|
Media Matters
November 19, 2003
'Framing' Terrorism (Continued)
By Jeffrey A. Dvorkin
Ombudsman
National Public Radio
In the Nov. 12 column, I referred to a study that looks at how mass media "frames" the reporting of terrorism. The study came out of a conference at the Kennedy School of Government in August 2002. Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and the Public was edited by Pippa Norris, Montague Kern and Marion Just and published by Routledge.
The study claims that when it comes to the Middle East, most media, especially in the United States, "frame" their reporting in terms of empathy and suffering, while critics of the coverage insist that the reporting be "framed" around justice.
This is particularly apt for NPR’s coverage. Some critics have accused NPR of partisanship by relying on the human consequences of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and avoiding conclusions about the political and moral rightness or wrongness of one side or the other.
Other Factors
The study is fascinating and closely reasoned as far as it goes. But there are other factors. The unstated personal motivations of journalists seem critical, in my opinion.
While many journalists go into the news business for a variety of reasons, some studies show that journalists are motivated by a set of personal beliefs. Whatever those beliefs may be, journalists also recognize the need (in most cases) for their personal values to be set aside in order to avoid interfering with the obligation to be seen as fair and even-handed. This is especially true when reporters cover political violence and other conflicts.
Some stories don’t require moral neutrality: the "ethnic cleansing" in the former Yugoslavia, the massacres in Rwanda, the attacks on Sept. 11 or Palestinian suicide bombings are morally indefensible and as such, require no such simplified journalistic even-handedness.
'To Explain Is To Forgive'
Whenever journalism tries to look at the causes of political violence, allegations of
bias emerge. It’s nothing new. Madame de Stael (1766-1817) was a French writer of novels and witty aphorisms. "To explain is to forgive" was one of her favorite sayings.
Madame de Stael’s un-journalistic thinking lives on today whenever critics denounce explanatory journalism as implicitly forgiving or sympathetic to terrorism.
Journalists are in the business of explanations, but the good ones tend to avoid certain emotive phrases or blanket assessments of political groups. They say the use of these phrases may imply endorsement or condemnation of a cause. Media critics consider this to be political correctness at best or disingenuousness to disguise the journalists’ true sympathies at worst.
As a criticism, being accused of bias may have lost some of its power to shock because it feels overused. Whenever it happens (and it happens a lot) many journalists tend to shrug it off. But it is still capable of putting journalists on the defensive.
Is It Neutrality Or Disguised Sympathy?
In our journalistic culture in general, and at NPR in particular, the value of neutral reporting through the telling of individual stories is still seen as a worthy goal. Other journalistic traditions, especially in Europe, come from another culture of open partisanship and more aggressive questioning. As such, European journalists are less concerned -- in general and with some exceptions -- when they are accused of unfairness.
Bias is still the most powerful condemnation in American journalism. To avoid it, we choose the safer route of narrative/story-telling and reporting from the "frames" of empathy and suffering. But that still hasn’t stopped the critics. If anything, the journalism is criticized for being overly sentimental by highlighting victims.
Occasionally journalists find the effort to maintain neutrality both emotionally impossible and morally abhorrent. They leave journalism to work as advocates for one side or another. Some go to work for non-government organizations that try to improve the plight of suffering humanity. Some seek refuge in academia where conclusions are demanded -- not avoided.
Our European colleagues often ask if American journalism has become amoral at a time when stories need to have a moral "frame." Can concepts of justice ever be part of American reporting without the inevitable accusations of bias? There are no easy answers to those questions.
Suffering Is Everywhere But Justice Is Elusive
For those still practicing the craft, there is some frustration at the self-limiting ways of contemporary journalism.
Much of American journalism -- including NPR’s -- is the view from the micro level. It concentrates on dramatic narrative and personal stories. It often avoids the large or macro view for fear of being condemned as advocates. We say it is preferable to let the listeners make up their own minds. But that may simply be an expedient way of letting ourselves off the moral hook.
The overuse of personal narrative in reporting also has the unintended consequence of creating "compassion fatigue" among the listeners, readers and viewers. The constant repetition of horror and suffering in the news becomes too much for some people. In my experience, they stop listening unless they can sense that a way out of the violence is possible.
But it is also an odd commentary on the dilemma of journalism that expects journalists to feel and report compassionately, yet insists they never follow the consequences of that reporting by coming to an unambiguous and moral conclusion.
Listeners can contact me at 202-513-3245 or by e-mail at ombudsman@npr.org.
Jeffrey Dvorkin
NPR Ombudsman
|
