Aküm Longchari
“In our new electronic age, journalists matters more than ever before in history. They compile not only the first draft of that history; they reflect back to the world an understanding of itself. They tell story of the planet which helps or hinders each individual to understand his or her place, role and potential in how our world is changing. Distorted journalism – just like inadequate parenting or poor psychotherapy – will reflect back to that world a distorted self-image, and block the self-healing powers that lie in every individual and every society as in nature itself”
– Mark Bryan, BBC regional editor
Are We What we Read and Watch?
There is a well-established idea among journalist that their task is to “just report the facts.” The dilemma with such a constricted idea has become steadily more obvious since there is growing awareness and capacity to solely “engineer facts” for journalists to report. Annabel McGoldrick and Jake Lynch adds “Most governments think of their actions and statements as part of a ‘media strategy’ which cannot be separated from the business of running their country’s affairs.” If journalism is then reduced to “just reporting the facts” and not engaging with what can be deduced about the likely consequences of particular reporting decisions, it does raise serious ethical questions. With the progression of technology, the institutions of mass communication have virtually succeeded in bringing the world to you. More importantly the images and soundbites have become a virtual reality within ones existential reality; more so to the extent of shaping and influencing the choices and decisions one makes. It has become the basis on which standards of acceptability are set in synthesis of reasoning, sensory experiences and in defining realms of truth, goodness and beauty. Are we therefore, “what we read and watch”?
Vinoth Ramachandra in his book “Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatry and Christian Mission” tells us that a world of ‘facts’ has been separated from that of ‘values’ … and a vacuum created by the loss of artistic creation and responsive experiences.” G. Steiner, author of “Real Presences: Is there anything in what we say?” says that such a vacuum has been replaced by a perpetual hum of aesthetic commentary, of on-the-minute judgments and pre-packaged pontifications. Steiner adds that modern [mainstream] journalism is an “epistemology and ethics of spurious temporality” where the ambiguities of life are avoided in favour of what is straight forward; arguments replaced by slogans and where narratives give way to novelty. Carl Bernstein a veteran Washington Post journalist critiques this form of journalism by what he calls “this new culture of journalistic titillation.” In doing so, mainstream media panders to its readers and viewers and avoids its responsibility to challenge people in generating critical consciousness.
While information has become more vital at this point of human life than any other period in recent history we are in a time and age where agendas are determined by channels of interest and opportunist in politics perpetually use the media as a means to create fear of inevitable contentious ideas about “the other;” each of which promises to tell the “real-truth” about the enemy. Recognizing that a frightened peoples cannot reflect or act clearly, the domination ideology defies all human values and with resolute single mindedness attempts to perpetuate a permanent order of fear in peoples minds. Is it not ‘fear’ which prevents a person’s willingness to resist evil? In creating fear, it hopes that people might be deceived into supporting the instruments of State oppression; and conditioning peoples to attitudes and suspicions defined by a history which is not of their making. Informed people are in the best position to make appropriate political choices. It is therefore of little surprise to note that the exercise of democracy and reportage go hand in hand. However, perceptive in its instinct to preserve its dominance we often find governments and the powers that be, asserting to wrest control over the media. This trend gives credence to the notion that commercial media networks are dependent on the patronage of political organizations and commercial institutions and they often determine what should be covered; with the intent to shape people’s choices and perceptions that meets their interests. The expressed will of the people we discover is predictably reduced to mere soundbites in media networks that have allegiance to governments, political organizations and commercial institutions. News reporting is often limited to directives from government information ministries and official communiqués are reproduced verbatim in commentary form without any critical analysis that will enable the viewers to discern the policies that are affecting their lives. News reportage in commentary form is a “dialogue between monologues” where the powerful speaks twice in order to control dissent and douse critical consciousness so that the political regimes can remain in power and sway public opinion in their favor. As a result mainstream media in collusion with the powers that be is responsible for suppressing public expression while cultivating ‘feelings’ that dwells on “herd culture.”
Rather than empowering a people towards self-realization and capacitated to make knowledgeable and informed decisions, we find that mainstream media undercuts its role by deliberately facilitating information that only conditions people to their ‘feelings’ and to conform to the status quo. In other words, a media that is affiliated to party politics refrains from publishing anything that could undermine the “established order.” Tragically, any news network that politicizes its relation with party politics and commercial institutions looses sight of the broader vision and becomes a mirror image of what it initially strove to transform.
The Paradox of Objective Reportage!
When a journalist renders an objective reportage – it nevertheless assumes a highly individualistic ritual of creation. Tragically, the perceived objective reportage in reality is the subjective interpretation of the writer, thereby revealing the highly paradox nature of objective reportage. While it is true that the best reportage is the truth, and nothing but the truth; the more fundamental questions are, which ‘truth’ and whose ‘truth’? Vinoth Ramachandra tells us “that truth-claims have often gone along with a notion of privileged access by an elite who have used their intellectual authority and political power to impose their version of truth on others.” It reminds me of a leading senior Naga State politician who remarked that “two lies make one truth.” The question therefore is whose TRUTH is the media catering to? Indeed, in the process of catering to the established order, the ‘truth’ is the first casualty and talks of ‘truth’ are simply reduced to rhetoric and labels of convenience. Ironically, an institution that sought to guard and communicate the objectivity of ‘truth,’ ends up doubting the very concept of truth. Is it not Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.” Robert Merton, a sociologist observes that propagandist [mainstream media included] are “technicians of sentiments” and warns that “a society subjected ceaselessly to a flow of ‘effective’ half-truth and the exploitation of mass anxieties may all the sooner lose that mutuality of confidence and reciprocal trust so essential to a stable social structure.” Interestingly, what we now see around us is mainstream media replacing ‘truth’ with notions of ‘feelings.’ It is no wonder that mainstream reportage often centers on evoking human feelings to a point where the quest for ‘truth’ no longer seems to matter anymore. It is therefore not difficult to conclude that mainstream media sadly cannot be a breeding ground for critical consciousness when they are no longer able to distinguish between ‘truth’ and what the majority have been led by them to believe. Walter Wink reminds us that “The domination system cannot tolerate people who think for themselves … [and] mobilizes all its might to suppress opposition before it can gain momentum.” The dominant system hence diverts people’s attention from the ‘truth’ by churning ‘feelings’ of self-righteousness, pride, fear, suspicion, insecurity and uncertainties. By sensationalizing news and events which radicalizes displaced ‘feelings,’ mainstream media plays an accomplice in the continuation of a status quo creating homogenizing pressures that breeds conformity to the established order. Essentially by commercializing ‘feelings’ and its symbols, mainstream media dispenses with principles of ‘truth’ and employs instead the notion of ‘story.’ According to Janice Hirota this involves “manufacturing of images, adroit framing perspectives and issues, and the style of presentation – that is, how one tells a story – far more that it celebrates the content of a tale, the substance of an issue or, indeed, the reality of experience.” In more recent times with the modernization of warfare, human experience reveals that media now forms an essential part of military warfare. This has been sufficiently proved in recent wars – in particular the “global war on terrorism” where the media is extensively responsible for engaging in “psychological-warfare” that generates images of suspicion, distrust, hatred and stereotype images of good and evil; all of which are detrimental to peace. It will not be untrue to observe that the more important battle is being waged over information. It is not therefore surprising that many of the news-agencies have been infiltrated by varying intelligence-agencies.
Rather than bridging understanding between opposing opinions, we are seeing the mainstream media engaging in demonizing “the other” and creating a perceived “image of the enemy,” all of which make fertile ground for grave repercussions on future relations between opposing people; even after an end to war. In other words, militarization of media in conflict situations greatly effect and sustain the vicious cycle of violence. In doing so, the often propounded notion of “media objectivity” is proven a “myth.” McGoldrick and Lynch argues that if objectivity can amount to a proposition that the journalist is a neutral, uninvolved, unfeeling mirror in which reality is reflected, “the way it is;” it may, according to them lead to two detrimental consequences: i.) Journalists, whether they acknowledge them or not, will always have feelings and opinions in response to the story they are covering. Trying to ignore or section off those feelings and opinions can lead them to distort, without fully acknowledging it even to themselves, decisions they make about what to cover and how to cover it. If not acknowledged, this bias becomes hidden behind time-honoured conventions of news language which camouflage opinions as facts. ii.) Objectivity can also suggest that things are the way they are “because that’s the way they are” and can therefore make change seem impossible, reducing options for creative solutions.
In order that “objectivity” is attained and developed as a practical practice, there is pressing need for alternative media to communicate all subjective positions, opinions and perspectives in a free and balanced manner by bringing for public debate all possible ideas and perspective on issues that is vital for the growth of the society. Such a process of dialogue may perhaps generate consciousness that will empower “the emancipation of human reason from the oppressive grip of dominant interests.”
Finally, while Dr. Ravi Zacharias points out that “We seem to have come upon a time where truth does not matter anymore; our feelings is all that count;” he goes on to add that in order for humanity to be realized “We need to get to the truth of the issue that surrounds us and uncover the truth before we get to address our feelings. Truth has to be prior to our feelings.” We therefore need to contemplate the possibilities for alternative media to communicate the ‘truth’ and replace the commentatory role of mainstream media. There is a growing understanding that the institutions of mass communication, with specific emphasis on alternative news network – should take proactive and responsible initiates in locating themselves within more dynamic and broader ethical principles of democracy, liberty and fairness with the deliberate intention of being a medium of political transformation that will lead to the realization of human security.
From Commentators to Communicators?
There is an imperative need to put into practice the meaningful will to discern an ethics of dialogue that will enhance better understanding between people. It emerges out from the idea that we should be listening to all sides; in particular “the other” side. Its philosophy stems out of the praxis that objectivity can be attained only if all subjective views and opinions on issues are presented and its coverage must exhaust all possible ideas and perspectives. There is after all in every issue of discussion a view, and the other point of view; hence a Communicative reportage should aim at promoting dialogue which will help explain much of what would otherwise seem illogical and implausible. In essence the objectivity of ‘truth’ on any issue can be reached only if all possible opinions are exposed, debated and argued in a dignified manner. Any entity that cannot tolerate differing opinions cannot convince the world of its resoluteness on other pressing issues. Is the Naga society prepared to embrace a meaningful discussion on contentious issues?
The sooner one acknowledges that “neutrality is not a position” and that “balance cannot be measured in quantitative terms,” the alternative media as an interdependent enabler should focus on developing an informed public that is capable of having critical political awareness that will mobilize responsible public opinion inspired to take transformative political action.
It is essential for alternative media to be people oriented and therefore focus its reportage to lead to communicative dialogue that has the capacity to address the ongoing tensions between the established order and the natural changing life of a society. It is therefore imperative that it focus not just on the material and social world, but more importantly on the symbolic world which legitimizes and reinforces conflicts in the material and social world. Alternative media, in having the people’s interest and aspiration at the center of its existence can intervene in exploring and emphasizing on a common narrative that anchors and unifies a whole society. This paradigm is a fundamental shift from existing mainstream reportage which dwells on patronizing opposing narratives and experiences that inevitably not only escalates differences but ultimately fragments a society. Mainstream media, we will notice is often revolved around “event-based reporting” which as a result often looses sight of the broader picture and hence it’s meaning and significance. To therefore ensure that the meaning and intentions of human endeavors are not lost sight of, it is essential that alternative media grounds itself in “process-based reporting” which demands that it sensitively and respectfully explore complexities rather than simplicities of human experiences. Hence, in grounding itself on a paradigm of “process-based reporting,” alternative media reportage succeeds at greater length in striving to be more “investigative and qualitative,” unlike the mainstream media which is seen to be more “reactive and quantitative.”
A communicative alternative media is therefore essential for the vibrant development of critical public consciousness and an essential component in the realization and transformation of a people’s natural yearning. Men and women of great faith have time and time reminded us that “Those who fail to make peaceful revolutions possible make violent revolutions inevitable.” Hence, while fulfilling its role in reporting facts and unrevealing the objectivity of truth by facilitating space for all possible opinions and positions, it is fundamental that alternative media reflects and persuades the expressed will of the people in the communicating and establishing of a just and peaceful democratic society.
Can the existing media in Naga society take upon itself this prophetic calling?
