This past week in class we touched a lot on what history is and how it is “constructed”. History as defined by dictionary.com is a “continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account”. One thing that gets left out or often forgotten is who narrates these events and how do they shape the way history is seen. Is it also shaped by the institutions that influence those who are narrating the event? These questions when answered often lead to interesting and often times very revealing answers. One of the theories behind the construction of history is Noam Chomsky’s “manufacturing consent” or more specifically the four filters of construction. Those four filters are:
1.) the size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media
2.) the advertising license to do business
3.) sourcing mass media news and
4.) flak
All of these shape the way media and narrators of events construct their account of the events. This will be clearly shown in our example of the “Occupy” movement looked at from Chinese media outlets and few U.S media outlets.
The “Occupy” movement is a movement primarily directed against social and economic inequality. It’s first protest was held on September 17, 2011 on wall street where protesters gathered to show their discontent with the “1%”(the rich and people in power) and how wall street is being run. What began as a one day protest gained popularity and recognition amongst those who identify with the “99%”. Now it has escalated to a global movement sparking protests in over 900 cities across 82 different countries. This is an incredible feat that has the Chinese government carefully critiquing how they cover the “occupy” movement.
The Chinese government as some of you may well know is very strict on its media regulations and even has a central propaganda department to filter what stories get told and how they are told. At the beginning of the occupy movement they supported it and covered it saying it was a good thing. That tone quickly changed as the occupy movement gained support and went global. The articles from there on out changed to saying the occupy movement was having no success and did not represent the views of the majority of the American public. This brings us to our first source that exemplified the aforementioned points.
Growing ‘Occupy’ movement makes China nervous
While we could not actually find an article written by a journalist solely employed by a Chinese media outlet we did find a concrete article and a video about Chinese media coverage. The article “Growing ‘occupy’ movement makes China nervous” by Mark Mackinnon says that the Chinese government supported the movement and even criticized mainstream U.S media coverage, calling it a blackout. But after the movement gained momentum the Chinese government and media quickly changed its view on the occupy movement fearing that similar protests might arise inside China. They even went to the extent to ban the use of the word “occupy” in their articles according to some Chinese journalists.
The person who wrote the article is Mark Mackinnon the Beijing bureau chief for the Globe and mail, a Canadian national newspaper. He is currently living in Beijing and would have a first hand account of the Chinese media coverage. Also he is employed by a Canadian newspaper that for the most part has not grudges with or reasons to be biased against China. I mean after all who is more neutral that Canada. This implores me to believe that the evidence provided is true and correct as similarly presented in the youtube video.
So what do these accounts of Chinese media coverage mean? First is evidently clear that the Chinese media is shaping the view of the Chinese public. They are forming it how they see fit. When the occupy movement first began they saw an opportunity to criticize the U.S and their capitalist ideals, ideals that contradict their own. They saw the occupy movement as evidence that the U.S. public was not satisfied with capitalism and exploited it by only covering a brief synopses of what the movement was about. But then something happened; the movement went global. Fearing uproars in its own borders with the large amount of unrest towards the Chinese government, the central propaganda department publicized the movement as unsuccessful and not sharing the ideals of the majority of the population in the U.S. This clearly shows how the Chinese media is partial and blatantly constructs its narration of history as it sees fit. Some further analysis also begs the question how will this opinionated coverage affect history 10, 20, 30 years down the road. If a Chinese person, who lived in China and received Chinese media, was asked about the “occupy” movement they would most likely say it was a small movement with little affect and would have a greatly different opinion than say a U.S. citizen. This may not be a big deal considering the subject but if it were a subject such as war the partial coverage by the Chinese media would heavily influence those citizens decisions and views so they align with what the media told them they should think.
Exclusive: Wall Street Activist...
Contrary to the obviously partial Chinese media the U.S. mainstream media is supposed to be impartial in its attempt to narrate history. But is this always the case? In the case of the “occupy” movement this is most definitely not the case. For our next example we are doing not the coverage by Fox news but rather the coverage that was left out by Fox news. In an online article by Drew Grant of the New York Post titled “Exclusive: Wall Street Activist Slams Fox News Producer in Un-Aired Interview” Fox news conducted an interview with an activist saying they were “here giving you[activist] an opportunity on the record to put any message you want out there, to give you fair coverage”. Very nice of them to say, but...it was never aired and even the video on the link was not shot from a Fox news camera. In the interview the activist clearly states his and the opinions of most of the protesters that undoubtedly go against conservative viewpoints, which Fox news is know for being conservative.
The source that the video came from is Drew Grant a former journalist at the Huffington post, known for being liberal. So it is no surprise that she would jump on the chance to take a shot at making Fox news look bad. But Fox news also set themselves up. They were quoted saying they wanted to give the activist “fair coverage” and an opportunity to present his viewpoint through a mass media outlet. But then never aired the video. Even the video that was taken was from a camera other than Fox, an independent source.
This un-aired video provides evidence that even the U.S. media super-giants are partial. Sure they do not air every interview they make but in the interview they stated they wanted to give him fair coverage. It makes you think what else are they leaving out? Could it be that they leave out many more stories to maintain their own image rather than report news? The partiality of news is very complex because it goes through many filters, such as maintaining Fox’s reputation and fulfilling the interests and political ideals of the Newscorp and their audience. They have a target audience, generally conservative in nature, so they will present content that fits their audiences ideals. Also they have to worry about flak that they might receive by presenting only or too much conservative content so they try to retain their objectivity as being unbiased (clearly not the case).
The news and how it is delivered complex and situational. It depends on many factors but lets look at one specifically. The news in China is delivered through a central propaganda filter with an obvious one track bias for the views of the Chinese government. While the news in the U.S comes from various mass media giants such as Newscorp that each have different values and filters. Thus when someone is living in the U.S. they have access to different viewpoints on an event contrary to the Chinese media which will only dish out one. Therefore it is easier for a person to find out the “truth” in the U.S. than the heavily controlled Chinese because U.S citizens have access to many views.
These different methods of filtration will have a very large impact on how history is shaped. It quite nearly disproves or at least provides evidence against the Hankean/Regelian ideology behind the formation of history that history and its meaning is not inherent. A history book that would contain the occupy movement 30 years from now will be portrayed very differently in an American textbook than a Chinese one. The formation of history is heavily influenced by those in power and what their ideals are. It comes as no surprise that their has been a lack of coverage of the “occupy” movement because the “1%” are those who control the media. Since power will shift over time to different people, nations, etc, so too will the way history is narrated and portrayed.
1.) the size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media
2.) the advertising license to do business
3.) sourcing mass media news and
4.) flak
All of these shape the way media and narrators of events construct their account of the events. This will be clearly shown in our example of the “Occupy” movement looked at from Chinese media outlets and few U.S media outlets.
The “Occupy” movement is a movement primarily directed against social and economic inequality. It’s first protest was held on September 17, 2011 on wall street where protesters gathered to show their discontent with the “1%”(the rich and people in power) and how wall street is being run. What began as a one day protest gained popularity and recognition amongst those who identify with the “99%”. Now it has escalated to a global movement sparking protests in over 900 cities across 82 different countries. This is an incredible feat that has the Chinese government carefully critiquing how they cover the “occupy” movement.
The Chinese government as some of you may well know is very strict on its media regulations and even has a central propaganda department to filter what stories get told and how they are told. At the beginning of the occupy movement they supported it and covered it saying it was a good thing. That tone quickly changed as the occupy movement gained support and went global. The articles from there on out changed to saying the occupy movement was having no success and did not represent the views of the majority of the American public. This brings us to our first source that exemplified the aforementioned points.
Growing ‘Occupy’ movement makes China nervous
While we could not actually find an article written by a journalist solely employed by a Chinese media outlet we did find a concrete article and a video about Chinese media coverage. The article “Growing ‘occupy’ movement makes China nervous” by Mark Mackinnon says that the Chinese government supported the movement and even criticized mainstream U.S media coverage, calling it a blackout. But after the movement gained momentum the Chinese government and media quickly changed its view on the occupy movement fearing that similar protests might arise inside China. They even went to the extent to ban the use of the word “occupy” in their articles according to some Chinese journalists.
The person who wrote the article is Mark Mackinnon the Beijing bureau chief for the Globe and mail, a Canadian national newspaper. He is currently living in Beijing and would have a first hand account of the Chinese media coverage. Also he is employed by a Canadian newspaper that for the most part has not grudges with or reasons to be biased against China. I mean after all who is more neutral that Canada. This implores me to believe that the evidence provided is true and correct as similarly presented in the youtube video.
So what do these accounts of Chinese media coverage mean? First is evidently clear that the Chinese media is shaping the view of the Chinese public. They are forming it how they see fit. When the occupy movement first began they saw an opportunity to criticize the U.S and their capitalist ideals, ideals that contradict their own. They saw the occupy movement as evidence that the U.S. public was not satisfied with capitalism and exploited it by only covering a brief synopses of what the movement was about. But then something happened; the movement went global. Fearing uproars in its own borders with the large amount of unrest towards the Chinese government, the central propaganda department publicized the movement as unsuccessful and not sharing the ideals of the majority of the population in the U.S. This clearly shows how the Chinese media is partial and blatantly constructs its narration of history as it sees fit. Some further analysis also begs the question how will this opinionated coverage affect history 10, 20, 30 years down the road. If a Chinese person, who lived in China and received Chinese media, was asked about the “occupy” movement they would most likely say it was a small movement with little affect and would have a greatly different opinion than say a U.S. citizen. This may not be a big deal considering the subject but if it were a subject such as war the partial coverage by the Chinese media would heavily influence those citizens decisions and views so they align with what the media told them they should think.
Exclusive: Wall Street Activist...
Contrary to the obviously partial Chinese media the U.S. mainstream media is supposed to be impartial in its attempt to narrate history. But is this always the case? In the case of the “occupy” movement this is most definitely not the case. For our next example we are doing not the coverage by Fox news but rather the coverage that was left out by Fox news. In an online article by Drew Grant of the New York Post titled “Exclusive: Wall Street Activist Slams Fox News Producer in Un-Aired Interview” Fox news conducted an interview with an activist saying they were “here giving you[activist] an opportunity on the record to put any message you want out there, to give you fair coverage”. Very nice of them to say, but...it was never aired and even the video on the link was not shot from a Fox news camera. In the interview the activist clearly states his and the opinions of most of the protesters that undoubtedly go against conservative viewpoints, which Fox news is know for being conservative.
The source that the video came from is Drew Grant a former journalist at the Huffington post, known for being liberal. So it is no surprise that she would jump on the chance to take a shot at making Fox news look bad. But Fox news also set themselves up. They were quoted saying they wanted to give the activist “fair coverage” and an opportunity to present his viewpoint through a mass media outlet. But then never aired the video. Even the video that was taken was from a camera other than Fox, an independent source.
This un-aired video provides evidence that even the U.S. media super-giants are partial. Sure they do not air every interview they make but in the interview they stated they wanted to give him fair coverage. It makes you think what else are they leaving out? Could it be that they leave out many more stories to maintain their own image rather than report news? The partiality of news is very complex because it goes through many filters, such as maintaining Fox’s reputation and fulfilling the interests and political ideals of the Newscorp and their audience. They have a target audience, generally conservative in nature, so they will present content that fits their audiences ideals. Also they have to worry about flak that they might receive by presenting only or too much conservative content so they try to retain their objectivity as being unbiased (clearly not the case).
The news and how it is delivered complex and situational. It depends on many factors but lets look at one specifically. The news in China is delivered through a central propaganda filter with an obvious one track bias for the views of the Chinese government. While the news in the U.S comes from various mass media giants such as Newscorp that each have different values and filters. Thus when someone is living in the U.S. they have access to different viewpoints on an event contrary to the Chinese media which will only dish out one. Therefore it is easier for a person to find out the “truth” in the U.S. than the heavily controlled Chinese because U.S citizens have access to many views.
These different methods of filtration will have a very large impact on how history is shaped. It quite nearly disproves or at least provides evidence against the Hankean/Regelian ideology behind the formation of history that history and its meaning is not inherent. A history book that would contain the occupy movement 30 years from now will be portrayed very differently in an American textbook than a Chinese one. The formation of history is heavily influenced by those in power and what their ideals are. It comes as no surprise that their has been a lack of coverage of the “occupy” movement because the “1%” are those who control the media. Since power will shift over time to different people, nations, etc, so too will the way history is narrated and portrayed.
References in case you missed them:
Very interesting. I believe that everyone's vision is shifted and effected by the 1% who controls the media and what is shown to the audience. The other day, my co-worker and I were talking about this Wall Street protest, we thought that those who earned millions of dollars or more worked very hard to earn that amount. But, we also discussed about how some people who does not work hard enough, earn as much, (Justin Bieber for example). Anyways, media has a powerful impact on everyone's lives because it can control what we ultimately do not see.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me thank our founding fathers for the nation they built. Our freedom of speech is some what of a loose thing. It can be restricted or expressed in many different ways. In China, some people were arrested for protesting for the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's interesting how scared the Chinese government got. And how quickly they changed their minds on the issue.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of the FOX news comment, this might encourage people who are trying to protest mainstream news media to fight from inside the system. For example, if you want to reach people who watch fox (and your message is very liberal) maybe they should say it in a coherent way that wpeaks to the conservatives. Find out what they want to hear and what they dislike about your agenda, then coinnect to them and prove them wrong. As opposed to just radically protesting to cause uprise.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was a really interesting way to look at the Occupy movement. I have never thought about the Chinese government's coverage of the movement. I also agree with Joe's comment about how freedom of speech is taken for granted sometimes in this country. I personally do not agree with the Occupy movement, but I do respect the people involved for standing up for a cause in which they believe.
ReplyDelete