Fear of the media
Communication has expanded and progressed and thank God for that! We are updated about what is happening on the other side of the globe while increasing our economic and cultural exchanges efficiently. All that is possible today is the result of the world changing from one where borders were still to be discovered into a presumably large global village.
I do not fear the media. What I fear is the way the media is used and how this affects our society. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of modern democracies, yet, is the mind free to decide for its own or is it being injected with information leading to judgements being made without evaluation?
Nowadays, communication has become much easier. Political parties own their own media. Markets are easily penetrated through an array of advertising practices. Online socialising and networking is a growing phenomenon. What countrymen were unaware of centuries ago is the everyday talk-of-the-town today. Sitting on the couch, we are alarmed of the emerging swine flu in Mexico. Then why am I being paranoid about the beauty of modern-day communication?
Have you ever stopped to think how a Hollywood film star smoking on the big screen affects our youths? We might also admire how agilely our nine-year-old girl dances while wondering where she learnt all that. While learning dance moves from TV, she was also unconsciously absorbing the culture of needing to be thin to be pretty, needing to expose her body to please. These music videos tend to feature the male figure surrounded by women dancing around for amusement, as subordinates. I am sure that this instils something in our little boy's mind about what must be acquired to become as "cool" as his idol: money, cars and women.
Now let us compare this to a scenario where there is no harm being inflicted. I remember myself watching football matches with dad and dribbling on the ball the next morning at school, believing I was Roberto Baggio (nothing like him, mind you). The same way the media can affect a child in a pleasant manner, it can also do so otherwise.
The high voter turnouts in Maltese elections say a thing or two about the popularity of politics on our little island. The media is what delivers updates in the political scene to our kitchens, our daily lives. Most of our opinions are based on what we are fed.
We have therefore to highlight this fact for it is the journalists' responsibility to be careful about what message is being delivered. A new inexperienced journalist might strive to satisfy the agenda of the media owner without perhaps assuming the responsibility of how the biased contribution will reach so many old ladies in their homes and influence their train of thought. This further solidifies the hardcore attitude of partisan supporters rather than helping to nourish a constructive political scenario. This can unfortunately be seen on a number of occasions, such as Malta's accession to the EU when one media depicted the EU as heaven and the other as hell.
It is however noteworthy that media buyers may choose to purchase a particular newspaper and not another because what is written in it is agreeable to them and thus enjoys the endorsement of their beliefs rather than the countering of their arguments.
Journalism and news reporting may not necessarily twist any facts but rather set a planned agenda. Our minds are guided to think about what is on the news and not about what has not been reported or given minimal importance.
Hidden agendas are also easily noticeable on the international media. CNN and Al-Jazeera provided contrasting reportage of the presence of the US military in Afghanistan. CNN would give more shots of soldiers handling food to children whilst Al-Jazeera would focus more on the firing of weapons.
My last worry turns to media claiming to be independent. Who and what is independent? Are we not human and, thus, all with personal biases?
We should see that our consumers know the hidden contents of media just as nutritional content on a tin of food. In my opinion, hiding under the independent hat is nearly as dangerous as media monopoly. On a particular independent-claiming medium, for instance, I remember the following clip: Party supporters celebrating an electoral victory following a three-second shot of a Whiskey bottle, when I know (as I was present) that supporters from both sides had had a drink or two. This is just an example and, in fact, I refrained specifying the incident. However, it goes to show how independent media may be the veil of hidden and personal agendas tempted to manipulate the media.
Thus, I conclude that if this country is to mature in political terms, one of the greatest hurdles would be changing attitudes in the media.
The author is a student at the University of Malta reading for a Bachelor in European Studies with Communications and a Nationalist Party candidate for the local council elections in Msida.
3 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
A. Muscat
May 19th 2009, 18:33
Media is a type of business and who pays dedicate the agenda items. Would you expect a Cigarettes Co. to sponsor an anti-smoking campaign? Or would you expect weapon manufacturers to sponsor media that could promote peace?
The author says ‘CNN and Al-Jazeera provided contrasting reportage of the presence of the US military in Afghanistan..’ Why is this?
In CNN case the media belong to the biggest weapons manufacturers (USA).
Simple equation: no wars=no sales of weapons=no business.
This mean USA government prime tasks should or must be:
First: To find or create the enemy (even a phony enemy will do) and convince lay citizens they are under continues threat and need government protection. The enemy could be the ex USSR, Libya (Lockerbie case) whodunit? Remains unanswered question, Sadam Hussein never exited so never found Mass destruction weapons, 9/11 and now Iran and the (Islam-ists) ..etc
Second: A media machine that must demonize the enemy in question and always be ready to provide populace (voters) with a valid cause for the war.
Third: Having war agent. Israel.
If you reverse from bottom to top you will easily figure out who sponsors CNN.
Beatrice Gatt
May 19th 2009, 10:57
While I agree with many of the points you raise, it is your conclusion that I question. ‘If this country is to mature in political terms, one of the greatest hurdles would be changing attitudes in the media.’ Rather than changing ‘attitudes in the media’, it is the media itself that needs to be changed, more specifically the way broadcasting media is regulated in this country. In 1998, President Emeritus Fenech Adami was quoted by this very newspaper:
‘Dr Fenech Adami said the fact that PN was about to have its own TV station
should eventually lead to the termination of the need felt by the parties to own
their own television stations. Ownership of television stations by the political
parties was thus a transitional phenomenon, Dr Fenech Adami said, adding
that after a period of time, as the management of politics matured, the need for
the parties to have their own stations would cease.’
(Said, I., The Times, 2.12.98, p7)
To this I can add all the Council of Europe and EU recommendations that our media structure goes against: regulatory authorities free from political influence, independence of public service broadcasting.
This is the kernel of the problem.
Marco Spiteri
May 19th 2009, 10:22
Well done to the author of this article. Keep on writing my friend.