I've lifted this comment from another blog because it makes a very important point about how we (New Zealand public) think or don't think about events that should engage us more deeply.
I have been thinking about the Pike River mine situation and wondering why it is so difficult to define what it is that is happening there - almost as though there has been a fog of confusion drawn around the events.
This commenter makes a strong case around the way news is handled by our media and the media masters.
See what you make of it.
Bill 10
17 January 2011 at 10:04 am
Wonder how much of this lack of information and a seeming perception by those in authority that a substantive level of accountability is unnecessary, is due to the media culture developed and honed over the years?
I’m referring to how issues are routinely reported in a descriptive rather than analytical fashion. I gave up watching NZ programmes that claimed to be informative some time ago ( 60 minutes 20/20 etc ) because they seemed incapable of imparting information or encouraging a thoughtful response. In a culture where no searching questions are asked and no thoughtful answers expected on matters of general concern or public interest; where statements and opinions replace any encouragement of inquiry, those in power or authority will ‘naturally’ expect to account for their actions to no greater level than suggested by that general culture. ie not at all.
From avian flu to climate collapse or any number of specific issues, we have been ‘trained’ to settle for banal brush overs and brush offs; to expect emotive entanglement over intellectual engagement.
So is it any surprise that whoever made the calls on Pike River should expect nothing beyond the media generating sentimental mash potato shmaltz in the ‘public mind’ over the fact that bodies are to lie unrecovered in a mine? And not much else? I think those in authority would be genuinely shocked if anything more substantive was suddenly expected of them.
The media will focus on the displeasure of the families of the dead at Pike River. But they won’t go beyond that. They won’t encourage intellectual curiosity. They won’t search out information that might aid a rigorous intellectual analysis of what was what and why certain courses of action were pursued over others. These things are necessary precursors if accountability is sought.
Real life is just soap opera and reality TV now. Quite an achievement if you pause to think about it.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The comment is valid, and is a major frustration I have with the media. Far too much opinion dressed up as "analysis on a plate".
I long ago realised my opinions were being formed by the media, and I decided I'd inform myself so I could actually weigh the issue rather than have the answer told to me.
Thus, like many around me, we've moved online and use multiple information sources and debate the merits or flaws in the opinions and few facts that are offered up by mainstream media sources.
The media don't invest in investigation any more. They take press releases and add a comment; they find it cheaper to interview "an expert" or "a witness" and call their job done. News is a wrapper for their advertising revenue, and needs to be nothing more substantial than a dab of honey on burnt toast.
The media have even started employing or using bloggers to add a bit of analysis (opinion) to their stories to show they embrace the new media.
But even using blogs to debate and test 25% of the facts known to us leaves us unable to reach a reasonable conclusion. There's still too much information missing.
The media offers up a light meal, and we take it because it is the only thing on offer. It's not a matter of us being stupid, it's a matter of us being complacent.
Although complacency makes us stupid in the long run.
The problems are many, not just with the media (because as I said, investigative journalism is expensive).
This is why I am a big proponent of Open Government initiatives. We also need a shake up in the private sector on access to information, but that's a different type of problem.
Zen - somehow your comment stayed in my email and didn't show here. I've moved it across and now I'll read it!
You are very perceptive.
Perhaps I ought to have titled my post are we being kept stupid?'
Starving the populace of information and filling the gap with entertainment ain't healthy at all. Open Government eh!
Don't know much about it but it's time I looked, I can see.
Thanks.
I totally agree Robert.
I want to know what the hell happened. Where is Peter Whittal?
Is that really it?
She's all over, nothin to see here folks, move along, move along.
Well I say f@$k that!!
I want to know who the hell is responsible, and how they came to the conclusion they did regarding the recovery.
If it really is impossible to get them out why don't they just tell us why instead of leaving us all to speculate.
My attitude to all this is changing rapidly due to the distinct odour of 'rat'.
John Campbell started with a hiss and a roar and, well, look how weak he is now
Shunda - you're more likely to smell rodent, being close to the scene as you are.
I'd have thought that destroying/sealing-off the scene of an investigation would be the number-one thing NOT to do.
As for making murky the waters - that's been done very well, thanks to the various media commentators who swing in to keep Key's halo glowing no matter what.
Bio - I haven't seen Campbell for a long time now though when he was in Riverton, I noted that he's short! Has he gone limp as well?
Thank you for saving my comment! I typed it in, it saved OK and then later disappeared.
"Open Government" is something I think the Greens would be keen on as much as true Conservatives.
It is rather an encompassing concept, including greater public participation in policy making, community and stakeholder consultation, public participation in services delivery (think of government as an enabler, rather than a provider and you'll get an idea. To explain "enabler" think about Apple releasing the iPhone. They provided a platform (an enabler) for companies and individuals to provide apps, and although the iPhone only ships with a dozen or so apps, you could pick from over 100,000 apps a couple of years later, all at low cost. They provided GPS services, but didn't need to come up with the many novel ways of using it (but other people sure did).
The other baseline for open government concept was the OIA back in 1982. That was game changing legislation that has had a very positive impact on democracy. It's already out of date. Pro-active disclosure and government publishing all of there data sets (usually as XML or CSV) are the two new game changing moves that need to be backed by further legislation to ensure these ideas are properly fostered. A post for another day I guess..
Oh, but I'll add that the benefit of open government allows the "new media" (bloggers, public using social networking, special interest orgs) to go to the source data and do far more than the media have been doing. It will change the face of media more than the mainstream media re-inventing itself.
sorry on the grammatical errors, such as: "all their data sets"
Thanks Zen - I'm ruminating on that.
CopyLeft and Open Source must fit in there too I'm guessing.
Tomorrow, I'll study.
Post a Comment