Foreign news is a strange thing, particularly for a British audience. It is surprising the amount of news stories that go untraced as they are not deemed newsworthy. If there is no relationship or historical context, then it is unlikely to see the light of day. If it does not feature a protagonist who doesn’t mirror our perceived stereotypes, then it isn’t even worth covering. If it involves a country we’ve never knew existed, then it’s more than likely we don’t even care.
We are all guilty at jumping to conclusions, particularly when events strike. The protests that have paralysed much of France only assert our previous conclusions about our Gallic neighbours and what about Chile? If we ignore the miners and the earthquake earlier this year, we tend to think of General Pinochet and his odious regime. To an extent, the media is not entirely to blame, there are plenty of other resources dedicated to different regions in the world but ultimately we tend to ignore them. A news organisation cannot necessarily win because the expense of running such a bureau often means that in certain places several correspondents are forced to cover an entire continent on a shoestring budget; foreign news is a delicacy to any newshound.
Another problem is justification; we get a bigger share of foreign news from America because (if you ignore the obvious cultural ties) more things happen there. Yet, even despite this coverage it is perfectly reasonable to accept that most Brits, nor Europeans really understand what the average American citizen thinks. This is perhaps where cultural values can blur and national identities become prevalent. The paper press do this, but even the television media.
There are forthcoming elections in Burma this November, yet we will only hear observations on the absence of pro-democracy campaigner Aung Sang Sui Chi, not the splits in her party or the ethnic tensions surrounding it. Last year in Sri Lanka, the British media focussed purely on the fate of the Tamil people, it entirely neglected the years of suffering inflicted on the Sinhalese population. Why do we have a fondness to follow the devious and megalomaniac regime of Robert Mugabe, yet we ignored the bloody conflict that killed millions in the DR Congo. There is a case of subjectivism and some stories do not warrant nor require the gaze as others but it does put a question on news values as a whole. Unfortunately, humanitarian stories, particularly natural disasters, receive wider coverage and dedication than stories that have been progressing for years. We were all aware of the Haiti Earthquake, yet there is little to show on famine in the Central African Republic or even in Palestine? Yet, starving Africans or trouble in the Middle East is hardly anything new. They are stories that lack hope or renew interest from a day-to-day basis, so maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.
The internet and global communications have completely changed boundaries and increased the capacity to react to events in an age of 24 hour news. Yet, editorial judgement, public perceptions and short term analysis has created an environment where news operates to fill time space and any closer scrutiny serves to reiterate historical stereotypes and recover little further. Perhaps it’s a post-colonial come down or just the fact we’ve grown accustomed to being a top dog.
We are all guilty at jumping to conclusions, particularly when events strike. The protests that have paralysed much of France only assert our previous conclusions about our Gallic neighbours and what about Chile? If we ignore the miners and the earthquake earlier this year, we tend to think of General Pinochet and his odious regime. To an extent, the media is not entirely to blame, there are plenty of other resources dedicated to different regions in the world but ultimately we tend to ignore them. A news organisation cannot necessarily win because the expense of running such a bureau often means that in certain places several correspondents are forced to cover an entire continent on a shoestring budget; foreign news is a delicacy to any newshound.
Another problem is justification; we get a bigger share of foreign news from America because (if you ignore the obvious cultural ties) more things happen there. Yet, even despite this coverage it is perfectly reasonable to accept that most Brits, nor Europeans really understand what the average American citizen thinks. This is perhaps where cultural values can blur and national identities become prevalent. The paper press do this, but even the television media.
There are forthcoming elections in Burma this November, yet we will only hear observations on the absence of pro-democracy campaigner Aung Sang Sui Chi, not the splits in her party or the ethnic tensions surrounding it. Last year in Sri Lanka, the British media focussed purely on the fate of the Tamil people, it entirely neglected the years of suffering inflicted on the Sinhalese population. Why do we have a fondness to follow the devious and megalomaniac regime of Robert Mugabe, yet we ignored the bloody conflict that killed millions in the DR Congo. There is a case of subjectivism and some stories do not warrant nor require the gaze as others but it does put a question on news values as a whole. Unfortunately, humanitarian stories, particularly natural disasters, receive wider coverage and dedication than stories that have been progressing for years. We were all aware of the Haiti Earthquake, yet there is little to show on famine in the Central African Republic or even in Palestine? Yet, starving Africans or trouble in the Middle East is hardly anything new. They are stories that lack hope or renew interest from a day-to-day basis, so maybe we shouldn’t be surprised.
The internet and global communications have completely changed boundaries and increased the capacity to react to events in an age of 24 hour news. Yet, editorial judgement, public perceptions and short term analysis has created an environment where news operates to fill time space and any closer scrutiny serves to reiterate historical stereotypes and recover little further. Perhaps it’s a post-colonial come down or just the fact we’ve grown accustomed to being a top dog.
No comments:
Post a Comment