Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : WAR & CRISIS REPORTING
Media in conflict: the new reality not yet understood by Nik Gowing  $File/58-63_gowing_crop.pdf
Summary of an article by Nik Gowing (download the full version) The traditional assumptions of the relationship between the media, humanitarian organizationsand all others involved inconflict and emergencies are fast becoming outdated and even irrelevant. This means that assumptions about accountability are similarly outdated. Most significantly, the bearing of witness in crises can now often be done not just by journalists but by a whole new cadre of impromptu information "do-ers", amateurs with little or no training in the principles of good journalism -- namely, balance, impartiality and accuracy. A growing number are motivated advocates or partial campaigners who have found low-cost, low-tech but highly effective ways firstly to record and then to distribute their information and views in near real time. Fewer checks and balances Crucially, the new transmission platforms -- especially websites fed with information from the field,chat forums and mobile phones - have begun both to bypass and challenge the layered filtering and editing processes of the established broadcast and publishing news mediums. An increasing number of them may be subject to no editorial scrutiny or standards. They are steadily finding ways to seize the information initiative from the traditional media. Often, though not always, they use questionable but enticing misrepresentations, exaggerations or polemics. Significantly, they have been taking with them willing information receivers -- especially from the less trusting younger generation. These audiences are no longer prepared to accept automatically and passively the reporting perspective of long established media brands, many of whom are considered by the new information do-ers to have a commercial and political agenda that either distorts or inadequately represents the core message they expect to be transmitted from a crisis. Recognizing the new developments The media in conflict, crisis and emergency are no longer just the traditional news and information outlets of radio, newspapers and TV. As the old media matrix fractures and fragments at an extraordinarily rapid rate, many players in crisis have yet to embrace and confront these new realities. These realities are creating a formidable struggle to adapt information systems and work practices, not just in news rooms but also within governments, diplomacy and the military. NGOs must also confront this. A "tyranny of real time" has now arrived with a vengeance. By its very nature it can lead to increasingly imperfect and flawed information. And the established media? For a start, no longer will they be viewed obediently as the high priests of what is expected to be the most reliable information. Their versions can now be challenged explicitly, contemporaneously and credibly by other information do-ers. These information do-ers also have the ability to create a rival, alternative agenda of issues and coverage. Already some of the new information do-ers are showing how effectively they can both expose and challenge the inherent editorial shortcomings of traditional media in conflict. More exposure for world suffering? For humanitarians who struggle to focus international attention on what they fear are victims and crises that are forgotten or ignored there is, however, a positive upside. They may suspect bias, propaganda and the power of commercial interests in some of the traditional media. Yet the recent evidence shows that the combination of the new, cheap, lightweight technology and the proliferation of transmission platforms means there is a far greater chance of war and the suffering of victims being both recorded and exposed, even if it is not to a mass media market. By way of one medium or another, there is more coverage in text and video of more conflicts and emergencies from more parts of the world than ever before. Bias or truth? The warring factions -- whether the government, insurgents or street protesters --now monitor the24-hour output of most news stations. As Intifada-2 in the Middle East has shown, real-timereporting is uncomfortable for all sides because they see or hear unfolding incidents immediately through contradictory prisms during the heat of conflict. In different ways, each views factual reporting -- including the inevitable imperfections in real time -- as either a betrayal or tactical threat to their military operations. As a result, there is often deep hostility and resentment towards the media which is exposing camera operators and information do-ers on the ground to the new threat of being actively targeted in military operations. Overall, many will readily conclude that the media as traditionally perceived are in retreat in humanitarian crises. However, there are good reasons to confirm that the opposite is the case. |
EXHIBITS 58-63_gowing_crop.pdf  |