What can one say about the globalization of 24-hour news channels? -- Nick
Fraser of the Financial Times (UK) muses on the phenomenon, now that CNN
has celebrated its 25th birthday (on Jun. 1). -- The innovation has
not, it turns out, had earth-shattering effects. -- The two dominant
tendencies in journalism observed by George Orwell in 1944 -- the greed of
proprietors and the demand of readers for a “sunshine mentality" -- haven't
changed much, he writes. -- Still, there are some new
developments: "There are now six Arab language news channels competing
against each other. This year the Russian government launched its service,
and France will soon give us 'TV Chirac' (a global service designed to give
renewed life to francophony). In news-crazy India there are 17 news
channels, with two English channels coming next year. Al-Jazeera is
attempting to convert its Arab brand into a new international English service,
based in Kuala Lumpur, Doha, London and Washington." ...
Arts & Weekend
Film & television
TURNING UP THE VOLUME
By Nick Fraser
Financial Times (UK)
July 15, 2005
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/dbc79b82-f432-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
I watch 24-hour television news in the following places and moods: bored in
hotel lobbies, helplessly insomniac, fitfully attentive on the treadmill in
health clubs, or anxiously, anticipating disaster, at airport departure gates.
And at times of real disaster, such as last week in London, when, for a time,
its insistent repetitive style fits the mindset of the nervy disoriented viewer.
Sky and the BBC claim to know that each visit to their news channels lasts
about two minutes; but I must have logged the equivalent of two talking books of
War and Peace. I still thrill to the Iran/Home Counties/Manhattan delivery of
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. And I can claim to be mildly addicted to the meaty,
bullying style of Fox host Bill O’Reilly.
I once met Ted Turner in what was then his own CNN newsroom in Atlanta, and
heard him say that 24-hour news would usher in an era of good feelings. “It’s
the way the world talks to itself,” he opined. Seeing picks scraping at the
Berlin Wall, or the fur on Guards’ busbies at Princess Di’s funeral, I’ve
wondered about this. Are we really hooked together by the calendar of television
news, or do we share little other than the capacity to be momentarily distracted
by the same things? What of the notion that TV news renders the world as fetish,
dwelling ceaselessly on the images of collapsing towers or a blown- up bus, but
leaving out things that matter? I asked myself these questions flicking from
channel to channel, watching the dead pope’s red slippers in a hotel room in
Beijing.
Turner is less optimistic now than in his glory days. “They [CNN] go for the
‘perv of the week’,” he explained when quizzed by *Variety* magazine about the
25th anniversary of his offspring, now in the hands of megacorp Time Warner. The
limitations of continuous coverage are easy to discern. In between rare peaks of
drama come vast deserts of boredom. Blandness is a result of “palm tree
journalism” -- reporters never straying from their satellite link, gesturing
towards rooftop air-conditioning plants. Because of the hurry to get stories on
air, they are unscripted, Gilligan-style, taken in a rush. Willy-nilly,
reporters have become extensions of the material that they purport to cover,
surrendering any vestige of authorship. It may be giddyingly exciting to be seen
in the Aleutians, or in Lesotho; but one must remember, too, how small audiences
are. Sadly, Gore Vidal’s remark that one can never have too much sex or appear
too frequently on TV no longer holds true.
In 1944, cleaning out his kitchen, George Orwell came across an
eight-year-old copy of the *Daily Mail*. He wasn’t surprised to find pieces
about murders and peers’ secret weddings. Orwell noticed the topics that weren’t
covered -- anything to do with the world going to hell -- and he attributed
this, predictably, to the greed of proprietors, coupled with readers’ demands
for a “sunshine mentality”.
Who recalls the once notorious “CNN effect”? -- worries expressed by
politicians (and even newscasters) that coverage of atrocities in the Balkans
and Rwanda might lead to misguided humanitarian policies. Global news reporting
is patchy and selective, one atrocity blocking out another. Wars are well done,
but their causes are left obscure. Even terrorism, so adroitly formulated for
the benefit of rolling news, loses its impact rapidly. Perhaps Orwell’s
observations are not so wide of the mark.
Many believe that 24-hour news has come to a place where it can do little but
recycle its own, no longer new formulae -- and to an easily bored, sceptical
audience. One pointer to the future lies with the success of Fox News, which is
committed (despite the slogan “fair and balanced”) to anti-liberal provocation.
Through its aggressively anti-elitist chat, complemented by reporting that
doesn’t bother to hide its point of view, Fox handsomely outperforms CNN.
Perhaps the Fox dirty secret is that many viewers like news that nakedly appeals
to their prejudices.
Another, more positive development is the extension of news outside the old,
well-defended perimeter of Anglo-Saxon cultural dominance. This year I went to
the minuscule studio in Doha from which Al-Jazeera years ago launched its attack
on the Arab mind, transforming the politics of the region. Beneath the multiple
image screen displaying feeds from Middle East cities, I experienced once again
a sense of awe. There are now six Arab language news channels competing against
each other. This year the Russian government launched its service, and France
will soon give us “TV Chirac” (a global service designed to give renewed life to
francophony). In news-crazy India there are 17 news channels, with two English
channels coming next year. Al-Jazeera is attempting to convert its Arab brand
into a new international English service, based in Kuala Lumpur, Doha, London
and Washington.
Globalization has passed far beyond the instant transmission of world market
prices. The success of the BBC’s woefully underfunded worldwide service
demonstrates that there is a large, hungry audience in thrall to the
parochialism and format entertainment supplied by national television networks,
and ready for sceptical, cosmopolitan news coverage. Will these new channels
enhance our experience of the world -- or will they merely supply the same diet
of hastily edited stories punctuated by instant, often misleading commentary? It
would be a shame if, when the next pope dies, we’re still being offered a choice
of red slippers.
--Nick Fraser is editor of the BBC’s series of world documentaries,
“Storyville”.
|
