|
||
The Media Effect
It's Friday night in Kabul, Afghanistan. Thousands of Afghans are crowding the entrance to the Intercontinental Hotel, hoping to get tickets to the show being taped inside; millions more are crowding into homes, stores, mud huts...wherever the bright light of a TV beckons...
Rumors fly that even the Taliban are gathering in an undisclosed location to watch.
This is the big night: the finals in a competition that has swept this war torn country...a singing contest called Afghan Star.
15 million Afghans, more than half the population, watch this American Idol-styled TV series every week and almost as many vote every week for their favorite.
The campaigns for the final singers are intensive. One passionate fan even sold his car so he could buy extra SIM cards and finance the campaign for his favorite singer.
There's an extra buzz, too, about these finals. For the first time, two women made it to the final four, and since women are forbidden to sing in public under Sharia Law, a public debate has intensified and some religious leaders attempt to shut down Moby TV, the network that produces and broadcasts the series. Tensions increase during the finals, too, when one of the women dares to dance on stage as she sings her final song. Her life is threatened, and the producers arrange protection. She is back home in a few weeks, determined to pursue her dream of singing... and dancing...for freedom.
The TV series has started its 6th season, more popular than ever and with more women competing. A documentary that tells the whole story behind Afghan Star and its effect on Afghanistan just premiered at Sundance and won two major awards. I recommend a viewing when it is broadcast in the US.
Afghan Star is a an example of what I call the Media Effect: accomplishing something that neither the government nor the international troops has done: bringing peace and calm for a couple of hours every week in a land where violence and fear of violence is ever present; encouraging a new kind of freedom and self expression for women, and strengthening a fragile democracy by popularizing campaigns and the power of a vote.
The media effect is often debated...good or bad, overstated or underrated?
But the fact is that there is an effect, and there is plenty of evidence, getting more measurable and more powerful as media becomes more pervasive, more personal, more mobile and more global.
Why is there anorexia in Bhutan? There isn't even a word for it in the language, but since TV and the internet were allowed in the country about ten years ago, there is a popular program among young girls called Baywatch.
Why do so many young Arabs think Americans condone torture? 24.
A series widely watched throughout the Middle East.
And what about the media effect of the current global financial crisis: is it "spreading a contagion of fear that is literally paralyzing the consumers and taking the global economy into a tailspin"?
Blaming the media for society's problems is as old as broadsheets and as new as bloggers, 24X7 news channels, ethnic press and pundits, and there are many examples of a negative media effect: from ethnic radio inciting genocide in Rwanda to on-screen stereotypes contributing to intolerance and racial and religious tensions.
Increasingly, as the technology powers and empowers the delivery of the media effect in ways not possible before, there are both good and bad outcomes.
During the terrorists attacks in Mumbai, some of the guests hiding in their rooms sent out a SOS on Twitter and got instant response from a Twitterer in the American Embassy who with maps and media's reporting from the scene, guided them to safety. A life saving media effect.
On the other hand, mobile GPS systems also guided the terrorists to their targets.
The media effect, good and bad, was one of the biggest factors in the recent US presidential elections: rampant sexism in old media hurt Hillary's campaign and a newly engaged and energized new media constituency helped put Obama in the White House.
Isn't it time to end the debate about whether or not media shapes society or merely mirrors it and consider the real life examples of media as a singularly powerful agent of change.
Consider what has happened in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the center of Africa. A richly resourced country where millions have lost their lives in a complicated civil war going on for more than a decade, largely without much media attention.
Too complex to explain, too depressing to report, far away and out of sight.
Until last year...when an activist/playwright named Eve Ensler wrote an eyewitness account in Glamour magazine.
Yes, a fashion magazine with 9 million readers which published totally unfashionable photos and Eve's compelling story about the horrific situation for women and girls in the middle of this war... 400,000 raped and violently abused in what Ensler calls a femicide. Her story triggered a new level of media interest and what followed... New York Times front page stories, Anderson Cooper from the front lines...eventually woke up public opinion which put pressure on political leaders which led to last week's arrest of a murderous rebel leader and the trial of warlord in an International war crimes court.
In that courtroom, the most damning evidence is being presented in videos made by Witness, a small NGO started by Peter Gabriel, that uses media to document injustice in ways that can't be disputed or ignored. The media effect.
Media is offering new solutions for society's most ignored and vulnerable populations: providing vital health information to rural women through voice activated programs on mobile phones; giving farmers and fishermen up to date market information on cheap cell phones, information that is improving their profit margins; filmed surveillance leading to rescues of young girls from a growing global sex trade business in places as diverse as the Arab Emirates and South Georgia; a soap opera in India spreading the word about AIDS and encouraging condom use; a sports program in South Africa educating rural villages about the use of bed nets to prevent malaria...and there are many more examples of the media effect saving lives, improving health, contributing to economic empowerment and political participation.
Who knows, maybe smart phones will soon be able to feed the hungry and end poverty, too. Someone is working on that media effect right now. Probably someone at the TED conference.
Every time I talk about the media effect, I think of my father. Even though he sold and repaired TV sets from their earliest days, he didn't allow his own family to own one. He was too worried about the bad influences and big ideas on impressionable minds. Like mine. And television did give me a lens on the world that changed my whole perspective and life plan.
To his dying day, my Dad blamed all my mistakes on television... especially the decision to leave a career as in teaching for a career in television... "wasting all that education" he used to say.
And it's waste I'm worried about. The waste of media's power, the waste of its reach and impact, the waste of media's capacity to tell compelling stories and motivate change; the waste of new and emerging technologies that can be part of the solution to the world's needs.
As a recovering journalist, former documentary producer and production executive and now CEO of the Paley Center for Media, I have seen the media effect up close and personal all over the world. And at the Paley Center, we explore this effect with media executives and media consumers by using examples from past media effects...readily available in our library of 140,000 hours of TV, Radio and Advertising content...and through our conversations and forums with today's media leaders and creators. We also imagine the future of the media effect by offering a space where All things Media can convene and connect.
At the Paley Center, we witness the power of information and entertainment to connect or disconnect, to inform or incite, to motivate and challenge, to change a life and the course of history... as well as shaping and re-shaping the future.
We also believe that this is too big an opportunity to waste and there is too big a need for understanding the media's effect and using it to create a more equitable, peaceful, sustainable world.
Here's the headline: the media effect is no longer only in the hands of CEOs running global media companies. It's in ours and using the framework of TED, I propose that we use this personal power to reframe our expectations for information and entertainment, to reboot our roles as users and viewers, activists and actors, storytellers and policymakers in ways that reconnect to the effect.
---
Visit the Paley Center at paleycenter.org
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Excellent article. Two points this piece calls to mind for me: the arts in media and the absence of true global-mindedness in American newscasts.
One thing that should not go overlooked is that shows such as "Afghan Star" that draw such huge audiences away from their war ravaged daily concerns to watch people SING should be encouraged. When I moved to NYC to become a musician and actress, my family was annoyed and worried about me and my small southern home town thought I was insane. I made several European friends right away and was surprised by their parents' encouragement of our artistic endeavors. A life in the arts was viewed by them as something admirable. The fine arts are deeply important to the identity and unification of any country and shows featuring the performing arts should be more prevalent in the media.
In that vein, my husband and I recently subscribed to the French channel, TV Monde, here in NY mainly to keep up with our language skills. What I didn't count on was how addicted we would get to their news programs. They have stories that never make it on to any of the American news outlets. Until the American channels can make a drastic move away from the biased, political circuses that they've become, most Americans will continue to stay blissfully unaware and lack the global-mindedness that is crucial to a better understanding of each other through the media.
See Rana F. Sweis's Profile
This is a brilliant example of the positive effect of the media on society no matter which country people live in. It is essential for us to see such examples to remind us of both the impact of the media and how it brings people together, things that obviously politics including elections have not in a place like Afghanistan.
Thank you for writing this wonderful piece.
outstanding article. Unlike Pat's father, I am so glad that she pursued a career in television, as her presence and brilliant work in broadcast media as a ceo and top woman executive, makes a palpable and important difference in our world, every day, and on every substantial media communication/connection on our planet in every way. Wow! We are fortunate to have such a powerful role model and global citizen. She is a natural treasure, and some of her family members certainly did not acknowledge her magnificent talents as a human educator and connector that makes our world a better, more informed, more kind place to live.
I recently had a conversation with my conservative republican mother in law during which she asserted that the failure of McCain/Palin to win the election was strictly an issue of media distortions regarding Sarah Palin. She saw any negative reports about Palin's record as governor or actions during the campaign as part of a sensationalistic liberal media conspiracy.
Media influence is undeniable in society. It can be a tool for good - dissemination of information - or a crutch - blaming reporters for the reality of the facts they report, as my mother in law did.
Sometimes media acts "as a singularly powerful agent of change," and some of the time as a singularly powerful agent of non-change.
The media has some real issues. Thanking on a higher level, the media, no longer reports news, they interpret it. It's almost like they think the average American can not think for themselves. The media reports news with so many errors that only the educated tend to get it, yet it's believed to be true by the uneducated.
The media is the real threat to our American society. The freedom of speech should be upheld but when inaccurate information is given the media personality and/or the tv station, newspaper or even website should be fined.
No this would not violate freedom of speech, because as speeders get speeding tickets, they still can speed down the highways. It's a price for errors. The profession that I am in has insurance policies for errors and omissions in case we forget to educate the consumer. Well, the media should not be prevented but fined for misleading the public.....
Your argument is flawed...
"... the media, no longer reports news, they interpret it. "
News media has never reported objectively - and i dont think they should pretend to, because humans have to interpret info in their own way to be able to successfully communicate it. News without opinion would be a list of statistics.
Cronkite and Murrow didn't report objectively - they very pointedly gave the facts and then interpreted them and gave their own opinion. And they are 2 of our most loved journalists who have gone down in the history books as greats.
I wish people would understand that...
Let's not kid around. Of course media "creates" the news. Hell, George Orwell taught us that. They are propaganda mills for those who hold state power at the time. Academia joins hands with them, starting at kindergarten, and the brainwashing never stops--and the bodybags keep coming and prisons keep filling. It's the state of human evolution to date.
We need to revise media, and like President Obama talked about in relation to government, it's not about government (media) being too big or too small, it's about whether government (media) is working.
And right now, media isn't working. Media is too focused on issues, big flashy stories, more bang for the buck, and not enough concern about people.
Case in point: the story about Femicide in Africa. What annoys me about that story is the implication that Femicide only happens in Africa. But, it happens in The Middle East as well. The media are framing the arguments wrong. Asking the wrong questions. If the media put The Wars in Iraq and Aftghanistan in bigger terms, in terms of how America and The West could affect The Middle East (and Africa) socially and economically, as well as politically and militarily, then we would have more support for the wars.
If the media were to report on the issues of female oppression, let alone issues like genital mutilation that occur in these countries, then there would be far more outcry for reform internationally
Opinions are cheap, information expensive... should we really be surprised when a media business takes the least expensive path especially when few complain. Many more complained when the media actually informed than are complaining now when they don't. Information is expensive so it's an easy to push business to replace news with opinion. Add to that the chorus of Republican Senators and Congressmen complaining day in day out about the "liberal biased press", "blame America first crowd" (i.e. network news) its easy to get the intended effect, a media morphed into what is best described as the "CONSERVATIVE BIASED MEDIA". We gave away the information side of media without a fight, no revolution, no blood... just gave it away. "Fox News" is more accurately Fox Propaganda and probably closer to what Prava was in the former Soviet Union that to news prior to the morphogenesis. There is no one to blame but ourselves.
The only real question what can we do about it?
We can demand that Congress rewrite the Telecommunications Act that allows a few corporations to own more than 80 percent of the media. We can demand that the airwaves be returned to the people, locally owned, committed to the communities where they are licensed and dispensing "news and information" not opinions and bullshit.
Corporate owned media have made the hate-makers possible--Thrush, Michael Savagge, all the bible-thumpers who beg for money and teach people to hate. If you put Thrush on hundreds of radio stations, well that's a lot of "reach"--to teach hate, preach lies and misinformation and pretty much turn American against American. Corporate owned media does not teach compassion, or tolerance. Hell, even NPR is starting to sound like it's run by the Republicans. They've spewed more criticism of Obama in three weeks than they did for 8 years of Bush's Hell Comes to America tour.
I want News to be news. I want entertainment that is enlightening, not just something to teach us to be judgmental and mean and angry. I want media that is responsible to the people who own the airwaves--that's US. TV led us down the path of our own destruction--selling us things we cannot afford, like "home equity loans" that destroyed our equity in our homes and the prospect of home ownership. The media IS NOT YOUR FRIEND, nor does it support American democracy and personal responsibility as long as all media is owned by Corporate America.
Excellent post.
Most corporate media has run amok and traded integrity for greed. It employs opportunists like Rush to pollute our thinking while making bucks off of dumbing down America which is undermining it from within. I think US citizens need to fight blockbuster mentality and shop at small local stores and subscribe to local newspapers.
Should it be surprising that a media owned by multi-billion dollar corporations, some of the most powerful of whom are dependent on Us Govt. weapons contracts, support the agenda of the wealthy and military adventurism?
If we treated the mainstream media as the propaganda arm of their plutocratic owners and sponsors, we would soon find ways to minimize their influence. The internet is a step in that direction. Organizing at the local level and a rebirth of town meetings to crystallize the real interests of the citizenry would counteract the media shilling for the fat-cats.
Expecting the media to represent the people's interest rather than their corporate masters is not much different from expecting a multi-millionaire Congress to put the interest of their constituency ahead of a trickle-down agenda.
As the economic situation worsens, the people must understand that neither the mainstream media or their elected officials in Washington represent their interests.
Obama's campaign organizations should be the nexus around which local organizations can be built to express and carry out the will of the people. The President, using the media to reach and lead the people, could be a powerful counter to media influence.
The media is the driving force behind the bush/cheny, republican propaganda machine. It boils down to "Money" with the salaries paid to the pundits, who spout their so-called news, to the republican owners, they have protected the cheny/bush administration for all their crimes, they have decieved the american people with their dirty propaganda and it continues on. The media should have their "Licenses suspended until these republican corporations are broken up, as was the case with phone companies.
The american people have been lied to for so long by the biased media organizations for to long, to control the masses, the government has to control the media.
mother should i truss the government ?
The media brainwashing effect.
Television is the greatest force for good in the history of mankind.
Maybe it was once. Not so much anymore. TV is the tool of Corporate America, the rich, thee lite. It is there to make you stupid, to drug you into submission, to make you give up while you buy your way to debtors prison. Turn off your TV and your life will improve drastically.
If the media had done its job as being impartial, then people wouldn't feel the way they do about them. But they are not. They should have pushed on the Iraq war, but were complicit and unquestioning when presented with evidence to the contrary. The past 8 years they have done nothing to push the republicans in power....but now they are all ready to jump on the first hint of any controversy if the democrats do anything....
No, the media is just as biased and greedy as the rest. We just had to follow OJ in a car....we just had to have the latest scoop as to why Brittany Spears cut her hair....24/7...but men dying in Iraq was completely not reported....need I say more?
Is media wasting its power? Im not sure thats completely true.
We have to go back to the point that many media outlets make, that whatever they believe is new IS NEWS. They provide what the American people desire, (To Catch a Predator, etc..).
Is it their full responsibility to retool their networks to a more responsible frame? I believe if they did that at present time it would be a disaster, because as a people im not sure we're really ready for that monumental of a change in entertainment.
Please message me back, i would love to continue this conversation :]
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
