Nov., 2010
An essay on the media as a social and political force, as well as an entity in investigative journalism and mass media consumption in Ghana.
“Media as the Fourth Estate; Mr. A. A. Anas, Investigative Journalist.”
While selecting courses in the middle of winter for this study abroad semester in Ghana, I recall looking at the course description of this course. One line in the syllabus struck out to me:
“The class will explore the socio-cultural and philosophical context of the media industry and the practice of mass communication in Africa in general, and Ghana in particular. This broad perspective will be examined against the background notion that the media do not function in a vacuum…(italics inserted)”
Perhaps it was the domestic or implicit nature of the wording, but the line exposed a concept I never explored before: true or not, the media has been associated inside a vacuum-system.
The existence of this idea, and the possibility of it being negated and still valid in the real-world, reoriented my concept of the purpose of the media. I thought it was assumed that media’s responsibility was to be as objective and fair as possible. Balanced. IT would not be allowed to be media if it was not. There are ethical glitches here and there, of course, but not to the degree of demolishing the media’s social capital or veneration. But then, that syllabus toyed with my assumption of media being separate from any form of vacuum, as a rule (“will be examined against the background notion”).
After reanalysis, however, my aforementioned ignorance proves naïve. Media being fair as a rule? How could I be so optimistic as to expect some higher power, or perhaps collective consciousness of human virtue, to ensure that media be defined by equity?
Last week’s reading, “The Press and Political Culture in Ghana,” by Jennifer Hasty, and presentation by investigative reporter, Mr. Anas Aremeyaw Anas, cleared the shallow convolution I was experiencing.
The media, by literal definition, is “the various means of mass communication thought of as a whole, including television, radio, magazines, and newspapers, together with the people involved in their production.” (Encarta) It is in this variety, that Hasty explains a distinction between a state press and a private press, as it relates to her experience in Ghanaian print media. She acknowledges reporter Afeboafoh’s features and ideas:
“In general, state journalists stress their moral commitment to development, stability, and the ‘national interest,’ while private journalists summon human rights discourse and constitutional guarantees to defend their antagonistic stance toward the state.” (Hasty 39).
She further explains this constructed dichotomy via various schools of thought and pertinent examples. While she gives allowance to both sides, as an objective journalist should, she too seems to hint at this ‘vacuum in the background:’
“Each time a new faction assumes power [total of nine times following 1966] the editorial staff of the state newspapers is shuffled or replaced, and the editorial positions of the papers are transformed, sometimes overnight, to reflect the personal and ideological commitments of the new government.” (Hasty 34).
This political response and borderline dependence, is also seen in the private press, which Hasty acknowledges as being criticized for “serving the political agendas of their publisher-editor masters,” (the word ‘masters,’ makes me uncomfortable in a different right) (Hasty 40).
If, in Ghana, the media, both private and state, have such criticisms, then how can a vacuum exist? If the world functions as a free market, in which Ghana also participates, it is to be expected that capital runs and sets agendas. And capital is found in the pockets of politicians, governments, and the elite. They run the banks, and thus bring home the bread for all of society. And media fits into this power struggle. The changing papers of Nkrumah’s 1960’s (the ban of the Ashanti Pioneer and the emergence and convergence of the Daily Graphic and Ghanaian Times), as well as the ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ slants of international news agencies (i.e. CNN, Al Jazeera—English, Fox News Group), all reinforce the nonexistence of the ‘vacuum’.
If, by definition, the media is linked “together with the people involved in [its] production,” and those people who produce it are biased in some way to those international powers in society, then how can the media remain objective (Encarta)? Furthermore, because Ghana and the world market are free and open, laissez-faire, to any one who wishes to exchange within it, then the people who finally have the accumulated power, i.e. wealth/capital, can shift the media’s production and agenda. This is what occurred in Ghana’s military coupes and re-democratizations. And it cannot be forgotten that such power shifts and emergence/dominance on the economic scene are international, political, economic, and social in and of themselves. (Nkrumah, Rupert Murdoch, George Bush, Jr., would not have had the rights to power and would not have impacted the media’s content if they were not of good social standing, had connections, knew international agencies, etc.) Thus, while one can, theoretically make their influence on the media, it would take a sincere economic or revolutionary exertion on their behalf to make a significant impact.
Caustically, Mr. Anas puts that theory into practice. Caustic because his investigative work stirs admitted controversy in Ghana and abroad. And he is proud of it. Reporters like Anas, can be seen as modern-day muckrakers, utilizing the media as the ‘Fourth Estate,’ checking government, questioning norms, and stirring society. But even the muckrakers can be seen as biased. For instance, Mr. Anas has done revealing work on corruption in the Accra Psychiatric Hospital (Undercover Inside Ghana’s ‘Madhouse’), and the Osu Children’s Home.
“ ‘I always just look at the country,’ ” he said, in an interview in The Atlantic Magazine, “ ‘When the country is dull and feeling that everything is alright, I send them thinking that nothing is alright and we are all just jokers.’ ” (Schmidle 114)
But who is say what the definition of ‘alright’ is? How is Anas’ “look” shaped? If it is in any way informed or related to the economy, to politics and even media itself, then would that not mean that the media is latent in a vacuum, because it is constantly reinforcing and folding onto/into itself?
Perhaps, but the free agency of people must be accounted for. In this 21st century, humans are (not yet) droids. Individuals are granted the potential of free thought, agency, mobility and a sense of morality (whether constructed, impaired, or restricted is a different matter of debate). They can think what they wish and accept/reject notions at will.
Therefore, say Mr. Anas is ‘looking at the country,’ and finds something ‘not alright.’ (In reality, the process involves deep research, questioning, re-questioning, four desks of labor, and a legal team, but for academic purposes, I have liquidated the procedure.) Fine. So then Mr. Anas would conduct his undercover research, package and produce his evidence. The expose is then released onto/into the main media scene. All along the lines one can question the ethics of such practice, the objectivity, the emotional bias involved, the nature of the tip-off, the investment and profit interests, the safety, etc.—all of which can potentially reinforce the vacuum the media occupies (i.e. if the government tipped of Mr. Anas about the cocoa bribes on the border, then would the media not be reinforcing the admonitions and agenda of the government, that authority with the power and the initial influence?).
But they don’t. Why? The remedial outline above did not include the accompanied response. Once released in/on the media, there is an associated response. There must be, or else Mr. Anas would not nonchalantly name-drop some of the thirty plus international awards he has received for his work; ‘For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction’ (Newton’s Third Law of Motion).
Clearly then, the response of the people, who have the ability to accept, reject or ignore the investigations of Anas, mobilize his messages. And so he is a controversial journalist. Watching, maybe even laughing, at the chaos his work motivates, it cannot be denied that Mr. Anas enacts something upon society.
He stirs the pot. Those like Anas cause those within the society to taste their society, spice it up, add or subtract if necessary (this is possible in Ghana’s democracy, at least). And although the contents, be it clear soup or fish stew, remain essentially the same, the pot retaining its volume, the spoon full detracted from it is never singular. In the same way, no matter what bias or how Mr. Anas conducts his research, the response to the media is predictable only in his hopes that it will occur. Society, as a collection of individuals, thus takes that media and uses it, and that is what is marshaled.
Usage, Anas proves, is greater than production.
And so, it is because of all of the global factors: social, human, economic, and political, and because of the free agency of human beings, digesting and investing, the media cannot function in a vacuum, and cannot, as far as I can see, be stagnant to all the forces the shifting society produces within it. New ideas are produced, rejected, revered. Every day is different, every human thinks uniquely, and everyone takes media in different manners: in Ghana, Africa, or the world.
And while the media may not function in a vacuum, the nature of this uncontained ‘media,’ this free-form-type octopus, interests me. How do societies express themselves? Where do journalists stand? Where does history play into this game? And, more diplomatically pressing, if I did not believe in the “background notion,” would I have automatically failed this class?…
Works Cited.
Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Hasty, Jennifer. The Press and Political Culutre in Ghana. Indian Univeristy Press: Bloomington. 2005.
Prof. Linus Abraham. Syllabus: “Media, Culutre and Society in Ghana.” New York Univeristy—Accra. Fall semester, 2010.
Schmidle, N. (2010). Smuggler, forger, writer, spy. The Atlantic, 110-114.
—-Yasmin Ogale, Feb., 2010
