|
COPYRIGHT 2001 Canadian Institute of International Affairs
The way the world receives the news began to change in 1980 with the transmission of the first signals of a little-known broadcaster based in Atlanta, Georgia. At 6:00 pm EDT on 1 June 1980, the words from a producer, `Take 11, mike cue, cue New York,' were followed by those of the announcers: `Good evening, I'm David Walker ... and I'm Lois Hart.' (1) The Cable News Network--or `The News Channel,' as it was originally called--was on the air. In that instant, 24-hour-a-day satellite television news was born. It would eventually alter the face of journalism and gradually change diplomacy in the industrialized world.
Over the next few years, CNN took on an influence far greater than any conventional television network. Described as the `sixteenth member of the Security Council' by former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, (2) it and the other global news media began to act as the barometers or filters of what was valid, valuable, or appealing for the powerful people who tuned in to watch.
As with any profitable commercial venture, CNN spawned global imitators in many languages--BBC World, DeutscheWelle satellite, SkyNews, CBC Newsworld, NHK International, among them. The `CNN effect' (defined as the `loss of policy control to the news media') began to proliferate. With time, its impact was felt in humanitarian organizations overseeing complex human emergencies. Once nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) found success in promoting their work through extensive use of public relations techniques and the electronic news media, the larger UN organizations and agencies began to follow their lead.
Gradually, the notion of media `agenda-shaping' was no longer an issue: what mattered in the assessment of many analysts was the degree to which the media shaped the agendas of political leaders. The network with the strange name became a `must-see' for heads of government and heads of state around the world, many of them declaring that CNN's reporters were more useful, informative, and effective than most diplomats could ever be.
As the media extended their reach, the mandates of some of the international organizations began to change. This phenomenon was dubbed `mandate creep' by those in the UN system. With no clear parameters, and desperately in need of funding for programmes to sustain them, UN organizations and agencies moved into those areas that produced optimum attention and extra-budgetary funding, regardless of their respective mandates.
To complicate matters further, the dominance of the satellite news networks has led many `mainstream' media to reduce their coverage of international affairs, shrinking the `window of opportunity' for public attention. And a plethora of NGOs now compete with the UN for the same donor funding from industrialized countries and individuals. From CARE to OXFAM to Save the Children, the competition for donor funds and `share of mind' is enormous in a multibillion dollar `business' to serve the least advantaged of this world.
THE FALL OF THE WALL
One of the first important events in the expansion of the global media occurred on a cold November night in Germany in 1989: the Berlin Wall was breached and then attacked by thousands of East and West Germans. And television was there to record it. The fall of the Berlin Wall could be seen as a metaphor for the communist system and the crumbling Soviet empire itself. In short, it was `a television moment.' Amplifying its importance was the fact that it was broadcast `live' into boardrooms, homes, and cafes around the world. If one event can be said to have proved to people that `real history' could occur in `real time,' this was it.
But with the fall of the wall came a change in the way the media reported the news: where the prism of the cold war once shaped information, the absence of that dominant geopolitical issue rendered some stories irrelevant to editors in major centres. Political developments that might have merited attention within the context of East-West friction were now less compelling. `Now a coup d'etat in an African country is still a coup in an African country,' said Bernard Gwertzman (former editor of the New York Times). As a news story it's marginal ... do you need to report it?' (3)
`LONG-TERM WORK DOESN'T INTEREST YOU'
In the post cold--war environment, the media have had a complicated relationship with humanitarian operations. Famine in Africa, earthquakes in Mexico, and floods in India all grabbed headlines and coverage as events in remote places became more accessible. But there has been no rapid expansion of international coverage of humanitarian work outside of complex emergencies or disasters.
When the electronic media acquired the ability to go almost anywhere in the world, the optimistic observer expected that they would do so. But expectations of a new `golden age' of international television reporting were never fulfilled, in part because of problems with transporting equipment, travel costs, and the risks of going into dangerous places. As Anne Winter, a UN worker, has written, there is so little context-based reporting on television that `coverage of emergencies in the developing world will clearly take precedence over the less spectacular long-term development concerns. This reinforces the common perception in the public mind that the emergency situation in developing countries is the normal state of affairs.' (4)
Boutros-Ghali once told a reporter: `Long-term work doesn't interest you because the span of attention of the public is limited. Out of 20 peacekeeping operations, you are interested in one or two. And because of the limelight on one or two, I am notable to obtain the soldiers or the money or the attention for the 17 other operations.' (5) The evidence shows that despite the access of the media `centre' to the developing world `hinterland,' the market for international news is far from overwhelming. Even though most transnational news-gathering services--Reuters, AP, AFP of UPI--have offices in far-off capitals, there is not yet a true appreciation of international news in North America and Europe. The statement of US Senator `Tip' O'Neill that `all politics is local' appears to have been taken to heart in the industrialized world: local and national issues continue to dominate newscasts from New York to Munich and from Vienna to Vancouver.
One reason is the psychological phenomenon of `projection.' Most media consumers want to read or see reports about people like themselves. Within the...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
