The diseased US media

[Don1]

News Item: Plane crashes and 49 lives tragically lost.

Major US media repeatedly tells the sad tales of various people who have lost their lives including a 9/11 victims advocate, a musician in Chuck Mangione's band and an ex-soldier who had an aversion to flying.

But a family of Jamaican immigrants living in NJ wiped out?? .... Invisible... virtually no mention.

Typical response of a diseased society.

[Historian]

The (Important) News Element Factor

News Item: Plane crashes and 49 lives tragically lost.

Major US media repeatedly tells the sad tales of various people who have lost their lives including a 9/11 victims advocate, a musician in Chuck Mangione's band and an ex-soldier who had an aversion to flying.

But a family of Jamaican immigrants living in NJ wiped out?? .... Invisible... virtually no mention. Typical response of a diseased society.

Don1: Remember that the news channels that you watch are domestic US channels, as opposed to, for example, BBC World or CNN International. The latter two that I mention here both broadcast to international consumers. The domestic channels, on the other hand, were not intended for people living outside of the US borders (but thanks to satellite technology, everyone gets them).

Now, when managing editors and other gatekeepers make the decision on what aspects of a news report to emphasize, they rarely do so haphazardly. In this case, two news elements that apparently influenced their decision were “prominence” and “human interest.” The soldier with an aversion to flying, for example, obviously falls under the category of human interest story, while the musician and the advocate lady would be examples of prominence.

In the case of the Jamaican families, they would hold more interest for us living in Jamaica, W.I., and so our media houses in Jamaica, naturally, give special focus to the four unfortunate Jamaicans. In contrast, the typical American media consumer would be much more interested in the prominent names on board that ill-fated flight. In addition, we know about the Jamaicans because of the information from the Jamaican ambassador to the USA.

I hope this helps in explaining the media’s apparent bias in this case.

[Tilla]

49 people on the flight died and one in the house. Can you imagine if they were to single out every person who died in that accident for a news report? There would not be enough time to report on everyone and with limited time and editing, many would not make the cut. So as you say Historian, the focus would then fall to people of prominence and of human interest.

[Don1]

Don1: Remember that the news channels that you watch are domestic US channels, as opposed to, for example, BBC World or CNN International. The latter two that I mention here both broadcast to international consumers. The domestic channels, on the other hand, were not intended for people living outside of the US borders (but thanks to satellite technology, everyone gets them).

Now, when managing editors and other gatekeepers make the decision on what aspects of a news report to emphasize, they rarely do so haphazardly. In this case, two news elements that apparently influenced their decision were “prominence” and “human interest.” The soldier with an aversion to flying, for example, obviously falls under the category of human interest story, while the musician and the advocate lady would be examples of prominence.

In the case of the Jamaican families, they would hold more interest for us living in Jamaica, W.I., and so our media houses in Jamaica, naturally, give special focus to the four unfortunate Jamaicans. In contrast, the typical American media consumer would be much more interested in the prominent names on board that ill-fated flight. In addition, we know about the Jamaicans because of the information from the Jamaican ambassador to the USA.

I hope this helps in explaining the media’s apparent bias in this case.

Sorry... this not help my understanding.

The fact is that the family RESIDES in the US in the NY area where virtually all the major US media is based or have a strong presence.... stories from this area are usually given prominence. From what I've seen of the local NY TV news... there's no coverage.

The fact is if this were a white family residing in NJ that was wiped out... there is no doubt that it would have been TREMENDOUSLY NEWSWORTHY... and we would know all the surviving family members, their friends and connections by this point.

I guess by your construct there is a "reasonable" minimal HUMAN INTEREST within the US in a black family from NJ via Jamaica being wiped out. I disagree.. I believe it to be obviously unreasonable.

I call this media bias what it is... a devaluation of the lives of that family.... AKA ... the disease of white racist thinking.

[Don1]

49 people on the flight died and one in the house. Can you imagine if they were to single out every person who died in that accident for a news report? There would not be enough time to report on everyone and with limited time and editing, many would not make the cut. So as you say Historian, the focus would then fall to people of prominence and of human interest.

Oh how easily we embrace the folly of the powerful.

[Hortical]

The fact is if this were a white family residing in NJ that was wiped out... there is no doubt that it would have been TREMENDOUSLY NEWSWORTHY.

If an entire white family was killed, this would be national news in America. I concur!

[Assasin]

that call for more Jamaicans in main stream media. For all them know the people who died maybe african American, Haitian or African. A few days later after all the re-run they will say it.

[Historian]

Not Difficult to Understand

49 people on the flight died and one in the house. Can you imagine if they were to single out every person who died in that accident for a news report? There would not be enough time to report on everyone and with limited time and editing, many would not make the cut. So as you say Historian, the focus would then fall to people of prominence and of human interest.

Thanks for replying, and you are absolutely correct, Tilla.

The immediate distinguishing of the elements that make news (elements such as prominence, proximity, timeliness, human interest, etc.) are factors that automatically run through the minds of experienced news gatekeepers. In university journalism courses, these are drilled into the mind of the student, but after years of working and making decisions these news element criteria become instantaneous, like changing gears in a standard-shift car.

I guess by your construct there is a "reasonable" minimal HUMAN INTEREST within the US in a black family from NJ via Jamaica being wiped out. I disagree.. I believe it to be obviously unreasonable.

I call this media bias what it is... a devaluation of the lives of that family.... AKA ... the disease of white racist thinking.

Don1, I don’t expect that Jamaican posters, caught up in the grief of what has happened, will accept what I’m saying. However, I can assure you that I am not debating this topic with anyone! What I posted initially is similar to the thinking that goes on in newsrooms, including those in Jamaica! The simple fact is that news elements form the essence of decision making in newsrooms everywhere! This is why, for example, certain stories are given front-page prominence while others are buried inside the pages of newspapers. Editors have to make hard, often immediate decisions, regardless of the views of specific interest groups!

Now, I can assure you that your response is intrinsically linked to the fact that four members of a Jamaican family (as you correctly stated it, “an entire family”) lost their lives. It is now virtually impossible for you to accept an explanation other than racism. However, I can assure you that you and I and the other posters on this forum have a greater interest in the fact that four of our Jamaican people died than the typical non-Caribbean viewer in America would have.

Now let me ask you a question: Was this the only husband, wife and child (family) on that plane?

[HL]

Leave it alone Historian...please!!

[Historian]

Failing to Understand News Elements!

Leave it alone Historian...please!!

HL, I’m going to make this post and then follow your advice. What frustrates me, however, is the fact that there is so little real knowledge of the workings of the communications media in a democratic, competing capitalist society! And I am referring here to things which have absolutely nothing to do with narrow things such as racism! When the mass media is competing for audience size, then other, broader factors will play a role in making decisions.

that call for more Jamaicans in main stream media. For all them know the people who died maybe african American, Haitian or African. A few days later after all the re-run they will say it.

Read your post again, Assasin. Now, why on earth do you think that having “more Jamaicans in mainstream media” would make an ounce of a difference to the way in which news and general information are disseminated by the communications media?! Let’s look at a track and field analogy now as illustration. Do you think it would make one iota of a difference to NBC’s Olympic Games priorities (for example, their live swimming coverage over live track and field) if, say, Lancelot Whittaker or Hubert Lawrence were part of NBC’s broadcast crew? A bit more info would probably be provided on the Caribbean athletes taking part in the finals (although Ato Boldon did a really commendable job in this aspect, given his obvious constraints), but this is about as far as Hubert’s and Lance’s sports impact would go!!!

In the case of news coverage, unless such Jamaicans are powerful and highly regarded news editors and news segment producers, their impact on what is singled out for emphasis would be virtually nonexistent.

You probably are thinking of Jamaican ownership of the mass media, but all this would result in is tiny, special-interest (Jamaican-Caribbean) audiences. It is extremely unlikely that a genuine mass audience would accrue from any Jamaican ownership of the media in any of the three North American countries!

I suspect that many posts in this thread will be caught up in the emotionalism of the moment. But let me ask a question now: Do you think the average American viewer is asking questions as to why only about a half dozen of the people killed have been singled out for special mention?

[Don1]

Thanks for replying, and you are absolutely correct, Tilla.

The immediate distinguishing of the elements that make news (elements such as prominence, proximity, timeliness, human interest, etc.) are factors that automatically run through the minds of experienced news gatekeepers. In university journalism courses, these are drilled into the mind of the student, but after years of working and making decisions these news element criteria become instantaneous, like changing gears in a standard-shift car.



Don1, I don’t expect that Jamaican posters, caught up in the grief of what has happened, will accept what I’m saying. However, I can assure you that I am not debating this topic with anyone! What I posted initially is similar to the thinking that goes on in newsrooms, including those in Jamaica! The simple fact is that news elements form the essence of decision making in newsrooms everywhere! This is why, for example, certain stories are given front-page prominence while others are buried inside the pages of newspapers. Editors have to make hard, often immediate decisions, regardless of the views of specific interest groups!

Now, I can assure you that your response is intrinsically linked to the fact that four members of a Jamaican family (as you correctly stated it, “an entire family”) lost their lives. It is now virtually impossible for you to accept an explanation other than racism. However, I can assure you that you and I and the other posters on this forum have a greater interest in the fact that four of our Jamaican people died than the typical non-Caribbean viewer in America would have.

Now let me ask you a question: Was this the only husband, wife and child (family) on that plane?

What goes on in newsrooms and their approach to determine what to cover and how to cover it is informed not just by professional considerations.
This is where your (otherwise reasonable) argument fails.

The people who shape what is served to us as news are influenced by:

1. Their own perceptions of what is important ie their personal cultural practices and belief system

2. What they believe will be acceptable in the marketplace ie their projection of what the majority of the people they reach will feel is important.

This is how operators of mass media outlets promote warped versions of reality which are so powerful and slickly produced that many of us are seducing into accepting it hook line and sinker... without a second thought.

Yes, as a Jamaican I am sensitive to Jamaican issues but this goes way beyond the instant case of tragedy.
Content analysis of US media messages is a well established and well researched field.... it just doesn't get much play in the media... no need to wonder why.

In case you are interested in how the manipulation works ... this site may be a good starting point ..http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

[Don1]

HL, I’m going to make this post and then follow your advice. What frustrates me, however, is the fact that there is so little real knowledge of the workings of the communications media in a democratic, competing capitalist society! And I am referring here to things which have absolutely nothing to do with narrow things such as racism! When the mass media is competing for audience size, then other, broader factors will play a role in making decisions.




Read your post again, Assasin. Now, why on earth do you think that having “more Jamaicans in mainstream media” would make an ounce of a difference to the way in which news and general information are disseminated by the communications media?! Let’s look at a track and field analogy now as illustration. Do you think it would make one iota of a difference to NBC’s Olympic Games priorities (for example, their live swimming coverage over live track and field) if, say, Lancelot Whittaker or Hubert Lawrence were part of NBC’s broadcast crew? A bit more info would probably be provided on the Caribbean athletes taking part in the finals (although Ato Boldon did a really commendable job in this aspect, given his obvious constraints), but this is about as far as Hubert’s and Lance’s sports impact would go!!!

In the case of news coverage, unless such Jamaicans are powerful and highly regarded news editors and news segment producers, their impact on what is singled out for emphasis would be virtually nonexistent.

You probably are thinking of Jamaican ownership of the mass media, but all this would result in is tiny, special-interest (Jamaican-Caribbean) audiences. It is extremely unlikely that a genuine mass audience would accrue from any Jamaican ownership of the media in any of the three North American countries!

I suspect that many posts in this thread will be caught up in the emotionalism of the moment. But let me ask a question now: Do you think the average American viewer is asking questions as to why only about a half dozen of the people killed have been singled out for special mention?

Historian you really fail to see the point.

Did you take the red or the blue pill?

[Don1]

[quote=Don1;151798]Sorry... this does not help my understanding.quote]




i just hate errors!

[Historian]

No, I Have Not Failed To See The Point

Historian you really fail to see the point.

Did you take the red or the blue pill?

(I hope I don’t regret failing to following the seemingly wise decision to make my previous post above the final one on this topic.)

Don1, let me ask you a question: Which online Caribbean newspaper gave as much prominence to the USA air tragedy as both Jamaican morning dailies did today? Here is a simple link from which you can check some of the prominent Caribbean newspapers:

http://www.caribbeannews.com/

The absence of front-page coverage in the other major Caribbean online dailies fully supports your point below and at the same time impacts on your intention of isolating the US media in their limited coverage:

2. What they believe will be acceptable in the marketplace ie their projection of what the majority of the people they reach will feel is important.

The Caribbean newspaper gatekeepers, no doubt, felt that any follow-up angle/story had very little to do with the majority of the citizens their society (the element of “proximity” which I mentioned). Even though Jamaicans live in these other Caribbean societies, they make up a small minority. Certainly, also, I did not expect that any of those Caribbean newspapers will give front-page coverage to the crash, and so most likely placed the initial story inside their newspapers on an “International News” section.

Of course, although you probably don’t realize it, the irony is that you are NOT disagreeing with my focus on news elements! Another irony is that Jamaican newspapers practice the very narrow self-interest that you associate with the USA media (see, for example, your numerous criticisms of The Jamaica Observer newspaper).

In my Post #1 above, for example, I wrote: “Remember that the news channels that you watch are domestic US channels…. The domestic channels, on the other hand, were not intended for people living outside of the US borders (but thanks to satellite technology, everyone gets them).”

The USA domestic media (which you have been faithfully watching) regards as its first responsibility the act of providing news aimed at the majority of their American audience living inside the USA.

1.Their own perceptions of what is important ie their personal cultural practices and belief system.

Isn’t this the same with virtually every media house, including those in Jamaican?

[Karl]

HL, I’m going to make this post and then follow your advice. What frustrates me, however, is the fact that there is so little real knowledge of the workings of the communications media in a democratic, competing capitalist society! And I am referring here to things which have absolutely nothing to do with narrow things such as racism! When the mass media is competing for audience size, then other, broader factors will play a role in making decisions.




Read your post again, Assasin. Now, why on earth do you think that having “more Jamaicans in mainstream media” would make an ounce of a difference to the way in which news and general information are disseminated by the communications media?! Let’s look at a track and field analogy now as illustration. Do you think it would make one iota of a difference to NBC’s Olympic Games priorities (for example, their live swimming coverage over live track and field) if, say, Lancelot Whittaker or Hubert Lawrence were part of NBC’s broadcast crew? A bit more info would probably be provided on the Caribbean athletes taking part in the finals (although Ato Boldon did a really commendable job in this aspect, given his obvious constraints), but this is about as far as Hubert’s and Lance’s sports impact would go!!!

In the case of news coverage, unless such Jamaicans are powerful and highly regarded news editors and news segment producers, their impact on what is singled out for emphasis would be virtually nonexistent.

You probably are thinking of Jamaican ownership of the mass media, but all this would result in is tiny, special-interest (Jamaican-Caribbean) audiences. It is extremely unlikely that a genuine mass audience would accrue from any Jamaican ownership of the media in any of the three North American countries!

I suspect that many posts in this thread will be caught up in the emotionalism of the moment. But let me ask a question now: Do you think the average American viewer is asking questions as to why only about a half dozen of the people killed have been singled out for special mention?

No need to give on your point. Jamaicans having ownership interests in the media would have to recognise the reality of the market for news. Fact is to remain viable they would have to 'play' to what the market demands.