Daniel Dayan is a French sociologist and an expert in media. -Jeff
Once, I heard an American journalist condemn Fox News. The condemnation was deserved, in my opinion. However, the argument meant to justify it was frightening. Why – did the journalist ask – should Fox News be allowed to exist while its position contradicts that of all other American journalistic institutions?
In my view this journalist was not attacking Fox News. He was challenging the very possibility of debate. He was pointing to a consensus and requiring that dissenting voices be silenced. Obama was perfectly right in stressing that they should not (while still being critical of their position in a Rolling Stone article. Obama’s point is essential to the very existence of a democratic pluralism. Obama was no less correct in noting: “We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated.” This tradition is also ingrained in European journalistic traditions, and, in particular, in the French.
Interestingly, it is not this tradition that retained the attention of some of the most radical media critics. (I am thinking of such thinkers as Roland Barthes or Stuart Hall.) For them, the real danger lies not with those media discourses that flaunt their ideological positions, hoist their flag, advance in fanfare, scream their values. Such discourses are unmistakeably partisan. They are too strident not to be instantly spotted .
The real danger is with these other discourses that are so persuasive that they can be conflated with “reality.” It lies with discourses that seem neutral, balanced, fair, often intelligent . The real danger is with discourses that seem “self evident.” Such an evidence – present in the consensus that the journalist in my first paragraph pointed to — speaks of the power enjoyed by those groups who become the “primary definers” of the social world (Hall); of the power of constructing reality, of multiplying ‘effects of real‘ (Barthes); of the power that stems from ideology, understood not as a discrete doctrine, but as an almost spontaneous “way of seeing“ (a spontaneity that begs, of course, to be deciphered).
I tend to share the concerns of Barthes and Hall. The antics of Fox News perpetuate an opinionated tradition. But what of realistic, fair, balanced, sober news discourses? Does anyone seriously believe they are blank? Devoid of opinion? Empty of ideologies ?
I believe that social realities are not merely “recorded” for our sake by media institutions. They are recorded in order to be shown and they are shown for a purpose. Showing has a rationale and this rationale is translated into recording protocols. Showing or –as I call it , with a French accent, “Monstration“– is always an action , as opposed to the mechanical operation of monitoring machines. Showing consists of directing your gaze. Would anyone take hold of your gaze for no purpose at all? What are then the acts performed, especially when “monstrations” seem routine, banal, devoid of a special purpose?
This takes us away from Fox News as stage-villain that everybody (in our circles) loves to hate, to another form of theater. In plays such as The Exception and The Rule, Bertolt Brecht points to the kinship between the “obvious,” and the abusive. What seems evident is often so because evidence is just another name for Power.
It is especially frustrating to allow Fox News to continue because of their obvious persuasive power over the general American public. However, I completely agree with you, Daniel. It’s essential to the general state of this country (and democratic nations as a whole) that no voice be silenced.
The same defense should be used for the proposed lower Manhattan Islamic community center. No matter your politics or personal reaction to such a site, any group building within the proscribed codes should be allowed to continue.
In the same vein, however, Fox News must be held to the same standard of accuracy that other news outlets must adhere to. Restricting libelous or slanderous actions should not be confused with silencing their political position.
This article makes a great point that I think is all too easy to forget when confronted (relentlessly, in seems, and often at a high volume) with viewpoints so opposed to what we hold true. The image accompanying this post sums it up quite well–Such questions open up a debate and enable engagement from varying sides.
America was founded through the airing of voices of dissent. Allowing these voices to continue (and similarly being allowed to counter their opinions) is not destructive but rather necessary for democracy to continue.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire
I completely agree that no voices should be silenced; opposing viewpoints can and must be allowed and encouraged. However, I also very much agree with Elle’s point about holding our media outlets accountable to standards of accuracy. Too often Fox, but also other “neutral” and “balanced” media outlets, allow outrageously partisan claims and gross exaggerations with no basis in reality the same air time and gravitas as facts and rational viewpoints. Of course we must respect and allow the voices of those whose opinions contradict our own, but we also — all of us — must push against claims and arguments that have no basis in reality.
As far as it goes, I agree with Daniel’s point. The partisan reporting on Fox may not be more problematic than the false claim of objectivity in other more normal news organizations, although Fox’s Orwellian slogan of “Fair and Balanced” is another matter. But the problem with Fox is not that it is partisan, in my judgment, which I emphasized in an earlier post. It is that it manufactures some of its news, doesn’t simple report and comment on it. This is a problem that Elle,Amy and Karen highlight as it relates to the accuracy and the factual truthfulness of their reports. But I think that we need to be aware that they create partisan media events which they report as news reports. This mixing of news genres should be of special concern to the distinguished co-author of the definitive book on media events.
Daniel Dayan makes a most valuable point that ALL news is framed as I also deem it impossible for journalists to transfer stories without giving a definition of our social world or without any values. And oftentimes, social realities are recorded in order to be shown and shown for a purpose. But I am not convinced that this “monstration” is a continuously and conscious action. Granted, especially Fox, but also for example MSNBC and CNN, often serve their values up with deliberate and great fanfare, while manufacturing stories along the way. But many, maybe most reporters, pressured by deadlines and stuck in their (mechanical) habits of producing news stories, are not driven by a need to force a specific version of reality upon their audiences. This brings me to the question of how news is made, which is another question than how news is manufactured.
It is always fascinating to decipher the spontaneous ways of news makers, especially when we focus less on the end product and more on the process of news making and how this is embedded in the social reality of journalists.
I feel this is the crucial point here-
“The real danger is with these other discourses that are so persuasive that they can be conflated with “reality.””
Herein lies the danger- if one takes the position that each side deserves equal consideration, the anti-reality position, such as the idea that civil war in Iraq could possibly be a good thing, can create spontaneous momentum of its own, and enter into the plausible possibility of equal treatment.
The knee-jerk reaction that there is duality in all things is pervasive in journalism, and specifically television news-entertainment. While a debate with two sides, black and white, is certainly more dynamic and entertaining, one must be mindful of the unintended consequences (see danger) of this unrestrained approach. A grayscale news analysis is, and always will be, more appropriate and accurate, but lacks the visual and mental punch of the black/white, duality technique.
I agree with the central premise that we should not call for Fox News to be shut down, but I am a bit troubled by the conflation of opinions and claims. Opinions are not falsifiable and common notions of freedom of speech dictate that anyone should be allowed to voice any opinion no matter how repugnant or offensive. However, I’m not sure the same principle should apply to claims. For example, we do have laws against slander and libel for a reason. I think we must consider the damage false claims and the illogical rationales which appear daily on Fox News does to our democracy. I think a new “fairness doctrine” that goes beyond the request for equal time and instead finds someway to fairly judge the accuracy of claims made on “news” stations may be in everyone’s best interest.
[…] to be heard, to show their concerns to the world. The power of showing, the power of monstration as Daniel Dayan puts it, is a great resource. The costs of staying for a few hundred people are relatively low. And the […]