News Media, the Public Sphere, and Nationalism

Anthropology of Media ANTH 2301 News Media, the Public Sphere, and Nationalism While photographs capture people's attention, news media of all kinds captivate readers with stories about events happening both locally and globally. A reader or viewer of the news learns not just about what is happening now, but also, implicitly, about what is not news and, thus, is not important to other people or should not be of concern to them. Individuals acquire a certain worldview and learn to place themselves and their communities inside it. Political and economic leaders' acts are usually highlighted as the most significant events of the day in the top articles of major publications. Political news is portrayed as a drama playing out within or between nation-states; for example, China represses demonstrators in Hong Kong, while the United States imposes sanctions on Myanmar. The movements of the national and international capitalist markets, which highlight the viewpoints of investors and company owners who profit (or lose) in such markets, dominate economic news. Similar to the field of economics, the media cover the economy from a market-centered perspective rather than a people-centered one that would emphasise repercussions on the environment or labour conditions. around the sixteenth century, handwritten weekly newssheets that reported on European politics and conflicts were among the earliest forms of news media. These newssheets circulated around Venice. German and Dutch publishers started employing the printing press in the early 17th century to create newspapers in large quantities for the continent's expanding literate populace, which was mostly composed of businesspeople and lower-ranking government officials. The debates and discussions that emerged from Europe's coffeehouses and salons, where the concerns of the burgeoning merchant classes predominated, were mirrored in the early newspapers. Jurgen Habermas, a German researcher, connected this process to the formation of the public sphere in 1989. The public sphere should ideally be a place in social life where individuals may represent, educate themselves on, and engage in discourse about the major concerns of the day. It is separate from the realms of public authority, such as the government, the armed forces, and the police, as well as the private economic sector. A significant forum for the expression of a broad spectrum of popular viewpoints with the aim of fostering consensus and influencing public policy is the public sphere. Newspapers, in Habermas' view, were crucial instruments in the establishment of democratic systems of government because they played a crucial role in the creation of the public sphere in western Europe. You may see a YouTube overview of Habermas's seminal thesis about the emergence and ultimate corruption of the public sphere. Newspapers also played a significant role in the standardisation of language, bringing together readers from disparate regional populations that spoke different, occasionally incomprehensible dialects. Newspapers thereby established the basis for the nation-state's "imagined community," as was indicated in an earlier chapter. A quick look at any major newspaper, printed or digital, shows how news media are still used today to create imagined communities and public spheres. The development of new media genres has led to an expansion of news discourse into radio, television, and the Internet, which has strengthened the power behind the fortification of national identities. Media anthropologist John Postill (2006), who conducted study in Malaysia, explains how the Malaysian government deliberately employed state-sponsored media to create a single nation-state from a collection of ethnically varied former colonies. In an attempt to further link the Iban people to the state, the administration substituted Malaysian-language media for native ones in one community—that of the Borneo people. However, the Malaysian official media undermined Iban political and cultural sovereignty while also promoting a certain form of Iban "cultural heritage," rather than totally eliminating cultural distinctions inside the nation-state. Media that are wholly or partially controlled by the government are referred to as state media. The state operates its own media infrastructure, which includes radio and television stations, newspapers, news agencies, and most African nations. Privately held media are considered independent media. But wait, you might wonder, aren't all news outlets meant to be free from the government? Wouldn't it be propaganda if a state had its own news outlets? News media in the US have always placed a strong emphasis on journalistic independence and even critical disapproval of the administration. As the "watchdogs of the people," news organisations are expected to keep a close eye on institutions and government officials in order to uphold accountability and stop power abuse and corruption. In capitalist democracies, professional journalism almost always operates under the premise that journalists should be critical of the government. Nonetheless, the government has a significant influence over news organisations and publications even in the US. The White House press secretary and other public relations specialists have significant influence on how government officials' opinions and actions are portrayed through briefings and news releases. Voice of America is a global media organisation funded by the US government that produces radio, television, and internet material in over 47 languages worldwide. The most well-known American news outlets, however, are independently run and produced. But in capitalist nations, are news organisations that are privately held totally independent? Privately held media are not controlled by the government; instead, they are influenced by the forces of the market and the needs of investors and owners. That is, their goal to market their medium to the broadest audiences may put their dedication to the truth in jeopardy. In the event that viewers are drawn to sensationalised conflict and conspiracy theories, deceptive partial facts and polarising imaginations might take front stage in the news media. Selling profitable advertising space to large corporate interests is another important influence endangering the independence of private media. Environmental and labor-related news will probably be sidelined by market news outlets if the sponsors of advertising support a market-centered approach to economic matters. How can journalists reconcile their duty as public interest watchdogs with the demands of the political and business worlds? Read this narrative by Jennifer Hasty, the chapter author, for a first-hand example. When I initially arrived in Ghana, I was interested in learning how media contributed to the democratic movement that swept through Africa in the 1990s. During my initial days in Ghana, I purchased as many newspapers as I could locate and meticulously perused them, annotating articles with brief remarks and contrasting front covers. The state-run media emphasised the government's kind efforts to advance social stability and economic growth. Often, the front pages of these magazines included an excited headline about a government effort to construct a new market complex or road, accompanied by a colour photo of President Jerry Rawlings officially launching the project with a pickax or a bulldozer. The majority of the stories focused on the formal speeches made by public figures, highlighting themes of responsible citizenship and national unity. The front pages of private publications, on the other hand, frequently featured items based on rumours and anonymous sources and boldly accused government officials of being corrupt. Rawlings was characterised in these journals as a military coup leader who had undergone no change and had no desire for true democracy. He was frequently seen wearing army fatigues and mirrored sunglasses. There was a total contradiction between these two interpretations of the political realities of the country. However, during my early interviews, both government and private media insisted that they were Ghana's real democratic forces, standing up for the rights of the populace. They both remained steadfastly committed to the impartiality and neutrality of journalism. How did they create such diametrically opposed political perspectives? How could state journalists so ardently think they were advancing democracy when, on a daily basis, they were carefully complimenting the state's acts and repeating public statements made by officials? Private journalists' dramatic tales often sparked political and regional tensions and were based on rumours; how could they claim to be responsible truth-tellers? Similar discrepancies between what individuals claim to be doing and what they are really doing are commonly found by anthropologists. One benefit of long-term fieldwork is that it allows anthropologists to perform prolonged periods of participant observation, which allows them to get beneath the official narrative that is offered in texts and interviews. Working for the state's leading newspaper, the Daily Graphic, I found that the state actually presents itself as a kind sponsor to journalists, and state officials' statements seem to represent a more responsible and superior version of reality in the country. State journalists were invited to state ministries on a working day to cover official activities. Unlike private journalists, they were not subjected to rejection or exclusion while attending state gatherings, nor did they have to hustle to meet government officials. Rather, they were cordially welcomed inside the state to observe a significant (or not) speech or event. Following the occasion, state media received copies of the remarks they had just heard, along with refreshments and snacks, along with a modest amount of cash in an envelope. This little gesture, known by the acronym soli, which stands for solidarity, represented the tacit reciprocity that exists between state journalists and authorities. Upon returning to the workplace, state journalists took a seat, took out speeches, and composed pieces that portrayed the state as they had just experienced it: as a kind and considerate benefactor that promoted the well-being and advancement of the populace. During my research, I worked for three privately held newspapers, where the workday was considerably more stressful and confrontational. Rawlings's military regime had outlawed the private press in the 1980s because it was seen as reckless and polarising by the state. Even if the private press was only beginning to resurface in the 1990s as part of the broader democratic process, the government continued to view private journalists as political rivals. Rawlings threatened criminal libel cases and lengthy prison sentences in his irate public tirades against the private press. Private journalists were not only prohibited from attending daily official events, but they were not even invited. Private journalists called a number of government officials, and some declined to talk with them at all. In order to communicate with private journalists, ordinary Ghanaians frequently wanted anonymity since they were still afraid of the government's crackdown from a decade earlier. The private press was obliged to rely on rumours and anonymous sources as it was not allowed to participate in formal public discourse channels. They saw the state's negative portrayal as oppressive and corrupt as the reality of what they lived with on a daily basis. When combined, the public and commercial news media produced a fiercely divided public space that included opposing ideologies— different interpretations of the political truth connected to certain groups. The private press questioned the legitimacy of the state and its dedication to democracy, while the administration employed the state press to foster national unity. Check out the Daily Graphic's online news platform by visiting Graphic Online.