The world of newspapers is
changed forever and perhaps for the good. However, the tragedy is that the
electronic age has turned journalism to mass communication. It has morphed the
hoy cows of newspapers to buffaloes to be milked to make money, rather than
churn out wisdom from opinionated editors and columnists, says Colonel R
Hariharan
Journalists in 1970s used
shorthand to scribble down reports and typed out stories on manual typewriters.
Subeditors mercilessly chopped and spliced the reports to turn them into
“proper” news stories. They worked in ill lit offices, under dusty fans churning
out hot air with rattling tele printers providing the sound byte. In the late night,
the rotary press spewed out the paper that was warm to the touch and had a
peculiar smell of wood pulp.
In those times, the
celebrated psychologist-philosopher turned columnist Walter Lippmann, better
known for coining the phrase ‘cold war’, in his book Public Opinion
wrote how most pervasive of all influences which create and maintain the
repertory of stereotypes. “We are told about the world before we see it. We
imagine most things before we experience them. And those preconceptions….govern
deeply the whole process of perception.” This is how media tends to convey
complex news in understandable products to the readers or viewers.
Professor Richard Dyer
explained Lipmann’s stereotypes through
four functions they perform : an ordering process (knowing little is better than
nothing at all); using a ‘short cut’ to convey the meaning; way of referring to
the world based upon the social construct; and an expression of our values and
beliefs.
The four Lipmann
stereotypes are being tested every day in the news stories that flood the
internet and find their way into mobile phones, lap tops and newspapers. The
morphing of the word ‘journalism’ into ‘mass communication’ itself provides the
answer to the impact of stereo types. The semantic change is more appropriate
because this is the century of mass communication rather than classical
journalism. The knowledge era has irreversibly changed four things in the
media:
1. Media
has to adapt to the requirements multiple modes of production in print, visual
and social form to stay in business.
2. Media
news is no more the Holy Grail. Editors are no more the holy cows
and columnists have lost their oracular status. Now they have to dish out their
wisdom in 300 words, or even worse, in two-minute speech in the midst of
talk show cacophony, interrupted by deo or tooth paste ads and the imminent
threat of breaking news.
3. Media
has to cater to the mass audience seeking instant gratification within their
very brief attention span. So the media story's focus, right from headline, lead
and display is to catch attention rather than convey the whole news.
4. Mass
media has to rate its own performance, here and now, to stay in business. It
has to use suspect devices like TRP ratings, print order, web hits and
advertisers impact surveys.
In short, every day the
media has to ‘run’ like the deer running to escape the lion chasing it – to
stay one step ahead of the lion of competition. Given this reality, when we
write or read op-ed stories, often we are confronted with a few troubling
questions:
Does
media affect the way society behaves?
Does
it influence government policy?
Can the
media remain impartial in its news coverage? Even the New York Times which
has on its masthead emblazoned the famous slogan “All the News That’s Fit to
Print” ever since Adolph S Ochs adopted it in 1897 to proclaim its
impartiality, is seen stumbling to live up to the principle.
Media theorist Professor
Herbert Marshall Mc Luhan was a visionary who predicted the worldwide web three
decades before it was invented and coined such expressions as “the medium is
the message” and the “global village.” In his 1964 pioneering study Understanding Media: The
Extensions of Man” Mc Luhan said the
medium and not the content that it carries, should be the focus of study
because the characteristics of the medium rather than its contents affect the
society.
His postulate that
content had little effect on society or to put it in plain language, violence
in television broadcasts would not matter because all media have
characteristics to engage the viewer in different ways became controversial. His
theory on media has become relevant with the arrival of mass audience through
mobile phone, real time global connectivity, worldwide web and the
internet.
Even if we do not agree
with Mc Luhan, his study can perhaps help us find answers to the troubling
questions raised earlier to make media more meaningful, to make the world a
better place for the people to lead a peaceful life. So journalists have more
reasons to be objective and less judgemental than ever before, because the
characteristics of medium has ways of creating distortions unwittingly. Unless
media managers understand their onerous responsibility, the process of holy
cows of media being morphed into buffalos may become complete. Though buffalos
yield rich milk, they wallow in mud and forage on what they can find. Surely,
the media would not want to end up like that.
(The writer is a retired colonel of
the Intelligence Corps. He writes and speaks on South Asia and its
neighbourhood as well as terrorism the areas of his specialties during his
service. He has more than a passing interest in the media.)
Courtesy: Vidura, April-June 2018 issue. http://www.pressinstitute.in/category/vidura/
No comments:
Post a Comment