I’ve Betrayed You Anderson…

Does the media frame the way we think about stories or do we have certain presuppositions that inform the media of how to frame stories in ways that are already aligned with our preconceived notions? I kept thinking about this question this week as I was reading about global news and the way it is conveyed to the public. The whole idea of media framing seems like a cyclical process. The news outlets frame stories in a particular way that, according to Powers and el-Nawawy in their article “AL-Jazeera English and global news networks,” affirms rather than informs. This means that the stories that are conveyed to viewers is framed from a point of view that the viewers have already established as their outlook and stance on the world. But where do these preconceived notions come from anyway? As we have discussed in class media has a substantial part in shaping cultures and identities within certain groups of people. This seems like the chicken and egg conundrum. However, most of the theorist today seem to think that the media is the follower and not the leader, and that in order to change the way that people view the world and the news, especially regarding global issues, that the news media need to become leaders and start changing the way that the news is presented and then later people may start to see the world in a new way. Powers and el-Nawawy used Al-Jazeera English as an example of a media outlet that is changing the way that the news is presented. Al-Jazeera’s slogan is giving a voice to the voice-less, which in itself changes the way that most media outlets present their news which Hafez says almost always favors a Western point of view.

 

Well, I had never been to Al-Jazeera English and I wanted to see if it really had a different point of view than a Western news outlet so I went to their website and also to CNN.com international to see if I could see a difference straight away between the two. The first thing I saw on Al-Jazeera was a quote in the upper right hand corner from a philosopher named Slavoj Zizek about how capitalism is leading the world into an apocalyptic doomsday… not what I was expecting from the apparent objective voice of the world today, but ok. On their homepage was a story about Haiti and how they were seeking UN relief for a cholera epidemic that has broken out in the country. I then went to CNN.com and they also had a story about the cholera outbreak in Haiti so I clicked on that was well. I decided that this story might be a little freer of Eastern/Western slant or criticism seeing as Haiti is not usually a country that is an antagonist on either side of that debate. I started with the Al-Jazeera story so that I wouldn’t taint it anymore than necessary with my western point of view.

 

This was the first I had heard of the story and Al-Jazeera gave a very in depth look at the problem of cholera in Haiti. They had a correspondent on the scene that had talked to officials from Doctors without Borders and staff from a UN office who was in charge of trying to find some funds needed to help with the epidemic. Since the earthquake in Haiti there had also been a hurricane that killed tens of people as of Al-Jazeera’s latest report. The story also talked about the anger of the people because of outbreak and also because of sanitation issues especially in the slum of cite soleil. Then I went to CNN.com to look at the story that they had published. The information that both cites had published was consistent with one another, but the Al-Jazeera story had more information and more about the people of the country and their outrage at the epidemic. I could not locate if the CNN.com story was just an update on an earlier reported story but the tone was definitely more of a recap of events than a story like the one on the Al-Jazeera site. I was honestly moved by the Al-Jazeera story and the detail of all that was happening in Haiti on top of the previous devastation. Another interesting fact is that the Al-Jazeera story started with the fact that the UN called for $164 million in aid, whereas it was mentioned halfway through the story in the CNN.com article. The point of the Al-Jazeera article was that aid was needed and the rest of the story tried to compel action with stories of events in the city. The CNN.com story started with the events of the epidemic and the mention of the aid money just seemed like another event to take in and not act upon.

 

I am not saying that Al-Jazeera English will be my new home page (I just changed it to CNN from google to make myself look more “cosmopolitan”…and I finally took the two minutes to figure out how to do it on my computer), but I think that this is an eye opener that I need to take charge of my media intake. Its fine to urge the news outlets to change their output, but the fact of the matter is that they have other interests to consider in the way they disseminate news. I think we should all challenge ourselves to be more discerning when it comes to what we ingest and what we believe. Its up to each person to decide what news they what to receive, and in today’s world it is as simple as the click of a button. Then we will see if the media is a reflection of our norms or vice versa, because we should see a change in the way that our news outlets inform us. So let the change begin—internally.