Image
Pon and Zi
The media and the ‘boring minorities’
If journalism was ever meant to give ‘all’ people a voice, including the minority groups, then I’m sad to say that journalism has failed us terribly in the majority of times through out its short history.
After attending a ROAR (Rhodes Organisation for Animal Rights) meeting earlier this week, I came to think about the representation of minority groups in the media. ROAR is a student society with activists that campaign for animal rights, a society one would expect to flourish anywhere in civil society where people have respect for living matter (like love their pets, and assuming from there on other (living) animals too). Instead the reality is much more gloomy, with a general ignorance from the journalism world towards these minority groups – seldom mentioning them, and making them of as ‘radicals’ and extremist when they do… even turning them into jokes.
I like to think that students (all over the world) shape the ideas of the world (the Anti-Vietnam war protest led by students in the 60’s/70’s being one of a million examples), and if so few students are aware of these matters, how much fewer people in the everyday public know about all these matters? I know animal rights is a controversial topic, but it should still be mentioned – just like other controversial issues in the news. How can anything change if no one draws attention to the issues at hand?!
One could argue that it has to do with behind the scenes politics in a newsroom and the rest of the world, like what effects a story on animal rights might have for both the meat/leather/science (testing on animals) companies as well as for the news company, and in whose interest stories are written.
One could perhaps even look at the economical impact such a story might have on the paper planning to publish it, especially since journalism mostly sells majority news to majority groups, and therefore feature news in the interest of the majority groups!
Even bias’ of the reporters of a newsroom can be brought under the lens, assuming that the average reporter represents a part of the general public.
None the less, these should not be excuses to ignore minorities. Sadly commercial journalism (which makes up a hell lot of journalism) does exactly the opposite of what so many like to think it does, to protect and inform “the people”. Only once everyone has an equal say, including minority group, will journalism truly serve the public.
[A thought for journ-students: Blogging supposedly offers minority groups an “equal” change to raise their voices; but keep in mind that paper and ‘big’/famous news blogs have readerships of hundreds and thousands and thousands of readers, while blogs have much fewer – many a times good and ‘successful’ blogs on a good day only have a few hundred or one or two thousand hits – nothing compared to that of bigger publications. So ask yourself, is blogging really all that wonderful, and is it really the way of the future? It does have advantages too, and some will be discussed in future articles, but this above fact should still be considered.]
After attending a ROAR (Rhodes Organisation for Animal Rights) meeting earlier this week, I came to think about the representation of minority groups in the media. ROAR is a student society with activists that campaign for animal rights, a society one would expect to flourish anywhere in civil society where people have respect for living matter (like love their pets, and assuming from there on other (living) animals too). Instead the reality is much more gloomy, with a general ignorance from the journalism world towards these minority groups – seldom mentioning them, and making them of as ‘radicals’ and extremist when they do… even turning them into jokes.
I like to think that students (all over the world) shape the ideas of the world (the Anti-Vietnam war protest led by students in the 60’s/70’s being one of a million examples), and if so few students are aware of these matters, how much fewer people in the everyday public know about all these matters? I know animal rights is a controversial topic, but it should still be mentioned – just like other controversial issues in the news. How can anything change if no one draws attention to the issues at hand?!
One could argue that it has to do with behind the scenes politics in a newsroom and the rest of the world, like what effects a story on animal rights might have for both the meat/leather/science (testing on animals) companies as well as for the news company, and in whose interest stories are written.
One could perhaps even look at the economical impact such a story might have on the paper planning to publish it, especially since journalism mostly sells majority news to majority groups, and therefore feature news in the interest of the majority groups!
Even bias’ of the reporters of a newsroom can be brought under the lens, assuming that the average reporter represents a part of the general public.
None the less, these should not be excuses to ignore minorities. Sadly commercial journalism (which makes up a hell lot of journalism) does exactly the opposite of what so many like to think it does, to protect and inform “the people”. Only once everyone has an equal say, including minority group, will journalism truly serve the public.
[A thought for journ-students: Blogging supposedly offers minority groups an “equal” change to raise their voices; but keep in mind that paper and ‘big’/famous news blogs have readerships of hundreds and thousands and thousands of readers, while blogs have much fewer – many a times good and ‘successful’ blogs on a good day only have a few hundred or one or two thousand hits – nothing compared to that of bigger publications. So ask yourself, is blogging really all that wonderful, and is it really the way of the future? It does have advantages too, and some will be discussed in future articles, but this above fact should still be considered.]
*AllStars*
Iran: a potential threat to Israel?
Since foreign journalists were not allowed to cover the presidential elections in Iran in June this year and were booted out, I’ve decided it might be a good idea to have some revenge. Let us tell all about Iran. No, that would be unethical. But one way a journalist can get a point across about Iran is to blog about it. We are after all “outlawed” from the Iranian land.
So, Iran launches two missiles on Monday, just before Iran meets with the representatives of the UN Security Council to negotiate on Iran’s uranium enrichment plants, which seem to be increasing. They recently disclosed a site which the USA did not have a clue existed. So the USA does not always know everything, even if they look like they do,
But the story about enrichment plants is not half as interesting as the range which the recently tested missiles have. They can drop plumb into the middle of Israel, with nuclear warheads attached to them, and spread radiation, and kill people. Scary huh? And with the way Iran has been enriching uranium for “energy” and “security reasons” one could think, “Hmmm…dodgy.” Iran has always shown its distaste for Israel and Israel has also conveyed its dislike. There is even a link on The Jerusalem Post website that is named the Iranian Threat. Shhh! You hear that? Another war might be brewing in the Middle East.
Brigadier General Hossein Salami, head of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force said that the test was to show that Iran is prepared against all threats. Talk about being insecure. Pardon me kind sir, I would enquire, why are you feeling threatened? He might perhaps say something about security. He is in any case a military man. Security? (groan). That is a complex word with complex implications.
Security is one of the main reasons why nations engage in arms races. Consider the popular Arms Race of the post-Second World War period, between the USSR and the USA. Both countries felt threatened by each other, so when one country acquired a new weapon, the other would endeavour to create a better one so as not to feel intimidated. Such immaturity! Such behaviour would be expected from 5- year olds, not world powers. But the military build-up happened, and they ended up sending man and machine to the moon….the moon? Humans can’t even survive up there.
What will happen? We have two countries that are hostile to each other. One has one of the strongest armies in the world; the other tested missiles on Monday. What assurances does the rabbi have that one day he won’t be walking on temple debris? What assurance does the cleric have that one day an Israeli-Iran Six- Day War will not occur, and Iran will be conquered in six days? It is clear that Iran wants to rear its head, show itself to be the bull and possibly scare the kibbutzim out of Israel, but the road they have chosen is a narrow one, and there be few countries that are on it. Not many countries would dare to test missiles in America’s face. It might get too dangerous for Iran and for Israel.
Another situation shows the fragility of peace and the insecurity about being secure.
Warning: insecurity about the military strength of another state can be hazardous to peace.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/28/iran.missile.tests/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/28/iran.missile.tests/index.html#cnnSTCOther1