While I was doing the reading for this week, about media across cultures, my mind kept going back to the media coverage surrounding the Chilean miners. Why was it that it received so much media attention? It is not as if this was the first time that miners have been trapped, and the fact that it did not even occur in the United States is even more interesting. Since Aug.5 when the miners were trapped to the rescue just a few weeks ago, the media coverage was nonstop. Why?
I found this article from The Guardian, a newspaper from the UK, about the media coverage of the entrapment and rescue
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oct/18/chile-miners-global-media-coverage
In the article, the writer discusses how journalists flocked to Camp Hope, the temporary camp made at the San Jose mine. Over 2,000 journalists and technicians camped out there to broadcast the event all over the world. The entire world was able to live the experience with the miners through the camera that was inside the mine. The rescue of the miners was, arguably extremely emotional as all 33 emerged alive. The article commends the Chilean government for the massive media coverage. The Chilean President, Sebastian Pinera, once owned the Chilean TV network, Chilevision. The President is a media mogul, and knows how to work the industry, "Somehow the Chile authorities understood how to make it so emotional and appealing," Rosental Alves, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas, told CNN. "I think it really matters that the president is not only media literate but is a media mogul and he is surrounded by people who have that mindset."
Would other countries have even heard of the trapped miners if the Chilean government did not expose it? Do you think that it is possible that the Chilean government could have used this event to their advantage in order to gain coverage for Chile?
In the McQuail reading by Karl Erik Rosengren, he discusses how the 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme spread throughout news organizations around the world, “The fact that a piece of international news can be diffused among the different populations of the globe as quickly as is sometimes the case is due, of course, to the relative efficiency of the international mass media system.” (p 232). The article goes on to say that sometimes the news travels so quickly that it can be lopsided and that “We thus get a somewhat distorted picture about what human life looks like in other parts of the world---and our own” (232). Do you think that this is true—that media coverage of events from other cultures, nations, could be lopsided and that perhaps, we are not getting the true picture of life in other parts of the world?
The Baran and Davis reading for this week discusses the commodification of culture. It lists several reasons for the repackaging and marketing of culture to peoples. One element involves dramatization of culture, which I thought was pertinent to the Chilean miner example. It says, “Such dramatization makes the final commodity attractive to as large an audience as possible” (335). Could the rescue of the miners have been over dramaticized in order to gain more media coverage?
My questions to you are do you believe that the Chilean miner incident was overexposed potentially, by the Chilean government? Do you think we received a distorted version of it? Can you think of any other examples of international events that have received intense media coverage here in the U.S.?
In terms of the images we receive from other places around the world through the media, I think the recent Chilean miner incident is a prime example. Considering many of us wouldn’t have had a first-hand look at the situation, let alone be able to get facts straight from the actual people themselves on our own, our only real link to the situation was through the media coverage. John Tomlinson within the McQuail reader introduced this notion of media being at the center of things (223) and I think that’s really what the key factor is, especially with regards to how the Chilean government used the media for its coverage. Specifically within this event, I almost think more people focused on the media coverage of it, more so than the even at hand itself. I think it was partially because of the severity of the event, and because the Chilean president has such a good understanding of the industry that the government did in fact almost “use” the event to their advantage. Knowing that media is in fact at the center of things, was crucial in informing the world what was occurring both below and around the vicinity of the mines. This “use” to me was justified in the fact that Karl Rosengren, also within the McQuail reader, deemed one of the concepts the effect international news coverage as “the geographical distance between the location of the event” (237). Since this wasn’t something that was on U.S soil, let alone involved many people from the U.S., this would, in Rosengren’s opinion, affect if we got the news and the type of coverage it received, yet we still did because of the Chilean government’s use of media.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of if the media dramatized the event, I think it’s a tendency of those involved with media to make things more dramatic, and capture the audience’s attention and then to maintain it. With something such as the entrapment of the miners, the severity of the situation as well as the emotional ties that went along with this, in my opinion justified the dramatization. This was a serious thing, but like you mentioned, it wasn’t the first time something like this has happened. With that said, I don’t think it was over-dramatized, but I do think the fact that cameras were sent down to document those who were trapped just added extra “flare” so-to-speak for the viewers who were watching the coverage of this event. Incidents like this definitely deserve media coverage, especially for those who can’t be there to get the information themselves, but I definitely think certain aspects are used to make situations more dramatic within the media.
Rosengren talks about people create "mental maps" based on what they see in the media. Since most people can't travel the world and experience international events first hand (like the Chilean mining incident), people have to rely on the media to learn about other parts of the world. Unfortunately the media often displays a distorted view of the world. In the case of the Chilean miners, the world got to see all the drama live in the news. I agree with Brittany, I don’t think the media overdramatized it, but I think it’s only natural that the media amplifies the drama for the sake of capturing the audience’s attention. As communications majors, we’ve come to expect this from the media. In Baran & Davis’ ch 11 we read that “most conceptualizations [of media literacy] include the following elements: Media are constructed and construct reality” (p 339). I think what audiences need to remember is that we are constantly seeing only what the media wants us to see; especially when it comes to international media, because we have no choice. Most of us have no other options than to learn about international news from any sources other than internet and television. The media influences and shapes our “mental maps” and constructs the reality that we live in.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the vast amount of media coverage surrounding the trapped Chilean miners was causing me to question the motivations behind it. Although of course I immediately thought the national news networks simply knew that this particular story of a terrible event had the potential to have a very happy ending, and they thought it would be a good idea to cover this story of triumph, I believe the fact that the president of Chile has such a solid background in media was another significant reason there was so much coverage. This ties into part of our Baron & Davis reading for the week on page 216, where they discuss the ritual perspective of the media, and how this views mass communication as representative of shared beliefs. The national news networks were going to cover a potentially tragic but ultimately exciting and heartwarming story (as it was portrayed by the media) because people from all over the world can agree on how amazing the event was. People, no matter where they are from, will react to triumph, victory, and saving lives generally the same way. The Chilean government must have also realized this, and at the same time knew that they could show the strength of their country as well as garner support, which we definitely saw with the formation of “Camp Hope.” In a sense, this was about money, and a long, emotional event like this could definitely boost the economy (as we saw on page 5 of the Schiller article) and the image of Chile all over the world. I don’t think it’s any secret, at least to the news networks and the Chilean government, that the mass media has incredible influence both economically and culturally. Although personally I think the amount and type of coverage was over dramatized, I believe it had the desired effect.
ReplyDeleteChile has been in the news periodically throughout this year from overcoming a major natural disaster, to finally becoming considered a “developed” nation granted by OECD, some how not being fully effected by the global economic downfall based on their exports on natural resources and now the miraculous rescue of all 32 minors. When the question in this week’s blog pondered whether or not the broadcasting of this event was credible, it truly hit home for me personally. Being an American Chilean I have not only knowledge of the political realm and events that occur in the country but also pride and love for the country as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAll the facts presented in the article posted by Robin Cassella were true in that Chile does have a unified media system and the President was the ringleader in the formation of that system. We can say he is a “media literate professional” that still has a lot of power in the country. Though the emotion and capture of this miraculous event I believe is still truly genuine. Looking at this event through the lens of a media researcher, I can debate that the belief that this event would be staged is because of what John Tomlinson would call “cultural imperialism.” He continues by saying “that imperialism grasps a specific form of domination, that is associated with an empire.” The point of view in which journalist Rory Carroll framed his article is similar to the quote pulled from the Tomlinson excerpt in that he believes that this event has further launched the country in the global perspective as a respected country. With the series of positive events and protocols that the country has successfully navigated through, it should be recognized as true. Thirty-two lives were spared in the fact action of the government and the constant coverage that the global media took to the incident. It is because of the mass media coverage that the miners’ families were taken care of financially. The company that the miners once worked for has now gone out of business and during their entrapment they received no pay. Celebrities and major musical artists came together to help, not only Chileans in need but, their fellow global citizens. As the Baran and Dennis text states, cultural and political studies focus to “promote hegemonic forms of culture.” People that are just examining this event as a “hegemonic” that pushes Chile to a new level rather than a genuine miracle of life!