By Velisiwe Sithole and Nicole Bloch
There are several ideas in the Journalism, Development and Democracy and Critical Media Production (JDD-CMP) courses that definitely brought on a shift in our perceived identities as journalists. Civic mapping, holding public deliberations and focus groups are just a few of the ideas which we previously did not consider to be part of the job description of a journalist. However, did we really know what it meant to be a journalist or media producer? Do we know now what it means today? We are still learning what it is to be a journalist and our identities are constantly shifting.
At first we thought the job was simply a manner of gathering, producing and disseminating information. We would pick a story, preferably one that we really enjoy and sometimes according to a beat, get the information from resources we would think would be reliable, usually already with an angle in our head, and produce the story. In our first years of Journalism and Media Studies we soon learned that there are a whole lot of rules we should adhere to, like the 5 w h (what, where, when, who, why and how), objectivity, news values and ethics. We were trained mostly to fit in with the monitorial role of the journalist to produce the most objective and factual information. In order to get good grades, we would act accordingly, producing factory style journalism which ultimately all look the same. However, we did not think critically yet of the role we play in the media landscape in South Africa and if the way we produce media effective and ‘the only right way’.
Today the new and improved technologies in an era of rapid globalization also require us to change and adapt our identities as journalists. There is a lot more competition in our field and everybody can be a producer and receiver of media for relatively little money or even for free. We believe this is not necessarily a bad thing as it has caused us to reflect on the work and assess the job description. If we really want to stand out from the competition, maybe we should pay a little bit more attention to what the community needs. The ideas from the JDD-CMP course has really shifted our identities as journalists in this regard as a lot more attention is paid to what the needs of the community are. We all want to make a difference in the world as a journalist, but we now realize that it may require us to do more than just to gather, produce and disseminate information. Instead of using community members for a story which may, or may not, make a difference to the readers of print material or viewers of broadcast material, we should rather assist them in community deliberations as well as the problem-solving. This means that our previously perceived identity as the hunter-gatherer journalist may include the descriptions of an organizer, marketer, collaborator, and facilitator. So many students keep saying that civic mapping is not part of our job. Maybe it is. It definitely helped us to understand the community we work in a lot better. And who would have thought that arranging a soccer tournament for the youth in ward 7 and 8 would become part of our job description during the course? Although this was not a specified idea from the JDD-CMP course, it did become established from the proposed idea that journalists should become more active in helping the community help themselves.
Tanni Haas (2007) proposed a theory based around an idea of a public journalism and termed it a ‘public philosophy’, deriving it from what he believes is a link and mutual dependency between journalism and democracy. According to a number of media theorists a genuine democracy depends upon a kind of journalism that is committed to encouraging active citizen participation.
According to Haas the first step in creating a public philosophy is based in the consideration of how journalists should view the public. He believes that public journalism should be viewed within a proceduralist-discursive notion of the ‘deliberating public’. His theory implies that journalists should can help bring a about a public of citizens who subject their own opinions to rational critical evaluation by others. This means, in practice, that journalism should support the maintenance of public space and public life; it must find ways in which the public can address one another and it must enhance the qualities of discourse, all of which are linked to the goals of public journalism. This would result in a consensual problem solving platform and this could be furthered by the encouragement by journalists of citizens to act on the solutions brought about in deliberative spaces. Our group, For78 achieved this by holding a public meeting at Luvuyo community Hall in ward 8 where we invited all community members through extensive advertising via flyers to come and share their problems with us. Our facilitator, a librarian, facilitated this meeting which was primarily in Xhosa to accommodate a majority of people in attendance who could not speak English. Demographics and contact details were taken which showed that the meeting was equally attended by men and women, youth and elderly and employed and unemployed. A number of service delivery issues were raised by the community members and this helped us fulfil the first step in Haas’ suggestions on creating a public philosophy. It was a successful deliberation and many important issues were brought up. Most comments were based on problems rather than solutions. One member of the community however (an ANCYL member) brought up the issue of our journalistic practices and how we (and others at Rhodes University) can help with the problem solving in the community. We did take into consideration that he was talking from a specific perspective in order to protect the ANC and put the blame somewhere else, but we also took his issues to heart and ensured that we would not just use the community members for our stories but give them something in return. We ultimately did this by helping them organize soccer teams and a soccer tournament but we are also expecting more positive outcomes from our other stories.
The second step which Haas suggests involves identifying who is meant to set the agenda for the deliberating public. At our group meeting, we allowed the community members to discuss any issues they felt were important to them freely. In that sense, we allowed them to set their own agenda, making the discussion more democratic. In identifying key issues within their community, they became active partners in the news making process.
Another manner in which we managed to create active participants in the news making process within ward 8 was to enlist the help of a few community members in setting up a soccer day tournament which we hoped would be the beginning of the end of the problem of a lack of recreational facilities within the ward. While we provided sponsorship in the form of balls and even prizes for the winning teams, in both wards, teams were meant to organise themselves and they did so successfully as was made evident by their attendance on the day of the soccer tournament.
One of the biggest difficulties faced by the television students in the production of stories is that it is hard to cover a story that the community wants. Most of the community members do not think of visuals and angles, but we did not want to scrap their ideas from our agenda for a better story. Television students were forced to go the extra mile having to look deeper into issues linked with the problems raised by citizens which resulted for the most part in our story pitches changing at least 3 times a week and our stories moving further and further from the initial complaints put forward by community members. In order to make our stories interesting we had to find interviews that beefed up our packages and when you change the angle of your story to accommodate the concerns of the citizens you are trying to help.
The labour intensive nature of the CMP course did eventually begin to wane on our initial objectives for the course. We had planned to produce two mini documentaries, the first of which would focus on the lack of resources of the wards and the second on our attempts on how to replace or create resources. Our soccer day was meant to be the main focus of our second documentary in that it would help create extracurricular activities for children who had no recreational resources and usually played dangerously in the street or even in garbage dump sites. This was an issue that had been brought up at the public meeting and we had grown very fond of it. However, with each new development of our story as well inability to find time to film children who were usually out of school when we were in lectures, we had to let go of this initial idea.
Another very important issue came up while we were interviewing residents. We realised that one of the main reasons why there is bad service delivery and the location arguably looks like the most deteriorated area in our ward is because the housing project had to be stopped and other projects that required underground piping had to be stopped due to the findings of human remains. We were able to find compelling visuals everywhere from graveyards to inside people’s houses 9where they could describe the location of the ditches under their carpets). A number of community members helped us with our story including our reward 8 catalysts Thembelani who assisted us in making all our interviewees within the wards comfortable in front of the camera. The most difficult aspect of producing our story was getting in touch with municipality members who were willing to comment on our findings or at the very least clarify a few facts.
In terms of whether we have succeeded in encouraging processes of ‘democracy’ and ‘development’ in Grahamstown, we shall only be able to determine that at the end of the course. As of this moment we face a suspicious public, with only a few of them willing to be involved in any democratic process we suggest. A number of people who attended the public meeting said that we should not follow in the footsteps of our predecessors who gathered information for their CMP course and left without really helping the community burning bridges for the following year’s groups such as FOR78. While handing out flyers for our public meeting, a number of people said they had attended similar meetings in the past which had achieved no changes in their communities. We also had a disappointing experience when attempting to foster a relationship of democracy and development with our target audience, the Makana Municipality. In a meeting which was scheduled in order to allow us to show them footage depicting just how the people in the community we were feeling about their problems, the Municipality refused to watch our footage which left us somewhat disgruntled. I f we could not show our productions to those who had the power to make a change, what was the point of public journalism which is meant to help the public?
We had to take an alternate course of action after our failed attempt of holding a focus group with the Makana Municipality. Although our second focus group did not consist of many people, the short documentary caused a two hour deliberation between the people. The story raised many questions and comments, not only because it is a complex story but also because the story has an incredible history, which the focus group members talked about. The anthropologists and a DA counsellor discussed the complications of the history, politics, economics and culture of the location. They pointed out many important aspects that we had not yet thought of. The counsellor gave valuable insights about the different reasons for the frustrations of the community members as well as the municipality. As anthropologists they also discussed and argued the meaning of the graveyard in the location.
In order to give solutions to the problems in the story, we first need to get more information. Unfortunately, the people who are in the position to give us more information and possible solutions are not willing to talk to us or express that they are too busy. We were hoping that we could get some information on the housing project and if it has continued or is going to continue now that the bones have been placed in a communal grave elsewhere. However, not one of our sources knows exactly what is going on. We are now trying to find a source who does know what is happening and try establishing a relationship with this source and the residents so that they can be informed of the plans. We are trying to bridge the lack of communication so that all parties know what to expect from each other.
This means that we are getting involved with government organs and political parties. The municipality was not prepared to give us any valuable input which is unfortunate as they could have given their side of the story. Without them, it looks like the residents in our story really are the victims of bad service delivery because the municipality does not want to help them. However, thanks to some input from the counsellor we got new insight and the information we needed. We do understand that he is part of a political party, but he did give neutral information and insights to the problems from the residents’ point of view as well as the Municipality’s point of view. Collaboration with experts on the topic seems to be extremely valuable, no matter which party they belong to.
This means that we are putting more emphasis on the collaborative role. This refers to the symbiotic relationship between the media and the state. This role requires the cooperation between the media and the powerful, like the government, in an effort to meet the interests of all parties in society. The media can hereby obtain information from the officials more easily and disseminate the information to the public so that the public can receive the views from the officials. The officials can hereby feel less threatened by ungrounded comments from journalists. Besides facilitating communication, the media and the state can also help each other in problem-solving within the community. However, in South Africa there already is a lot of distrust between politicians and journalists. This was highlighted during the Makana Municipality meeting. Although there was some communication about a partnership between the municipality and Rhodes University, this did not go any further then verbal ‘promises’. The Municipal manager acted in a political manner and her behaviour not show any desire for effective communication and problem solving. This is unfortunate as we believe collaboration can be really effective in the effort to communicate, analyse and solve problems in the community in order to fight the social inequalities of our society.
The radical role refers to journalistic practices that entail radical action against power and inequality with the purpose to reform society. The radical role calls for the expression of opinions or ‘sidelining’ of journalists in the fight to eradicate social inequalities. Although certain elements of this role can be useful, our group did not feel that a radial attitude would be effective in the fight for social change. We believe that we must first try to work in collaboration with the members of the community. We could have been a lot more radical during the Makana Municipality meeting as we could have forced the people to watch our documentaries and slideshows. We could have refused to leave the meeting. We could have even edited our film about the behaviour of the municipal manager, make it more sensational by using narration and show it to the public to mobilize radical action against these officials. However, we do want an effective relationship with them. We do not want to burn the bridges that can help us connect all members of our community that can help each other. Radical activism may only result in a monologue while we need a dialogue in order to fight social inequalities.
Although every group must experience problems, we believe that our group handled them exceptionally well. Several roles were allocated to several members of the group in order to create structure and responsibility but almost all group members took on other responsibilities to share the workload. Some members were more extrovert then others and may have had more say but the facilitator ensured that there was a democratic environment. Members of the group helped each other out and discussed the different stories from the different specialisations. We believe everyone had a chance to critique another without taking it personally. This is mainly because of the success of the collaboration within the group for the public meeting and the team work for the soccer tournament. This shows that by helping others, we also helped ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment