Media
‘The media’, be it television, radio, newspaper, Web or any other, ultimately serves two purposes: to inform and/or to entertain. Entertainment seeking can be like information seeking, and seekers can benefit from an information literacy approach to it. An example is provided by television viewing. Entertainment value will probably increase if what is desired to be watched is Identified, compatible programs are Located and Analyzed, and a program is selected (i.e. Use). With the amount of entertainment possibilities available, and my time constraints, I personally consider something carefully before reading or viewing it.
However, for seekers and providers of information, i.e. news, societal stakes are higher, along with the need for information literacy. The three major news media roles in information literacy are those who consume it (Viewers), Reporters and those who ultimately decide how and if it will be provided (Administrators). These terms are broad, but will be used to describe the media and information relationships in this chapter. Advertisers also play an important role in the media. However, they should not decide how or what news is reported (although it is naive to believe they do not). Therefore, they will not be considered as a separate role, but as a category related to Administrator.
Viewer as seeker
Viewers ordinarily seek information for its own sake, in contrast to patients or buyers who seek it for personal goals. This is not to suggest that viewers are not directly impacted by news, especially local news. However, most news seekers want to be informed for no other reason than to know what is happening in society at large.
Information seeking in media is similar to that in academic settings. Arguably, however, it is much easier for a viewer to get news than for a student to write a paper. Also, in academic settings, information literacy is often an explicit part of the curriculum (e.g. library instruction), whereas media often eliminate the process. Media do the Identify, Locate and Analyze; all the viewer must do is Use (e.g. watch, read).
Ideally, seekers would not put so much trust in an information provider. Unfortunately, most have neither the time nor the resources to independently seek news information. Additionally, many seekers do not have the subject knowledge in which to pursue the different topics. For example, part of the job of foreign correspondents is to study the cultures on which they report, and thus they can make connections between news that happens, its significance to that country and also its significance for the viewers. In this way, in addition to providing current awareness, the media can be educational.
Although viewers cannot seek news to the extent of the media, they can still be information literate about the media. A place to start is the reporters themselves: viewers should Identify those they trust. This involves understanding the reporter’s media affiliation (e.g. BBC, CNN, Al Hayat) and credentials (experience, education). There are better reporters for certain types of news coverage; depending upon Identify, knowing which report to view for Locate will make the viewer more confident in Analyze and Use. For example, an informed viewer would feel more comfortable reading a report about Riyadh from Jameel Theyabi of the Saudi newspaper Al Hayat than a guest commentary from Rush Limbaugh in the New Republic.
Viewers should also learn basic geography, economics, politics and history. These are fundamental disciplines that illuminate the underlying machinations in the news. Formal education is probably the best approach to such learning, but individual study can be as effective, or more so, depending on aptitude. In this regard, tertiary research is very important: it establishes a firmer context from which to view, and helps distinguish between a reporter’s opinions and facts. Sometimes there are mistakes in news reports, or the item being reported lends itself to confusion; with better background understanding of the subject, a viewer can recognize inaccuracies and make sense of the report.
Unfortunately not all viewers have the means, ability or inclination to acquire such knowledge. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that they could consistently acquire information literacy from news reports unless they deal with something that directly and immediately impacts upon them. Does this mean that some viewers should not seek, or be prevented from Use? Is there an information literacy responsibility that accompanies information seeking and the news? Should there be? Such questions will also be considered in Chapter 5.
The questions may offend some: whose right is it to decide whether someone should be allowed to view news or seek information? If it is a matter of only viewing, then it is not a problem; however, if the person viewing has responsibilities to others, then if they do not acquire information literacy from the report, Use could be inaccurate or even dangerous for themselves and others.
Regardless of one’s opinion, this is a moot point: it would be unfeasible to regulate a viewer’s seeking in relation to their information literacy. As it is, viewers as seekers must decide for themselves how best to view media in relation to information literacy. This is a huge responsibility for each individual as informed citizens are necessary for an information society.
Viewer as provider
In the Web 2.0 era, viewer as provider takes on new meaning. Viewers have always been providers to media outlets in terms of their subscription and viewing tendencies, along with direct polls and surveys. However, the media are now more participatory than ever. For example, at www.msn.com and many other online media websites, news is reported, along with viewer responses; often there are thousands of responses. Additionally, some viewers develop their own websites and blogs. It is the information from these sorts of media outlets that educators, particularly librarians, have trouble with in relation to information literacy. It is an important part of library instruction for Analyze: who is responsible for the information, and what qualifies them to provide it? Typically, educators frown on .com amateurs.
Even in government-controlled media, viewers have a huge responsibility to be information literacy facilitators: they must vote for candidates (if they have the option) who they believe will administer media in ways that provide the most relevant and accurate news, not what citizens or governments want the news to be, but the truth.
Voting and viewer provision combined to make headlines in the summer of 2009 amid the Iranian presidential election. Many Iranians protested against the results, and for numerous reasons, the Iranian government limited reporting. However, many citizens/viewers filmed events on their cell phones and uploaded videos to YouTube and other video sharing sites, thus truly demonstrating the power of the Web 2.0 viewer as provider. Which sources do academics trust more in this sort of situation: citizens’ .coms or governments’ .govs?
Viewers also can influence privately sponsored media by boycotting advertisers’ products (as touched upon in Chapter 2). Although boycotting does not carry the same theoretical definitiveness that a voting situation can in a government-controlled media outlet, it is often more effective: sometimes no matter who wins an election, things citizens want are not done. However, the purpose behind a group establishing a privately owned media outlet is mostly to make money. Viewers cannot vote on who becomes owner of the company or which companies may advertise, but they can boycott the advertisers’ products. In so doing, the merchant may withdraw sponsorship, and thus the media outlet will lose money. Depending on those involved, money is sometimes a bigger motivator than civic duty.
Interview with an Asian viewer: anonymous
I interviewed a young student about his media viewing preferences. He is from Asia, and requested anonymity. The media in his country are state controlled, and he claimed that if he said things his government would not like he ‘could be killed’, and that there would be ‘no consequences’ for his death.
Before he left home, he watched most of his news on television; since coming to the United States, he has been watching via the Internet. He said he has no particular sites that he prefers, ‘… some sites offer better news … it depends on the subject, and how reputable’ are the sources. Rather than only news about his homeland, he views news to ‘have an idea about how things are going all over the world’.
He is very familiar with information literacy; ‘that is what is good about the Internet: lots of opportunity to report news.’ He finds the anonymity of the Internet especially important to fair reporting. ‘Again, [if] they don’t like what you have to say, they kill you.’ He believes that without freedom of speech, there can be no information literacy via media.
Although his media are state-controlled, this viewer believes that the reporters try their best to achieve and promote information literacy. ‘They try to be honest, but the politics and propaganda make it hard.’ When asked if he thought his fellow citizens were information literate in their media viewing he said no, but this was more of an access issue (i.e. Locate) than ideological. Here he gives the government credit: ‘They are trying to make the Internet accessible for all. Many in the big cities already have access, but those in the smaller villages have nothing.’
Ultimately, he believes that reporters have more responsibility to be ‘clear and truthful’ in the information literacy process than viewers, but does acknowledge the need for responsible viewing. ‘You must be truthful to yourself and society.’ He thinks that the Web 2.0 phenomenon of viewer as provider promotes information literacy: ‘… [it] provides lots of angles’. Although he acknowledges the absence of editorial quality control with Web 2.0, he thinks the ‘good outweighs the bad’. He believes that information literacy will play a bigger role in media’s future, especially as more people gain access to information technology. ‘It will require more responsibility for everyone.’
Reporter as seeker
Reporters engage in two kinds of reporting: simple fact collection and serious investigation. Both rely on primary research; additionally, secondary research can often prove the difference between a successful report and an unsuccessful one. As an example, a reporter is assigned to interview a visiting artist who will present their work at a local gallery. To effectively report, the reporter will probably do some research on the style the artist utilizes and some of the artist’s other exhibits. This information will come from articles, books and websites.
Depending on the size of the outlet, a reporting staff can be one person seeking information or a host of personnel, even a research department (major media outlets have their own archives). There are potentially numerous informationseeking roles for news reporting both outside and inside the media outlet itself, and the success of the reporter in seeking information will probably determine their success as a provider.
The interview is a primary research tool (regardless of sector), and must be carefully planned, administered and analyzed for a report to be informative. It is not surprising that the actual administration of the interview receives the most attention, as it is the most visible part of the process, involves the actual person being interviewed and provides the most important information viewers will see. However, the planning before and analysis after are just as important.
I place interview administration as Locate in the information literacy process, because the interviewer interacts with the human source just as a researcher does with a database when searching for articles. However, because of the other aspects involved with developing an effective interview, all four components are exercised. Also, is administration really the Locate of the interview? Going back to the artist example above, the reporter did secondary research about art to help develop some questions; therefore, the administration of the actual interview itself could be considered Use instead of Locate (Locate occurred during the secondary research phase). The answer depends upon what stage of the information literacy process one considers the interview, or within what stage of the interview one considers information literacy. Again, the dynamic, overlapping aspects of information literacy are difficult to pinpoint.
Reporter as provider
Reporters must objectively report to be effective providers. Coverage must be accurate, and if there are opposing viewpoints, they must be noted and balanced, especially for a non-expert audience.
Reporters, like serious researchers, should report facts, not commentary. There is often room for commentary (e.g. the editorial page of a newspaper); however, when delivering news reports, reporters need to do the best they can to eliminate their own feelings. Reporters are human; depending upon the news story, one might have a personal interest or connection to it. It is necessary for the sake of information literacy that reporters overcome their feelings and use their analytical skills to provide facts in a truthful fashion.
Another possible obstacle to providing news is protecting human subjects. How much can ethically be reported without compromising a person’s privacy or safety? Should privacy be protected, or should the truth be presented regardless? This is a highly debated dilemma with proponents on both sides; however, it seems that media reports tend to place safety ahead of truth. This could also be out of concern for legal ramifications.
Interview with an American television broadcaster: Scott Wludyga
Mr Wludyga earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communication Arts at Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania, in 1997. He has worked as a broadcast newsman for WJET-TV in Erie, Pennsylvania, since then, including much of the time as an anchor. He also reports and produces in other outlets, including radio, and teaches multimedia studies at Kent State University in Ashtabula, Ohio. One course in particular, ‘Media, Power & Culture’, has been very influential for aspiring broadcasters, and Mr Wludgya is a well-respected member of the regional media community.
He pursued his media career because ‘I have always been interested in television and wanted to be on TV or work in some aspect of the TV business.’
‘Business’ is key for Mr Wludyga. ‘The media’s top priority is to make money and that means delivering audiences to advertisers. That means reporting the stories that will draw the most viewers and maintain their attention.’
He elaborated on media priorities and who establishes them:
‘Who really has control? Is it management, the reporter or the media consumer? It could be a priority established by station management, mandating coverage of stories that cater to a certain audience or a particular – usually larger – group of people … The reporter may set the priorities, selecting stories or events that they believe will interest viewers. One could also say the media consumer sets the priorities. The stories that gain the most viewers may establish a precedent for media professionals to continue to cover those types of stories.’
When asked if reporters agree with such a determination process, he said ‘I think media professionals are so immersed in getting the job done, that they are not focussed on why they are covering particular stories, they’re just focussed on completing the task.’
I asked how he thought the American media in general feel about their ‘viewers’:
‘I think from an entertainment perspective, the media looks at its viewers as zombies on a couch, or an animal at a trough feeding on the images and stories on the screen. From the point of view of a reporter, you just have to give the viewer enough to understand the story. There’s not enough time to give all of the details, and many believe the viewers wouldn’t understand or necessarily care about all of the details anyway.’
On whether or not this is accurate, he said ‘I think most media consumers give little thought to the information they’re being fed. Most media consumers don’t think about why or how the information is being presented. It’s just there.’
About American viewer expectations of the media, he added:
‘I think American viewers expect to be informed about the news of the day. They expect that news to be entertaining. I think viewers may trust their “local” news reporters more than national reporters. The local reporters are covering events in the community, talking about things of which the viewers may have a better understanding. The viewer may have seen the local reporters in person or may see them more frequently on TV. It’s easier for a viewer to become more familiar, maybe even more comfortable with a local reporter because there are only a few, and they are on the screen every night. By comparison, there are dozens of national reporters who may not be seen as frequently by the viewer.’
I asked if he thought the American media were different from those of other countries:
‘Because the social culture of other countries is different from America, there are a number of things that contrast. The humor is different. Thanks to the Internet, we are able to see examples. Sexual innuendoes and things that would not be acceptable on American TV are commonplace. Issues such as war are presented with a perspective of that country, not necessarily the American view of what is happening.’
However all viewers, no matter what country, ‘… expect to be entertained on some level’. I asked if the media are successful in this regard: ‘People keep watching. The media must be meeting most viewers’ expectations.’
Although he is familiar with information literacy, the components/process of it is not his primary concern: ‘A reporter must understand how to construct a story, but I don’t think information literacy is on the minds of reporters when they are doing their day-to-day tasks.’ Additionally, he does not think that the American media ultimately provide it: ‘There’s not enough time for the media to explain why or how the process works, nor do most viewers care. The goal is to communicate effectively, not explain how the message is constructed or delivered … A good reporter will have information literacy, but it doesn’t fit within the job to explain it.’
He thinks that viewer as provider is good in that ‘… it promotes the free-flow of information. However, the media consumer must have a certain level of information literacy to sift through what is “true” on blogs and message boards.’ Ironically, he thinks this role could in the long term improve information literacy in the media: ‘If media consumers can learn to look at blogs and amateur journalists with a critical eye, maybe they will begin to do the same with the mainstream media. That could lead to viewers demanding better coverage and higher standards from the media.’
About the future and information literacy, Mr Wludyga believes that ‘reporting approach’ will be more important than any particular skills or resources:
Administrator as seeker
There are two particular administrative positions that seek information within the media sector: editors and managers. For this book, editors make the decisions about what and how a report will be provided. Managers handle the business functions (e.g. advertising). The editor must check facts and understand the underlying contexts of the reports, in addition to proofreading. Managers seek information about sales and regional broadcasting opportunities that can increase prominence and circulation.
Administrator as provider
As already noted, in some countries the media are privately run, whereas in others they are run by the State. Which is better is debatable: privately administered news is not so much at the whim of any political agenda, but profits can be just as corruptible as politics.
Depending on viewer intellect and level of education, the information needed for news reports to make sense changes. During the seeking role, administrators must understand who the viewers are (intellectuals, the working class, tycoons), and facilitate accordingly.
Objectively reporting the news is a challenge, even for a professional journalist. However, if administrative policy stands in the way, then it is often impossible for the reporter both to provide truth and to maintain a livelihood. Why would administrators prohibit truthful reporting? If they are state sponsored, then the government might force them. In fact, sometimes government interferes regardless of whether it sponsors the media or not. Take the United States for example: although America boasts that its private media environment upholds free speech, its Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates what is broadcast on television. Granted, the purpose of the FCC is not to prohibit truthful news, but it does have ‘decency’ standards that take priority over truth.
Administration must facilitate an environment conducive to information literacy to enable reporters to report effectively. Again, because private media usually rely on sponsorship, if sponsors feel threatened by a particular issue or view, administrators might be pressured to slant news in ways favorable to business interests. If they do not, then the sponsor might discontinue sponsorship. It is decisions that media administrators make in these situations that determine the quality of reporting provided.
In addition to facilitation, editors often provide commentary to viewers. Is there room for it in an information literate media? If so, then is the burden of responsibility greater for it than investigative reporting? One could argue that all reporting has elements of investigation and commentary: the reporter must have some contextual understanding of the issue or the individual on which the report centers, and be able to make sense of it for himself or herself and the audience. However, investigative reporting is not supposed to pass judgment or influence opinion; by contrast, that is exactly the purpose of commentary. Is this news or propaganda?
In most outlets, there are legal standards (i.e. slander, libel laws) in place to help prevent media from lying to viewers or unfairly discrediting people, and it is administrative responsibility to ensure that they are upheld. However, ideas are not black and white; a media outlet can subtly make an implication and destroy a reputation or sway mass thinking without breaking the law. The burden of responsibility ultimately falls on the viewer to decide whether the media have an agenda behind their editorial policy. The problem though is that most seekers do not have the time to investigate the news and the issues: we rely on the media to do it for us. This is a circular dilemma: viewers must decide if media outlets appropriately report news, but they rely on the same people to provide the actual news that they must judge.
For an information society to be a reality, media must do their best to avoid irrelevant agendas that stray from truthful news reporting or biased commentary. There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion: sometimes it can be educational for those undecided about or unaware of issues. However, if this is the decision, then that media outlet should also provide counter commentaries that illustrate why not everyone sees the issue the same way. If they do not, they are not providing news, but manipulating public thought.
Interview with an American newspaper editor: Frank Garland
Frank Garland holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in journalism, and has over 30 years of editorial and reporting experience, most of which was spent in the California Bay area. He has covered many subjects, including the environment, government, education and sports, and has edited many papers. The focus of his newspapers was mostly local and regional, but some national news did transpire on his watch. He always wanted to be a writer, and thinks that newspapers in particular are critical to the overall information literacy of society. He now teaches journalism at Gannon University, and is Advisor to the student newspaper.
As an editor, he stressed facts rather than commentary. ‘Some people are good at it,’ he said. ‘I was trained not to have opinions … Some newspapers feel obligated to take a stand … I have heard stories about conservative outlets restricting reporting.’ He acknowledged that the publisher establishes a newspaper’s priorities, but he never had the experience of being ‘micromanaged’, and feels that newspaper business people usually let editors do their jobs without interference. ‘They hired us: why wouldn’t they?’
Ultimately, he considers newspapers as ‘public watchdogs … especially at the local level’, and offered this quote to sum up what they should do: ‘comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable’. When asked how the American media perceive their viewers, he reasoned that it is too hard to generalize, and challenged me to identify a model for comparison. ‘The products and people are all too different. This is a very diverse country.’
When asked how he thinks Americans view their media, he said ‘… changes over the years based on incidents’. He believes that isolated scandals about false reports and slanted editorial policies have jaded public opinion. ‘Years ago the public expected perfection … They believed what was reported … [they’re] more skeptical now.’ He finds this unfortunate because professional journalism is important to learning of citizens.
He is familiar with information literacy, and considers the four components to be ‘vital’ to reporting news. He thinks that the media have always promoted information literacy, but recently do more: he used the example of online newspapers that provide Web links to related information.
He does not think that the Web’s viewer as news provider phenomenon has been good for information literacy and media. ‘The big danger is lack of objectivity. In a newsroom, there is editorial scrutiny.’ He knows that anyone can provide with Web 2.0, and fears amateurs do not have the sense of information literacy responsibility that professionals have, and that many seekers cannot discern the difference. ‘If enough people read what these renegades post, they might lump the mainstream media in with them.’ His fear then is that people will feel uncomfortable turning anywhere for their news, including to professionals.
He thinks that viewers, reporters and editors all have media information literacy responsibility; however, he thinks it is most important on the part of reporters. ‘Reporters have to make the information available and understandable.’ He thinks that information literacy will become a bigger media factor in the future: ‘the consumer will have as much access as there is media, but won’t know how to use it – that’s the reporter’s job.’ Although he acknowledges all four components, he does think that reporters will have to increase Locate skills. ‘They already have Analyze, plus they can get subject experts, but there are a lot of different sources out there, and how to search them is often different.’
Issues
Access
Two access issues affect media information literacy: seeker inability to access and seeker choice not to access. The media offer an array of technology: television, radio, newspaper and the various Internet outlets. Do they have a responsibility to ensure that those within their coverage can access? At present, the answer is no: it is up to the seeker to obtain the means of viewing the news. Should this change? For a society to effectively function in the Information Age, all citizens should be information literate. However, if they cannot afford a television or computer, and there is no access for them elsewhere, then this is impossible to accomplish. Even in the United States, arguably one of the most free-market-driven countries where the ‘take care of yourself or perish’ mentality rules, Newt Gingrich, a vocal politician on the subject of individual responsibility, surprisingly once recommended that the Government provide every citizen with a laptop for this reason among others.
It is hard to argue that private media outlets should be responsible for seeker access; however, what about state-sponsored media? And if the government is not responsible for media, then should they at least be responsible for seekers having access? Again, if society depends upon an information literate populace, then it is imperative that they have access to information, especially news.
What if viewers decide not to view? As discussed above, seekers sometimes have control over private media by boycotting products. Is this good or bad? What if seekers do not want truthful reporting? Again, the danger of state-controlled media is that government officials will require news to be reported in a fashion supportive of their agendas, even at the expense of truth. However, what if government does truthfully report the news, but citizens do not want to hear it? As a result, they vote for officials who they believe will tell them what they want. Each individual must take responsibility for his or her media viewing habits; this includes seeking truth rather than validation. The viewer must choose to be informed.
Privacy
Withholding a subject’s identify in a news report is sometimes necessary for reasons ranging from personal convenience to safety. Often people who speak under terms of anonymity are not newsmakers themselves, but victims of an issue who wish their stories be told without retaliation on themselves. For example, by anonymously exposing a company’s unfair personnel procedures, a whistleblower hopes to gain improved working conditions without the risk of harassment or termination. If a reporter reneges on their promise to conceal a person’s identity, then it could compromise the source’s safety and destroy the reporter’s reputation.
Although safety is important, so is source integrity in relation to a viewer/seeker. If there is no name associated with the information, how can a viewer be assured that it is true? A staple of Analyze is source verification. In academic circles, this deals mostly with quality and authority issues (e.g. a peer-reviewed journal article is supposedly better than one from a popular magazine). Although there are editors, practically any reporter can fabricate a source and cite fraudulent information to validate a story.
The privacy issue is easy for the reporter: if he or she promises to keep their source anonymous, then they must do it. For the viewer, however, it not as easy: with whom and when are viewers to believe anonymous sources? The best that can be done for the information literate viewer is to check the credentials of reporters and media outlets. This is not perfect: although some reporters and outlets have proven track records of honest news coverage, anything is possible, including falsification of sources.
It is at this point where, after engaging the four information literacy components to identify the best possible media to view, trust must now be extended. In this context, there are interviews in this book, including one in this chapter, administered under conditions of anonymity. You must trust me if you are to believe that these sources occupy the roles for which I identified them. The alternatives to trusting the media are for viewers to do their own reporting or not to view at all. Neither option is feasible for an information literate society.
Tips
For the viewer
Understand your purpose for viewing: to stay abreast of current events reported or to shape thought? If to shape thought, then I recommend you visit the library instead of viewing media reports. There you will find books written by multiple subject experts rather than news reporters. Reporters might be better communicators than professors, but they are not as knowledgeable about the fundamental subjects that underlie news reports. In other words, view the news to keep informed, but read books to be educated.