Now showing: (101 to 110 of 636) of all notes | show yours
Sort options:
newest first |
oldest first |
group by author
Recent tags:
women
violent
sub-culture
sociology
communication
media
mass
politics
panics
moral
panic
bbfc
violence
horror
censorship
journalism
self-regulation
online
cyberspace
context
The First Casualty - A Review
‘The First Casualty’ Review
Phillip Knightley’s book explores the role of the war correspondent from the charge of the Light Brigade to the Fauklands and in doing so, exposes the role propaganda and myth has played in some the most reported (and evidently, ‘under’ reported) conflicts of the past century.
In tackling such a staggering time period of over one hundred years (amounting to over seven significant periods of conflict), Knightley may be critiqued for being over ambitious and the content may potentially have been discordant. By introducing the reader to key players throughout history, whose parts as wartime correspondents were leading, the author brings a feeling of cohesiveness. Each story is overflowing with anecdotes and written extracts which are appropriately brief and offer the reader gripping first hand accounts. It is however, the conclusiveness to each players story (whether it be William Howard Rusell in the charge of the Light Brigade or American correspondent Westbrook Pegler in the late first world war years) which is key; establishing a feeling of neatness before the author guides the reader into the next period. The transitions read as natural ones, each player/anecdote woven into the next (which ultimately draws attention to the associative nature of each conflict). The author seems to have control over each player and, as such control of pace and narrative flow. One criticism may be in the authors ambition to cover multiple perspectives (particularly from chapter 5-7 in discussing the latter part of the first world war where we are offered ones of British, then American before jumping to the events leading to the Russian Revolution ); the reader, especially if unfamiliar with the subject war, may find the time lapse fragmenting. Equally, in doing such, the author may be praised for offering the reader further insight and ultimately a richer guide to each subject.
Knightley introduces the multiple approaches which were taken in terms of correspondence during war time and the feeling, or ‘zeit geist’, of each era. In doing so, he communicates a precedent underlining similarity behind each effort. Whether it be the utter patriotism of WW1 correspondence, the conspiracy during the Russian revolution, the passion and commitment to the Spanish Civil War, the frustration and hopelessness of WW2; whilst Vietnam correspondence saw ‘just one life after another’ (pg 391). Each represent propagandists efforts of sorts, which arguably lacked entire authenticity, truth or objectivity. Knightley implies that although methodology changed, the basic objective remained fairly consistent. As such the author brings about a ambivalence; when will it stop? It is in the authors efforts to evoke a feeling of relentlessness/ consistency which advances the book from plainly non-fiction to a thought provoking read.
Similarly, Knightley communicates a tone of frustration in regard to censorship (ie. as journalists in the early days of the second world war coined the phrase ‘the bore war’ during a ‘stalemate’ of journalism, where correspondents posted in France had little or nothing to say, whilst anything of any substance was censored). In such instances, one can read Knightley’s frustration; to which the commentary is at times ironic (ie. as the ‘bore war’ ended, the swiftness of sudden German advances means correspondents could not keep up and communications remained at a stalemate). In a further episode, where the author recalls the representation of the battle of Britain there is a similar tone of irony; ‘So the legend goes like this...’ (pg 234). The commentary is at times satirical, which seems to reiterate the absurdity of events. The author not only provides facts but goes further to include anecdotes;
‘... The Air Ministry total for the period July to October 31, 1940 was 2,698. Actually the Germans lost 1,733. ..The Air Minister admitted that it exaggerated it score by only 55 percent, whereas the Germans had done so by 244 per cent’ (pg 236)
In doing so the author engages with the reader; the humor encourages the reader to recognise the senselessness and absurdity. The commentary essentially directs the reader towards one theme; the futility of it all.
The theme of futility is revised as Knightly draws attention to the propaganda efforts of both the allies and Germans (the approach of enemy corespondents resurfaces throughout), who in the second war employed a successful propagandist campaign, or ‘PK’. The success of the PK 225, (after German frustration during the success of the entente powers propagandist campaign in WW2) became enviable. Knightley presents the changing approaches to wartime correspondence much like copycat child’s play; with nations looking at others for influence and ideas, comparable at times to a childhood game. Again, the authors reductionist approach encourages thought.
Although one may read the, at times, satirical tone which the author adopts as antagonism towards officials or leaders, the humour imbedded perhaps counterbalances this;
(a cockney soldier in reference to the failure of both the German and Allied offenses)
‘it’s a crazy war, guv’nor, I don’t see why jerry doesn’t bomb berlin and let the RAF take car of London. We’d both save petrol and we’d be none the wiser’ (pg 238)
Although such ironic humour provides entertainment, there is an underlining severity to it all. Like a modern day Oscar Wilde, each comedic element is weighted down by a key point or observation. The reader of today, who knows the fatal outcome, can appreciate the satirical commentary which essentially make remarks (such as the cockney soldier’s) that more tragic. The anecdotes do not simply provide humour but also expose shocking accounts, ‘unreported’ to the masses (particularly as the author recounts Vietnam). It is in these episodes, where the reader feels most gripped, as the author ‘enlightens’ them with a feeling of truth (which the author seems to search for).
An account of the early days post 9/11, entering Afghanistan would be a relevant edition to the book; perhaps focusing on a patriotically charged America of the early days compared to a sudden decline of interest/correspondence. This book leaves the reader feeling slightly flat or even depressed. This is neither a reflection of the authors capabilities or subject matter but an effect of Knightley commentary; the utter senselessness of it all.
"Impartiality" of news from Israel a bad joke
Bad News from Israel is a study of how the news, primarily on British TV, covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the early 2000s. It presents a seemingly irrefutable case that it massively favoured the Israeli perspective, and that this translates into a general confusion or total misunderstanding of the conflict by the majority of the public.
To make this case, the book is broken down into 5 main sections:
1. Histories of the Conflict. The important word here is “histories,” in that it reports both the Palestinian and Israeli perspectives on the same major events in their history. This is a typical example of the approach, in this case considering the attitudes of each going into the Oslo process:
“The Palestinians started with the assumption that they were a
people with national rights and that the interim arrangements
under discussion were the precursor to independence and should
be shaped accordingly. The Israeli government started with the
assumption that the Palestinians were the inhabitants of the
territories with no national rights of any kind and certainly no
rights to independence, not even after the end of the transitional
period. (Shlaim, 2000: 493)”
p. 68
The account is relatively brief (considering the complexity) at 90 pages, but it is also quite dense. However every effort appears to have been made to make it a coherent narrative, and for the most part it succeeds. As the authors state, regarding the purpose of giving these histories:
“Our intention in giving these histories was to illustrate the range of
contested positions which exist over this conflict. In the chapters
which follow we will show how the arguments of the different
sides appeared on television news and how they were received and
understood by audiences.”
p. 90
2. Content Studies. In the content studies, the authors looked at how recent events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had been reported on TV, mainly the BBC and ITV, but also Channel 4. The two major points they discovered were that very little context was given, and the reports were presented overwhelmingly from an Israeli perspective. They looked at what got covered, who was interviewed, headlines and what they implied, the use of language and what motives were ascribed to both sides. This is an in-depth study with many examples used. The conclusion the authors came to was this:
“...to understand the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
requires a knowledge of at least two key historical events.
The first is that when Israel was established in 1948, large
numbers of Palestinians were displaced from their homes
and land. ... A second key issue is that after 1967, Palestinians in
the occupied territories lived under various forms of military control in which
they were ultimately subject to the power of Israel. The land, water
and economic resources of these territories were then extensively
exploited by Israel. ... [I]t is clear that the fact of the military occupation and
its consequences is crucial to an understanding of the rationale of
Palestinian action. Television news has largely denied its audiences
an account of these relationships and their origins, and in doing so
has both confused viewers and reduced the understanding of the
actions of those involved.”
p. 258
3. Audience Studies. The third part of the book uses the results from a variety of focus groups and a questionnaire to prove the above point: those people who get their news from TV about this issue are on the whole confused or come to faulty conclusions. There are many interesting findings, such as those about casualties on both sides. The authors state that there was many more deaths on the Palestinian side “2-3:1” (p. 231) and yet “43% (of British students from 2002) stated that there were more Israeli casualties or that the figures were the same for each side” which the authors attributed to the greater focus on Israeli casualties in the press, as well as the presentation of them as “tit-for-tat” measures (p.233). Other basic points were also shown to be largely not known or misunderstood, such as the fact that Israel were illegally (according to the UN) militarily occupying Palestinian land (p.219)
4. Why does it happen? Having provided extensive evidence that the Israeli presentation of events is overwhelmingly used in the news, and that this has led to a misunderstanding of the whole picture by many viewers, there is then a brief investigation as to why this should be so, the conclusions being that it is due to the better performance of Israeli PR as well as the strong influence of the pro- Israel lobby in the USA (p. 252).
“Overall, the results of our study suggest that it was Israeli
perspectives which predominated in TV news and this is in part
the result of a very well developed system of lobbying and public
relations. Another key factor affecting media coverage is the very
close political and communication links which exist between the
US and Britain.”
p. 251
5. Conclusion. Finally they sum up their arguments and provide appendixes detailing the results of their audience studies.
This is a very good book for anyone who is confused about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from simply consuming TV news (and mainstream news in general) both in better understanding why TV news is so confusing and to get a better idea of what is really going on. Not being an expert on the conflict, or the proper methodology of content and audience studies, I cannot say that no mistakes were made, only that the authors seemed to be extremely conscientious and even-handed. However in my opinion it should put to bed the idea that television news in Britain is "impartial." But until either the BBC makes it headline news that it is a biased organisation, or a lot of people start reading books like this, the living-dead theory of "objectivity" is going to continue feasting on the all too literal blood of men, women and children all over the world.
Noam Chomsky - Sticking it to the man since '28.
'Propaganda and the Public Mind' is a collection of seven radio interviews with Noam Chomsky conducted by David Barsamian over the course of 1998, 1999 and 2000. The over-arching topic throughout the book is American foreign policy, but it is also concerned with the manipulation of the public through propaganda, and the potential for the public to succeed in curbing arbitrary governments and corporations.
In the chapter 'Activist Victories' Chomsky describes the ineptitude of American media to inform the public of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a deal that was kept very secret in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Chomsky makes the point that because it was so secretive, there was an instant reaction against it from those who weren't informed. “Enough pressure developed through non-governmental organisations, public interest groups, and grass-roots activists so that they felt they had to back down” He cites this as a very important victory due to the success of public activism in the face of multinational organisations' coercion.
The rest of the book is not nearly as optimistic. The chapter 'U.S. to World: Get Out of the Way' is a damning indictment U.S. foreign policy and military intervention. He sums up America's attitude to Israel with this example; “Israel has been occupying part of south Lebanon in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution of may 1978, in this case unanimous, ordering Israel out instantly and unconditionally. The U.S. said, Forget it, so they stayed in.” The abuse of America's position as the sole superpower in the world is taken across continents, from South America, to the Middle East to Asia, and across the decades, but because of the time of the interviews, a large amount of scorn is heaped on President Bill Clinton, focusing mainly on his bombing campaigns in Kosovo and Afghanistan.
'Liberating the Mind From Orthodoxies' is perhaps the most fascinating chapter, due to the striking relevance it still has. Chomsky gives a few ways to discern whether your government is lying to you or not, particularly through the language they use. An example of this is the misuse (and overuse) of the phrase 'humanitarian intervention', “virtually every use of military force is described as humanitarian intervention”.
He also puts the term 'financial crisis' into context. If hundreds of millions of the worlds population live below the poverty line, or don't have access to water, then the term 'financial crisis' only refers to the slowing of the growth (not even a shrinking) of western economies.
Chomsky notes that “Part of the genius of the system of domination and control is to separate people from one another”, and concludes that the public has the capacity to stop affronts to democracy and civil liberties, but concedes that we have been and are being conditioned by society to oppose one another. One of the final examples of this he gives is schools and universities, which are built around a way of thinking that gives rewards based on grades and beating other students. “It's training in extremely antisocial behaviour that is also very harmful to the person. It's certainly not necessary for education.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Review of Televising War from Vietnam to Iraq
Andrew Hoskins ‘Televising War’ examines how remembering events that have occurred in history have been reconfigured in relation to war and the media. This book starts by looking at the Vietnam War and details events from each war up until the more present day Iraq War. He closely analyses any developments in technology or ways in which the news is broadcast between each war using a wide variety of case studies to back up his points.
He begins by suggesting how television is central to the ‘social memory of war’. He then argues that, certain parts of history can be reproduced through the repetition of images on our television screens and “the notion that our individual and social memories are increasingly intertwined with and reliant on media data, and this is a problem of new memory” (Hoskins, 5). He uses the evolution of reporting from the Vietnam War through to the 2001 Iraq war, to illustrate how developments over this period have affected the ‘social memory of war’.
Hoskins begins by discussing the journalistic context of the Vietnam War. He examines how the ‘limited televisual perspective’ on the Vietnam War was determined by the ‘news network form’ of the time and how for what was supposed to be known as the first television war, is mainly remembered by the indelible visual images. He looks at case studies to compare the photographic memory of the Vietnam war to the Gulf War, contrasting how the ‘flashframes’ most memorable from Vietnam, are very different to those of the Gulf War. He continues to explain how in contrast to the horrific view of Vietnam, the Gulf War adopted a ‘highly stylized view, which was managed both by the Pentagon and the news networks’.
As he documents each development from the previous war (using case studies and research) he further develops his argument. Hoskins examines how as the role of journalists and the development of technology increased, this allowed more journalists to get closer to the news stories and broadcast live events as they were unravelling. It is here where the books most interesting themes begin to develop. He states, that as rivalling news channels and reporters challenge to compete for the first stories, the circulation of rumours lead to ‘the sacrifice of accuracy’.
Furthermore, Hoskins explains in detail the subject of embedding. Interestingly, embedding allows the news reporter to live with the soldiers and experience the battle front from a safe point of view, however being allowed to relay their experiences back to the audience. This led to ‘no-time news’ or ‘war in real-time’ and allows the viewers to be able to experience a completely undiscovered view of war reporting. However as Hoskins cleverly unveils, although this provides the audience with a real-time view of the situation, (following the embedded reporter with the soldier) it allows the government to have tight control on where the reporter can go and what they can see because they are reliant on the soldiers to keep them safe..
In chapter 4 Hoskins examines the topic of ‘Bodies fallen in time – the bloody resonance of battle’. In this chapter he explores the way in which images of suffering and dead bodies are translated into new memory. This is one of the most intriguing parts of the book as it follows many case studies trying to expose the truth and discussing how even many years after a war has ended, ‘new images’ can be published and this can affect the new memory of an audience. “Our sense of a distant past can be revised and constructed through the dissemination of new or unseen images” (Sontag, 2003:85). He explores further controversial issues which have tried to be covered up by our governments and exposed by Iraqi news broadcasters. For example, he heavily discusses the bombing of a suspected Iraqi command and control installation which was precision bombed on the 13th February where around 400 civilians were killed. It is issues, such as these that Hoskins explores every angle of news reporting, from our own countries coverage, to the US coverage and even through to Iraqi coverage. ‘The pictures of bodies, and survivors suffering burn wounds, were the first images of the war to re-connect graphically the notion of bombing with bodily violence’. He continues to explain how the US tried to legitimize the target by claiming this was a suspected target. News reports used graphic representations of the bombing and claimed the bunker had 15 feet steel reinforced concrete.
The final chapter covers ‘The collapse of memory’ and concludes with some of the forgotten stories of war. Moreover, it highlights the gap between the ‘considerable change in media-military relations, in technological advances in the waging and reporting of war, and consequently, in perceptions of security’ between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War. I would seriously recommend this book to anyone who may even have the slightest interest in the relationship between the media and its affect on war and new memory. It is a fairly short book consisting of around 140 pages and examines in detail some really interesting subjects. Unfortunately I could not cover every subject talked about in this book however I have tried to cover some key areas I found important and interesting. What I found great about this book, is how even if you find the initial concept of each chapter that Hoskins is talking about difficult to understand, he always uses case studies to explain his point in the second half of the chapter. This is a must read book as it gave me great insight into a subject I haven’t particularly paid much interest into before.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Review
Book Review: My Trade: A short History of British Journalism by Andrew Marr
Despite the title of this book, it is not merely an account of Journalistic history. Andrew Marr’s book also contains many autobiographical elements, anecdotes and perhaps most importantly debates modern ethical dilemmas surrounding journalism.
Overall, the book is a relatively relaxed piece of writing, broken down into more or less six essays. Nonetheless, Marr does demonstrate some bitterness in his writing too, particularly towards powerful colleagues, their decisions, and the impact of this upon the content of newspapers such as The Independent.
One particular area of discussions is the relationship between the writer and readers of modern newspapers, and how this relationship has gradually shifted throughout the history of journalism. Marr believes many papers such as The Sun and especially the Sunday Times, are responsible for encouraging the increasingly sensationalist stories that occupy modern newspapers, feeling they focus more on drama then ‘fact’ in an attempt to sell more papers. Nonetheless it must be pointed out that such an approach may now in fact be backfiring as the newspaper trade is in a decline. Marr feels that the modern reader no longer trusts the words of journalists, insinuating that much of modern newspaper content is trending towards establishing moral panics and securing a story that can be drawn out. One such area as this being evidently clear from his writing is the presentation of politicians and indeed their relationship with journalists. Marr believes that newspapers have formed a trend whereby the predominant focus of political reporting’s is to embarrass as opposed to document change or indeed ‘serious’ material.
Despite this Marr does use anecdotes and gives a little bit of gossip, but I feel this is necessary to maintain an element of light heatedness, which certainly aids in making the book a more enjoyable read. Indeed, it is these stories that do in fact assist and reveal so much about the points he makes about editorial arguments and decisions surrounding political news. It’s certainly fair to say he is not a fan of Janet Street Porter.
One criticism that I share with others who have written reviews of this book is the lack of an index. I read through the book expecting to be able to use an index to help me finalise notes, only to discover there was none. So if you use this books make notes as you go along!
Overall, the book provides a great insight in to the political and social history of Britain and how this has been presented through the media. In addition, the fact that it contains first hand accounts and stories by a writer that is a high profile journalist makes it an engaging and I believe a reliable book. Marr’s writings clearly highlight the conflict and power struggle that go on behind the scenes in modern journalism and provides an excellent source to help consider what should and should not be reported and whether this can again be changed or influenced.
By Tom Farmery
Tags: media-conflict-power
Review / Summary of Theories
Edward S. Herman’s and Noam Chomsky’s ‘Manufacturing Consent’ brings to light the various techniques used by the mass media to manipulate the truth into fitting certain agendas. These agendas change depending on a series of factors, which range from who owns the television networks and newspapers, to the political influence of those in power.
This is not to say that the media prevent certain issues and events from being discussed. As the authors explain, they “encourage-spirited debate, criticism, and dissent, as long as these remain faithfully within the system of presuppositions and principals that constitute an elite consensus”. (Page 302, Manufacturing Consent) This is what is referred to as a “propaganda model”, which serves the purpose of indoctrinating the voting proportion of society, who supposedly have an influence in how the country is run.
Chomsky refers to this proportion as the professional class which is made up of teachers, doctors, lawyers – generally those who are to some degree educated and keep up to date with world events. He estimates that this group makes up approximately twenty percent of the population.
This leaves a large amount of people unaccounted for – eighty percent by Chomsky’s estimation – and their function is simply to work and follow orders. There exists for this group another branch of the media: tabloid magazines and entertainment television. Chomsky explains that the main role of these is to distract the eighty percent from issues which are of real importance. Instead of listening to political debates and voting on aspects of life which affect them, they spend their time and energy on reading about celebrities and rooting for their local football team.
The other key issue which Chomsky explores is that of worthy and unworthy victims. This is another element of the propaganda model, and refers to the amount of coverage which news programmes and newspapers give stories depending on whether they reflect well or poorly on the United States. One example is the huge difference in the amount of coverage given to a priest named Jerzy Popoeluszko who was murdered in Poland, and a case where dozens of religious personnel were murdered by agents co-operating with the US. The reason that the former story was so widely covered was that Popoeluszko was murdered by agents of a Communist government, and this played up to the US’s view of socialism as a bad thing.
By contrast, the media gave very little coverage to the dozens of people who were murdered by American allies in Latin America, as it would have depicted the US in a sinister light. In short this is why, “Popieluszko, murdered in an enemy state, will be a worthy victim, whereas priests murdered in our client states in Latin America will be unworthy.” (Page 38, Manufacturing Consent)
‘Manufacturing Consent is ultimately an expose of how the mass media works. Regardless of whether you feel the newsrooms are wrong for selective coverage of stories, or if you think it is necessary to keep certain people at bay, it is nonetheless a fascinating look at how western media operates.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Don't Mention The Review.
David Miller’s book begins with a strong opening chapter, ‘Policing the Media’, introducing the reader to the background relationship between the government and the media highlighting the intriguing aspects of ‘policing’ the news.
Touching on the Veto threat and the looming power government has over media companies, such as the BBC, Miller allows the reader to gain a basis of understanding before moving into the territory of Northern Ireland.
Miller continues on to compare the ‘freedom’ of the press before focusing on the government's heavy regulation of television. Using examples of events in Northern Ireland, Miller examines the organisational, legal, and economic contexts from 1979 onwards where he discusses the Acts and legislations brought in to prevent and regulate reporting.
The following two chapters concentrate on the strategies of propaganda and the significant role it played in the political tactics and media coverage. Miller does have a tendency to waffle and could make his points quicker with better cohesion. However, the use of case studies reinforces his discussions providing an increased understanding for the reader.
Miller then explores the international coverage of Northern Ireland enabling the reader to make a comparative analysis against the British media coverage.
An intriguing element is how conversely the news of the conflict is reported globally; what the British have called ‘Terrorists’, the majority of other countries labelled the IRA as ‘Freedom Fighters’. Miller briefly discusses these differing perspectives, albeit generalisations, of news coverage by countries such as France, Italy etc. on the state of Northern Ireland in contrast to the British reporting.
Miller focuses his attention on the US news coverage, which becomes a dominant topic of discussion. To develop his study, the inclusion of a further analysis on the reporting of Western and Eastern countries would have allowed more insight and debate. It could be said that, Miller’s choice to intricately explore the media in the US raises some key points on how an influential country, and one that has ties with both conflicting countries, selects the news and chooses to report it.
The concluding chapters examine the power of the media and questions how the news may be decoded by the public through its reporting of misinformation. Using examples of the media’s coverage on the IRA shooting in Gibraltar, Miller presents an analysis on the influence of the public’s opinion through the selection of items in news stories. This is particularly effective with the thorough study of Gibraltar, as a centre point of discussion, concerning the media’s news agenda, role and responsibility.
To progress his argument Miller questions the media’s power and the function of television in news coverage. It struggles to serve a purpose and to relate to the rest of the book but ends leaving the reader questioning the media, which can be applied in the context of contemporary television, and broadcasting.
Overall, Miller’s book gives a brilliant insight into the world of the media and news coverage. The reader will learn the government’s power on the media and the subsequent hold and influence on the public. The compelling use of case studies and examples form cohesion for the reader in order to understand the role of the media and it’s use of propaganda strategies and international coverage on the conflict. Miller has shown how a book, what may only be considered significant for the primary study on the reporting of Northern Ireland, is still increasingly relevant in today’s saturated world of news coverage.
Tags: media-conflict-power
Lewis Froude's book review of Media Democracy
The concept of Thomas Meyer’s book is to “understand the empirical conditions under which…media discourses still contribute appropriate political information and understanding.” (page x). He examines the relationship between media and politics and investigates how, for numerous reasons, we live under a media democracy that is comprised of “politainment” rather then politics.
Ultimately the book emphasises how we have transformed from a party political system to a media democratic state. After offering the reader a general introduction to the idea of democracy and the 3 key elements of politics (policy, polity and political processes) Meyer goes on to describe the key concepts of mass-media. He explains the basic idea that in order for a system to remain democratic, the public need to know the policies and political processes happening. Therefore, with media constituting one of four elements that within the public sphere influences decision-making, politicians use the media to communicate these goings on. Yet, Meyer makes it clear that it is indeed the media that control what is ultimately communicated. The reason why is because media texts are seen as a commodity, and there is now such a reliance on media texts to gain ratings and make money that journalists need to ensure that everything they report has the potential to achieve these aims. As a result of this, political matter needs to go through a filtering system in order to judge its newsworthiness, journalists are now professionally trained to ensure they maintain an unbiased opinion when reporting (hence the rise in journalistic degrees) target audiences need to be understood etc. It is no longer a game of just reporting everything political parties feed them.
With the media system containing the power, it has ultimately led to it colonising the political system. There are numerous theories about the process of collision between the 2 worlds; the fusion model which is simply where the 2 systems overlap leading to “policies being internalised into the media system” (page 50) and politics merely completed for the eye of the media rather then for the good of the country. In addition, there’s the constructivist model, which stresses that political media events are merely taken for granted at face value, so the process of putting together policies is completely ignored by the media and the finished announcement made by the political actor is all that counts (page 49). Coinciding with this collision has been the rise in visual culture and mediums, generating the development of pseudo politics and stage-managed techniques merely to appeal to media glare. The political world is now consumed by its media image, hence a vast increase in the rise of PR machines behind government. Yet with the political system being so consumed by its media image, the state of democracy has severely declined. Meyer reflects on this by highlighting how the best democrat is not necessarily the one who listens to the masses, but the one who can work the media the best to ensure good reportage;
“(The theorist) Kurbjuweit has unintentionally brought up the truth about media society. If democracy is nothing but legitimation by the most successful form of communication, then the communication artist is the best democrat.” (page 79)
Meyer concludes the tale of media democracy by looking at the potential future of it and seems to be hopeful that old style democracy will be restored with the introduction of new technology.
In general, Meyer’s description of the development of media democracy is a complicated one. Whilst being understandable, there are moments where the reader may be confused by the descriptions Meyer offers. However, he does highlight some intriguing aspects about the rise of media democracy. One compelling element that Meyer brings up is the subtle differences between American and European politics. American democracy does not rely so heavily on parties;
“There parties are essentially local and state organisations with only weak and intermittent ties to national party committees” (page 20).
Instead, it seems to be heavily based around the individual politician and their perception within the media. In addition, a lot of the case studies used to exemplify key concepts are also based around American politics. For instance, to highlight symbolic pseudo politics, Meyer uses the example of Ronald Reagan when he visited a children’s school at the same time as his government were planning massive cut backs in educational funding. This example is in fact repeated more then once in the book. There is also reference to George Bush’s win in the 2000 elections, the development of the Bill Clinton affair scandal and other such American political affairs. By consistently referring to American politics, Meyer may be suggesting (very gently and indirectly!) that it may be America that has led the rest of the world to this media democratic state. This is interesting because whilst Meyer is not saying that our world of politainment is America’s fault directly, he seems to be very much stressing it. This also is an interesting point that Meyer highlights because it raises concern as to the future of other countries democratic state; are we all going to follow the media trends of America? Does this mean that parties within the UK democratic system will soon also become less important?
Another intriguing element of the book is Meyer’s examination of new technology and its effect on media democracy. The book makes an interesting case that technology will lead to the development of a new public sphere that in turn may restore democracy. It stresses that media facets such as the internet are a medium that is not controlled by the masses but by the individual user on the computer. As a result, political matter is free from having to appeal to the masses, liberating political actors from the rules of the media stage. Similarly, these mediums offer opportunities for the individual user to have much more of a democratic say and contribution on the media stage via discussion rooms, comment pages etc. The internet is never really judged for its liberation of the democratic world, so in many senses this book opens up the readers eyes. It is also interesting because of the paradox the idea imposes; a new form of technology restoring an old style form of democracy.
The book does have flaws. One of the biggest mistakes the book makes is generalisations; it does make a large generalisation about the general public, in particular when referring to class and wealth;
“ The many people who derive the bulk of their political information and judgements from watching or reading entertainment fare would in any case be among the group with the least access to the internet anyway.” (page 123)
Using generalisations like this to defend theory is not necessarily the most appropriate fashion. Similarly, statements like this simply are not true.
The book is certainly more of an investigation then merely Meyer spouting his views on the collapse of politics. This is evident by his attempts to explore theories in chronological order. For instance, the reader learns about how democracy exists on the marketplace, as a participatory democracy and as a democratic civil society before ever mentioning the word media. Yet by chronologically analysing theories, the book adopts a more textbook feel. If the reader was a prospective politician or journalist, the text could be used as a “how to” book to learn how to survive the media minefield that dominates politics, or similarly on how to report political matters. Its explanation of theories makes the book feel more instructional then a good read and as result possibly disengages some readers.
By having such an instructional approach, the book remains unbiased. It refrains from sympathising or berating either politicians or journalists. This does allow for accurate reporting of case studies and offers room for the reader to make their own opinion as to whether the development of media democracy is a good thing. Yet, throughout the book, there are occasional glimpses of Meyer’s views on the media- and they were not positive. When explaining the colonization of self-mediatisation, Meyer describes 3 key elements. He explains how the “political elites themselves have submitted almost eagerly to the rules of the media,” (Page 58) that the “media pressure to stage manage one’s public image is built into the political system,” (page 58) and “the rules of the game are established by the media system.” (page 58) Meyer is clearly making the point that whilst it is political parties who rely upon the media as a form of communication to the masses, it is the media who set the rules of the game on how to communicate and as a result, have colonised the political world EG: they created the 8 rules that politicians must follow to ensure that a public event goes well. Whilst making a valid point, one cannot help but sense a tone in Meyer’s writing that indicates his frustration at the fact that the media calls the shots, not the political system.
Overall, the book offers a great insight into how media has wormed its ways into the political system and manipulated the ideals of “communication” so that the idea of democracy is no longer a case of having a verbal input, but merely having a ballot on a piece of paper. By acknowledging the idea that media texts are now only seen as commodities and therefore have a need to make money, Meyer does offer some explanation as to why the media has colonised politics. However, I personally feel that he doesn’t go into this explanation enough. Combine this with Meyer’s occasional frustrated tone and one may feel that the media are meant to be the bad guys. It is a book that very much demonstrates the table-tennis game of power between the political and media systems. It is also exceedingly interesting to discover the do’s and don’ts on the media stage. Any potential politician should definitely give this a read!
Tags: media-conflict-power
Christopher Bridger's review of the book.
Kellner’s over the top diplomatic approach to this book does take something away from what I feel is a very insightful and at sometimes, painfully honest reflection on media coverage during the American elections in 2000 and 2004, and the Iraq war. One can’t help but think that were Kellner to provide somewhat more of an impartial argument against his republican counterparts; the argument he is making would hold more resonance to an audience. Kellner begins by describing how the “republican propaganda machine….attack those who criticise them? (Kellner, D, 2005) he also argues that the mainstream American media is no longer a ‘watchdog’ to the American people, is it a ‘lap dog’ to the Bush-Cheney regime of 2000-2008. He argues that the Bush-Cheney regime “used and manipulated the media to advance their interests? (Kellner, D, 2005) for instance, in regards to the 2004 elections in which Kellner likens the Bush-Cheney election campaign to none other than the campaign drive of ‘Adolf Hitler’. He argues that they used smear tactics in the media. John Kerry, the republic leader in 2004 also running for Presidency primarily lost the election on the strength of ‘big lies’ told about him in the mainsteam media by Bush, Cheney and Carl Rove, and Al Gore in the 2000 elections suffered the same fate- that is if you believe the strength of everything that Kellner writes about.
Kellners first chapter “Grand theft 2000? argues that “the 2000 US presidential election…was from start to finish a media spectacle? (Kellner, D, 2005) he argues that the “fight for ratings intensified the entertainment factor in politics? (Kellner, D, 2005) and he blames this on the fact that cable and terrestrial coverage of the election campaign was often round the clock- he then bemoans the lack of impartiality within his countries supposedly ‘democratic’ media. “Fox …was abashedly pro-republican…and it appeared that MSNBC and CNBC were also partial towards Bush. CNN and the three major networks claimed to maintain neutrality, although major empirical studies…indicated that the media on the whole tended to favour Bush.? (Kellner, D, 2005) Kellner’s main emotion as he wrote this book seems to be one of spite, he is obviously hugely passionate about the subject and feels that he, as an American citizen has been cheated by what he feels is primarily a ‘republican media’
Kellner argues that elections are now merely a parade for the masses- “presidential candidates were a brand name to be sold to voters? (Kellner, D, 2005) he argues that Bush only won the 2000 election due to his ‘friendly and likeable’ countenance on a late night talk show when in opposition to Al Gore. He poses an interesting argument on the role of the media in elections- and says that at times the media has become more important than the foundations in which an election drive is based upon. “Creation of image takes precedence over ideas, style replaces substance, and presentation trumps policy? (Kellner, D, 2005). Kellner’s other primary argument is that of the Bush-Cheney regime in manipulating the media to focus on some issues far more than others. Kellner argues that Bush and Cheney used these ‘media spectacles’ to hide behind the real issues surrounding their Presidency- a “Americans living in poverty rose by 1.3 million..to 35.9 million while those without health insurance climbed by 1.4 million to 45 millon? (Kellner, D, 2005) Kellner argues that Bush used the media spectacles of Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to blindfold the American citizens to the real problems. Indeed he states that “after 9/11, the media became weapons of mass hysteria that made Americans look to the government for protection rendering the population malleable to manipulation.? (Kellner, D, 2005) Finally he also argues how different political powers manipulate the media in different ways to portray different messages, for instance he comments on the American coverage differing greatly from the coverage of Iraqi television with regards to the war in Iraq. Kellner comments on how the American coverage attempts to focus on how the American soldiers and government are ‘liberating the people of Iraq’ whilst Iraqi coverage tends to be far more truthful and show the painful truths of the supposed ‘war on terror’.
Whilst I did enjoy reading this book I felt that Kellner’s extreme opposition to Bush and the Republicans soured the entire analysis- had he been more impartial I may have been swayed. However in the way it is written Kellner seems to be attempting to start a witch hunt against Bush and there is no sense of rationality within his argument. However despite this, I would say this novel is a fantastic insight into what seems to be a very corrupt political world- it is refreshing to read a book that spells things out rather than using pretentious language that no-one other than the author can understand.
Book Review by Adam Donovan
Book Report - By Adam Donovan
Freedom of Speech – Eric Barendt
Eric Barendt is Goodman Proffessor of Media Law at the University College London. The book I am doing this review about is called Freedom of Speech. This publication was originally published in 1985. Since then interest in comparative fee speech law has grown greatly, and there are many new laws to think about. This book consists of the insights and study of freedom of speech by the meticulous and rigorous scholar Eric Barendt. The book informs the reader greatly of everything that is needed to know in comparative human rights law and freedom. Barendt highlights and talks about such issues as ; free speech and expression clauses, commercial advertising and public meeting.
Eric Barendt also discusses the legal protection of free speech in a range of countries such as England, The United States, Canada and Germany. Barendt looks into and explains to the reader of the different legal systems, and what approach they have. He also shows constitutional traditions to balancing free speech and how the press have got freedom against rights to reputation and privacy. Copywright and the philosophical and political arguments fro free speech are also covered.
This book has a relatively full discussion of English free speech law. Inevitably, however, discussion of United States decisions and arguments takes up quit a few chapters. The objective of this book is to discuss issues about free speech, how to resolve these issues or how they have been resolved in the past and to consider and highlight the most important decisions from the legal system that have take place and are currently enforced.
I found this book very useful and extremely interesting, and I believe that it has come in very handy, helping me to complete my essay. I found the most useful section of the book for me to be chapter 13. This chapter was called Freedom of Speech and the Internet, the sub heading being; ‘How Should the Internet be Treated’. This chapter described to me the idea that the internet could be used as a mass media communication device and should not be underestimated. I found this quote very interesting;
“Speech on the Net which spreads rumors and scandal round the world instantaneously may cause greater damage, say to an individual’s reputation then could any article in the press or television broadcast.?
This told me of how the internet could be a way to pass round information very quickly indeed and how one’s freedom of speech could be misinterpreted and could cause a lot of damage to another person. Ultimately in severe cases this could end up in breaking some kind of law, and ending up in a legal battle. This theory also fitted in nicely with my essay as at one point I explained how freedom of speech could be damaging in participatory media.
Another chapter that I enjoyed reading and finding out information about was chapter 12. The title of the chapter is Freedom of Speech in the Media and the sub heading is Editorial freedom. This chapter highlights a range of concepts that relate to freedom if you are an editor. For example I learnt that in The United States of America early laws allowed broadcasters to enjoy editorial freedom to determine programme schedules, including a right to reject political advertisements, and even public broadcasting channels are free to editorialize or take a distinctive view on controversial public issues. A main fact that I found out that interested me greatly is the fact that they can also exclude minority party candidates from television election debates.
I enjoyed studying this book while completing my project and found it extremely educational and informative. I feel like I have learned a lot from this publication and will continue to look into Eric Barendt’s work in the future. Finally I believe this book to be a key reader for any student, and recommend it enthusiastically to any one who is interested in freedom of speech, or studying a media related course. All who read this book shall find it very enjoyable and will learn a lot from it.