Larry D. Lauer

The speed and need of 24/7 cable for constant breaking news, the tendency of television to dramatize, the rapid growth of social media, the financial troubles of newspapers, and overall austerity cutbacks all over the world, collectively have changed the landscape of international news gathering and reporting. The fundamental question is: Are we getting the information we need to function as intelligent citizens?

In the past, large Newspapers maintained bureaus in many places all over the world. But recently many have been closing them.  Mainstream broadcast news organizations have done so as well.  For example, CBS had a number of bureaus strategically placed in cities around the world. Now it covers international events completely from its bureau in London. All news organizations today rely to some extent on freelancers, and local journalists, who compete for space and airtime in order to get paid.  As a result, traditional outlets also depend more than ever on three basic international news services.

Associated Press (AP) still covers the world, and also has an international video news service.  Reuters has traditionally been strong in business coverage, and continues to provide international coverage. And Agence France-Presse (AFP) does as well. All of these services work on some kind of fee basis and provide news coverage for both television and newspapers. But with each individual news outlet reducing its fulltime international reporting staff, it has become more difficult to achieve distinction.  

In addition, many new networks have appeared all over the world. For example, Al Jazeera covers the Arab world with both an English and Arabic channel, which are managed separately. The english channel boasts objectivity in its coverage, with its selection of stories based on the interests of its audiences. The Arabic channel is more Arab centric and has a reputation for being critical of Western and US influences. Al Arabiya broadcasts only in Arabic, but has an English website.  It prides itself in its objectivity.  But there are many other channels in the Middle East and all over the world that compete for audience, and specialize in everything from news to music to religion.  CNN has both domestic and international networks,and may have the most bureaus and reporters around the world.  But many see a self-serving commercial spin to their tone and style, and see this tone also as a form of bias. All of these news organizations have websites, and now refer readers, listeners, and viewers to them for more information.

Governments too are in the business of news.  Most brag of objectivity, but clearly reflect cultural biases and varied definitions of what it means to be democratic. The BBC World Service in the United Kingdom prides itself in its objectivity, but has been accused by conservatives as being too liberal.   The Voice of America (VOA) strives for news objectivity, but many in other parts of the world say its Western perspective is indeed a bias.  In Russia the media is controlled by a more authoritarian government, but that government wants to argue that it’s democratic and fair. China is launching new initiatives in targeted parts of the world, including the US. It admits that it hopes to achieve a better public understanding of its culture, but it also asserts that its policy is to be objective in reporting the news. The fact is, there are competing international newspapers and media networks all over the world, with most asserting that they are objective. But they clearly exist to advance a better understanding of their cultures and perspectives.

Add social media, and the situation becomes even more complicated. Citizens not only talk across borders, but they actually can file stories from cell phones. News organizations are now soliciting social media responses and posting  some of it as news, including video from cell phones.   How can consumers in this kind of situation know what they are getting?  Is it factual?  Is it exaggerated? Is it substantive enough to understand?

Indeed the speed of the media world today tends to short-cut all stories, including the important ones. The intensity of breaking news competition often results in reporting errors that have to be corrected later.  With fewer bureaus, every reporter flocks to where news is breaking, leaving the rest of the world virtually uncovered for long periods of time. Enhancing dramatic values is competitively enticing, so using the camera to make small crowds look large, and editing to make events more exciting, becomes common place. So with this daily barrage of information, do we ever really come to know what actually happened, or understand the context necessary for really understanding the situation?

The adventure in media ideas I am currently sharing with honors students at TCU is dealing with these very complex issues. In the end, the challenge will be to find a way to make sure every citizen understands how media actually work, and how to become fully and accurately informed on their own.