The Gutenberg Galaxy has really caught up, the medium really became the message, and the world got retribalised. The Global Village is true, but at the same time we shouldn't be losing sight of retribalisation. People are so well connected through the advancement of technology, a fact which proves McLuhan right in his ideas of Media Determinism. But the results we are getting are far from reassuring. The idea of The Spring all over the Developing, in fact, Muslim, world are increasingly becoming obsolete in the light of evidence and research. But even if these were right, it the probable impact of this Integrated World develops a negative equation. The role of social media as a tool of resistance is being propagated around the globe. But the anomaly in the whole concept is that if the social media is a threat to status quo and it is inherent in its constitution, why would it be only true for the Muslim world, while it will remain supportive of the same equation in the West. Taking it as a liberating force in the Muslim countries, while supportive, or inactive, of whatever goes on in the West, or even non-Muslim developing world, doesn't make sense. The winds of change can't blow differently on different sections of the same global village. These should have the same pattern.
This rejects the premise of change agent in the Muslim world. But the retribalisation is there. The world is now divided, entrenched in different hostile camps, and national identities are unmistakably ideologies against the other, a belligerent other.
Here again we are confronted with an anomaly. On the one hand media is the agent of division, while on the other we are looking at it as a solution to the problem of division and hatred. Most of the world forgets this problem and sees the media and media professionals as agents of global integration, carriers of the ideals of universal democracy.
Another aspect of the problem is that media, as systems of information, are considered to be biased, while journalists and their representative organizations, as systems of journalism, are considered as unbiased, or at least humane enough to understand the human side of the problem, universally.
The problem in this premise is that there might be a difference between both the above mentioned structures, while, presumably, the former represents ownership, marketing, advertisements, and financial support; the mechanical, more industrial/capitalistic side of the business of journalism. While the latter, namely journalists, is taken as directly connected with the happenings on the ground, in touch with the human problems, and having a feeling of responsibility towards the users of the finished product. There is a modicum of plausibility in the supportive argument in favor of intra-system differences. But this can't be stretched too far.
Differences within the same system can't be seen as two separate systems, one considered evil while the other striving for good. It is not logically acceptable that the parent body, the paymasters, support their own nemesis in the form of their workforce. The working journalists, thus, know the owners' agenda and do their "job" by working within that frame. Their personal views about issues might be diagonally apposed to those of the ones expressed on the media, yet their professional performances are not forced labor at all. There are no prisoners of conscience in the modern media business. They all are well aware of what they are doing and also knowing the consequences of their actions. Thus the whole hue and cry about the innocent saviors of humanity trapped in the cobweb of capitalistic enterprise is nothing more than a myth.
Journalists get 'oriented' in the day to day business of news making and do accept the ideologies of their respective networks. The very word 'professionalism' means parting with personal belief systems and adhering to those of the profession. The biggest challenge at hand in our present day media business is "how to look at a universal ethics of journalism in a globalized world?". The very need for such an ethics is not based on lofty, abstract ideas of humanism and morality. The reasons are practical. How would a journalist professional in Pakistan and his/her counterpart in the US work together, while keeping a bias against each other at the same time? What would be the quality of the product, how would they synchronize their respective ideals for a single job? Would it be possible to develop a dual professional self, the one dealing with international, professional interaction, an intercultural/international enterprise, while, on the other hand, sticking somehow to the parent national/local ideologies of the profession, both in Pakistan and the US?
The questions are easily placed but are very difficult to answer.
First and foremost the whole global structure of journalism has to get out of the hypocritical notions of the global journalistic fraternity. The whole structure of global networks for rights of journalists is there to help after the damage is done. There is no preemption, no ethical structure of understanding, in place that could hinder the happenings. The problem should be faced head on, the acceptance of the devil within. There are biases and working together on the same issue with two antagonistic ideals and an image of the belligerent other for the coworker is destined to place one of the two into a blind alley. And this victim, most of the times, is the Muslim/local counterpart.
The solution of the problem lies in an enlightened debate on the issue at the academic level. Students and budding journalists brought together to discuss the nature of media systems, media, media activity, laws, and socio-cultural contexts of both the systems in a free debate. This debate can't take in real world traveling packages. Journalists going to the West, mostly US, getting impressed with the routines and advancements and coming back with a malice towards their own parent organizations. This is no dialogue. Dialogue is based on respect for the other and accepting the other and her/his contexts as right. Seeing the differences as milestones in need of synergies, instead of molding one in favor of the other.
The idea of a virtual class room is one of the many ways of doing this exercise in real time. A virtual discussion forum would bring the real affective matrices into play. This will help seeing the roots of preconceptions, misconceptions, and stereotyping. It will also ensure the continuity of the debate to a logical end. The short term shuttles into one or the other culture are nothing but confusing. This, naturally, will lead us towards a syllabus (or at least a working ethical understanding, initially) for a universal working ethics for journalists in zones of conflict where collaborative work is needed by professionals representing the warring parties into conflict in their personal as well as professional lives. The time is ripe and the clock is ticking. The sooner we begin with it, the better it would be for the present and future of international, collaborative journalism in zones of conflict.
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Ethics for Collaborative Journalism in Zones of Conflict: a Thematic Precept
The Gutenberg Galaxy has really caught up, the medium really became the message, and the world got retribalised. The Global Village is true, but at the same time we shouldn't be losing sight of retribalisation. People are so well connected through the advancement of technology, a fact which proves McLuhan right in his ideas of Media Determinism. But the results we are getting are far from reassuring. The idea of The Spring all over the Developing, in fact, Muslim, world are increasingly becoming obsolete in the light of evidence and research. But even if these were right, it the probable impact of this Integrated World develops a negative equation. The role of social media as a tool of resistance is being propagated around the globe. But the anomaly in the whole concept is that if the social media is a threat to status quo and it is inherent in its constitution, why would it be only true for the Muslim world, while it will remain supportive of the same equation in the West. Taking it as a liberating force in the Muslim countries, while supportive, or inactive, of whatever goes on in the West, or even non-Muslim developing world, doesn't make sense. The winds of change can't blow differently on different sections of the same global village. These should have the same pattern.
This rejects the premise of change agent in the Muslim world. But the retribalisation is there. The world is now divided, entrenched in different hostile camps, and national identities are unmistakably ideologies against the other, a belligerent other.
Here again we are confronted with an anomaly. On the one hand media is the agent of division, while on the other we are looking at it as a solution to the problem of division and hatred. Most of the world forgets this problem and sees the media and media professionals as agents of global integration, carriers of the ideals of universal democracy.
Another aspect of the problem is that media, as systems of information, are considered to be biased, while journalists and their representative organizations, as systems of journalism, are considered as unbiased, or at least humane enough to understand the human side of the problem, universally.
The problem in this premise is that there might be a difference between both the above mentioned structures, while, presumably, the former represents ownership, marketing, advertisements, and financial support; the mechanical, more industrial/capitalistic side of the business of journalism. While the latter, namely journalists, is taken as directly connected with the happenings on the ground, in touch with the human problems, and having a feeling of responsibility towards the users of the finished product. There is a modicum of plausibility in the supportive argument in favor of intra-system differences. But this can't be stretched too far.
Differences within the same system can't be seen as two separate systems, one considered evil while the other striving for good. It is not logically acceptable that the parent body, the paymasters, support their own nemesis in the form of their workforce. The working journalists, thus, know the owners' agenda and do their "job" by working within that frame. Their personal views about issues might be diagonally apposed to those of the ones expressed on the media, yet their professional performances are not forced labor at all. There are no prisoners of conscience in the modern media business. They all are well aware of what they are doing and also knowing the consequences of their actions. Thus the whole hue and cry about the innocent saviors of humanity trapped in the cobweb of capitalistic enterprise is nothing more than a myth.
Journalists get 'oriented' in the day to day business of news making and do accept the ideologies of their respective networks. The very word 'professionalism' means parting with personal belief systems and adhering to those of the profession. The biggest challenge at hand in our present day media business is "how to look at a universal ethics of journalism in a globalized world?". The very need for such an ethics is not based on lofty, abstract ideas of humanism and morality. The reasons are practical. How would a journalist professional in Pakistan and his/her counterpart in the US work together, while keeping a bias against each other at the same time? What would be the quality of the product, how would they synchronize their respective ideals for a single job? Would it be possible to develop a dual professional self, the one dealing with international, professional interaction, an intercultural/international enterprise, while, on the other hand, sticking somehow to the parent national/local ideologies of the profession, both in Pakistan and the US?
The questions are easily placed but are very difficult to answer.
First and foremost the whole global structure of journalism has to get out of the hypocritical notions of the global journalistic fraternity. The whole structure of global networks for rights of journalists is there to help after the damage is done. There is no preemption, no ethical structure of understanding, in place that could hinder the happenings. The problem should be faced head on, the acceptance of the devil within. There are biases and working together on the same issue with two antagonistic ideals and an image of the belligerent other for the coworker is destined to place one of the two into a blind alley. And this victim, most of the times, is the Muslim/local counterpart.
The solution of the problem lies in an enlightened debate on the issue at the academic level. Students and budding journalists brought together to discuss the nature of media systems, media, media activity, laws, and socio-cultural contexts of both the systems in a free debate. This debate can't take in real world traveling packages. Journalists going to the West, mostly US, getting impressed with the routines and advancements and coming back with a malice towards their own parent organizations. This is no dialogue. Dialogue is based on respect for the other and accepting the other and her/his contexts as right. Seeing the differences as milestones in need of synergies, instead of molding one in favor of the other.
The idea of a virtual class room is one of the many ways of doing this exercise in real time. A virtual discussion forum would bring the real affective matrices into play. This will help seeing the roots of preconceptions, misconceptions, and stereotyping. It will also ensure the continuity of the debate to a logical end. The short term shuttles into one or the other culture are nothing but confusing. This, naturally, will lead us towards a syllabus (or at least a working ethical understanding, initially) for a universal working ethics for journalists in zones of conflict where collaborative work is needed by professionals representing the warring parties into conflict in their personal as well as professional lives. The time is ripe and the clock is ticking. The sooner we begin with it, the better it would be for the present and future of international, collaborative journalism in zones of conflict.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment