Religion and media workshop 2013 diversity forum
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Religion and media workshop 2013 diversity forum

on

  • 589 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
589
Views on SlideShare
523
Embed Views
66

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 66

http://bwa-frog.barnfield.ac.uk 66

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Religion and media workshop 2013 diversity forum Religion and media workshop 2013 diversity forum Document Transcript

  • 1 Religion in New Zealand Media: Concepts, Complaints and Concerns Paul Morris Diversity Action Forum 2013 Religious Diversity Forum Religion and Media Workshop Wellington,26 August 2013 Hare mai, Shalom, Salam, Namaste, Mōrena, Kia Ora, Kia Orana, Talofa lava, Malo e lelei, Fakalofa lahi atu, Ni sa bula vinaka, Taloha ni and good morning, welcome to the 2013 Diversity Action Forum, and to this Religious Diversity Forum, supported by the Religious Studies Programme at Victoria University of Wellington, UNESCO, and the Human Rights Commission. Our theme is religion and the media, arising from Article 4 of The Statement on Religious Diversity (2007, 2009): The right of freedom of expression and freedom of the media are vital for democracy but should be exercised with responsibility. This is an on-going issue, the Diversity Action Forum in Christchurch, 2010, addressed media issues, examining the balance between media responsibility and the media‟s freedom of expression. We return to this important concern three years on in a much changed environment shaped by increasing demands for press regulation to mandate responsibility; new models of press and community relationships; ongoing complaints by religious communities about misrepresentation in the media; and, that prejudice and negative attitudes continue to be fostered by irresponsible media reporting. I intend to address a number of new initiativesfrom other places;discuss a recent study on the media reporting of religion;refer to the emerging academic field of religion and media and what might be called“media religious literacy”i ; and conclude by returning to the New Zealand context as a way of introducing our speakers, their local case studies, and some new New Zealand research. (1) Introduction: journalist codes of conduct Journalists are bound by robust codes of practice that are designed to determine best practice and set standards for reporting, complaints processes, procedures and remedies. So, for example, the New Zealand Press Council (NZPC) considers complaints against newspapers, magazines and periodicals in public circulation in this country, including their websites. The Councilcannot order monetary awards to a complainant but can and does demand that offending publications publish “the essence of the decision upholding a complaint, in full or part” and that it be given “fair prominence”. They have a Statement of Principles: Accuracy; Privacy; Children and Young People; Discrimination and Diversity; Comment and Factii ; Headlines and Captions; Confidentiality; Subterfugeiii ; Conflicts of Interest; Photographs and Graphicsiv ; and, Correctionsv .
  • 2 Whilst all eleven NZPC principles are important and bear directly on our topic today, the one that is most pertinent here is “Discrimination and Diversity”, concerned with “issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability”. These are held to be legitimate subjects for discussion where they are relevant and in the public interest, and “publications may report and express opinions in these areas”. However, undue or gratuitous emphasis should not be placed on any of thesecategories when reporting. This principle is regularly evoked in complaints about the reporting of religion. Also essential for this discussion is the New Zealand‟s Broadcasting StandardsAuthority (BSA). This appeals organisation was established to hear cases from those unsatisfied with the responses of broadcasters in reply to complaints; and its decisions can be appealed to the High Court.vi The BSA has a set of Standards covering4 areas (free-to-air TV; pay TV; radio; and election programmes at election time): good taste and decency; law and order; privacy; controversial issues – balance; accuracy; fairness; discrimination and denigration; responsible programming; children‟s interests; violence; and, liquor. The website also gives details of illustrative cases under these Standards, together with information on how to make complaints. The BSA is tasked with determining in individual cases of whether a particular Standard was “breached”. The BSA comes“under the umbrella” of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage” and the Minister of Broadcasting, and as an Independent Crown Entity has a degree of independence and autonomy.vii Media organisations have their own codes tooviii as does the union representing many journalists, the EPMUNZ (Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union NZ) Journalist Code of Ethics.ix It is interesting to note the recent submission by the EPMUNZ to the Law Commission on media regulations. x We are not short on codes of conduct for journalists, albeit overlapping, based on truth, accuracy, honesty, fairness and balance. The Human RightsCommission has played an important role in taking cases to review. Looking at the cases, upheld and not, reveals that the media reporting of religion is an ongoing area of complaints and concerns. Further, that decisionsof the regulatory bodies appear ad hocrather than forming a pattern of precedentsestablished on cases relating to the reportage of religion as a foundation for future cases. It often appears as if every such case is the first and any progress hard to discern.It is these modes of media regulation that have been called into question in the US and Europe. In the Leveson enquiry in the UK it was the abject failure of major news outlets to be guided by their voluntary codes that has led to the recommendation to set up independent external mandatory bodies to ensure such regulation. In the US too there have been similar calls at the federal and state levels.Lord Leveson‟s enquiry (the Enquiry into the Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press) attempted to strike a balance between regulation and legislation and make recommendations that met the twin objectives of protecting the public and protecting press freedom. The report published last year (2012) noted the concerns about media presentations of religion and ethnicity, and gratuitous identification;alongside the inadequate provisions in the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice to handle third party complaints, and, its negative cumulative impact on processes for redress of grievance. But to paraphrase one of its main findings: self-regulation has failed, and contra the press, Leveson concluded that only statutory underpinning for codes of practice would work. The submissions report the increasing concerns of Muslims, Hindus and a number of migrant groups over negative,
  • 3 distorted and even fabricated reports in media coverage. Reference was also made to the 2011 research at Cambridge University that "a wider set of representations of Islam would signify a welcome change to reporting practices. Muslims deserve a better press than they have been given in the past decade."xi And according to a recent ComRes poll, one in three people in Britain today believe that the media is responsible for "whipping up a climate of fear of Islam in the UK".xii It is interesting to consider New Zealand in this regard. While we certainly do not begin with the “hacking scandal” many of the UK issues resonate here, particularly in relation to misguided and ill-informed reporting on religious matters. Do we need further media regulation in this country? In the UK and US religious identification in media stories continues to alarm. In one recent case, a media outletfollowing the Boston marathon bombings identified “perpetrators” incorrectly, seemingly based on religious stereotyping. These reports apparently had fatal consequencesin that one of those so identified is suspected of committing suicide. xiii (2) Religion and Media Beginning in the 1990s with a growing recognition of the need for a new awareness and new skills in reporting stories that reflected increasing religious and ethnic diversity, and, in the aftermath of 9/11 the understanding that religion was a significant dimension of our news;“media and religion” has become an acknowledged interdisciplinary area of academic research,fostering increasingly sophisticated methodological analysis of media data relating to religion.xiv “Media and religion”researchers analyse news coverage of religious issues and explore how particular religious communities use media.xv They also continue to discuss the difficulties of measuring religious objectivity. There are now three academic journalsxvi and “media and religion” has become the creative interface between journalists, media business people, academics and religious communities, with academics writing guides for journalists who report religion, joint conferences and research projects. The areas of interest range from religious stereotyping in mainstream media, via sectarian groups and their use of social media, to religion in Reality TV – there‟s a lot of religion going on in all those weddings for a start, in this under-studied source of contemporary forms of religion. A significant development for our purposes has been the application of Erving Goffman‟s notion of “frame analysis” to the framing of religion in the media. Goffman sought to understand the organisation of information within experience. He wrote: Reporters‟ understanding of the world precedes the stories they write about, determining which ones reporters will select and how the ones that are selected will be told.xvii We might want to add editors and publishers to “reporters” in the quotation above. A “frame” is the central organizing idea for making sense of relevant events and suggesting what is at issue and important. News and information are valuable only if embedded in a meaningful context which organizes and creates cogency and coherence. News stories can be understood as narratives, which include information and factual elements but also carry implicit messages. “Framing” reveals the ways in which religion is depicted by journalists. Facts are not simply reported but shaped in specific ways, or “framed”. So what used to be called “bias”has come to be more helpfully seen asthe framing which determineswhat is news
  • 4 worthy; how news is presented; from what POV (point of view); what associations are made with protagonists (e.g. “terrorists and religion”);and, what repeated word associations link particular religious adherents to actions, such as scandal. Media analysis of framing asks why these emphases and what is their likely impact? Media frames are persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which discourse is organised.These patterns determine specific problem definitions and causal explanations, and, of course,moral evaluations. Framing operates, consciously or unconsciously, every narrative making assumptions about how the world works, and this implicit framing reinforces particular pictures and interpretations of the world, much as advertisements do.xviii For example, if stories about Middle East politics are regularly framed focussing on demonstrating crowds and riots we can come to view the protesters as dangerous, unstable and religious fanatics; while those who choose to frame such stories emphasising actionsagainst the protesters are more likely to interpret those subjected to army and police “violence” as victims.xix (3) Two Recent Developments Last year in March a new organisation was set up, the International Association of Religion Journalists (IARJ), one of the founding members, American journalist, David Briggs, writes: We are living in a global society and our understanding internationally of religion is weak. With this association, journalists now have contacts in various countries and can work together. IARJ aims to develop a global network of journalists who report on religion, and develop the skills necessary to cover religion news stories through religion data bases, industry training, and ethical guidelines. Their website includes reviews of recent studies, articles on best religious reporting practice, and discussion of potentially problematic and sensitive media coverage of religion. Although it is early days, the first indications are that IARJ are addressing significant issues in sophisticated ways that are relevant to the media reporting of religion in New Zealand.xx Getting the Facts Right: Reporting Ethnicity and Religionwas published last year by the Media Diversity Institute/Cardiff University in partnership with ARTICLE 19 and the International Federation of Journalists.xxi The study is based on critical analysis of 199 news reports and interviews with 117 journalists and editors in nine European countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia and the UK. It asked about the professional norms that guide editors and journalists when reporting on ethnicity and religion and which newsgathering methods are most commonly used. The analyses also attempt to determine the institutional constraints in reporting religion and ethnicity and the critical differences between journalism that fosters intolerance and that that supports “intercultural understanding”. The study highlights the institutional realities of contemporary journalism, including: the worsening financial situation of the media; the chronic workloads of reporters; the minimal time allowed for research on stories; limited knowledge about religion and ethnicity and the absence of such education as part of journalists‟training; and, the lack of opportunity for in- service training on religion and ethnicity reporting. These factors were deemed to be “the
  • 5 main obstacles to good reporting” on these topics. There was an insightful discussion of “newsroom diversity”, with wide agreement that while valuable,this should not be a “goal in itself” but that journalistic skills and training were more important, including having the journalistic skills to make full use of one‟s own ethnic or religious background. It is also reported that journalists who work on religion and ethnic issues demonstrate “significantly higher ethical standards” than the general journalists interviewed. The report tracks the themes in the stories on religion which were found to be predominantly focussed on controversial, “button issues”,such as: the wearing of the hijab or burqa; the teaching of Islam in schools; the potential integration of religious minorities; abortion; religious extremism; homosexuality; and, sexual scandals in the church. Many of these topics were deemed to be poorly reported on due to the reinforcement of stereotypes as a result of inadequate knowledge about ethnicity and religion, and the pressures on journalist and editors, mentioned above. Getting the Facts Right: Reporting Ethnicity and Religion ends with a series of recommendations that include attempting to change journalistic cultures, and using different tools when reporting on religion and ethnicity while maintaining the application of good, accurate, fair, balanced, responsible and trustworthy journalism. The report stresses the need for journalists to become more aware of anti-discrimination legislation and develop knowledge about religious and ethnic communities via specific training, contacts and the creation of a new “culture of tolerance within the newsroom”. (4) New Zealand It is clear that we need detailed analysis of the framing of religion reporting in New Zealand media. My intuition is that all too often crude and unhelpful frames are repeatedly used, albeit without much awareness or subtlety. Equally, we need to undertake a version of Getting the Facts Right here. The newsroom pressures are just as evident here as is the lack of training and training opportunities and the recommendations are worthy of further discussion in the New Zealand context. One of the sponsors of this session, UNESCO, holds an annual UNESCO World Press Freedom Day. In his 2013 UNESCO World Press Freedom Day address at AUT, Professor Mark Pearson referred to what he called “mindful journalism”: What I have in mind are what we might consider core religious values - respect for others, showing some compassion, truth-telling with a conscience where other traditions and cultures are respected, and where you've done your homework before you enter the fray in a major conflict which you might not know much about. xxii We often seem a long way from Pearson‟s “mindful journalism” and “respect” and “homework” are continuing areas of concern. There continue to be cases brought complaining about media reporting of religions and religious matters and the number of complaints is increasing. The BSA recently considered a complaint about a panel discussion on Radio New Zealand‟s Afternoons with Jim Mora
  • 6 programme, where the host and panellists discussed the release of a controversial collectors‟ edition Barbie doll. A panellist suggested there was a market in the Muslim world for “terrorist Barbie”, and in response the host suggested a “suicide bomber Barbie”. The authority declined to uphold the complaint ruling that the comments were intended to be “satirical”, and clearly “commentary and opinion rather than statements of fact”. A clip on the New Zealand Herald website showing the Russian feminist punk band Pussy Riot performing a protest song in a Moscow cathedral, was brought to the attention of the NZPC. The complainant asked for the clip to be removed because it was extremely offensive in showing a sacrilegious act. The Council dismissed the complaint saying that while the performance was “sacrilegious”, the clip was brief and did not gratuitously dwell on the performance, which was part of an important story about the band‟s arrest. It stated that: In the overall context of an important political development, the video was useful in giving the viewer a fuller understanding of the issues. We must, perhaps, accept that in understanding the world we will at times be offended, horrified, appalled. The more honest the reporting, the worse it may be. Drawing a firm line between acceptable and unacceptable satirical or sacrilegious materials that clearly cause offence is not always easy, at least for those who enforce our journalist codes of conduct. Reporting religion need not be so fraught, divisive and so regularly cause offense. I want now to mention two recent cases that will be taken up by those involved. The first by a complainant, Anjum Rahmanxxiii , and the second by Dita De Boni, columnist with the New Zealand Herald and the journalist concerned. The first case was about a column in The Waikato Times that referenced Islam and the purported treatment of women. The second in the New Zealand Herald was a story about dairies and their responsibilities in relation to policing the selling of specific items such as synthetic cannabis, glue, cigarettes and alcohol.xxiv In this case it was the attendant cartoon depicting a goddess figure that was deemed offensive by members of the Hindu community. Both led to complaints that resulted in the offending material being taken down from websites but both failed to satisfy the complainants in important ways. It is clear that these processes can be improved and that we can attempt to learn from the past rather than merely repeating it.Reverend Jenny Chalmers, with a track record of interfaith activities and commitments,will share her original research on the ways in which religion is reported in selected New Zealand newspapers, looking at both major and more local press outlets. I said that I would return to the issue of responsibility for responsible reporting. The majority of editors and journalists in the Getting the Facts Right report agreed that they did have a responsibility to foster intercultural understanding. This is in marked contrast to the Australian journalists and editors on the media panel at the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) conference in Melbourne, 2011, where not one member of the august panel would agree that their responsibilities extended beyond providing interesting stories as measured by increased readership or viewer numbers. I want to end on a positive note. In preparing for this address I read a collection of essays by New Zealand journalists and academics published in 1990, Between the Lines: Racism in
  • 7 New Zealand Media, co-edited by former Race Relations Commissioner, Wally Hirsh,xxv focussed on the reporting of Māori and Māori matters in New Zealand media. It makes for sober reading some 23 years later. The examples of what was understood as acceptable reporting is rightly challenged by the contributors and gives a very graphic illustration of just how far our media has moved away from the gratuitous stereotyping, negative framing, and the role that the press once played in shaping negative Pākehā perceptions of Māori. The book ends with two recommendations for addressing the then dire state of the reporting of race in the media. The first, from Dr Jim Tully, is the need for a code for journalists reporting on race, and the second from Allison Webber, journalist turned academic, is the need to accept responsibility for the public impact of the media. The Pew Foundation in the US reports that the single most important source for information about religions other than our own is the commercial media. xxvi This enormous influence bears a parallel responsibility to get it right. The number of complaints and reported concerns about the reporting of Māori is now negligible. What we need to consider is how to draw on our considerable individual and collective experience of biculturalism and apply this wisdom to our new religious diversity. My positivity is based on this successful experience even as we acknowledge that this was not easy and that the current reporting on religion may well be just as dire as it once was regarding Tangata Whenua in the media. We have collectively raised our consciousness and awareness and clearly have the capacity to do so again. (5) Forum Outcomes Do we need guidelines for journalist reporting on religion? How do we start the conversation about media responsibility? What should we be doing? This final section reflects the discussion at the end of the Forum. There was wide support for: 1. The development of resources: (i) A guide for journalists for the reporting on religion, to include religious community contact people, sensitive religious issues and religious concerns, background sources on religions (beyond Wikipedia). (ii) A guide to media for religious communities, to include the law on media, journalists‟ codes of conduct, realistic expectations, complaints procedures and processes, and likely outcomes. 2 The establishment of a Working Group (journalists, media people, HRC) and Reference Group (religious communities) to continue a conversation in the New Zealand context leading to Recommendations/Guidelines. Professor Paul Morris Religious Studies Programme, Vitoria University of Wellington UNESCO Chair in Interreligious Understanding and Relations in New Zealand and the Pacific Paul.Morris@vuw.ac.nz
  • 8 i See, Daniel Stout, “Religious Media Literacy”, Journal of Religion and Media 1:1 (2002) 49-60; Mary Hess, “Media literacy”, in Daniel Stout (ed), Encyclopaedia of Religion, Communication and Media (New York: Routledge, 2006) 245-250. ii It is interesting that cartoons are opinion. iii Where it is considered to be both in the public interest and there are no alternatives. iv The concern is about the manipulation of images. v http://www.presscouncil.org.nz/principles_2.php. This website also outlines complaints procedures and processes and decisions by the Council. It is a useful resource for exploring recent complaints that have religious and religio-ethnic dimensions. vi The BSA was established by the Broadcasting Act 1989. (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0025/latest/DLM155365.html). vii http://bsa.govt.nz/standards/choosing-a-standard viii For example, http://www.fairfaxmedia.co.nz/dotAsset/36730.pdf ix http://www.epmu.org.nz/journalist-code-of-ethics/ x http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/2012/04/31_epmu.pdf xi http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ xii http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/23/inquiry-into-anti-islam-press and http://www.alternativeleveson.org.uk/?cat=6 xiii http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313870/Sunil-Tripathi-Police-body-missing-college-student- falsely-accused-Boston-Marathon-bomber-internet-sleuths.html; http://news.sky.com/story/1080260/boston- bombings-wrong-suspect-reveals-fears; http://theweek.com/article/index/243028/4-innocent-people-wrongly- accused-of-being-boston-marathon-bombing-suspects. xiv See, the pioneering text, Stewart Hoover, Religion in the News (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998) set an agenda and framework for the academic study of media and religion. xv See, for example, Heidi Campbell, When religion meets new media (London: Routledge, 2010) where the author explores the religious use of digital and other media formats. xvi Journal of Media and Religion; Journal of Communication and Religion; and Religion in the News. xvii See, Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (New York: Harper & Row, 1974). xviii Refer to Christopher Vecsey, Following 9/11:Religion coverage in the New York Times (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2012); xix For a programmatic account of the field after 2001, see Stewart Hoover, Media and Religion: A White Paper (Boulder: Center for Media, Religion and Culture, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2008); also, Daniel Stout & Judith Buddenbaum, “Media, Religion and „Framing‟”, Journal of Media and Religion 2/1 (2003) 1-3; Daniel Stout, Media and Religion: Foundations of An Emerging Field (New York: Routledge, 2011); Robert Wicks, “Emotional Responses to Collective Action Frames about Islam and Terrorism”, Journal of Religion and Media 5/4 (2006) 245-263. xx http://www.theiarj.org/ xxi Verica Rupar, Getting the Facts Right: Reporting Ethnicity and Religion (Brussels, International Federation of Journalists, 2012). xxii NZ Herald, Saturday May 4, 2013. xxiii In November 2012, The Waikato Times published a column by former MP Michael Cox seriously maligning the Muslim community. Supported by the HRC and local faith and interfaith groups, local Muslim and Waikato Interfaith member, Anjum Rahman, sought a meeting with the editor to express her concern. She drew attention to a recent NZPC decision concerning a column about Māori by media personality, Sir Paul Holmes in The Weekend Herald. In this decision, the Council found that, “the accuracies upon which some of the opinions are based make the opinions so extreme that in the Council‟s view they go beyond what is acceptable and become gratuitous offence to Māori as a race”. The editor apologised for the offence caused, invited Rahman to contribute a column from a Muslim women‟s perspective and agreed to remove the offending column from the newspaper‟s website. xxiv The HRC media statement (15 July 2013) stated that, “The caricature of the Goddess Kali illustrating a recent New Zealand Herald column was inappropriate and offensive to many in the Indian community”. xxv Paul Spoonley & Walter Hirsch (eds), Between the Lines: Racism in New Zealand Media(Auckland: Heinemann Reed, 1990). xxvi http://www.pewforum.org/