Reflecting on Media Truths
I began my professional life as a media practitioner, a journalist chasing ideals and dreams of freedom of expression. Influenced by my Editor then at Mediacorp, I took up Economics as a an academic pursuit to understand the forces of society and the groundings necessary for a Journalist (from god knows when till this day, Philosophy, Politics, and Economics seem to be the favourite course of study for budding journalists in Singapore). However, after a long, hard look at myself, I decided to choose Education as a career to influence and inspire a new generation of conscious Singaporeans. After 3 years as a teacher, I decided that I will take a, ahem, sabbatical, to reflect on my own fruitless life chasing fruitless dreams.
Anyway, this post is not for me to whine and cry over the futiliy of my existence, but as a primer to understand the contexts of worldviews. In lieu of the above, the following account might appear somewhat more coherent. I vividly remember my first experience covering an international story of interest for a news agency. The agency had just bought a photo-story from me in early 1998 on the issue of Migrants in Singapore, and they called me in one morning in May 1998 to cover another story which was gaining interest internationally. The beginning of the Reformasi riots, which eventually toppled Suharto's regime, was taking its toll on its regular correspondents and "stringers" there. The amount of stories generated on the riots was inadequate to fulfill the demands of the International Media, and some of the agency's writers refused to cover the story due to ideological conflicts, fear of violence and inability/refusal to understand the local context in the rioting areas. Bravely, I jetted in and wrote several long, well-researched articles on the riots, and was jetted out as soon as my services were not needed. Looking back, I reflected on the objectivity of the trip and the coverage of the riots by the media.
Prior to the riots, newpapers and media around the world paid scant coverage on the escalating discontent and the irregular development of the country. Analysing the "clicks", or use by the international media on the regional stories, it is estimated to be less than 20 stories per day by the agency's more than 200 subscribers, which would include the notable papers New York Times, The Times (England), The International Herald Tribune and our own beloved The Straits Times. With the onset of the street demonstration and violent crackdown by the authorities, thousands of "clicks" were noted each day, and hundreds of Journalists performed the "parachute" mode of journalism by entering the country to cover the riots for their own media.
However, Western or Northern media often ignored the ideological background of the riots in lieu of the gore and violence surrounding the riots. A discursive one-liner "the riots started after students from a local university were shot by the military", followed descriptions of gore worthy of an Anthony Burgess novel. Further emphasis were given to rape and looting of Chinese Indonesians, and did not reveal "fractured lines of societal differences", but a mere stereotype of racial discontent. Rape didn't occur along racial lines, as people were fond of believing, but at random outbursts. Native Indonesians were also victims, and rape-squads against Chinese were also rumoured to have developed. These remained rumours. The central issue in the Reformasi Riots of 1998 was against the oppression of social classes, rather than a racial one that we were led to believe. Disparity between the rich and poor was neglected by that Administration, and Suharto's crucial financial backing by the rich led to the promotion of capitalism and cronyism, which were forced onto the oppressed classes who struggled in a society of disparity. Looting against Chinese shops were overemphasised, as looting took place not along racial lines, but among geographical belts of wealth and the value of the shops. Indigenious Indonesian shops were not spared in the looting, which happens as a capitalization of riots anywhere.
Famous pictures of graffiti on shops and carcasses labelling the "Chinese pork consumers" were proliferated across news media. However, many and most other pictures of violence and shops in various states of destruction were of indigenious people and ownership. One photographer of a major Western newspaper was even observed coaxing rioters to scribble racist graffiti on a looted shop, car, and carcasses of dead men and women who were obviously non-Chinese. The official government denial on a "racial riot" was disparaged by the skeptical Western media who drew their conclusions too quickly that it was a government-backed riot to purge the Chinese race from its society. Distortion of the news by Western Agencies, censorship by the local press, rumours from the grapevine and false perception did lead to the migration of the richer, more mobile Chinese community, who read about threats to them from Chinese and English-medium newspapers, which in turn took many of their stories from Western Wire Services as well as major newspapers, even the Straits Times, whose influential columnists were condemning the oppression of the people and passing on the perception of racial attacks. However, many Chinese did not take heed to the "ethnic cleansing", or who were less mobile than their Upper class counterparts (there are lower-middle class Chinese Indonesians, you know, unlike the stereotypical filthy rich ones), and stayed in their own homes, cowering in fear as much as their indigenious neighbours who know that opportunistic rioters know no race.
An interview I did with Trisakti students, whose deaths led to the riots, indicated that most of the rioters were ideologically aware of the need for reform rather than senselessly manifesting their primal nature of violence as Western media are fond of believing, and that Indo-Chinese students were among the most vocal of supporters of reform. Ironically or aptly, the University has labelled itself as the Campus of the Reform Heroes, distancing itself from the violence and celebrating its ideologies. I was jetted in at the height of demand from Western and regional media for its violence, and axed after three days as the media gradually lost its attention towards the riots, or perhaps as I tried to provide a counter-perspective derailing the Western myths and stereotype on lesser, that is to say, Asian, cultures. My investigative reports averaged 20 clicks, way below the agency's average for the riot coverage, and they were heavily "scrubbed" by Western media before publication, at times merged into other stories as a cross-perspective, though usually at the rear of the article, where readers gradually lost interest. My Editor told me that my trip was a high-risk loss-making venture, but celebrates the achievement of "factual" journalism at its height and glory and meeting the ethos of news. However, it was pulled from the archives after 3 months, citing the need to create space for other stories. Hmm..
Anyway, the anecdote is not to portray any "holier than thou" criticism of the Western media, but a reflection on the everyday nature of news in media, which if I interprete rightly, will be a central feature of the study of written discourse, as the great proportion of authoritative discourse in written form today takes place in the media. Media selection, framing, its hidden ideology, the secret symbols in its discourse, and the hegemony between the North and South will allow us to reconsider what we see each day, and allow us a critical perspective on the "truths" media attempt to deliver, and the "truths" we reify in our minds.
Anyway, this post is not for me to whine and cry over the futiliy of my existence, but as a primer to understand the contexts of worldviews. In lieu of the above, the following account might appear somewhat more coherent. I vividly remember my first experience covering an international story of interest for a news agency. The agency had just bought a photo-story from me in early 1998 on the issue of Migrants in Singapore, and they called me in one morning in May 1998 to cover another story which was gaining interest internationally. The beginning of the Reformasi riots, which eventually toppled Suharto's regime, was taking its toll on its regular correspondents and "stringers" there. The amount of stories generated on the riots was inadequate to fulfill the demands of the International Media, and some of the agency's writers refused to cover the story due to ideological conflicts, fear of violence and inability/refusal to understand the local context in the rioting areas. Bravely, I jetted in and wrote several long, well-researched articles on the riots, and was jetted out as soon as my services were not needed. Looking back, I reflected on the objectivity of the trip and the coverage of the riots by the media.
Prior to the riots, newpapers and media around the world paid scant coverage on the escalating discontent and the irregular development of the country. Analysing the "clicks", or use by the international media on the regional stories, it is estimated to be less than 20 stories per day by the agency's more than 200 subscribers, which would include the notable papers New York Times, The Times (England), The International Herald Tribune and our own beloved The Straits Times. With the onset of the street demonstration and violent crackdown by the authorities, thousands of "clicks" were noted each day, and hundreds of Journalists performed the "parachute" mode of journalism by entering the country to cover the riots for their own media.
However, Western or Northern media often ignored the ideological background of the riots in lieu of the gore and violence surrounding the riots. A discursive one-liner "the riots started after students from a local university were shot by the military", followed descriptions of gore worthy of an Anthony Burgess novel. Further emphasis were given to rape and looting of Chinese Indonesians, and did not reveal "fractured lines of societal differences", but a mere stereotype of racial discontent. Rape didn't occur along racial lines, as people were fond of believing, but at random outbursts. Native Indonesians were also victims, and rape-squads against Chinese were also rumoured to have developed. These remained rumours. The central issue in the Reformasi Riots of 1998 was against the oppression of social classes, rather than a racial one that we were led to believe. Disparity between the rich and poor was neglected by that Administration, and Suharto's crucial financial backing by the rich led to the promotion of capitalism and cronyism, which were forced onto the oppressed classes who struggled in a society of disparity. Looting against Chinese shops were overemphasised, as looting took place not along racial lines, but among geographical belts of wealth and the value of the shops. Indigenious Indonesian shops were not spared in the looting, which happens as a capitalization of riots anywhere.
Famous pictures of graffiti on shops and carcasses labelling the "Chinese pork consumers" were proliferated across news media. However, many and most other pictures of violence and shops in various states of destruction were of indigenious people and ownership. One photographer of a major Western newspaper was even observed coaxing rioters to scribble racist graffiti on a looted shop, car, and carcasses of dead men and women who were obviously non-Chinese. The official government denial on a "racial riot" was disparaged by the skeptical Western media who drew their conclusions too quickly that it was a government-backed riot to purge the Chinese race from its society. Distortion of the news by Western Agencies, censorship by the local press, rumours from the grapevine and false perception did lead to the migration of the richer, more mobile Chinese community, who read about threats to them from Chinese and English-medium newspapers, which in turn took many of their stories from Western Wire Services as well as major newspapers, even the Straits Times, whose influential columnists were condemning the oppression of the people and passing on the perception of racial attacks. However, many Chinese did not take heed to the "ethnic cleansing", or who were less mobile than their Upper class counterparts (there are lower-middle class Chinese Indonesians, you know, unlike the stereotypical filthy rich ones), and stayed in their own homes, cowering in fear as much as their indigenious neighbours who know that opportunistic rioters know no race.
An interview I did with Trisakti students, whose deaths led to the riots, indicated that most of the rioters were ideologically aware of the need for reform rather than senselessly manifesting their primal nature of violence as Western media are fond of believing, and that Indo-Chinese students were among the most vocal of supporters of reform. Ironically or aptly, the University has labelled itself as the Campus of the Reform Heroes, distancing itself from the violence and celebrating its ideologies. I was jetted in at the height of demand from Western and regional media for its violence, and axed after three days as the media gradually lost its attention towards the riots, or perhaps as I tried to provide a counter-perspective derailing the Western myths and stereotype on lesser, that is to say, Asian, cultures. My investigative reports averaged 20 clicks, way below the agency's average for the riot coverage, and they were heavily "scrubbed" by Western media before publication, at times merged into other stories as a cross-perspective, though usually at the rear of the article, where readers gradually lost interest. My Editor told me that my trip was a high-risk loss-making venture, but celebrates the achievement of "factual" journalism at its height and glory and meeting the ethos of news. However, it was pulled from the archives after 3 months, citing the need to create space for other stories. Hmm..
Anyway, the anecdote is not to portray any "holier than thou" criticism of the Western media, but a reflection on the everyday nature of news in media, which if I interprete rightly, will be a central feature of the study of written discourse, as the great proportion of authoritative discourse in written form today takes place in the media. Media selection, framing, its hidden ideology, the secret symbols in its discourse, and the hegemony between the North and South will allow us to reconsider what we see each day, and allow us a critical perspective on the "truths" media attempt to deliver, and the "truths" we reify in our minds.
posted by Tormented genius at 7:16 AM
2 Comments:
WHAT KIND OF THING ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Errrrrrrrm, wad r u talking about?
And please start posting on the TT Blog!
Post a Comment
<< Home