The media's contribution to our national psyche

[serenity]

Do u feel an air of hopelessness and growing desperation?
Do u listen to the news to hear how many more were killed overnight?
Does every news of road fatality have u listening with extra care to ascertain whether the deceased is one of your loved ones?

To me thats all ppl ever talk about - the crime, the high prices of everything, the crime.

I was just wondering how much of it is truly warranted or is it simply us parroting what we hear in the media. There seems to be no good news these days and after talking to a friend of mine who worked in TV, I have to wonder if this is deliberate. Gory details of murder sells. Rape is sensational. A kidnapping is the perfect cover story.

Is it that after hearing about all the horrors in our society, we begin to believe that that is all there is? Ppl begin to get desperate and calls to 'kill them before dey kill u' begin to sink in and find favour with those who feel threatened.

Perhaps there is merit in the argument that we sensationalise crime and make it a norm and in some indirect way, even encourage it. I wont be surprised that following our murder countdown, threats dont pass by way of 'tell Skinteeth he going to be number 52'.

But does the media have a duty to highlight good news? Reward everyday heroes with front page stories? Interview the policeman who responded in his private vehicle to a reported burglary?

I think in Barbados there is an agreement between the media and the govt on the percentage of crime making news. I'm not sure on the details and perhaps another forumite could assist with those. Maybe we consider something along those lines?

[snowbird]

Serinity, it takes a very responsible and socially conscious society to balance the amount of negativity that's put out by the media; however in the Western World those societies are so lacking.
There was a saying at one time that...... "good news doesn't sell papers", and that "you cannot buy the truth for 10cents" (back then that was the cost of a paper :lol: ).
I guess the message being that we as a society have been so programmed to feed off the daily dose of negativity that the media in some twisted way fell they have an obligation to feed that need.... ah la..... "Enquiring minds need to know" (with regard to the justification of one tabloid for printing their garbage).

As Michael Moore pointed out in one of his movies, take a look at the barrage of negative news that's fed the American people every day, and for what? to teach hate, to pit people, communities and societies one against the other, and to justify among other things, the need for that country to act aggressively towards others; well, take a good look at what this has done to that mighty country.

I applaud countries or even communities who take a stand against this type of media activity; I know in my own town and quite a few other communities we have what we refer to as 'Our Happy little Paper', it is just a small community publication ..... but it only prints 'positive' contributions, is this naive of them? No, they are very much aware that most households have access to the other mainstream news papers; it is their way of trying to strike that 'balance'. Unfortunately I think to try to correct this imbalance on a larger scale would be like trying to 'stuff the Gini back into the bottle'.

By the way, the Senior Citizens love those community papers :) .

[BW]

Trinidadians are a pretty negative people. It's quite a contrast when I speak to people within Trinidad, and people from elsewhere. Some of that can undoubtedly be placed on the media, but I would speculate there are deeper roots to that problem (stemming from the aftermath of slavery, indentureship and colonialism). Lord knows we've had a troubled history on this island.

The Barbados situation, I'm not quite sure. I've been told by a few taxi drivers that they indeed 'keep it quiet', but I can't say how true that is. I don't usually follow news here in Grenada, but usually when I turn it on, it's overwhelmingly positive (human interest stories, new airline routes, strange fish formations at the carenage, when cruise ships come in, etc). I've never actually heard the TV news report on a murder or a rape or anything of that sort (well, I take that back, they sometimes report on murders that occurred in Trinidad). :?

I must admit, that certainly improves the quality of life here. Being free of that fear, allows you to more fully enjoy your life. I think very little about walking down at 11pm to get some leg and thigh, since I know I probably won't get killed. Even the day-to-day routine gets better without the constant barrage of bad news.

It's nice to have that, but at the same time, I don't like having news censored. Gayelle is the only local station I get, but I rarely bother to watch their news broadcast. I've sat through entire broadcasts, only to find that they conveniently "forgot" about a couple of important stores (kidnappings, rapes, etc). That's annoying as hell, because I certainly want to know when something happens. Sticking my head in the sand and pretending nothings happening, is just pointless.

[Huma]

I don't think it's I think in Barbados there is an agreement between the media and the govt on the percentage of crime making news. I'm not sure on the details and perhaps another forumite could assist with those. Maybe we consider something along those lines?

Serenity, an independent senator proposed something like this not too long ago (it was about the third time someone suggested it in the last few years), and both the parliamentary and public outcry was mostly against it. Her reasoning had more to do with tourism and foreign investors than the national psyche. Detractors pointed out that shifting bad news to middle pages small stories would decrease the public outcry against crime and cut the government too much slack.

As for whether the newspapers are emphasizing bad news as any sort of demotivating agenda...I don't think that's it. The first few pages focus on the news that sells. It's true that crime is central these days, but I think that's a realistic assessment of what's on people's minds. Part of a newspaper's civic responsibility is to stimulate outrage against negatives like crime and corruption.

Conversely, look at how hard the papers try to sell other positive stories that might not be anywhere as impactful as the negative news. After SEA Exams and during scholarship period, you can be sure that three days in a row will be good news about the results and profiles of the big winners. Same thing goes for stuff like brave citizen rescues, beauty pageants and sports victories. How many days in a row did the Soca Warriors make the headlines? When the vagrant saved the man driving the Benz?

And arguably these stories are much, much more sensationalized than the brutal reality of crime and high prices, which affects everyone in a real and tangible way.

Agree or disagree?

But damned if yuh do or damned if yuh don't in this complaining culture. Bet yuh bottom dollar if newspapers decided to put some NGO family day on de front page and the 16-year-old kidnap victim on page 7, yuh would hear an outcry from hear tuh Toco.

[serenity]

True. But how much of it do we really need to know? How much of it affects our lives directly? Why is every murder-suicide front page news? How is that affecting your daily routine?

Why does the violence of the day before always given front page? Is there nothing else worthy of a front page story? I think there should be more stories done on which murderer was found guilty and sentenced, which robbery was fouled by the timely response of officers, which family moved into their new home, built and partially sponsored by the communities and corporations after fire ravaged the last one.

As difficult as it is to believe, these things do happen. Prosecutors do enjoy victories. Communities do come together to help each other. But it never manages to make news, much less the front page.

Perhaps what we need is balance. Or even a shift in favour of the good news that there is to tell. Not every murder is a story that needs to be covered in detail unless the police wants assistance in finding men of a certain description. Perhaps there can be a story in the Sunday papers covering the number of gang related murders that has occurred during the week and how far the police has reached with investigations.

Its unlikely that ppl will stop buying papers if there is only good news on the front page.

[Chicabonita]

True. But how much of it do we really need to know?

Well, unless you want to live in a bubble-gum, we need to know everything going on. We can't pretend crime doesn't exist if I stop watching the news and then a friend gets killed or pretend the food prices are not increasing and reach the grocery and cannot buy milk again. So even if the Media makes a circus about the whole thing, daily life is the "newspaper" in itself.

[serenity]

True. But how much of it do we really need to know?

Well, unless you want to live in a bubble-gum, we need to know everything going on.

But its not about wanting to put our heads in the sand.

Wouldnt u like to know when suspects are caught as well? When suspects are found guilty? When officers went beyond the call of duty and did something good? Or that's not juicy enough?

I dont need to know about the love triangle that went awry and caused the death of 3 persons. Why? Bec its not news. Its a personal tragedy for the families of those involved. I dont need to know about allegations of police brutality or allegations of underhandedness. Baseless allegations achieve nothing but plant mistrust in the minds of the public. Even if u do report the allegations, dont highlight it as if it were gospel.

If u didnt read the papers for a whole week, what would u have missed that would have had an impact on your life? You probably would not have known about the sale Janouras was having. That's about it.

Have u listened to the news lately? Adonis Ballah was reporting a body that was found somewhere and the way he started the report u'd swear he was reading from a novel. He started with the fact that the neighbourhood was quiet etc, then, dramatic pause, behind the serene appearance there lurks something sinister .. a body of a man was found..

Really now. What happen to reporting facts fairly without the drama? Was all that really nec? The first impression anyone listening would get is that even backward villages not safe anymore - death is everywhere!!! Panic!

Steups...

[snowbird]

Huma if ..... Part of a newspaper's civic responsibility is to stimulate outrage against negatives like crime and corruption....... surely it is not working, for the simple reason, how long have they been reporting their news in this way? and as a result, how much outrage have they evoked in the citizens. I think if anything by constantly giving all of the 'gory details', they have now made the general population so 'desensitized' that they evoke little or no emotion; I generally refer to it as the .... "two week of holding yuh head and bawling" then it's back to business as usual.

I'll give you an examples of a crime sensationalized. When that young child Sean Luke was murdered, was it really necessary to put into print every gory detail of how the child was killed? was it not enough to report that the child died as a result of a "brutal act of buggery, using a foreign object"? did anyone other than the 'members of the jury' really need to know what was used, the size and shape of it, how long it was, or what damage it did to him internally, weather he bled to death or not? the bottom line is the child was murdered. Given the details published, do you really think that anyone held and charged for that crime will be able to get a fair trial? And what of the outrage this media coverage was suppose to evoke? How many people hit the streets in protest of this crime like they did in Venezuela when a young child about his age was kidnapped and murdered (it made international TV); how many people marched on the Parliament and demand that the laws be changed or amended instantly to ensure that perpetrators of this sort of crime regardless of their age or circumstance, face the full extent of the law?

No Huma I disagree that the way crime is reported in T&T serves any useful purpose other than to make money for the media reporting it.

[Huma]

I'll give you an examples of a crime sensationalized. When that young child Sean Luke was murdered, was it really necessary to put into print every gory detail of how the child was killed? was it not enough to report that the child died as a result of a "brutal act of buggery, using a foreign object"? did anyone other than the 'members of the jury' really need to know what was used, the size and shape of it, how long it was, or what damage it did to him internally, weather he bled to death or not? the bottom line is the child was murdered. Given the details published, do you really think that anyone held and charged for that crime will be able to get a fair trial? And what of the outrage this media coverage was suppose to evoke? How many people hit the streets in protest of this crime like they did in Venezuela when a young child about his age was kidnapped and murdered (it made international TV); how many people marched on the Parliament and demand that the laws be changed or amended instantly to ensure that perpetrators of this sort of crime regardless of their age or circumstance, face the full extent of the law?


You kidding, right?

Especially with regards to the bold part...you joking, right?

How many dozens of marches, protests, rallies, strikes and red/prayer days against crime have been held in Trinidad in the last 4 years or so? But that eh outrage.

In fact vigilantes burned down a house belonging to the family of one of Sean Luke's attackers. They burned down the house belonging to that little girl who was raped and beaten to death by her father. About a year later, when another boy in Enterprise was raped and beaten to death, the Police had to hold back a vigilante mob who told them that they had one hour to catch the killer or else they would take matters into their own hands. And that's happened a few times in the last few years. But ay...that's not outrage.

But I doh blame yuh fuh being ignorant of these things, seeing as yuh doh actually live here.

If people are getting desensitized, it's because the reality of the situation is desensitizing them, not the reports. A lot of people made a lot of effort, and not much has improved.

[Huma]

If u didnt read the papers for a whole week, what would u have missed that would have had an impact on your life? You probably would not have known about the sale Janouras was having. That's about it.


Serenity, do you sit down and read the entire newspaper on a morning?

Because plenty of what you saying is lacking, is reported regularly. If you have a problem with what is being reported on the first few pages, sure, I can understand your point. But don't act as if the first 5 pages is the entire newspaper.

Do you read the Features section? That entire section is usually feel-good stuff and community stuff. And long before Features you can see neutral and positive stories oin the news sections.

No offense, but I think you're exaggerating the issue because of how down/angry this crime situation has you feeling.

[dancerboy]

NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS. First of all, if we look at news papers printed in major cities in the world, the format is the same. Take a look at, NY DAILY NEWS, BOSTON GLOBE, THE WASHINGTON POST, MIAMI HERALD, ETC. The crime is on the front page, the sports are usually on the back pages, the letters to the editor are usually in the middle. The business section almost at the back. So when TRINIS act as though by putting the crime on the front pages, is sensational, and by some round about way is contributing to the escalation of crime, they need to think again. Whenever, i visit any place,the first thing i do is read all the newspapers i can get my hands on. I want to know where the crime-ridden areas. If you visit THE BIG APPLE, you read the papers, you will keep away from areas, like EAST NEW YORK, BRONXVILLE,IN BROOKLYN, SOUTH JAMAICA IN QUEENS, and SOUTH BRONX, to name a few places. The news paper is there to inform. If the crime is hidden, and unfortunately some one gets murdered in a particular area where crime is rampant, the cry will be how come the papers didn't inform the puplic. SERENITY, WHEN LAST HAVE YOU BEEN TO LAVENTILLE, THE BETHAM, WATERHOLE ,CARENAGE, OR ANY WHERE THAT THE NEWSPAPERS REPORT AS CRIME HOTSPOTS ? If the papers didn't highlight these 'bad' areas you might just wander into some of them.

DANCERBOY

[serenity]

I'm saying Huma, with a calm, rational state of mind and thinking, that there should be less reporting on the crime that does not have a national impact or potential for one.
I'm saying that there needs to be more balance in the reporting. To me it seems very one-sided and while I hear about every case that is won against the Government, I hardly, if ever see cases where false allegations have been laid to rest and public officials have been vindicated.
I'm saying that there is too much sensationalism and speculation in the reports of crime.

Dancerboy, once u live here, u are bound to be aware of the crime hotspots. And nowhere did I indicate that there should not be any reports of crime whatsoever.

[Sirius]

The newspapers are supposed to report incidents of crime no matter how frequent or gory they may be. The problem we have is the insensitive, sensationalist way of writing that distorts and/or omits the facts in the interest of a hot story. Criticize the quality of reporting, but don't criticize the media for making the reports.

[serenity]

Criticize the quality of reporting, but don't criticize the media for making the reports.

Because? ....steups

Not everything that happens is news.
Not every gory detail is news.

Media outlets have to cater to their audiences, and they compete with one another to provide what they think their "customers" want. While this can certainly mean honest and factual news reporting, it rarely is. It can also mean shorter, more exciting stories; flashy, sexy, or shocking images; crime, death, disaster, tragedy; confrontation, violence, controversy; or anything else that might attract viewers or readers.

And thats where we're at - focusing attention on lurid, highly emotional stories, often featuring a gripping plot but devoid of significance to most people's lives.


In a Los Angeles Times poll, 80% of respondents stated that the media’s coverage of violent crime had increased their personal fear of being a victim (Braxton 1997). A 1998 report by Public Agenda found that daily TV news viewers were more likely to think that crime and drugs were Baltimore’s number one problem than were those who watch the news less frequently (67% vs. 42%) (Farkas & Duffet 1998). Despite declining crime rates in Baltimore, one woman there stated, "I get more nervous and worried the more I see" (quoted in Farkas & Duffet 1998) http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/media/media.html


Then of course there are the recent claims of skewed reporting by the residents of Macaulay (sp?) who said the media made crime in the village seem far worse than it actually was.

[trini123]

I do not believe all in the news is all hype. I listen to teh news in Toronto to stay physically away from where there're a lot of West Indians. Every bad story seems to end in "... we're looking for a male, black ...". :lol:

[Mr Majik]

I do not believe all in the news is all hype. I listen to teh news in Toronto to stay physically away from where there're a lot of West Indians. Every bad story seems to end in "... we're looking for a male, black ...". :lol:I read the Toronto Sun and Star, as well as the Hamilton Spectator, every day. The Sun is the only one of the three that purposely leads one to this conclusion.
The Star and Spec are reluctant to state the race of a suspect, and do so only in cerain circumstances where it is believed the info would assist in arresting a dangerous felon.

The Sun is also guilty of the sensationalism that Serenity talks about in T&T papers, although their brand of sensationalism comes out when it is a particularly disturbing crime involving a black suspect and a white victim, or any victm who is a member of one of society's groups that require special protection, ie; the elderly, children or the disabled.

I agree with Huma and Sirius in that the papers should report on all significant crime, but I also agree that the sensationalism needs to tone down. We really don't need to see someone hanging from rafters, or bloodied bodies laying on streets and in ditches.

[Sirius]

The principle of freedom of the press means we cannot go demanding that a publication refrain from posting about one incident or another. To do so would undermine the concept of a free and fair society. What we CAN do is to insist on better quality journalism and factual reporting over sensationalism. That is my point Serenity.

[serenity]

I disagree Sirius. Free and fair society is not threatened by the media making a conscious effort to be a little fairer and discerning in what they choose to report. Would u say Barbados, with its contract with the media, is a less free and fair society? It is not a question of stiffling stories or covering them up. But, as I keep pointing out, not everything is news. Another case in point is the
Danah Alleyne fracas with which the media went above and beyond. Besides, there are many other things that would easily qualify as things the public should really know but investigative journalism seems to be a joke in this country.

[Sirius]

Yes Serenity, I would say that if the B'dos government has a contract witht he newspapers to only report a percentage of the crime then it IS a less free society. There are no two ways about it: If you tell the papers to not report on some crimes, you have infringed on freedom of information. We can mandate better quality, i.e. factual reporting, not printing photos of people lying dead on a road etc., but NOT refraining from reporting on incidents they wish to report on.

There is a thin line to be drawn between ensuring quality reporting and dictating what information the public is allowed to gain. The minute you tell the media not to report on something you have crossed the line - and because some countries do it does not make it OK for us to do it too.

[sheppy]

Serenity...good topic...my point here is going to be controversial tho...

I too have heard the talk about crime and the heightened sense of desperation and fear when reading the latest homicide being related in such sensationalistic means such as " he walked in to the home of "x" and opened fire with a semi-automatic gun leaving the victim's body riddled with bullets." and I think it preys on the minds and fears of those people that 'feel' more victimized.

The same way these hundreds of FALSE e-mail forwards about women being raped in car parks, gangs that target certain people in certain areas by following the m.o carefully described, women being tricked by police officers into driving back to police stations etc etc etc.... its all about making the maximum leverage out of a bad situation. but the end result is paranoia.

I'm not saying bad things don't happen, or that we shouldn't know about the bad things that happen. But it is clear to me that people now have an appetite (albeit morbid curiousity) for these sensationalist reports even if it is just to justify their already unreasonable paranoia.
They whisper among friends .. "did you hear about "x"...you know her brother was also robbed some years ago".
I actually feel a bit of pity for these people that now use their connection to these many crimes as a commonality to share with each other.. " oh so your uncle's ex-wife neighbour was robbed too?" (welcome to the family..how pathetic)

IF this country was not a melting pot of sheep, the media's indescretion and irresponsibile, spurious (at best) reporting would have passed over many a discerning head....but instead it is gobbled up by many, feeding the fear monkey.

[serenity]

Praise the Lord.
Sheppy's back, yay!

And THAT is what I'm saying here. Its no longer about genuine interest in what is happening and where this country is going. Its about the latest bachannal. And after having similar discussions with a couple of ppl in the media industry, that is how they see it as well. Crime reporters steups when someone hasnt been killed, bec now they have to go look for something to report. These reports certainly dont come out of a sombre sense of responsibility.

[Sirius]

And isn't that the point I am arguing here? The media HAS to be more responsible. However, I am also saying that calling for them to not report on a portion of crimes is also irresponsible and an infringement of freedom of the press and freedom of information.

There is a vast difference between saying, "You need to stop reporting every gory detail, stick to the facts and be mindful of the images you print" and saying, "You're only allowed to report on x crimes per day."

Huge, huge difference.

I see many other reports in the papers. They are there, good and bad. This is because I know that shocking news will make the front page, but it does not mean there is not other content on the other pages. If I don't want to read about crime I just won't read those articles - but freedom of the press provides the right of the media to print them.

[serenity]

Its a good thing u edited your post Sirius bec that comment about our violence-prone culture was kinda pushing it.

I agree with ur post.

Your points are valid ones if the circumstances were that the government was trying to stifle the media or infringe on its freedom to report.

But those arent the circumstances that I am advocating.

I'm saying it would be nice if the media was mindful of what they put in the papers, esp the front page and the impact it has on the country. If u honestly believe that the media with its current status is free to report everything and do so fearlessly, u are naive. There are other parties who have a vested interest in what the media reports and the angle from which they do so. There are stories that never gets told.

I have a friend who worked on an environmental project in Tobago as part of a team whose duty it was to do the nec research and sign off on it being okay for a hotel to break ground. He did all the tests and research and decided it would be criminal (environmentally) for this particular area to be disturbed and handed over to construction. His bosses were told to give the ok. Nobody was really interested in what the studies said. He put together a bundle with all the related documents and sent it to the newspapers. Did u hear about it? No? Thats bec nobody ever ran the story.

So, in the same way our 'free' press can choose not to report certain stories for the benefit of certain groups, perhaps they can opt to do the same for the benefit of the country.

[Sirius]

See you're talking about "opting" not to print articles. As a free press, the company in charge can choose what they want and don't want to publish can't they? It may not be have the outcome we want, but it is their inalienable right. I don't know how fearlessly they can print what they want as I do not pretend to have inside information. But if party A does not want a story printed and the newspaper decides to go along with them and not print it - it is still their right to do so. There will always be interests inside the media and unless some sort of threat is made and a report filed, there is zilch to be done about it.

Once again, all we can do is insist on factual reporting and push for future reporters to have their qualifications in communications etc. If you think a particular paper is doing a poor job then just don't buy it and encourage others thinking like you to follow suit. The newspapers operate for profit and if they know something is selling, they will sell it like any other business.


On a side note, what edit are you talking about? I honestly don't recall writing or editing anything about a violence prone culture with regard to this thread.

[Huma]

You wrote something like that in a post in the crime-free Carnival thread. Probably a mix-up on serenity's part.

[serenity]

Yes Sirius, I do apologise. It was on the carnival thread.

[KFCSpicy]

Such pretty words. In the end Serenity is damn right. Hence my posts in various threads here saying who gives a rats behind about the latest murder? In the end none of us knows who will be next and even if we did it will not help us much. If you knew that the next victim of crime is some man in Belmont whilst coming home in a taxi would you then avoid going to Belmont at all costs that day? Maybe you would. There in lies the power of the papers report. But give me a break when some of you pretend that knowing about every death makes a multitude of difference to the way you lead your lives presently.

People are fundamentally people and things are done hugely in the heat of the moment so based on this crimes of this nature will never go away. I personally doh need to know about certain things day in day out. I am busy trying to lead my life positively. I just don't read the papers as much as I used to. Here I only read it because when you are on an hour or more long journey by train or bus you tend to shy away from human contact by burying your head in the newspapers or book. I am amazed at little things like the man who said he didn't murder the woman he just happened upon her dead body and had sex with her....TWICE. sigh!

None of the reports in the papers make me think "Oh my God I must stay away from black people, white people, chinese or indians". That's just a phenomanally idiotic mindset for anyone to have not to mention blatantly racist regardless of your race.

If I used the wildly biased and inaccurate reports of the newpapers to gauge my behaviour then lawd have mercy on me and people around me. I will be racist, aethiest, even more bitchy and hate just about everyone and every group around me. I would live in a paranoid world of fear instead of trying to learn about things and why things happen.

The news is fundamentally important but bad news is not. Scaremongering is not. Plain old gossip is not.

I really don't give a rats arse about Zoey being pregnant, or whether Britney the loser is doing another rounds of rehab or who lost weight. I care about the RSPCA's views on the snakes in carnival performances and the use of untrained horses in another calypso performance though. I care about knowing the budget cuts and rises in prices that will affect me and mine. I care about statistics that are factual and I care to know that Mr. Raj helped 20 homeless dogs find homes as opposed to the murderous exploits of the man from de beetham who chose his path in life thereby orchestrating his end.

[serenity]

Such pretty words. In the end Serenity is damn right. .

Thank u, thank u. I never tire of hearing it. :mrgreen:

Sirius, I know we cant MAKE them choose to report one story over another, but wont it be nice if they did? Oh, but we differ there too, dont we? U are in favour of the consumer choosing what they want to read rather than the reporter choosing what to report. Cool.

[Sirius]

Sirius, I know we cant MAKE them choose to report one story over another, but wont it be nice if they did? Oh, but we differ there too, dont we? U are in favour of the consumer choosing what they want to read rather than the reporter choosing what to report. Cool.

Well put simply, the latter just slaps the face of the consumer who is the one receiving the final product. Consumers choose. They buy the papers more quickly if there are shocking stories on the front pages. Their purchasing power is what drives the kinds of stories and advertisements that are contained in the pages. If the buying public at large did not want it then the papers would have experienced a drop in sales and be forced to run more positive stories.

We, as in you and I wanting to see nicer stories are not in the majority. It would not be "nice" if we could make the papers choose from a quota of bad news, because the majority is happy to read about murder, rape, kidnapping and robbery. I am not about to put myself in the position of demanding that the will of the people be suppressed. We live under a principle of majority rule and I am not going to support eroding that principle further than it already has been.

It is a simple matter that boils down to the will of the people. The media is a powerful tool, and we can either allow it to be governed by the free will of the people's purchasing power, or we can lock it down and govern what people will and won't read and start down a very, very slippery slope that ends in a situation where the populace is told what to think and how to think it. Very scary thought.

In summary?
If you want to see an improvement in the quality of reporting, I am 100% behind you and I think it should have been done a long time ago.
If you want to see the papers made to choose what to print and what not to print, I am 100% against you on the basis of preserving a democratic society.

[serenity]

It is a simple matter that boils down to the will of the people. The media is a powerful tool, and we can either allow it to be governed by the free will of the people's purchasing power, or we can lock it down and govern what people will and won't read and start down a very, very slippery slope that ends in a situation where the populace is told what to think and how to think it. Very scary thought.



The will of the ppl? How much of what is reported is affected by the will of the ppl really? We would all love to hear what really happened or is happening with the Scarborough Hospital. Who is doing that investigative report? We'd all love to know who are the ppl buying up Tobago and how it is likely to affect our country, but who is doing that analysis? Is there truth to RLM's story of Manning having a house in Germany? There are many many other things which we'd all really love to know.

To me there is already a 'lock-down' on information that would be 'real' stories, rather than the dramatised version of the latest hold-up.Those are the stories which might move the population to outrage and hopefully, action.

So, by all means, support the position of 'free' media. But lets not bring in fallacies like 'the ppl's will.'

[Sirius]

Serenity, there mere fact that you're calling the statement of the people's will a fallacy is a very disturbing thought. We all know there is rampant corruption and poor reporting out there, and that the will of the people is already compromised. But this is not excuse to further erode what is left of it! I have said that I 100% support higher quality reporting. By all means, reporters should do more homework, be more investigative, be more factual and at the end of the day provide a higher quality newspaper to the public.

But when you start finding excuses why we should be telling the papers what they should print then we have reached a very dangerous place! If the people do not want to read the kinds of articles currently being printed then they won't buy the papers as readily as they do right now. Simple supply versus demand. If supply falls because people don't want to read what is there now, the papers will just HAVE to make adjustments to regain their revenues.

I am finding it deeply disturbing how many people today are trying to rationalize why it would be OK to make decisions for others! And let's face it, that is exactly what you are doing if your position is that we should be able to govern some sort of quota over the kinds of articles the papers can report. Upholding a high quality of reporting and governing what people will and won't be able to read in the papers are two vastly different things Serenity.

[Chicabonita]

Journalists write the articles the way they do because that's what most people like to read, therefore they will stick to what the majority wants not the minority. We have different types of newspapers in Trinidad, each reaching a different portion of the population. It is up to us to make the choice.

[serenity]

But when you start finding excuses why we should be telling the papers what they should print then we have reached a very dangerous place!

Really? Did I say we should dictate to anyone what they should print?

Sirius, we both want to see the same thing - responsible reporting. I'm saying that responsible reporting includes picking carefully the stories u want to report on the and the angle u choose to adopt with them, if any.


If the people do not want to read the kinds of articles currently being printed then they won't buy the papers as readily as they do right now. Simple supply versus demand.

That is rubbish bec all the three dailies are the same and the public is stuck with them. If there was another paper that provided quality reporting, but was not supported by the public, then your argument would make sense. Thats like a country with three television stations that feature cartoons all day and u saying they do that bec the public wants it that way and if the public dont want it then they wont watch tv. How many times I hear ppl say they watch so and so show on tv bec there wasnt anything else?

Upholding a high quality of reporting and governing what people will and won't be able to read in the papers are two vastly different things Serenity.

Or it might not be, Sirius.

Maybe its the same thing.
Maybe a high quality of reporting would mean that the media would be more responsible in which stories they report on, or highlight.

[Sirius]

Really? Did I say we should dictate to anyone what they should print?

Sirius, we both want to see the same thing - responsible reporting. I'm saying that responsible reporting includes picking carefully the stories u want to report on the and the angle u choose to adopt with them, if any.

Serenity, you alluded to that position, intentionally or not, in your initial batch of posts. Later on you said, and I quote, "Sirius, I know we cant MAKE them choose to report one story over another, but wont it be nice if they did?" which only served to reinforce that position. Really now, what am I supposed to gather from that? To me responsible reporting does include deciding what stories they want to report on and the angle to take, but it has to be balanced with the kinds of stories the consumer wants to read. The newspaper is a business. If crime news sells, then they will print crime news. To me what we have to focus on is the quality of those articles.


That is rubbish bec all the three dailies are the same and the public is stuck with them. If there was another paper that provided quality reporting, but was not supported by the public, then your argument would make sense. Thats like a country with three television stations that feature cartoons all day and u saying they do that bec the public wants it that way and if the public dont want it then they wont watch tv. How many times I hear ppl say they watch so and so show on tv bec there wasnt anything else?

I hope you'll forgive me if I also say that position sounds like rubbish. The comparison does not even reflect the real situation. If the consumer is going to be so foolish as to buy and read regardless of whether they like something or not, then they deserve every bit of negative news they get. Ultimately it is whether the consumer reads or not that dictates if the newspaper can turn a profit or not.

Each paper makes huge revenues not just off daily sales, but off advertisers who pay arms, legs and kidneys for ad placement based on what market research shows people read the most. If the consumer wants to read about crime, crime crime, then the market has made its choice.


Or it might not be, Sirius.

Maybe its the same thing.
Maybe a high quality of reporting would mean that the media would be more responsible in which stories they report on, or highlight.

Which by sheer virtue of the newspaper being run for profit, will simply not happen unless the consumer wants it. Until the consumer indicates they don't want to read about so much crime then all we can ask for is that the existing articles be written more professionally.


Perhaps what you are looking for is a more personal, investigative kind of reporting into a vast array of matters that is done out of love for reporting rather than trying to turn a profit. This is hard to pull off on a retail publication that exists to turn a profit. It is however done with internet based reporting by people who blog either as a hobby or for personal satisfaction. Such reporting will however never get the kind of exposure as the newspapers and will always be a niche market. To do that in a printed publication and make enough revenue to warrant its own existence, you will need a wider market than just T&T. Perhaps a regional publication along those lines can work.

[serenity]

We still talking bout this? Sirius boy, yuh have real stamina. :D

Ok, here we go:

Me saying '...wont it be nice if they did?' meant wont it be nice if the media houses for themselves took it upon themselves to do what I've been suggesting - better reporting, a focus on quality stories.

My position is rubbish?! :shock: :lol: You're forgiven.
The quality that the newspapers offer now is, on average, poor to mediocre. Yet they have a wide circulation. Why? Is it that ppl like to read nonsense? Does the literate population have a penchant for nonsensical writing? No, I dont think so. Ah sure Falcon and Jacques and dem does still read the newspapers even though every other thread is dem complaining about the nonsense they read. Its bec its our primary source for news. If we want to have an idea about the goings on in the country, we dont have a choice but to buy one or other version of the dailies and therefore at the mercy of their bad reporting and sensationalism. What is the alternative?

Even if what the ppl want is dramatised bar brawls in the headlines, where is the ambition and need to have your paper stand out as a serious paper? One of quality. There seems to be an ever decreasing divide bet the Guardian and Express and papers like the Mirror and the Bomb.

Your last paragraph I can agree with. Coincidentally, i checked out your blog for the first time today. Cool stuff. U write well. (sorry I cant be more eloquent in my praise, its been a long day and words escape me at the moment.)

[Mr Majik]

But when you start finding excuses why we should be telling the papers what they should print then we have reached a very dangerous place!

Really? Did I say we should dictate to anyone what they should print?
I think in Barbados there is an agreement between the media and the govt on the percentage of crime making news. I'm not sure on the details and perhaps another forumite could assist with those. Maybe we consider something along those lines?


Serenity...the above statement in red is from your opening post on this thread. Your use of the word 'maybe' is irrelevant in deciding that you do, in fact, sanction the idea of governing what the papers print.

It's the same as when, after hearing about so many murders, someone says, "well...maybe they should start hanging people again," or when assessing the high traffic fatality situation one says, "well...maybe the police need to start the breathalyser program and start enforcing the laws of the road more."

With such a statement you cannot wrong anyone for concluding that that is your position.

Aide from that, Sirius is correct about the papers printing what they feel they need to to sell papers. They aren't going to change for people like us who want to see less graphic murder reporting. Not as long as their circulation maintains or rises.
If circulation drops, they will then ask why, and if they determine it is because people don't want to read those things anymore, then they will surely change how they report the news.
Advertisers would drop out, or insist on lower advertising rates if readership drops. Advertising dollars are what really dictate what goes in a newspaper, not the few dollars they get from sales of the paper.
Print sales rarely even cover the cost of the newsprint, let alone the cost of producing the finished paper.

[Sirius]

Serenity, complacency is no excuse. People do not necessarily need to buy or even read the papers in any great detail if they don't appreciate what is going on. The alternative is they can peruse the most interesting headlines at the office, browse through quickly online or just watch the evening news on TV. (While on that matter, CNC3 Evening News and Shelly Dass' " Big Story" left me with a very good impression last year. I need to start back watching.)

Mr. Magik made mention of circulation. If people are not pleased with the reporting, they can just not read it as much, as described above. This means word will get out that circulation has fallen, and advertisers will want reduced rates. The newspapers will then have to change how they run their stories. As long as the readers are complacent (or just happy reading all the bad news!) then that is just how it will be. This is why I continue to repeat that all we can do is ask for better quality in terms of style and factual writing, but not in terms of how much of a given kind of story makes the headlines. If the papers don't write what people want to read, they will lose valuable advertising revenue.

Thanks for the comment about the blog though, I'm glad you like it. :D Today was actually the first time this year I updated it - the Bridge to Terabithia entry. I like blogging, I just don't always have the time to sit down and write good quality stuff to put up.

[serenity]

Mr Majik, just for clarification and by no means to further this debate, my reference to the agreement bet the govt and the media in bdos was based on hearsay. Thus the use of the word 'maybe'. I cannot be firm in an endorsing an arrangement, the terms or circumstances of which I have conducted no independent research on. That was why I sought to outline what I heard of the arrangement and left the possibility of correction open to other forumites who are in position to clarify the agreemt.

As far as I understood that agreemt however, it was not a situation of the govt imposing anything on the media houses. The govt saw a need for curbing the crime reports in the interest of their tourism industry and they approached the media houses who, recognizing the need, agreed to certain terms in the interest of the country. I was hoping the media houses at home would be so similarly inclined.

But now that we've discussed this matter to death :geek: , I see that it is a foolish hope as finances rule everything. And as it was probably the driving force behind the agreement in bdos, we cannot hope to see the same bec we do not suffer a similar predicament here.