HOW FAR IS TELEVISION NEWS FULFILLING REPORTING CATASTROPHES?
April 1 1999
Freelance news producer, David Gyimah, argues that inspite of the huge technological changes in television, its format of disseminating information is still rooted in the 50's and asks Amanfoo whether television warrants a paradigm shift in its workings.
N.B. The opinions expressed in this essay are solely attributed to the author, and do not reflect on any institutions past and present where he has worked.
By now the images will have become part of the daily discourse, the refugee crisis in news parlance is arresting television, but how far has this medium's reporting of these events enhanced its public service role , led to greater understanding of events for viewers, and more contentiously provided a route for public good ?
"It is not television news' role to become part of the story, but a window on events", so say the architects of television. Through the many years of turmoil, television news claims to have met with that prerequisite; informing and educating the viewer. In the early 90's, the BBC under its Director General, Sir John Birt, introduced the need to explain the background to the stories we would witness. Television news, was perhaps not so much about the day's events ( inherently what news purports to be) but about understanding the complex background to 'ground zero'. A paradigm shift of sorts had to be achieved. It caused many ructions then, particularly in distinguishing between embracing the message and the personality of the messenger. Today, "the mission to explain", is part of the wood work.
An earlier philosophical shift in news coverage appeared in the eighties. Television brought us harrowing images of famine on a biblical scale in Ethiopia. News mongers harumed, debating whether these images were far too strong; whether it would adversely affect viewers and so on. In the end, despite the odd protest , editors in favour of more graphic pictures won the day. The images shook our collective conscious: the knock on effect, a cacophony of aid relief programmes ( Band Aid, Live Aid etc) to tackle the millions of starving in Ethiopia. Television news did its job, even more than what was expected, you could hear many editors proclaiming. They weren't far wrong, some might add.
But how much more could it have done to help prevent the many thousand deaths ?
Television news coverage is akin to wild life filming where the cameraman/director patiently and meticulously awaits the quarry and will do everything possible not to disturb the ecosystem. So if a hapless creature (a young foal ) is being preyed upon by hyenas and there's something the director could do to stop this, the laws of wildlife filming say he shouldn't. Should the same rules be applied to covering human crisis? And before I go any further, I am by no means advocating for the briefest of seconds, journalists taking up arms to defend the infirm etc, say, in the Balkan conflict - quite something else (explained below.) Our role is to be objective, but I argue where the boundaries are grey and human lives at stake, 21st century communication should do more, and television news adopt a fresh stance.
The falsehood with news is that if an item or event is not on the box, it's not that important . That's not quite how an editor would put it, given the limited air time to fill, but in essence that is it. So while conflicts rage in Sierra Leone, the DRC, and the horn of Africa, many viewers know no better. I choose the aforementioned examples for they offer the starkest reality . They rarely make it on the news.
The Albanian humanitarian crisis should rightly dominate the news. Their sufferings will extend far past the coverage they're receiving at present. I believe television news' reportage should offer more than the insidiousness, often voyeuristic coverage of tragic events. The time for the news to claim itself as an innocent bystander needs to be reformed. So what can it do? That's the question I ask Amanfoor.
I went through a second wakening while doing some work at the GBC. Most of their news items were social based issues, but more importantly, offered viewers recourse to learn more: telephone numbers, notices - almost bordering on advertising were doled out. It may seem obvious and simplistic but here is something I firmly believe TV News predominately in the West could learn from the likes of Ghana television.
So what would I do? It's patently clear from duty logs (this feedback from viewers , usually via the phone, in response to an item) that news is not offering enough.
This may seem cosmetic, but uniform screen format should be made redundant -allowing for greater information to be delivered on the screen. (IT Specialists may have more to say here)
Greater emphasis should be placed on a model used in the states called civic journalism: social issues delivered by those who have a greater understanding, those people at the coal face.
Greater transparency given to covering future related events. News organisations are loathe to do this because it tips their hand to the opposition on their news agenda.
A collective agreement and or central fund financed by news organisations that provides more outlets for news specific to, say, given areas and constituents.
These are just some ideas……..I'd be very keen to hear and talk to you about what you think is wrong and how it might be rectified.
