There's Nothing New About The News
This fall I've been attending a course in journalism and anthropology. Its been mainly on Fridays with some other days now and then for writing and discussion. What strikes me is the utter nonsense that has prevailed during some seminars. We are only 4 (maybe 5) out of 30 students who have a background in either anthropology or political science, the majority are either freshmen or journalist/media students.
The course has been extremely interesting, with fresh and current issues, interesting for both anthropologists and journalists. What should amount to interesting discussions has instead led either into egocentrical accounts of "what this or that student did when he/she wrote an article about 'bla bla' " or extremely superficial conclusions simply re-affirming what I've always dreaded about journalism, that theres nothing new about it.
As an anthropologist I've learned that one should attempt to take into account every aspect of human life, from language to politics to economics to whatever. I have been trained to observe, record, describe, and if possible, to explain human behaviour.
To observe, record, and describe and even explain human behaviour is all part of what a journalist does too. But where lies the difference?
As an anthropologist I look at the processes and causes of sociocultural phenomena, which translates into taking notion of the cultural values system. Since members of every culture share a particular world view and a particular ethos (a normative sense for how members should behave and how the world should operate) it should be extremely important to stand back and look at these value systems when treating an issue.
But no. Journalists are often found evaluating things exactly as any other member of their culture, or even worse in an ethnocentric manner.
In modern industrialized societies (like USA) a powerful means of excerting control is through mass media. It is a tool and should as such be dealt with and scrutinized.
What surprised me were some of the comments from students in this course that openly advocated for misinforming responders, falsifying names, and fanatic focus on creating resonance among readers. Resonance is important, but it shouldnt interfere with the search for truth, as to say.
During this semester I have looked at two perfect examples of this problem, the genocide in Rwanda and the New Orleans catastrophe (after hurricane Katrina). What became evident was the huge importance of mass media in creating a response to these issues. How media used symbols and rituals found in their own culture to create resonance was sometimes splendidly obvious. The patriotic, the harsh, the melodramatic...undertones for how USA should respond, is just an example of this.
As an anthropologist who is keen to see a more multifaceted news account I have become more interested in what the reporter is not saying.
The course has been extremely interesting, with fresh and current issues, interesting for both anthropologists and journalists. What should amount to interesting discussions has instead led either into egocentrical accounts of "what this or that student did when he/she wrote an article about 'bla bla' " or extremely superficial conclusions simply re-affirming what I've always dreaded about journalism, that theres nothing new about it.
As an anthropologist I've learned that one should attempt to take into account every aspect of human life, from language to politics to economics to whatever. I have been trained to observe, record, describe, and if possible, to explain human behaviour.
To observe, record, and describe and even explain human behaviour is all part of what a journalist does too. But where lies the difference?
As an anthropologist I look at the processes and causes of sociocultural phenomena, which translates into taking notion of the cultural values system. Since members of every culture share a particular world view and a particular ethos (a normative sense for how members should behave and how the world should operate) it should be extremely important to stand back and look at these value systems when treating an issue.
But no. Journalists are often found evaluating things exactly as any other member of their culture, or even worse in an ethnocentric manner.
In modern industrialized societies (like USA) a powerful means of excerting control is through mass media. It is a tool and should as such be dealt with and scrutinized.
What surprised me were some of the comments from students in this course that openly advocated for misinforming responders, falsifying names, and fanatic focus on creating resonance among readers. Resonance is important, but it shouldnt interfere with the search for truth, as to say.
During this semester I have looked at two perfect examples of this problem, the genocide in Rwanda and the New Orleans catastrophe (after hurricane Katrina). What became evident was the huge importance of mass media in creating a response to these issues. How media used symbols and rituals found in their own culture to create resonance was sometimes splendidly obvious. The patriotic, the harsh, the melodramatic...undertones for how USA should respond, is just an example of this.
As an anthropologist who is keen to see a more multifaceted news account I have become more interested in what the reporter is not saying.
Etiquetas: My thoughts, My writings
posted by CAV at 4:13 p. m.
1 Comments:
Are you taking this to class... it should be discussed with great concernby your fellow students..
it's great..
I'm with you 100%..
Sol.
Publicar un comentario
<< Home