going to more effective news that evacuations. This story has affected much of the world, it is not suprising journalists have focused on this.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Qantas has lost at least $1.5 million per day as the airports were closed. Multiply that by every airline in every country that had scheduled flights to Europe and you have billions lost in revenue. As a result, the dollar has weakened for several nations and it wasn't until today, that the markets reported a slight increase. This suspension of flights has had a wide array of consequences.
There has been an increased need by journalists and other forms of media outlets to up their game and profits recently. It should go without saying that in the Global Financial Crisis, print media suffered greatly. Rupert Murdoch has moved to make readers PAY to read the Times and the Sunday Times online from June. (Yeah, stupid move to save the papers really...).
In my opinion, journalists need to cover stories that they know people will read/care about. New Zealand is a terrible example for this. Any overseas newspaper or television station has covered reports from the ground in Iceland because at least some small audience will care enough to view it. Iceland banks collapsed in 08-09... That affected a LARGE number of AMericans and European investors. THe nation was bankrupt! So naturally, they will focus heavily on the effects of the earthquake, especially the financial implications.
New Zealand were only affected by school trips hindered and stranded passengers. We have a population of just over 4 million. How many want to hear about evacuations? Sad but true. Just check out the front page of the dom post from time to time. I often ask 'how did that even get in the paper?'
Also, and possibly the more likely case, no reporters have been able to GET to Iceland. Only authorised personal and volcanologist etc are lurking there. Any crisis in the pacific/Haiti/Chile, 3News had a man out there or connection with a correspondant. It's not like they could reach Iceland now, could they? I've no doubt reports from the ground will surface in the coming weeks.
Leonie, I have noticed this lately on the news also. The earthquakes in Chile and Haiti were two disastrous events with many deaths, and yet the first 30 minutes of the news on these days was just talking about the 1metre or less swells from the "tsunamis" that hit areas around New Zealand. I was really interested and worried about the people in these huge earthquakes, but kept getting these useless stories of people watching th water rise half a metre.
ReplyDeleteI worry that New Zealanders are too shadowed from the real world with our main news sources not putting these big world news articles at a priority
The issue is not with the journalists themselves but the whole of the New Zealand media environment. In 1984 Roger Douglas, finance minster of the 4th labour government, decided it would be a swell idea to sell a vast proportion of New Zealand state owned assets. One of these ‘sales’ I suppose you could call it was the deregulation of the New Zealand media, allowing foreign companies and channels in to the new Zealand market. Deregulation of the media inturn meant that the New Zealand media was now a free market and a competitive environment, and like in all free markets business needs to make a profit, which is why we now have an emphasis on entertainment rather than information. However, within this deregulated market there still remained a state owned channel that surely would provide us with quality programming. While the New Zealand government still owned a portion of TVNZ it still remains profit driven, and still exists in a profit driven environment. So this brief history is why we now get to know the intricate details of Britney Spears love life and not the intricate details of public policy and more ‘news worthy’ information.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with all of the above.
ReplyDeleteIt's really unfortunate that NZ media doesn't think it necessary to broadcast stories that aren't DIRECTLY affecting NZers, but it's true. The media needs money, therefore will pander to what it thinks NZers are interested in. I think it's sad that we don't consider what's happening in Iceland 'interesting' enough to report on, as well as other events around the globe. It really limits a person's perspective of what's happening in the international arena. If NZ media was more globally focused, we'd be a lot less ignornant bunch.
I guess they are making it relevant to a NZ audience. Anyway these days news is just infotainment rather than news in the past. Since tv has been commercial rather than public service the quality of stories and reporting has gone down.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately commercial productions are always likely to present stories that will entertain. The media wants to appeal, not necessarily to provide the most important information. The information it does provide is subject to the political tendencies of the business' management. Its not surprising that there are many 'light entertainment' stories or trivial issues presented by the media and not every important issue in our own country, let alone the world.
ReplyDeleteAs for state owned media, there is always the possibility that news will be spun in a way favourable to the government or to the nation's self perception.
It seems that if the media is pandering to what people will watch (and the media is right about this), then there is no reason to think that many people would watch the stories you seem to want more of. In the first case, the stories don't get reported; in the second, they don't get viewed. Were people actually more informed in the days of regulated media? Or do people watch the news like they eat broccoli, for example, and will watch the "right" stories out of a sense of citizen duty?
ReplyDelete