Coverage of the new Somali parliament in Britain’s main left-wing newspapers makes for an amusing case study. The Independent and The Guardian are both anti-establishment, relentlessly “Third-Worldist” in their international perspective and instinctively critical of the West. But their correspondents, despite both being apparently in Mogadishu, might have been reporting from different planets on August 19 and 20 in their versions of what is happening in Somalia.
From the headline to the last full stop, The Independent – under the byeline of Daniel Howden – is sipping from a glass that is half empty. “Few signs of progress as Somalia’s new MPs are sworn in”, the main headline reads, followed by the equally discouraging sub-header “Parliamentary placemen are set to pick president in campaign dogged by violence and corruption”.
The negative tone is relentless. Anything that could be construed as positive is followed immediately by a “but”, stressing a negative angle. The vocabulary supports the hostile view: the MPs are a “batch” or “roster” or “placemen”, “selected” by a “cast of traditional elders”. For the Independent reader, it was all a manoeuvre of traditional power-brokers, fuelled by bribery and corruption and most unlikely to stave off violence and the threat of a descent back to all-out civil war.
The Guardian’s glass is definitely half-full. It has two, more featurish, reports under the byeline of David Smith. “Somalia wakes up to a different picture, a new sense of optimism”, coos the headline in one, about artists who creep out at night and place large artworks calling for justice and security, in public places. “In Mogadishu, artists are back on the streets, a symbol of a new hope, born from a new constitution, a new dawn”.
“Somalis planning on a better future” proclaims another, followed by the sub-header: “David Smith talks to some of the extraordinary characters who believe 2012 will be remembered as the year that Somalia, finally, turned the corner”.
This time the texts are peppered with positive words and images: “rebuilding”, “mission”, “restore”, “heritage”, “popular”, “advantage”, “regeneration”. Examples of optimistic exiles returning to set up businesses follow one after another. The city “hums” with traffic. No naysayers are quoted. For the Guardian, Somalis are sensing a real chance that the cycles of violence may be broken and the world’s best-known “failed state” might finally be coming back to life and some form of civilised existence.
What conclusion can we draw from this? Both versions can probably be defended as “right”, you could back up both with supporting evidence. But it does illustrate starkly that how each media outlet portrays a situation, independent of its editorial stance, will depend on how the individual journalist sees it.
And the same will apply to your business, organisation or aid operation. Some blinkered reporters will have fixed views by the time they first come to talk to you. Others will have more open minds and you can help your cause by serving them strong facts, gripping anecdotes and compelling quotes. You may not turn them into uncritical supporters, but no journalist likes to turn down good material, and you are more likely to get at least a balanced portrayal.
One other point. Few will be surprised to learn that newspapers select their facts and vocabulary to conform to the image they have decided to project, downgrading, dismissing or even ignoring aspects that do not fit. We may not like it, but we cannot dispute the journalist’s right to select facts and angles as he or she sees fit.
But we should perhaps be aware of the different roles that different journalists fulfil. The Guardian and Independent are both excellent British newspapers, but they are competing in one of the most crowded information markets in the world. Any story which is not well-written and does not grip the reader’s attention will be failing in its duty; it must entertain as well as inform. Too much standing back or leaden counter-balancing views would weigh the story down.
Giving interviews to newspaper journalists can bring high rewards. But if you want to play it safe, go for one of the respected international news agencies – you know who they are – whose reporters imbibe “balance” with their mothers’ milk. Their copy may lack the impact that a cheerleading newspaper article will have, but at least you should get your views included somewhere.
Oliver Wates, MediaTrain Director