Abstract:

Does the press reflect a common ‘media reality’ across different cultures in the era of international communication?
This study examines news values in four countries to analyse how a global media reflect reality in a mediated world. I argue that modern news production is based on an axis of establishment, non-governmental organisations and the media. This axis permits a selective flow of information from news organisations that subjectively frame events, actors and issues. By monitoring the coverage of globalisation summits, this study attempts to explore the performance of media across different cultural settings to analyse news values in shaping one of the most controversial issues in the global public sphere. I also evaluate the contemporary criticism surrounding mainstream media in covering conflict issues such as globalisation and the relevance of alternative media proliferation in response to a ‘corporate hegemony’.

International journalism in the ‘Global Public Sphere’

The marriage of media and international politics in the wake of globalisation has opened a new chapter in the exploration of influences on the flow of information. Transformed by a surge of technological advancements in the last century, the media are labelled as ‘global’ purveyors of information and the message they carry generates issues not for a civil society divided geographically but a global public sphere (McChesney, Herman 2001, Shaw, 1999) . This study analyses claims that regardless of national settings, the global press prioritise the same issues and frame a common media reality.

Media Framing vs. Social Reality

Analysing media content is one of the most popular ways of analysing how media reflect reality. Shoemaker and Reese look at various factors featuring journalists’ socialisation, organisational ideology and procedural routines other than external pressures to catalogue influences on media content. Their hypothesis is that what influences media content directly influences the consequence of the media as well. The importance of difference between media content and other sources of information about the world lies in the fact that our views of the world and resulting actions will be modelled by our predominant sources of information: the mass media.

Television brings us pictures from around the world. Similarly, the printed word creates ‘pictures in our heads’ by labelling groups, as Shoemaker and Reese note, freedom fighters or terrorists. Even the nature and extent to which certain groups or characters dominate media space contributes to their positioning in society.

Media manipulation thus exists and scholars such as Gitlin, Entman, Parenti, Dearing and Rogers offer considerable literary ground to support our argument that by framing issues and events, a media reality exists quite different from the real social reality.

Media’s role in framing protest movements have recently attracted significant criticism. It seems far-fetched to imply that journalists do not cover protest groups as part of a professional conspiracy in favour of the status quo. However, organisational and routine pressures might be inherent factors in marginalising dissent in mainstream media. From time constraints to the priority attached to a certain event, journalists may choose to ignore social movements or pay little attention to defining their identity and agenda simply because they are lackluster. To take this argument further, I suggest that since journalists look for entertainment value in events, they seek to create a dramatic picture of new groups rather than focus on their agenda for society.

The anti-globalisation movement’s example is a case in point. In context of our study, the WEF and WTO summits offer us a chance to monitor the portrayal of pro-globalisation and anti-globalisation actors, and the positioning of each campaign’s issues.

Looking Back, Over My Shoulder

I haven't dared look back on my dissertation proposal primarily because it is no longer THE same proposal. My introduction is out of the way and after months and months of struggling with a focus, I have a direction.

When a media student is asked to put forth a proposal, the possibilities seem ambitious, unlimited. The world, as they say, is your oyster. As a media pro, you can tackle anything from international relations to lifestyles to the life sciences. For the themes media organs cover every day are tremendous. If you compare the scope of issues TIME magazine was covering in the 20th century to that in the 21st century, my point becomes crystal clear. It has taken me an entire Masters in the UK -- I must add that since I already have a Masters from Pakistan -- to appreciate the depth and reach of the mass media. Ironically, my Masters was spent critising the very media for its lack of depth, context and objectivity.

To be fair, I cannot speak for all media. When I started my research, I identified Press as a sample since that is the domain I belong to. It is also easily available for analysis both in hard and electronic formats. It has no justification for not evaluating news and events as they happen since it has the time and space to do so. TV and radio, due to their sheer immediacy, cannot. So exempting the electronic media, in particular television, from the 'dumbing down humanity' blame is not likely. Infotainment is a living concept, not a dead Magic Bullet-esque theory. Given the resources, I would love to investigate it further.

Coming back to the Press, my content analysis of dailies from the US, UK, India and Pakistan is nearly over. I have one last set to tackle and I needed to blog my reflections of the hundreds of items I have spent the past two months scouring through.

Choosing 'Globalisation' as I've already illustrated was well worth it -- it is a theme each country, developed and wannabe-developed is confronting, contesting and conversing about. By 'country', it is taken for granted that I am referring to the well-connected literate global civil society. I was hoping to find stark differences in the treatment media professionals give to the issue in each country since the cultural contexts are completely different in each case. Since I do not have the calculations in front of me now, I cannot say that has been the case. As far as my qualitative observation goes, I can say India has a distinctive case made out for itself. However, one thing remains constant. The press in each case, like its other media counterparts, is completely obsessed with politicians, policy-makers and figure-heads. The myth that media drive policy-makers to decision making, the so-called CNN effect is a remarkably pompous assessement and requires concrete investigation. In my case, the press' obsession with its local policy-makers is clearly evident. The pens follow the policy-makers and not vice versa. Take the case of the World Economic Forum's 2000 coverage in The Guardian. Not until Tony Blair flies down to Davos in his chopper is our 'independent' journalist compelled to write home about the WEF. And this is barely a month after 'economic globalisation' made front page headlines thanks to Seattle '99.

At the same time, The Guardian's own coverage of issues related to globalisation is phenomenal. Over the two years I looked at the coverage of the WEF and WTO summits, the paper presented articulate, investigative and concise articles breaking down the myth of free trade, globalisation, human and labour rights, environment and patents. Commendable indeed. Notably, this analysis was not neccessarily in connection with the Summits I was observing but the papers own policy of following labour and globalisation issues.

The New York Times in this respect has a lot to catch up with. And until my quantitative data is in order I would refrain from commenting on its performance.

DAWN, surprised me with its coverage of the summits, in particular, the anti-globalisation summits. I also noticed the byline InterPressServices quite often under the coverage which reminded me the NWICO's effects are still evident.

The Hindu dissappointed me with its coverage of Seattle's WTO Summit however its coverage of the Summits in 2001 offers an extensive behind-the-scenes insight. Here I should acknowledge their correspondent C. Rammanohar Reddy's witty yet to the point commentary on the events. In fact, my first assessment is that The Hindu's coverage of combining facts with feature and opinion is the best coverage of two otherwise 'predictable' events in the year 2001.

Some excerpts from my introduction follow so my new objectives become clear in the reader's mind.