Helping journalists connect global to local has been a theme of Pulitzer Center's work. One of our grant programs, Bringing Stories Home, is all about that. More and more we're trying to actively connect global/national outlets with local journalists/outlets in places like Africa, and the demand for this "service" keeps growing.
How many outlets these days can support reporting on international events, even if they want to?
You've put your finger on a vitally important point. I will share two relevant personal memories.
In 1985 I attended the Stanford Publishing Course: a 3-week retreat for mid-career journalists and other print media professionals on Stanford's campus. One keynote speaker was the editor of Newsweek; for reasons I can't fathom, his name pops into my mind now: Maynard Parker. During Q&A I asked him the question you might have raised: how is it consistent with the central values of journalism (I probably used the word "objectivity" which was still in vogue then, although we word it differently today) for major media outlets to cover everything through an American lens?
This was 1985, the heart of the Reagan era: "Morning in America," and all that. All I recall of Parker's response was its gist: an America-centric view in reporting the news was inevitable and in the main justified. I vaguely recall the audience giving a sympathetic murmur in my direction, but no applause or anything else suggestive of strong support.
The second memory is from 2011's Arab Spring. The insurrection centered in Cairo's Tahrir Square had just deposed Hosni Mubarak, and the world watched the events in Egypt and elsewhere with bated breath. Flipping channels among CNN and the 3 old-line TV networks, I was dismayed to see they had literally no one on the ground. (Yes I do recall CNN's Clarissa Ward was raped in Tahrir Square. Either that happened after the moment I'm recalling, or it happened before and she'd been the only US reporter on the scene and no one took her place.) ALL the "reporting" on ALL 4 networks was confined to audio-only phone calls with terrified American tourists and business people stranded in their Cairo hotel rooms as the world churned beyond their doors. They didn't even have audio from Egyptian government officials or law enforcement... let alone calls with rebel leaders or participants.
So I flipped to the BBC. Although I had long heard people say their coverage was superior to any American outlet, I assumed that was mostly because the BBC followed the worldwide party line that Jewish people aren't human (i.e., that any concept filed under "human rights" is applicable to every group except Jews... except of course when Jews are the perpetrators).
What I saw was a great revelation to me. BBC was doing REAL REPORTING! And lots of it. Their coverage of the events in Tahrir Square was dominated by interviews with many parties who really mattered; just as one would expect from a major TV network.
Another thing I noted was that many of their reporters were OLD WOMEN! That was clearly a feature not a bug: their 50- and 60-something female reporters were GOOD AT THEIR JOB. The contrast with American TV -- where physical beauty is the first (and sometimes the last) credential needed for on-air reporters -- was mindblowing. (The beauty requirement for American on-air reporters isn't limited to Fox. It also seems to be in force at CNN and MSNBC, albeit with somewhat different parameters: the men there are sometimes more attractive than the women.)
Spot on, as always.
Helping journalists connect global to local has been a theme of Pulitzer Center's work. One of our grant programs, Bringing Stories Home, is all about that. More and more we're trying to actively connect global/national outlets with local journalists/outlets in places like Africa, and the demand for this "service" keeps growing.
How many outlets these days can support reporting on international events, even if they want to?
Memorable line: if we opt to do less to shape the world…
You've put your finger on a vitally important point. I will share two relevant personal memories.
In 1985 I attended the Stanford Publishing Course: a 3-week retreat for mid-career journalists and other print media professionals on Stanford's campus. One keynote speaker was the editor of Newsweek; for reasons I can't fathom, his name pops into my mind now: Maynard Parker. During Q&A I asked him the question you might have raised: how is it consistent with the central values of journalism (I probably used the word "objectivity" which was still in vogue then, although we word it differently today) for major media outlets to cover everything through an American lens?
This was 1985, the heart of the Reagan era: "Morning in America," and all that. All I recall of Parker's response was its gist: an America-centric view in reporting the news was inevitable and in the main justified. I vaguely recall the audience giving a sympathetic murmur in my direction, but no applause or anything else suggestive of strong support.
The second memory is from 2011's Arab Spring. The insurrection centered in Cairo's Tahrir Square had just deposed Hosni Mubarak, and the world watched the events in Egypt and elsewhere with bated breath. Flipping channels among CNN and the 3 old-line TV networks, I was dismayed to see they had literally no one on the ground. (Yes I do recall CNN's Clarissa Ward was raped in Tahrir Square. Either that happened after the moment I'm recalling, or it happened before and she'd been the only US reporter on the scene and no one took her place.) ALL the "reporting" on ALL 4 networks was confined to audio-only phone calls with terrified American tourists and business people stranded in their Cairo hotel rooms as the world churned beyond their doors. They didn't even have audio from Egyptian government officials or law enforcement... let alone calls with rebel leaders or participants.
So I flipped to the BBC. Although I had long heard people say their coverage was superior to any American outlet, I assumed that was mostly because the BBC followed the worldwide party line that Jewish people aren't human (i.e., that any concept filed under "human rights" is applicable to every group except Jews... except of course when Jews are the perpetrators).
What I saw was a great revelation to me. BBC was doing REAL REPORTING! And lots of it. Their coverage of the events in Tahrir Square was dominated by interviews with many parties who really mattered; just as one would expect from a major TV network.
Another thing I noted was that many of their reporters were OLD WOMEN! That was clearly a feature not a bug: their 50- and 60-something female reporters were GOOD AT THEIR JOB. The contrast with American TV -- where physical beauty is the first (and sometimes the last) credential needed for on-air reporters -- was mindblowing. (The beauty requirement for American on-air reporters isn't limited to Fox. It also seems to be in force at CNN and MSNBC, albeit with somewhat different parameters: the men there are sometimes more attractive than the women.)
Jon, A factual point: it was Lara Logan, then of CBS, who was raped when covering Tahrir Square, not Clarissa Ward