If you don't like Shakespeare, then I apologize for the random reference I'm about to use to make my point. If there was something rotten in the state of Denmark these days, we probably wouldn't know about it. Our interest in, and the news media's capacity to deliver international news is diminishing quickly. It's possible to argue that Americans have never been interested in the rest of the world. I'd argue this is incorrect, as up until 1945 we anxiously watched everyone else and wanted to be like them, hoping to one day be supreme. It's possible we have news fatigue, that there is just too much going on to really care. I think people had more interest in the rest of the world when we weren't inundated by three 24 hour news channels that reported some stories ad nauseum and others reduced to one line with the annoying ticker at the bottom of the screen (one example would be a year or so past, when helicopters circled above a river that might crest and devour houses--because we all really want to see peoples homes getting destroyed, right?--and the scroll at the bottom spoke of Zimbabwe's diseased and starving population.)
I've digressed. I think some reasons for the decline in international reporting are that it's expensive, people have access to websites focused solely on the region of interest, and the demographics are changing. In regards to monetary value, it can cost up to $300,000 to open and operate a foreign service bureau. The more free access a person has to the news, the less likely they are going to pay for content, which cuts into operations of the news source. If I want to know what's going on in Europe, I can find shows or papers (European Journal on PBS or Eurozine) that focus just on Europe, and it'll be from a European point of view, not an American one. The same in respects to Al Jezeera if I wanted a different voice from the Middle East or Asia Times online. NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN even, would broadcast international stories that their producers think are relevant to the majority of the audience, and I might not agree or like their spin. This leads me to the demographics. Most people who still watch news, aside from those of us who were weaned are particular news anchors, are middle aged and middle class. Their world view is going to be rather different from mine, and I'm more likely to have a level of tech savvy they don't, and am not as likely to pay for my news (online or in print form, although personally, I love newspapers) and search for it online, either from actual news sites, or from podcasts like PRI's The World. I don't think any of this is wrong, per say, but it does become a problem if the population isn't media literate.
This issue comes at a bad time, since it's crucial that we are aware of and pay attention to what's going on elsewhere, especially if our government or trade deals have something to do with it. We have to actively, and vocally, want better international news. It's not likely that the AP or Reuters will suddenly vanish, and CNN seems to have hired more journalists. But does that really matter if people are stuck navel gazing and watching Fox or MSNBC?
Here's an interesting, hand-wringing article I found from a British perspective: http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/11/foreign-international-british
The article you posted was particularly interesting, especially as it relates to the Hafez article we read last week.
ReplyDeleteHafez listed the following structural features that affect content of international reporting: regionalism, conflict perspective, political focus, elite focus, decontextualization, and failure to portray the structural problems that beset international relations. Many of these features are the result of too few dedicated international correspondents. What happened to the glory days of Christian Amanpour?
In the new statesman article the following paragraph was particularly telling:
“The greatest risk of all, though, if that of relying on too few primary news sources. Without dedicated reporters on the ground, we have nobody to bear witness to events, to record, illustrate, and, above all, question what is happening. We will have fewer scoops, and hence less scrutiny of those with power around the world. Fewer reporters also means that any mistakes are repeated and magnified and institutionalised into the internet. It becomes easier for primary newsgathering to be shaped by a limited set of concerns, whether intentionally or otherwise. With fewer intelligent filters and moderators, it becomes harder for people to find and contextualise their news, with awareness of international affairs risks becoming even more of a minority pursuit than it is today.”
With decline in international correspondents, poor reporting will become all the more poor.
I feel like another one of the author’s arguments is almost like the chicken and the egg argument. Which came first? Is there a decline in audience interest in international news? Or has a decline in international reporting decreased people’s interest?
One thing is certain, the declining state of the journalism industry isn’t going to enable better international reporting anytime soon. I appreciate your suggestion of looking at websites from the specific country you are interested in learning about.
Something that came to my mind when reading your post was how much the previous international power play did attract people to watch global news and care about what happened in other places of the world. So was the only reason that there were interest in international news related to the own national interests?
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would say that there's still interests in knowing what is happening on different places in the world although where we look for the information might be more differentiated then before when we did rely on TV news sources...
You make a good point that people seem to be news-fatigued. It seems that we are so bombarded with 24/7 crises that none of it really matters anymore unless it's in our own backyard. I also believe that many people are becoming desensitized to what's going on in the rest of the world, especially because it almost seems that these 24/7 news channels are competing so hard and fishing for stories that we don't know what's really important. If everything is framed as the most important story of the hour, nothing is then really that important.
ReplyDelete