Our conception of public journalism and the kinds of journalism we produced
Our conception of public journalism according to Haas centred around his ideas of the deliberating public. This was particularly evident in the initial public meeting that we held to get the community of Ward 10 to tell us their issues and concerns. The meeting was a space in which “different social groups could articulate and deliberate about their particular concerns among themselves” (Haas, 2007:40). We used their response for our story ideas, further contributing to the deliberation space.
In the preliminary stages of the Critical Media Production course, we mostly performed public journalism, especially with regards to civic mapping. We also let the citizens set the news agenda by taking their issues from the meeting to get stories, a vital component of public journalism. We eliminated boundaries between authorities and citizens by communicating with authorities and relaying the information back to citizens in the form of wallpaper tabloids, TV documentaries and photo soundslides. Therefore we as journalists acted as catalysts and performed a bridging function between the political sphere and the public sphere. We also had facilitative role - as these bridges we established helped affect real change in the community. Therefore towards the middle of the course we were not engaged with purely public journalism, but took a more facilitative role. By involving the government in our attempts to problem solve, it led to a more developmental style of journalism. Public journalism provided the space for debate, but we took this further when we didn’t just leave it up to community to deal with their problems, but played an active role in fixing them. Therefore the rest of our journalism was very much advocacy based- we actively campaigned for fences and facilities to get fixed, houses damaged from the tornado to be repaired, and youth to be given more creative opportunities. To this end we attempted to work closely with authority figures, to some, if not great, success.
Critical reflection on our processes and Haas’s theory
The downfalls of our practice of public journalism were that we didn’t get people in the community involved in the production of journalism, except as catalysts for the stories. We did not get them to write articles themselves; they didn’t produce their own work and we didn’t motivate them to. In documenting issue that came out of the deliberation space, we did not stick to pure civic journalism- ie we didn’t give them camera, but we did let them direct the procedure. We just documented what they regarded as important. Therefore we could have gone further with citizen journalism, or worked more actively with our trained citizen journalists - but Haas does not specify public produced journalism in his public philosophy, rather he emphasises letting the citizens set the agenda, and reporting from multiple perspectives, which we did.
Haas’s theory did not work out in practice as well as it could have, mostly because we didn’t have enough time to establish lasting ties with community. As Rosen puts it “If journalists are to have any sort of critical voice or challenging role within a community, they must live in some fashion as members of that community. The force of their reporting will originate not in the distance they keep but in the connection that they make to the real aspirations and daily struggles of the people they report on” (in Haas, 2007:5). There just was not enough time to really experience the daily struggles of the community, and by the end of the process we still felt very much like outsiders, bringing our journalism in.
Haas discusses the problem that not everyone has equal social footing, and how to facilitate deliberation despite inequalities. He suggests that journalists offer “separate discursive spaces for deliberation to ensure that subordinate social groups to enjoy the same opportunities as dominant social groups in the process of public deliberation” (2007:40), before bringing the two groups together. Ward 10 is very diverse, with the coloured area on one side, and the middle-class white area around Graeme College. We discussed dealing with the two areas in small groups before bringing them together, but it didn’t work so well. It was too much of a challenge to bring communities together. Therefore we decided to focus only on the coloured area- because they were marginalised and more important because they were more in need. We felt it was more appropriate to the coverage in Grocott’s, as they needed to have a voice more than the middle-classes, who are already represented in mainstream media. We felt it could still build bridges because the Graeme area will see what life is like in the coloured area, without an actual public deliberation.
Our Ward 10 group felt that we didn’t really open up a discussion/deliberative space in the community. In terms of face-to-face dialogue we had the public meeting, but nothing in between. The media we produced could facilitate mediated deliberation, as we will show them what we did, but even then there were not enough open spaces for debate. We felt we directed discussion to a fair degree – as journalists our stories are very shaped, as they have a certain angle and are influenced by our choice in sources. That being said, we came to the conclusion that we might not have been aware of deliberation happening when we weren’t around. For example the wallpapers could initiate discussion within the community. The TV group actually met people who had heard about our project without having directly spoken to us, which shows evidence of discussion within the community. We felt we needed more time – to hold more informal discussions and build bonds. Perhaps next years 3rd years should take over from where we left off, to avoid ‘parachute journalism’ and enable the deliberation to continue.
Another way Haas’s theory falls short, is due to our South African context – we struggled with the municipality and the political nature of simple problems such as fixing a fence around a tennis court. The municipality wouldn’t come to same meeting as citizens and our ward councillor for Ward 10 was less than helpful. Luckily we had Lena May, the ward 11 DA councillor.
Effectiveness as a team
Our group felt we worked well together as a team, feeding off each other’s enthusiasm and cynicism in turn. Our first public meeting united us with a common goal, because we saw what the community needed. We all went through the same emotional journey – from being nervous that no one would pitch, to actively listening to the community’s concerns. Newton’s plea for the youth and Marcelle’s discussion about the many rapes in the area affected all of us.
With regards to media output, all our little bits of journalism added up to affecting change and getting things done. We were very developmental in style – as we were developing the community in different ways. Our journalism complimented each other’s, for example TV and WED, and Rachel and Litha’s soundslide. The TV students focused on the idea of drugs being an escape from harsh realities of everyday living. Their video aimed to show how drugs make things worse, not better. It was not preachy, but took its cues from public journalism, letting the actual drug users speak for themselves. It linked well with rest of the group who focused on infrastructure, as it is not enough to change mindsets around drug use, we need to give alternatives. By focussing on the lack of facilities, the WED team also helped change mindsets- instead of taking drugs, there are things like sports, recreation and art to do.
We not only collaborated in terms of content, but also method. The writers used information from the soundslide about Newton. By sharing information and sources to do with our stories, we better helped the community. Therefore we were not selfish about any of our ideas, but worked as a team.
Teamwork also helped us to have a greater appreciation of other specialisations, for example the TV kids were impressed with the soundslides, despite previously feeling that TV is a ‘better’ medium. It exposed us to the reality of other disciplines by allowing us to see each other’s work. The designers felt a bit isolated, because they only worked with the end product, so they felt on boundaries of group and not as much a part of public journalism. But they got involved in meetings, and through civic mappings got to know who they were designing for, as well as giving people an active voice through the Grocott’s spreads.
The value of the public sphere vs hyperlocal spaces
In comparing the difference between producing media for the general public space and working in hyperlocal areas, we found that different audiences were required for different content produced. For some pairs, producing media specifically for hyperlocal spaces worked better. For example, the TV kids needed to work with hyperlocal to change specific mindsets, and cater for a specific audience. If their video about drug use in Ward 10 was shown to whole of Grahamstown, this could reinforce stereotypes about the so-called ‘coloured area’. But others pairs need a general public space, for example Caeri and Sizwe’s soundslide about the houses still unfixed from the 2008 tornado needed a wider audience, because the local community could not help themselves, whereas the greater Grahamstown could provide more help. In fact, they needed a wider platform from beginning.
The WED group found that for their tabloid wallpaper it was beneficial to make use of both the general public sphere and the hyperlocal spaces. The hyerlocal enabled them to give feedback to the actual community, as the writers found out about facilities for the specific ward’s benefit. The citizens had questions and queries that did not pertain to the whole of Grahamstown. Yet the general public, accessed through Grocott’s newspaper was beneficial because we all live in little bubbles in Grahamstown, so publishing media from different areas in the town makes everyone more aware of other people ‘s situations. Therefore we are not so isolated in our own town, and the media produced in this larger sphere leads to greater understanding between different classes, races and areas.
Our changing identity as journalists
Through the experience of practicing public journalism, our conception of journalism has changed. The ideas from this course have influenced our ideas of being professional media producers. We each discovered new identities for ourselves within the concept of being a journalist:
• For Sizwe, this course was a satisfying experience, because we were getting to help someone do something and not just getting a story. This is entirely unlike professional journalism, which sees the story as the first priority. He had considered not being a journalist because of this, but this course has changed his mind- by seeing tangible results it changed his perception of what journalism can do.
• For Fayo, this course made him realise that, especially in South Africa, mainstream journalism is not practical to our situation. If every media outlet practiced public journalism, issues would be addressed and things could change. He feels there needs to be action after deliberation, and therefore public journalism is the best alternative to journalism.
• For Lauren, the course reminded us that we are not loved by everyone as journalists, which is humbling experience, reinforcing the fact that we are not here for ourselves and own glory.
• Gabi came to Rhodes to do journalism to change the world and make a difference. Our whole experience of journalism annihilated this, we were told to be objective, neutral and that mainstream media was big business, not about changing the world. But this course gave her hope- showed her a way of being a journalist that can affect change, can get involved- don’t have to stay distant and neutral. We actually did help people, and gave them a voice. Gabi wants to carry on with public journalism once qualified.
• Caeri and Fayo reflected on the fact that most students choose to study journalism in order to help. But in mainstream news, help is not effective, it leaves it at giving people a voice, but voices can be ignored. And the kinds of voices shown through mainstream media are often only officials and important people, not the average South African. Therefore public journalism is the most effective, and we all felt that we would like to see more public journalism in our country in the future.
Suggested changes to the course
Changes in this course that we would like to see include the necessity for a bigger platform for our media, like pages in Grocott’s from the beginning to plot our progress. We feel we need to get bigger companies involved, as many companies want to donate money but there needs to be a professional relationship with them in order for it to work. We would be treated more professionally if we had some form of identity, like t-shirts or business cards, and insignia like letterheads and Grocott’s banners. But the informal nature of the course as it stands works to our advantage in other capacities, for example, within certain subgroups in the community, such as drug users or the youth. Therefore we need to adopt chameleon techniques throughout the course- a formal, professional identity with the municipality and authority figures, and informal with certain members of the community.
In the WED group’s experience, they were treated like professionals by Parks and Recreation, a div ision of the municipality, who respected them and collaborated with them. The WED group needed more space in Grocott’s to pat municipality on the back for doing their job, though. There needs to be more follow up on this course, for example the tennis courts could fall apart again so easily, so next years third year groups need to take over our project and start a tennis club or something.
We are also concerned about the perception of Rhodes students in Grahamstown. Many citizens feel used by the journalism students to get their degree, as they come into communities, promise change and offer hope before leaving, often leaving projects unsustainable. For our group, our work with the Dakawa Centre is only starting next year, and everything is coming to an end now with exams. We cannot ensure that things will change. We all worked so hard that we don’t want to come back in two years and find that nothing has changed. If our projects become sustainable, then perceptions of Rhodes students would change. The legacy we leave behind will stand as evidence that students care. Maybe we could carry on with the course for the first semester of next year, instead of doing media studies. The community has expressed concern, because they expect us to come back. To avoid dependcy we have to make it clear in our public meeting that they have to carry it on the projects we have started. Therefore we need to find a balance between doing everything, and doing nothing - we have got the ball rolling, now we need to step back and have faith in them. We need to allow the community to deliberate amongst themselves, and let them contact us for more help or next step. The community will get involved if we leave them with the tools to do so. Therefore it is important to distribute our work and give feedback.
Personal response to problems and problem-solving
Our personal responses to the problems in community were varied and the topic of problem-solving is fraught with difficulties. The WED group found affecting change difficult, as it sometimes felt like the community was just complaining, and they wondered “why don’t the community get up and do something about it?” But after we as journalists were kicked out of municipality meeting, we realised how difficult it is to get help and why people do give up eventually. But we cannot do everything for the community, they have to have a part in helping themselves. For example, by condemning the vandals in the community themselves.
There are also issues within the community that they need to solve. For example with regards to the caretaker position at the oval: The people did not like the appointed caretaker because he was black (evidence of racism in the coloured area) and therefore got him fired. But the position is currently vacant because none of the coloured people want to apply for the position either, creating a catch 22 situation.
The question on our minds was; “Why don’t the community mobilise themselves?” Usually, and in the past, there are many groups formed within communities - women, church, and dance groups to name a few. We found that youth have positive attitudes, but this is squashed by the cynicism of adults as they grow older. There are also bigger problems that need tackling, for example alcoholism is a huge problem in this ward, but we need professional backing to tackle such structural issues.
The community in Ward 10 is still in state of expecting handouts, for example when Caeri and Sizwe started getting involved with the members affected by tornado damage, neighbouring families wanted our help too – with some people showing us their door that was broken by thieves. We cannot help everyone, and had to keep our boundaries clear. The ward also has a perception that other wards are better off, which is false. The mindsets we encountered were either one of giving up on fixing problems, or not even trying in the first place and waiting for someone else to help. Therefore we feel it would be more beneficial for us to change their mindsets rather than focus on short term solutions. But we felt bad about their problems and needed to fix them. We need to pass on element of community being more vocal of their needs, so that when we are gone, their needs will still be heard.
It is harder though to help people help themselves, it is much easier to just intervene, especially due to time constraints. Some media we produced did aim to help people help themselves. For example Litha and Rachel initially focussed on the lack of facilities, appealing to businesses and the music department to help change things. But later they focussed on empowering the youth to help themselves, by interviewing local role models emphasising that youth in the area need to go out and learn more, be leaders in their own community. They also focussed on how the youth need to be united first, and create their own groups, before getting outside help. The community needs to realise that they don’t need outside help, they can mobilise themselves, and that things aren’t necessarily better out there- the issues they face are common to all wards in Grahamstown, and most towns in South Africa.
To conclude
As a group we have learned a lot through this course on public journalism; grown as individuals and as a team. Although we resented being thrown in what felt like the deep end, we did not sink entirely and have actually managed to put Haas’s public philosophy for public journalism into practice in very real and meaningful ways, borrowing elements of developmental and facillitative journalism along the way. We are grateful to have been given so much responsibility, and have been humbled and inspired by the process.
No comments:
Post a Comment