Spin in media politics – is it ever justifiable?

Featured

Posted on by
Reply

AMEP exists to encourage journalists to produce content that will help to lead to a just, meaningful, purposeful, harmonious and fully prosperous society. We also encourage journalists to inform and empower the vulnerable in our society. Finally, we encourage them to affirm, encourage and challenge elite networks and institutions to govern our society justly, mercifully and humbly.

Research shows that the combination of the communication power of media and the strategy and social research strengths of political parties actually construct the dominant meaning within societies, such as Australia. ‘Spin’ is a vital component of media politics.

If our goals are paramount to us, can we ever justify support for ‘spin’? Even, if political strategies and programs contribute to justice, meaning, purpose, harmony, prosperity and well being!

Some worldviews do claim that ‘the means’ are justified by ‘the ends’.

Does a biblical worldview justify ‘spin’? More explicitly, do Jesus’ teachings justify ‘spin’?

We would be really interested in your feedback, to help us reflect on what we do.

Bob Simpson

 

Where Christian Civic Engagement Begins

Featured

Posted on by
4

Tim Soerens believes that contributing to the ‘shalom’ of his city starts with showing up. Christy Tennant 11.21.11

On April 21, 2011, Tim Soerens stood before the 50 or so people who had shown up at the South Lake Union neighborhood community center, where Seattle mayor Mike McGinn was holding a town hall meeting. As the moderator, Soerens’s job was to create a hospitable environment for discussion of issues ranging from local dog parks to a $2 billion tunnel through downtown—and to hold both the citizens and the mayor to their allotted time.

Soerens, 32, is a church planter and one of the founders of the Parish Collective, which seeks to help local churches be both “rooted in neighborhoods and linked across cities.” For Soerens’s church in the South Lake Union neighborhood, that meant helping to start the neighborhood’s first farmers’ market, hosting a weekly BBQ, and working with their neighbors in a local community garden—getting involved with existing nonprofits and initiatives whenever possible rather than starting new efforts from scratch. Many community council meetings later, he’s now active in Wallingford, a neighborhood about a mile from South Lake Union, where he says he is “beginning the listening, organizing, and [finding] pathways of connection.”

How does a church planter—or any Christian, for that matter—become a civic leader? According to Soerens, “You just need to show up and be consistent for a while. About 100 people run Seattle. Certainly the mayor and City Council, but from there you begin to see about the same 75 people or so at everything. This might be a slight exaggeration, but not as much as you might think.” For Soerens, the link between civic engagement and the flourishing of the city is inextricable. “Democracy is a brilliant system if people show up. But if they don’t, that vacuum will quickly get filled, and not always for the best.”

Soerens’s approach to civic influence doesn’t require huge numbers or big budgets. “There is a general rule I’ve heard, at least in Seattle: If you can get 10 people to give 10 hours of their time for the same thing, you can pass legislation. And while that is actually a lot harder than it sounds, I think it’s realistic.” In fact, Soerens contends that “if you had three to five people of faith in each neighborhood of a city who were consistently involved in civic participation in their neighborhood, and they knew each other, they would have more influence to shape and bless the city than any mega church with tens of thousands. Showing up once is not so hard; showing up for months and years is what creates the social capital for real change. But it really is just showing up, listening deeply, and seeking common-good solutions.”

So, several years ago, Soerens decided to “show up,” and over time, he found himself in civic leadership. In fact, showing up was how Soerens got to know Mayor McGinn. Before McGinn was elected, the two men served together on local initiatives. Through his community organizing—the farmers’ market, community garden, and neighborhood BBQ—Soerens began to find himself in the offices of city council members and leaders of various departments with the city. His role as moderator that April evening reflected the trust Soerens has built with the mayor and his staff.

For Soerens, being a civic-minded follower of Christ connects him to the very first believers. “If Christians dare to accept the confession that ‘Jesus is Lord,’ as the early church did, that means we are called to live out an alternative story rooted in the holistic, reconciling, and restoring mission of God. If Jesus is Lord of our neighborhood, what then?” If more Christians asked this question, he says, the “embodied church of, with, and for the neighborhood could emerge. Then, of course, the task is to lean into the tension between how things are and how things are supposed to be.”

You could call that the crossroads of kingdom theology—the place where the already and the not yet meet. Soerens believes the church is most at home at that intersection. “Occupying that place—living in that intersection—is not so much a new strategy for the church, but rather a big, holy dare.” Twenty years from now, Soerens hopes to see Wallingford and other Seattle neighborhoods become places where neighbors know and care for one another, spiritually and tangibly. And he hopes that those local places will be connected widely with other neighborhoods and cities, so that the church becomes “a network of blessing” for the world.

“This dare to follow Jesus into the very particular places, stories, and realities of different neighborhoods will be unique to each place, but I believe the task of engaging in the restorative work God is already doing is universal.”

And sometimes, participating in that restorative work begins by just showing up!

Engaging in the Public Space

Posted on by
Reply

Penny Mulvey is very astute in her understanding of how Christian organisations can engage and begin to understand the public media. This article, written in 2008, is worth reading. If your organisation, or your church, needs to deal effectively with our increasingly ‘pluralistic’ society, Penny would be a good mind to start with.

Our own associate Alison Brown would be another.

Penny Mulvey_Working Together_Engaging in the Public Space

To me, one paragraph stands out.

“Journalists look for news, and by and large, news is negative, but there are also opportunities for positive stories.”

As a Christian I know there are many amazing stories about men and women of faith and peace that would paint a hugely different picture to the negative picture that usually prevails. Many of these stories originate through Christians working in community. This begs a serious question for the broader Church, “Why are these amazing stories not being told?”

Penny expresses two concerns about the Church dealing with the media, which you will read. I sense there is also a big question of who controls the leadership in the Church that prevents the ‘good news’ being communicated among the people of Australia through the public media.

Penny understands the media very well having worked in it for as long as she has.

Within AMEP we naturally explore the networked connections of the media and powerful meaning makers in key sectors of the global economy, and our Australian society. These connections will increasingly bear down on the Australian people. As is our calling to help the Church, we constantly reflect on how society can be made whole, under the “reign of God”, through Jesus’ leadership. In our case, we are looking through the lens of “media”.

Right now, there is probably a disconnection between those of us who are Christians in the media and the clergy who are perceived by the world at large as the ‘voice and image’ indeed the ‘message’ of the Church. That disconnection needs to be rapidly overcome.

Bob Simpson

The Australian Media Engagement Project (AMEP)

 

 

 

 

Reflecting on ancient wisdom; what is it saying today?

Posted on by
Reply

On Silence by Aldous Huxley

The twentieth century is, among other things, the Age of Noise. Physical noise, mental noise and noise of desire — we hold history’s record for all of them. And no wonder; for all the resources of our almost miraculous technology have been thrown into the current assault against silence.

That most popular and influential of all recent inventions, the radio is nothing but a conduit through which pre-fabricated din can flow into our homes. And this din goes far deeper, of course, than the eardrums. It penetrates the mind, filling it with a ‘babel’ of distractions, blasts of corybantic or sentimental music, continually repeated doses of drama that bring no catharsis, but usually create a craving for daily or even hourly emotional enemas. And where, as in most countries, the broadcasting stations support themselves by selling time to advertisers, the noise is carried from the ear, through the realms of phantasy, knowledge and feeling to the ego’s core of wish and desire.

Spoken or printed, broadcast over the ether or on wood-pulp, all advertising copy has but one purpose — to prevent the will from ever achieving silence. Desirelessness is the condition of deliverance and illumination. The condition of an expanding and technologically progressive system of mass production is universal craving. Advertising is the organized effort to extend and intensify the workings of that force, which (as all the saints and teachers of all the higher religions have always taught) is the principal cause of suffering and wrong-doing and the greatest obstacle between the human soul and its Divine Ground.

from Silence, Liberty, and Peace (1946)

http://markelt.wordpress.com/tag/media/

Chasing the Truth – for whom and to where?

Posted on by
Reply

As I reflected on “Chasing the Truth” by Margaret Simons in the Sunday Age 13/11 (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/chasing-the-truth-20111112-1nd0m.html), deep down I thought “praise God” that Australia’s still a place where, even in mainstream media, journalists can exercise their independence to investigate and write in the interests of the citizens, rather than the powerful.

To put Australia’s journalistic climate into perspective, this report from The Media Project (http://themediaproject.org/article/targeting-journalists-honduras) gives a stark comparison.

“Since March 1, seven journalists have been murdered in execution style. Many fear their deaths may signal a new, more violent chapter in the Honduran political crisis, which began after last summer’s military coup and has since caused the U.S. a raft of diplomatic headaches in Latin America. “We can’t reach sure conclusions yet about these cases,” says Honduran newspaper columnist Alfredo Haces. “But a lot of journalists here are living in terror.””

Press freedom is not an academic argument. It’s about power! It goes to the heart of democracy and our freedom.

My personal opinion is that Australian citizens must call upon journalists to act on their behalf, and truthfully inform and empower them. In all sorts of ways, Australians must be encouraged to do this. Essentially, journalists must inform and empower the people about any systemic injustice being set up by forces of politics, the law, and money. Considerable research shows that powerful forces, including media, do collaborate against the long-term interests of citizens.

This places journalists and editors in a very difficult place, even in Australia.

So, where does journalism in relation to Australian democracy go from here?

Using Margaret Simons’ framework, I’d like to explore some of the issues, a little more. I hope what I’m saying will challenge others to investigate the big emerging issues for the media.

As an observer I think major issues are:
1. Strategic links among media, business and political power in relation to:
a. Business models that drive ‘infotainment’ rather than expository journalism
b. Personality-driven politics that ultimately invests itself in the “Politics of Scandal” and character assassination
2. Independent Code of conduct of journalists
3. Independence of the Australian Press Council (APC) from media organisations and government
a. Sole authority in Australia for accrediting journalists
b. Access for accredited journalists through the APC to same government information given to political parties
c. Partial funding from the Electoral Commission to match money paid to political parties
d. Technological capability to track globalised networks affecting Australian society, particularly any detriment to informing and empowering Australian citizens.

Margaret Simons says, “The main way to control powerful people is public opinion and good journalism is our best chance that public opinion will be informed.” Correctly, this statement highlights the vital role journalists play in our democracy.

However, I perceive two obstacles in the way of good journalism.

The first involves the level of control that elite political networks have over the political agenda, their desire to have their agenda communicated, and their influence within the media. If my perception is correct, not only will the agenda favour the powerful, so too will the outcomes. The second obstacle lies in the manner the media gains its knowledge of ‘public opinion’. There is a model called ’cascading network activation’ based on the research of one Robert Entman, which studies relationships between power, news framing and public opinion. This model suggests that even ‘public opinion’ can be manipulated by powerful political elites.

Sadly for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens, they won’t fully benefit if the main goal is political power, rather than service to Australian citizens.

Another risk to good journalism is the growth of personality-driven politics, which arises because abstract political messages do not hold great meaning in the minds of citizens.

Research apparently shows that citizens only pay close attention to messages about significant topics that affect their day-to-day lives and experiences. It obviously disempowers the elites if nobody wants to listen to their agendas. However, it seems that citizens will listen to another person, if they trust them. Even if that person is a politician! Therefore, ‘the politician’ must become the message. This also causes those trusted people to become targets for political assassination by those in opposition. This is a deadly game, which may be a crisis for democracy around the world.

My observations are that the elite corps of political journalists, and aspirants, are often trained for and seduced into this game. To effectively expose the destructive character of the players behind this strategy would destroy careers. Yet, by choosing to be players in this political game, aren’t journalists failing to be prophetic voices acting on behalf of Australian citizens, and the common good of Australian society?

If research was to prove my observations, would we have reached the stage that independent accreditation of journalists is the only acceptable course of action that citizens should expect?

This probably leads on to the thought about the need for an independent code of conduct for accredited journalists. The Australian Media Engagement Project Inc (AMEP), while always trying to encourage journalists in their vocation; also tries to evaluate their work against the MEA code of conduct. While not perfect, this seems to be a good, common sense document. When testing content against this code, it raises good questions: questions that journalists should frequently be asking themselves.

But, I’ve seen a list of 20-30 codes of conduct under which journalists and other media workers in various media organisations work. Considering how important it is for our democracy, the Australian people should be demanding (a) one accepted code of conduct, and (b) independent accreditation of journalists.

Finally, is it time to reform the Australian Press Council (APC)? Are unhealthy linkages between media politics and money, now making APC’s present structure untenable? If the democratic freedoms of Australian citizens are to be protected!

How could APC be restructured so that its governance and funding are outside the influence of media organisations and political elites, or their lobbyists? Legal frameworks, justly representing the interests of citizens, would be important. Systems of licence fees for media organisations to operate in Australia may work. Membership fees from accredited journalists would probably work. Sharing revenue currently used by the Electoral Office to fund elected political candidates, and therefore their parties, could be the main funding stream. There are probably other potential revenue streams.

Care in drafting a restructure should note few key objectives. One is that the main stakeholder of the reformed Council must be the Australian citizens. Second, all “Journalists” should be accredited by APC, and held accountable under APC’s code of conduct. Others would revolve around the APC’s capability to resource good journalism.

In reflecting on the above thoughts I was interested in Margaret Simon’s comment, “(Julian) Disney himself will either crash through or crash with this (media) enquiry – publishers are unhappy that Disney has helped place them in a situation where the council may grow teeth.

It made me wonder who is in the network of Julian Disney’s key supporters. Are they principally ‘political’ players? Heaven forbid! Or, are they servants of the citizens?

Margaret Simons, and the Sunday Age, should be applauded for her contribution. If readers are interested in furthering this conversation through AMEP, you could use www.amep.org.au.

Bob Simpson
Director
The Australian Media Engagement Project Inc (AMEP)

Expecting politicians and journalists to act for the people

Posted on by
Reply

The overall aim of AMEP (The Australian Media Engagement Project Inc) is to encourage Australian media professionals to wisely consider and implement initiatives that will:

  1. Help transform our society into a deeper sense of individual and community meaning and purpose, harmony and prosperity;
  2. Inform and empower the vulnerable in our society; and
  3. Affirm, encourage and challenge elite networks and institutions to govern our society justly, mercifully and humbly.

I think you’ll see from this we believe journalists must be powerful protectors of freedoms for the Australian people.

I also believe another protection lies with elected representatives at federal, state and local levels working for the needs of their constituents: not as part of the State or other vested interest.

In this globalised, networked society these protections are more important than ever. Every day I read, view and listen to material that indicates these protections are quietly slipping away from the people into the control of elite networks and institutions.

As an associate of AMEP I’m interested in pursuing three ideas that I think would make Australia a more just and humane country: and give mainstream Australians more say in the government of its affairs.

First, is to generate nation-wide conversation to assess whether journalists should be accountable under a single independent code of conduct – rather than separate codes of conduct of different media organisations.

Second, is to generate nation-wide conversation about standards that would cause elected representatives to be principally and primarily accountable to the electors – before their parties, other vested interests or the State.

Third, because of the universal nature of religion, is to expect journalists to accurately report on issues through the lens of important religious worldviews held by Australians. This would enable audiences to reflect on different moral values involved in important issues, and consider the different impacts each worldview could have on our society.

If you would like to engage in these issues leave your comments below. Or, email me at bob.simpson@amep.org.au and sign up on our website to receive our monthly newsletter for more extensive discussion.

Bob Simpson

Associate

AMEP (The Australian Media Engagement Project Inc)

 

Does Australia need a nation building project?

Posted on by
1

Does Australia need a nation building project that draws Australians back to a common good that makes for a just society? A project that principally recognises the beliefs and values of the mainstream of our society! Also recognising that the Christian tradition has done much at many levels to meet the education, employment and health needs of vulnerable Australians!

Or, do Australians want to live under the unstated beliefs of powerful global elites? E.g. the global financial markets in which the only value is money! Or, do we want to live in a land that becomes subservient to the wishes of powerful global military networks! Or powerful global intellectual elites!

Or, vested interests within Australia!

Or, global media networks that are actors in the programs driven by any of the above!

Do any of these networks deliver to Australians what most of us generally want for our families, friends and community networks? Meaning and purpose! Harmony! Wellbeing and prosperity!

Recently, I read about Singapore’s nation building project. The author, Lai Ah Eng from the National University of Singapore, wrote, “Based on its founding principles of secularism and multiculturalism, Singapore’s nation building project since 1965 has aimed to establish and maintain social harmony and cohesion. Its approach, enforced by various legal and structural institutions, is a combination of hardnosed pragmatism in management, judicious tight-rope walking for neutrality, and strong intervention where necessary.”

Then, she continued, “But it is ordinary people who live religions and navigate their everyday multi-religious environments, as collective communities, groups, families and individuals. In a wide range of public spaces, the processes of living and interacting over time have produced a level of tolerance, respect and civility that today serves as the standard of appropriate and expected behaviour.”

In “The Australian” on Saturday 27/8, an article titled “MPs won’t jump on same-sex bandwagon!”, claims The Australian Labor Party is approaching “the starkest repudiation of its long ties with the Christian tradition.”

Would Australians want this to happen? Would it serve the common good of this country?

The author(s) finish their article with this assertion, “In truth, the real debate has hardly begun.”

Bob Simpson

AMEP Associate

©The Australian Media Engagement Project Inc 2011

Journalists on Social Media

Posted on by
Reply

Article written by: Kristin Piombino for Ragans PR Daily

‘When 92 percent of journalists have a LinkedIn account, there has to be a good reason. There is, and business leaders, representatives and PR pros should pay attention.

A new survey from Arketi Group found that the percent of journalists on LinkedIn has increased from 85 percent in 2009. Why?

LinkedIn provides an easy way for reporters to connect with sources.

“It comes as no surprise more BtoB journalists are participating in social media sites, especially LinkedIn,” Mike Neumeier, principal of Arketi Group, says, “LinkedIn provides an online outlet for them to connect with industry sources, find story leads and build their professional networks.”

While more journalists are on LinkedIn than any other social network, they have increased their presence on other networks, too. The survey found that 85 percent of journalists are on Facebook and 84 percent use Twitter. Only 55 percent of journalists used Facebook in 2009, and 24 percent were on Twitter.

What do all of these numbers mean for you? They prove you need to be available and prepared for journalists’ inquiries on social networks, Neumeier says.

Almost all journalists—99 percent—get story ideas from industry sources, and social media makes it easy for them to track sources down. When journalists can’t get through to a source, 85 percent turn to industry experts—who are easy to find on LinkedIn’.

Linkedin Survey

Full article is available here


 

Welcome

Posted on by
Reply

AMEP is a collaboration of people intent on affirming, encouraging and challenging Australian media professionals to have a wise impact on Australian society through their work and conduct.

You are welcome to subscribe and comment and get involved in discussions.

This Blog will be where AMEP Authors and Journalists will share their publications.

AMEP Articles and Editorials are listed here in Societal Drivers.

Social Drivers…

The Bible Society in Victoria has identified ten drivers of society: The Sopia Think Tank want to challenge each one of these drivers to consider what a difference a wisdom stance would make to their sector and to make a stand to think wisely about the issues they face on a daily basis. AMEP’s Blog and Articles are categorized in this way.

POLITICS
Political Decisions are often made on the grounds of political expediency. What will be more likely to get me voted in next election? ST2 Challenges this base for decision making. What is the wisest thing I can do here? What is best for the common good?

MEDIA
What is more likely to sell newspapers of radio advertising? News stories are often more about what the people want to hear than about getting the truth out there so people can make up their own minds. Surely the latter is the way of wisdom

ARTS
Does wisdom enter in to my decision making when I am considering my next creative journey or is it more about controversy for its own sake? What is the story I want to tell here? Is it seeking wisdom or something else?

BUSINESS
Business decisions are often all about profit and keeping the shareholders happy. The triple bottom line has moved businesses along but too often the financial bottom line determines how environmentally and socially responsible we are going to be. Wisdom challenges that approach.

SPORTS
Is sport all about winning or is it just as much about development of the best in a person and a team? In reality, not just on paper? Wisdom seeks answers to that question

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANISATIONS
Community Service Organisations are really under the pump today and are suffering from enormous cost shifting exercises. But this pressure has caused some to become so focussed on meeting the Key Performance Indicators of Government Grants that they sometimes take their eyes off the ball. Wisdom confronts that mindset.

EDUCATION
Is education all about just ‘ getting a job ‘ or does it at least include helping people to look for wisdom and to know it when they find it, and to think smart and ask questions on the journey…..

HEALTH
Mental Health, physical health, community health, dental health: all aspects of our health system must be assisted by the way of wisdom or it quickly becomes a ‘sickness system’ rather than a health system, creating a community of dependant people rather than a community of wellbeing.

JUSTICE
Wisdom applied to the Justice System Challenges punitive and retributive styles of ‘justice’ and calls for restorative justice so that offender, victim, and the community as a whole benefit from justice being served.

LAW
If the enforcement of Law is to benefit the Community at large it will consider Wisdom along the way: wisdom will serve it at the investigation level as well as the enforcement level. In this way it will serve the community and will be for the common good of society as a whole.