Problematic Information Media

 Problematic Information Media

In this age of overload ‘news’ outlets, it has become very difficult to believe all that one reads, hears, sees or has passed into conscious awareness via un-chosen influences, all due to the vast array of media mechanism straining to get out their particular slant on; what might be placed under the banner of world affairs but more generally concentrated within each country based on localism, preferential newsworthiness, inclined  with direct or indirect financial leverage (pecuniary gain, advertising, patronage etc) whether truthful , discrete or of overt bias attached to ‘public interest’ news and it increasingly regrettably converge with the stealthy rise of created misinformation, outright lies and fake news. 

The ‘traditional’ media outlet routes, papers, radio and TV have had to contend, in some cases match, the arrival of instant news afforded by the electronic platforms, Emedia, taken up by the ubiquitous electronic-gadgets accessing ‘web’ site offerings and pushed out at an increasing coverage rate. The means of origination of such news is via individual / groups with popularised self projected apparent realistic information of opaque truth, gossiped reports, heresy or inventive substitution onto notable ‘true’ news with some affectively  morphing into fact-less opinionated or bogus ‘fabulously’ (as in fable) believable narrative ‘news’. And unfortunately when designed to be of radicalised influence, the speed at which such cant can be disseminated around the world outstrips the mainline news providers and can become entrenched by some recipients as real vehemence information.

The traditional media outlets have an assumed representational position to maintain, one that leans on being accurate, truthful, reasonably comprehensive though forced to be concise in some reporting (dependent on the medium used) and yet can allow some news it reports to displays partisan preferences predisposed by who resources them (not immediately obvious) and who their audience target is. It has to be said that they are all careful to foster believability in the lines taken in covering newsworthy items, it takes time to gather the relevant information, source qualify it before broadcast / publication and generally they do not indulge in creating speciousness. This of course only applies to those countries with free press and broadcasters not shackled with dictatorially controlled governments and unfortunately the list of countries that do force control over media outputs (e.g. Russia + eastern bloc satellites, China, Arabian states, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, etc) is getting longer but also is a comparable one of ‘wanabees’, those of frustrating assumed democracies using covert, overt and with helpful complicit actor means, to secure favoured coverage(e.g. Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, USA, Italy,). Although all democratic governments do like to influence media, sometimes directly if a reported item really irritates against the governments preferred script, (undisclosed briefings, damaging official papers, unofficial leaks) dissuasion from release can often be by unspoken ‘understandings’, or by implication of potential action sometimes (as amply used in the UK with financial repression on the BBC) or with the official secret suppression stamp or ignoring their own Freedom of Information Acts (in UK 2000) that should give the public access to requested information. But as Blair, of the UK government admitted, it was one of the worse bits of legislation they passed and regretted doing it, however governments since, with many others, have been choking it off.

Sweden had the first FOI Act in 1766 (1) giving access to its populace on the comprehensive range of government documents under the basis of the people’s ‘right to know’. The principle of FOI has slowly been copied by other countries and covers the reporting press in whatever form, the ability to access and make openly public what is being done by governments, in the public’s name. Sweden’s FOI is unique in its coverage, the starting proposition is, nothing is secret unless it can be shown, clearly, that the release of some information will be damaging / dangerous to the state of the people; showing such danger or withholding information is difficult and testing to do.  Many western democratic countries have adopted some form of FOI that falls behind Sweden’s example, In all other cases it is limited with deliberate caveats to shutout a ‘right to know’ with opaque explanations if any, on the reason why information is denied public access for release. The freedom of the press/media/broadcaster to inform the public is Not as Free as may be assumed. There are maybe only two countries (USA FOIA 1966 + Constitution and Sweden) that protects by strong statute press freedom, in all others it is tolerated on the basis it reports with favourable reasonably accuracy until it transgresses to enact unwanted government, corporate or individual embarrassment; legal or otherwise. If and when they do discomfort government or individuals, there are mechanisms that can be brought to bear onto news dissemination that it would not want to have out-with the “public interest” (super/injunction/official secret?) or judicially otherwise seeking correction for injurious publications. For instance, public complaints stemming from slanderous / libellous accusations can be taken against the broadcaster /publisher / individual, assuming there is financial resources of the offended person to press for recompense and the offending accuser has resources to be attacked by those injured. In less serious cases, say were an item of broadcast/ publication is taken as being erroneous, that complainer can seek some redress via the Independent Press Standards’ Organisation (IPSO) or the Office of Communications (OfCOM) in the UK, though both have difficulty in being effective in getting corrective action in some cases; they are not completely independent. For individuals to defend against unwanted media attention requires large financial resources not available to the wider population, if perhaps unwittingly and unnecessarily they are caught up with being ‘in the public interest’ apart from the above there is little they can do but as it is generally those individuals or government that keenly court for public attention, it is them that often become justifiable targets of interest.

 In some cases it is apparent that reporters and journalists do not always get their facts right, in the competitive field to be the first to push out a ‘story’ mistakes do occur and when obvious ones arise, having been pointed out, they will make corrections but what is more noticeable to those that might be observant over the past 20 years is they do not always report accurately what has actually happened or has been said.  For in order to ‘jazz’ up a story they will change the depiction of the event with unrelated ‘footage’ or adjust the sense of an actual spoken meaning, changing the connotation of the news item by injecting different verb / adjectives etc terms that were not of the original. This adjustment is sometimes at the behest of the indicative culture of an organisation that pays them for their labour generating a ‘slight’ prejudicial bent in reporting. Often by looking at various new items on the same issues this stands out and could be put down to selective interpretation which may not matter to the casual news watcher/ reader but it does point to a more serious development and one might suggest that this has become worse; for with the recent drive to be ostentatiously balanced in the presentation of media output of stories, it has offered a platform for entirely different views contrary to known facts and accepted realty.  They have fallen into a trap of being seen as complicit providers unable to seriously challenge palpable inaccuracies that deviate from being just an opinion, odious or not, to helping disseminate formulated fabricated news constructed from actual newsworthy items overlaid with blatant falsity or misrepresentation, generating suspicion of what is true in newsworthy items. Not a comprehensive examples; but the distrust generated this past year with the rolling out of the antivirus injections to fight Covid19 has seen a remarkable willingness for some people to take on a range of unreasonable attitudes against getting some measure of safety from being infected. This can be matched up with what is prominent in the USA, the anti-vaxers and the Trumpism antics lauded by some journalists on some media platforms of both countries, can only be an inane leave of common sense somewhat similar to the stance taken on the promotion of environment ‘climate-deniers’ all in the face of proven observable tested fact. Some journalist and reports with a public platform have clearly become guilty of misrepresentation, indolent on accuracy, dissemble fact and unwilling to challenge proffered falsity: who pays the piper....    

Old style journalist and reporters are having a difficult time adapting to the new avalanche of newsworthy choices, especially if their alleged professional independence is dependent, limited to what can be said or covered. How is one to get good truthful, independent, dependable information against the barrage of Emedia? Not sure if it helps to make a stab at the characteristic on the idea of what reporters and journalist do but in simple terms: Reporters, using an oxford dictionary definition are those people that “are employed to gather and report news for newspapers or broadcast”. And journalists “are persons employed to write for journals or newspaper”.  These are too simplistic descriptions in today’s cut and thrust of covering news in its wide presentation styles, so maybe one can elaborate a little in an attempt to identify what their responsibly might be expected to be.

Reporters try to inform the public about events. They are given the job of delivering a script on a subject handed to them which has been created by a producer, fact checked by research team and the reporter adds a personality in delivery of the news report. Occasionally a reporter may have to interview a person to extract a pertinent perspective to add into a report, acting like a journalist. In the fast live delivery, the reporter will need to be able to adapt effectively to delivering a reports, as in the case of a breakdown, sudden additionality or instantly pulling a story off for an alternative infill. The assumption is the reporter is not wholly responsible for the content of the report or accuracy but being on the presentational front they are taken to be responsible, so what they give out ought to be truthful.

Journalist may also work as reporters but they also can collect information on single or specialised fields and draw up their own story to be delivered. Generally they will carry out research, gather facts, assess truthful content, interview with skilful probing question to draw out relevancies or challenge deviousness in responses. When required put pressure on a subject to extract answers to questions that the interviewed would rather not respond too and overall ensure their news story is based on factual researched evidence, not spurious, gossip or falsehoods. Investigative journalism is demanding and a good journalism relies on gaining a reputation for honest integrity with, if need be, a balanced opinion that may not sit well with any party mention in a story. They are in a unique position to represent a public unable to challenge people and businesses in power positions and have to gain public trust in their deliver of a story. 

They both have to have a certain presentational style or creativity in delivering content and face the same difficulty in presenting coherent news, in a fast time frame. On slow written media, an investigative report can be much more comprehensive but requires that as a conclusion to the article it may have  to be given as a compression of facts yet still try to retain a readers  comprehension to appreciate the essence of what is being reported on.

All the methods of the dissemination of news broadcast compiled into reports etc.  may have overlaid similarities based on the strap line headline grabber or be extended to account for the way the new media foundation has developed and expanded, however the main premise is that good news or whatever may pass as broadcast material is pushed out to an assumed specific or general consuming public with the aim; to inform. In this there is an assumption that the presentation of reports by reporters and journalist do have responsibilities to lay out truthful details relating to the facts within a report and some may offer a nuanced interpretation to perhaps simplify complex conditions to a story line. In the main the ability to be an honest broker with delivering scripted rehearsed reports is perhaps a sincere position to be in but with roving journalist / reporters acting maybe in real time, what they also have is responsibility to is whatever occurs in or after the presentation of reports when such do not adequately offer a truthful view but one (deliberately?) skewered to a personal / corporate / politicised agenda and in some high risk situation outing a truth can be problematic for the journalist, broadcaster or paper in all countries.

For those involved in investigative news, of late it has become deadly dangerous to engage in unwanted political exposés (e.g. Russia, N. Ireland, China, Cypress, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia etc) as some journalist are being intentionally killed. This of course is a problem for those involved and specifically identified, being on the ground. In the old main stream news world as a person of irritation they are therefore likely to be subject to escalating harassment and such does hinder or stop great investigative journalism as it takes time to accumulate relevant facts to support a good narrative of an exposé. A dramatic report might be one that is a credible newsbreak yet it may be sometimes difficult under a broadcast / publishing time constraint to get it out with good qualitative substance but as is fast becoming a growing topic of government concern, competition for truthful reporting is under pressure in the speed and spread of electronic media outputs which is potentially more invasive, lacks verified veracity, with faster insertion into public ‘acceptability’ and far greater global coverage. It also carries less personally identified risk to out inconvenient truths or lies. Emedia is used for ‘suggested’ iniquitous electronic ‘news’ outputs by the use of corporate behemoth platforms for some organised factions and individuals plying as reports / journalist untroubled by accuracy, designed to dissemble or confuse veracity of prominent ‘news’ with artifice of an alternative reality to construct believable counterfeited news. The powers behind troublesome factions are often difficult to identify be they financing individuals or state sponsored; the penetration allowed by the use of global platforms into the Emedia world and the receptive coverage that it has must be considered an unrestrained menace to the (continuous?) satisfactory truth / openness within and for a democratic society.  

Compared to the established old media providers, the advent of multimedia platforms not associated with the mainstream providers papers / broadcasts, there is, in effect, apart from republished news outputs picked up and used by the Emedia platforms, no real quality measures attached to the outpourings of ‘independent’ players using such platforms. No restriction or penalty on the instigators content or platforms used; such platforms have always argued that they are not publishers and therefore not responsible for what goes onto their platforms. With this dubious rational they get considerably substantial greater freedom than old established providers. However by volume of recipients, as Emedia has now become the dominate main media that clearly has superseded traditional formats that many more people have access to, this privilege irresponsibility should and is going to change driven by rise of propagated antisocial extremism, spurious content, cultish indoctrination promulgating conflicts and the selective attack on free speech against irrefutable evidential truths on and in a range substantive subjects like medicine, education, social to scientific endeavours etc.

The freedom of trustworthy press in its established forms is an essential bulwark for the continuance of democratic systems to offer testimony to events, quiz organisations and people in power, on behalf of the public but it is under threat.

For journalist to work they have to develop networks of contacts, with whom they can interview and the interviewed to be willing to participate in such interviews / discussion. This means there has to be engendered a degree of trust, trust based on known questions and how any answers are recorded / pass for dissemination to an audience. In addition a number of closeted informants are also required to gain an “insider” view; one not generally reported publically but might be referred to as “it is being said” by an unnamed source etc. This tack is often used by journalist having made statements that seems to suggest that what was said was from the (persons) representation of official position. (It might and might not be true but what use is it as a statement being unattributed and impersonal, other than to be mischievous)    

It is not in the journalist interest to seriously unexpectedly challenge, persistently, interviewees like say a Member of Parliament, or place them in a position of  ridicule being unable to answer knowledgably, questions (it does happen) if such journalist is at one with the contact trusted source. If tempted in disparaging weak answers, the journalist could find they become cut off from the inside view. As an example, consider the block put on the BBC gaining interviews with any MPs of BoJo’s government; taking the stance that the BBC and its journalist were aggressive, socialist, liberal, elitist commie stooges (take your pick) and did not give a fair view of governments ‘Conservatives’ position on issues. This was similar to Trump banning journalist from the USA White House briefing sessions for asking hard questions!

Getting answers to questions is becoming harder for reporters / journalist especially from politicians who’s default position is to never say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and to obfuscate on details when the journalist has done research on a subject and can construct probing questions. Even if an “outline” of the list of questions is known to the recipient and the interview is not going well then sometimes degree of stage-managed action is required. A recently manipulation example of a media presentation, would be to consider the TV interview by Laura Kunsberg of the PM BoJo on 30th Dec with discussions on the Brexit deal. In which she laid out that there would be new barriers to trade (as evidenced) which were not existent before Brexit and stressed with him his continued rejection that such barriers would not exist after his Brexit. He was in his usual prevaricated pomp, clearly uncomfortable, could not answer or be definitive with any substance and on a number of occasions the broadcast was cut and pasted to skip over his lack of depth of knowledge in the effects; his deal is beginning to cause. It showed his clear smirking stance, cavalier attitude and disregard of his own blatant continuous lies. It was a piece of visual corrosive artifice of news speech.

For anyone seeking the truth on wide societal issues using any singular media channel, there isn’t one. All of them have a particular predisposition to follow, probably inevitably influenced by the owners of the media and the financial resources that support the news outputs. None are wholly independent and no journalist (in UK) has a statutory safeguarded position to be investigative, to pursue and out truth for the ‘people’s right to know’. There are risk and limitations in delving into the dealings of criminal, corporate or political activities; one is in the purview of law to pursue if called upon to do so and the other is protected by composite laws both of which could involve personal life-style risk to the investigators / informers. In extremist, investigating the political sphere in some countries is actually dangerous and may suggest that in some cases the established media have become sycophantic to the messages that governments want to push out. News from such sources is of limited value without independent verification and here Emedia does have a role to play for it does allow some surreptitious autonomous outing of information and if carefully assessed can offer a direction to what is actually occurring.

Within the established 1^st world media where there are measures of potential control over them and having to adapt to the competition afforded by instant unrestrained Emedia, they are hindered a little as they have to try and engage peoples interest in news items; to inject enthusiasm or an emotive sense in delivery presentation, verbal or written and are under pressure to curtail some elements of what they give an account of. Media has become terrorised by being ultra careful in not falling foul of affronted PC in an era where it has become disproportionally multiculturalists socially receptive, be it an area of stereotyped commentary, cultural appropriation, or any racial ‘specialism’ taken out of an assumed preserved status, is all fertile breeding ground for extreme protestation to be expressed of prejudice. Accusation which can be difficult to meaningfully discuss when wrapped in the racial bigotry mantle and hence all forced sensitive media (and entertainment formats) take steps avoiding as far as possible any offense that might be taken at the smallest alleged infringement of assumed special cultural position or cultured espoused mores. Even though being in minority culturally representational position there are those that seek to cultivate a situation of being offended and this has and is causing diffident approach to examining and reporting on some elements of societal problems.      

Such selective reticence does not assist the quality or truthfulness of media outputs but this may not be strange for it does seem it has also adopted an obsession with promoting balance; giving space for counter views no matter how unreasonable that may be against provable facts. One has noticed that time and again some journalist themselves have change the tone of a “reported” story line, inserting interpretations of what was said by politicians or scientist by injecting a different word in place of the one actually used and thereby changes (subtly) the intent sense; making the sentence more or less definitive to what the original meaning was. It maybe a minor point and might only be noticed if one has heard an actual discussion on a subject then heard the reporters / journalists ‘take’ on it and then moved to read a quote non quote printed version. This manipulation and reinterpretation to obscure certainty and not challenging fabrication / lies has gone on for years and got worse. It cannot be unrelated to observe some events over the past 8 years (some very recent) that demonstrate the danger that can flourish with the disregard of truthful media content infected into the public domain with crude ingenious inciting phrases that require no thought but carry meaningful intent. This perversion in the long run is much more damaging than internet system sabotages for it is slipped in via ‘trusted’ sources.  The casualness and bias that some reporters and journalist have adopted has shown up in the mediocrity of quality in their profession with some actually promoting some of the fabricated news and supporting the originators of extraordinary actions, fantasy and imaginary accomplishments. There are plenty examples residing in the global media of aberrational behavioural and attitudes being opinionated as acceptable, with recent examples picked up in prime US and UK papers. Some flawed opinion coverage is challenge by a few independent journalists but such perversity to truthful reporting and clear preferred prejudices are largely unrecognised or ignored by the consuming public. But how many people accept created falsity as truth, after all they hear or read such via their chosen media and if the same defective themes are persistently expressed, how many people can be captured to a cause?   

It may be that established news, (paper/broadcast) outlets, have slowly become, on some things, unreliable, having fallen into inhibited respectability. Some are holding onto a measure of public trust but they are also being concerned with the gaining or the maintaining of paid for volume coverage; their income from whatever source being crucial to continued existence. Into this arena comes business manoeuvres to takeover or consolidate news presentation (mainly broadcasters, print is declining) to maximise media presentation and minimise cost of production or create new streamline outlets. Some new outlets, which due to the structure of financial backing, may well be scripted partisan, further oppressing reporting independence. Well known outlets with their conventional position, are further compromised by the expanding rise of ‘uncontrolled irresponsible’ Emedia narrowly seen as a existential danger because of its instant insertion into the public domain of all news, information, good, bad, awful, truth and lies. But it also could be seen as the greatest protection of the ability to express views, uninhibited by vested interest, as it allows everybody to be a globalised ‘report/journalist’, good or bad. It also holds within it, due to its so-far global internet uncontrollability, the essential ability of The People’s Right to Know, perhaps driven by investigative ‘reporters / journalist’ who can carry out research into hidden public important issues in ways and with methods that established media outlets may not do and lawful bodies have no (persuaded?) interest in.  Thereby is the clash that confronts governments and others of power, how much do they want the people to know that they cannot know and who is to influentially controls consumer’s media minds?

Being in fear of an all encompassing good constitution, strong FOI and accessible equality in law to act on the behalf of the people is not a universally supported democratic or dictatorial priority, for all want to retain controlling presentational power, in apprehensive ways or forceful means.  Knowing as they do that most individuals do not have the time or persuasive access to those in power, to challenge and hard press them for responsible answers; so disempowered public have to rely on good reporters / journalist to query them and bear down on their actions. Without reporters / journalist prepared to be cleverly acerbic, challenging and determined in investigative interviews, how long is truth going to last in with The People’s Right to Know? Do they really have any?

Can the public or profession accommodate more of the likes of:  Woodward and Bernstein (Watergate), Barton Gellman - Glenn Greenwald - Laura Poitras (Edward Snowden re NSA), Paula Reid, Yamiche Alcindor (Trumps USA), Daphne C Galizia (Malta), Tova O’Brien (New Zealand), J. Paxman, J. Humphreys, J. O'Brien, N. Smith, or L. Kunsburg, (choice is not exclusive) maybe it can, but given governments etc take fright with the wrong attention and media owners cannot risk the loss of revenue stream, journalist may quietly understand a need to be restrained.

It might be an acceptable argument that reporters and journalist, on presenting a report etc, should 'just' be factual and balanced, and avoid any attached sense of their own personal interpretations, especially if such are paid employees and must toe the broadcaster's guidance. There is a problem with this proscription and it has to do with as mention above, who funds / owns the broadcast facilities in the environs it is operated and may weaken and in some case distort truthful information output. Self funded reporters etc can perhaps please themselves but if they want to have their report article used it will have to bend to the brief of those paying for researched material especially within high risk exposures. For those people who spend their whole time immersed in disseminating news worthy information, it might be expected that there is principled fair, honest, integrity guidance in what they do and occasionally they perhaps should be allowed to offer their own personal opinion providing it is made clear that any analysis offered on news information is of their own, one should also expect good journalist/reporters to have a element of an engaging personality, if being on a front deliver line. Of course occasionally journalists in the established news outlet do get their facts wrong often repeated from elsewhere and it should be expected for them to make suitable correction; errors are common in Emedia and correction scarce.

Good reporting and journalism is getting much harder being up against Emedia that has very little limitation in what it pushes out as (truthful?) news. Its erroneous invidious content can be persistently penetrating to make ineffective the good it can do as a tool for accountability to power. On this basis good unrestrained journalism, if it is also channelled freely onto Emedia and given strong legal backing should be a priority for the protection of democracy and treasured. Trustable tenacious individuals, tasked as journalist and reporters, are an essential linchpin to a free society, driving the People’s Right to Know; such ideal though is under expanding threats. As evidence over the past few years, governments do not like scrutiny, they resent being answerable to ‘the people’, so the peoples representatives in the form of investigative journalism should be able to pursue with flexible determination answers to presented questions and not be fobbed off with facile verbiage or falsehoods that counter known facts! Some hope:

If any rights to know are deprived, if reliable honest journalism is extinguished; ideals of democracy are inevitably lost and whatever is left, erratically goes into incremental conflict. Who is to care?

 © Renot

11211033

 (1) www.access-info.org  The World’s First FOI Act

 In this age of heightened emotive sensitive’s and the obsequious deference being paid to anyone who is unfortunately given unexpected offense too, albeit oftentimes unwittingly due one’s own lack of understanding of the moral, sociological, cultural, religious, gender background etc, etc, of the sensitivities of a recipient or any whom take virulent objections with above issue; one would like to offer ones profuse apologies should anything in this article give such unintentional offense. This to any that have had the misfortune to read it and to those that may never read it; just in case..

Anyway by the time any of this matters, one will have gone home.

© Renot