by Luiz Fernando Santoro
The goal of my presentation is to share with you some of my reflections on the issue of Public Media. They were based on my experience as a journalism professor, video and TV producer and member of organizations dedicated to bringing communication closer to public groups. The new forms of journalism that have appeared in the Internet and in Cable TV have renewed my interest on the study of communication. But they have also increased my doubts and established new challenges.
I would like to propose the following topics for debate, based on the Brazilian reality:
Social organizations and video groups have set as a priority matter for discussion their migration to the Internet. They have been betting on new technologies and distancing themselves from the audiovisual and journalistic elements of production, as well as from the relationship with social movements. This week, in Rio de Janeiro, there is a meeting taking place that will discuss Community and Public TV in Brazil as well as the competition with the Internet; the possibilities of on line TV; and the new paths that have become available to groups that work with video. I offer as a hypothesis that the increased focus on technology has been pushing us away from the discussion of the reasons behind a given audiovisual production. The debate about how to migrate to new technological supports has been inhibiting the discussion on the relationship with social movements.
Many producers and organizations have evaluated the Internet as the solution for problems of diffusion of ideas and, in a close future, of distribution of TV programs. A space where everything is possible, without having evident the mechanisms and efficiency of the Web to form public opinion. The mechanisms of social control continue to go through the press. Journalistic activity, basically in the newspapers, radio and TV, is still the main vector for the formation of public opinion. The growing number of Internet users, portals and available sites; the increasing access speed, the multiplication of TV channels; the media convergence have all established new challenges for information workers, from the point of view of forming opinion in society.
4.The multiplying of choices creates a media environment more and more personalized, that has been evaluated by many authors as something that gives the user a larger choice possibility; and it is understood as a progress in the democratic use of media, because they leave the user free to choose its own messages and to express his opinions, without any control. This large possibility of choice also indicates a tendency of growing difficulty in reaching so many people. The audience of the great TV networks is not the same as it was some years ago. The difficulty in influencing the public opinion in a personalized communication universe, where people don't read or see the same messages anymore, has increased. The discussion of the concept of Public Broadcasting continues to be important. It represents a space for the formation of public opinion, in a world where the audience seems to go for the diversity and multiplicity of sources, offered by the Internet and Cable TV for entertainment, information and education.
The greater availability of TV channels and Internet sites reflect a scenario where people live together in a diversified media environment, receiving information in a growingly differentiated manner, becoming highly informed on what interests them but, at the same time, completely unaware of subjects of general interest such as politics, economics, etc.
Why is it important, for me, to bring in the concept of public opinion to this discussion?
Public Broadcasting can be understood from journalismís perspective. It is a space for transmission of documentaries and shows that offer a critical approach to themes of social interest.
Today, in Brazil, there is an intense discussion going on in the juridical universe on the exaggerated influence of journalism and television in the making of Justice. There has been a rediscovery of journalismís power.
DOING TV, RADIO AND JOURNALISM ON THE INTERNET
There is a tendency to understand and to present the advantages of the Internet as something that can bring together TV and radio news along with the search for last minute information.
Perhaps some people don't realize that one of the greatest innovations brought forth by the Internet is the ability to store information; its potential to play a decisive role in the construction of the History. The elements that were, before, ephemeral on the radio and on TV are now ever present. In my opinion, the main virtue of the Internet, and what makes it matchless is that no information is, from now on, lost. The overdose of information and the search for specificity have lead informative sites to create a supply of complex information using text, sounds, images, videos, hypertext, what cost them a great deal of time and money. There have been many misunderstandings regarding the idea of ìlast minuteî news. People have been inclined to exaggerate in their obsession to transmit live events with digital cameras. An important element of TV language, such as the articulation of plans seems to have become quite secondary. What you end up seeing is 50ís TV, without the editing or any other aspect that denotes a strong concern with quality. Another phenomenon marks the Brazilian reality is the increase in the circulation of the great weekly magazines and of the main daily newspapers. Their on-line versions are still not competitive. The number of titles of magazines in the newsstands has also been increasing, especially the specific interest ones.
Magazines and newspapers continue to sell a growing number of issues, thus defying the prophecy of the end of paper as a media support. The same is happening to cable TV, where the number of subscribers continues growing. In slums of Rio de Janeiro, for instance, illegal cable nets sell monthly subscriptions for less than 5 dollars.
Finally, everything seems to point to coexistence among the different media, along with their convergence. Even if many researchers insist on making predictions about the future, the life span of this new coexistence among "older means " and the modern ones is hard to determine.
All this has consequences for the understanding of journalism as something that goes beyond informing a community: it acts on the formation of public opinion.
When the top rated TV shows make an accusation, or transmit emblematic images about certain issues, let's take, for example, the Chinese man who stands on the way of war tanks or the Palestinian child murdered in his father's arms--millions of citizens start to comment on the subject and even those who have not seen it, soon become informed by the comments of somebody or by the repercussion of that particular event in other media. It is interesting to note that although we live in a world that is portrayed as being dominated by computer technology and the internet, people from all kinds of social background still seem to get most of their information from their personal contact with someone else.
Today, there is a lot of talk about Public Journalism as if it were something new when it is nothing more than a demand for an ethical standing, whether it be of an individual or an organization such as a newspaper. Public broadcasting, and even the writing that exists on Public Journalism, must always be linked to the concepts of participation, involvement, alliances for change and social transformation, diversity, an escape from the limitations imposed by commercial media, the pointing of public opinion to a given direction.
A government, for instance, needs to keep its citizens informed about its actions. If we were to leave that up to the spectators¥ criteria we would run the risk that they would never became interested in the subject. The result is a lack of interest and participation in politics which, when combined to prejudiced views, creates several negative predispositions. Is that good or bad? For those who still believe in political projects, in rising to power, in governing, in making people vote, choose, decide, all of these issues continue to be vital.
This reflection may seem strange for a seminar in New York, where my American colleagues rarely consider the questions of participation in government or public administrative structures. In the contrary, you seem to generally set yourselves against them. But, in Latin America, many of us have had opportunities to write government plans for candidates or even to occupy positions in local or national administrations. That is true especially of Brazil, Chile and Argentina. Therefore, thinking about public policies, from the governmentís perspective and not only from outside them, must not be out of the question.
The discussion is not new, but it has not ran out yet. It comes from the free radio stations phenomenon, from video and community TV, from local radio stations etc. Today we are experiencing new developments of these issues due to the Internet. However, one problem still stands: an NGO, an institution, a given movement that wishes to become known or supported by society needs to have open channels with the public opinion. But public opinion is still shaped by the traditional media in a very effective manner.
In other words, they need for certain ideas, different views to reach society. This goes for an NGO or for a political party. The ultimate goal is similar: to make people think in a certain way and, if possible, to lead them to action.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE NARRATIVE IN SHAPING PUBLIC OPINION
The narrative is the element, developed by the communicator, that arranges and organizes information in a journalistic piece. The narrative calls the attention of the reader/ viewer so as to get him involved in a story that begins, unfolds and ends. It is the aspect of the piece responsible for arranging facts and ideas and establishing relationships between them in a logical manner so that the reader can follow the authorís train of thought. Journalistic language, along with the narrative, tends to favor the social construction of reality endowed with an ordering vocation.
Journalism is not only made up of the fact, but also, a selection, an interpretation. The version of the fact becomes understandable to the reader when it is part of a group of interrelated circumstances. The narrative adds logic to these unrelated facts. After all, popular wisdom always stated that what matters is not the fact but its version. It is very complicated to interpret, to understand fragments. The narrative places such facts in relation to one another, adding coherence, a sequence to them which directs the readerís attention. The fragmentation of an Internet screen, the profusion of possibilities, hypertexts and links without a doubt generate a frightening number of choices. The volume of information available might make it very difficult for the reader to establish a relationship between the facts by providing him with the ability to leap from one subject to the next in a matter of seconds.
According to the Portuguese author Jo„o Correia, the construction of a narrative implies a selection of elements by the author that allows him to develop the story. ì News are not, hence, mirrors of reality, but narrative configurations that add understandability and unity to incidents that are disconnected with the view the prevails in the narration of the world, of life.î
The organization of news elements such as the headline, the lea, short concise sentences have to do with the specificity of journalistic language, with the goal of facilitating the understanding, transmitting values, ways of thinking and providing the reader with arguments but at the same time denouncing and creating new versions. It is not, in this sense, necessarily conformist.
Journalism tends to form a consensus, but not necessarily a conservative one. And public opinion is not necessarily one, but rather the sum of thoughts on a given theme.
So, the communicator and the media have a decisive role in the processes of reading reality and establishing truths, in the shaping of public opinion.
Face-to-face communication is essential to the sequencing of processes of opinion formation. That is true even in of chat rooms, but the media makes controversial themes initially available granting them relevance and visibility.
For governments and institutions which intend to reach citizens, the complete process offered by the Internet, chat rooms, e-mails must be considered. Not merely parts of it. The themes must go through the mass media in order to form public opinion with credibility. There will be many examples of themes that were bred by the Internet, but the issue of credibility, guaranteed by mass media, is still present.
A number of authors claim that, on the Internet, the reader has the ability to create his own message, as he pleases, thus escaping from the journalistís directing grip. They state that this process is more democratic in the sense that it allows for a greater degree of choice from the reader. Furthermore, these authors say that this is inevitable, that it will be a part of the future.
This standing might be interesting when we consider that the reader is able to capture, order, select information so as to organize it in a logical sense thus adding meaning to it.
I am assuming that the reader has previous knowledge of a given subject, that he is familiar with it and therefore can deal with the options that are given him without much difficulty. He is in possession of the proper criteria to make the best choices as well as filters that will enable him to organize this chaotic universe. But this could represent an enormous problem for young readers or people with limited background information on the topic being studied who access the Internet on a regular basis.
The Internet as well as cable TV, equipped with a remote control, provide the spectator with a much more active communication process. To capture the viewerís attention, considering he might switch channels or click on links that will take him to other Internet pages at any moment, has made life difficult for producers. They are constantly haunted by the fragmented perception established by the Internet, the userís defiant relationship with the computer in which he does not read the information according to the directions of those who compiled it. The main problem is that the user is not always capable of receiving information selectively, he is not necessarily prepared to establish cause and effect relationships among the facts being offered him and therefore fails to come up with reasons and explanations for the world. In fact, the absence of a narrative, that is, the fact that the reader is left to make choices on his own makes these issues even more complex: Not everyone is ready for a fragmented reading of the world and, what's even worse, some may even be completely satisfied by it.
The truth is I have serious doubts with respect to the effectiveness of the learning process of information found on the Internet that lacks a narrative that will connect the dots for the reader. How can one form an opinion about the matter being discussed? By joining fragments of ideas? The reader will always have the ability to organize links and hypertext in a logical sequence or will he bounce all over the place without really making any connections?
To that we can add the issue of source credibility. Whether it be on e-commerce or on the on-line journalism, the matter of credibility will always be placed center-stage in all discussions. The relationship of these media with Journalism is complex and does not go through, primarily, the questions of velocity, media convergence or even the wonder of wide band.
The turning in the direction of rendering services has blown a breath of fresh air, for example, into Sao Paulo AM radio stations. In the end, the theoreticians of communication who had prophesized the stations' doom forgot about the maddening traffic jams in large cities that have transformed private cars into privileged spaces for all-news radio.
Public Broadcasting can ever more frequently fulfill the task of gathering tendencies and opinions, hence opposing the growing fragmentation of Cable TV as well as the Internet with its conversion to wide band. After all, maybe the citizen, on his own, faces difficulties when trying to organize the volume of information he receives. Public or Community TV stations can fulfill the primordial function of forming public opinion in a universe where commercial stations add a marketís focus even to education and entertainment. This might be a crucial factor in the minimizing of the exclusion of popular segments that are uninteresting to commercial media.
Today, in a city like Sao Paulo, dozens of cable channels and internet sites offer spaces for the transmission of any institution's shows. There is a lack of content. The issue is that these transmissions, fragmented, have had little or no impact on society. It acts as a filling for the stationsí schedule of attraction, as another chapter in the long and repetitive we-must-occupy-space-and-be-a-part-of-the-future speech. But is that really relevant? Would this material's impact be much greater if it were aired by broadcasting stations?
The obvious answer would be that having an Internet site about the topic is not enough because people will need to access it in order to find out what will be on. This information will continue not to reach common citizens. Commercially we can observe the sites have no way out from billboards, TV and radio spots as their means of promotion. They are aware that only a few of their competitors will become known through their own media. And what about space for the smaller ones?
Today, cable producers complain a great deal of the lack of propagation of the material they have produced. The multiplying of shows also implies in an increase in the difficulties faced. And solutions must go through local and regional policies able to sort this profusion of shows and add some unity to them, as well as space and visibility within the schedule of attractions, newspaper reviews and general comments made by other media, not to mention e-mails etc.
Belief in this technology can lead to situations that I find strange, such as electronic communities that feed on the illusion of replacement of concrete action with e-mail acts of solidarity in reaction to situations that are completely distant to them. It is not bad to learn about problems and different realities via e-mail, to find out that someone is being chased in some distant country. The problem is the delusion that comes from it, the belief that you are actually participating and doing something to change the situation. In reality, this behavior should be complemented with the understanding of what is going on in your own back yard. And the best way to deal with these problems is to get up and go there and not wait for it to become part of some site.
It is democracy taken a limit where it means having the freedom to make individual choices. The ideals of social justice are gradually becoming absent from the discussions of the Internet. At most, you are aware of the gap between social groups and new forms of exclusion. In reality, the problem is much more serious because it affects exactly those who have access to everything and become satisfied with the possibility of having everything at hand and do not feel the necessity to attain the knowledge that comes from some occasional material. After all that would entail reading.
In 83, when I first participated on an International seminar, I went to Ecuador. The meeting was called "Communications in the year 2000". At the convention, everyone was making an effort to predict what the future would be like. The most popular ones had to do with the running out of forests to make paper, electronic journalism. Almost no one believed in the survival of printed journalism. Don Till, a director of the Washington Post replied, when asked about the year-2000 newspaper: "Maybe its first page will be a bit more colorful and have more photos and it will continue to be delivered to the subscribersí doorstep very early in the morning."
In a recent debate about Democracy and Communication a college student asked one of the lecturers about democracy on the Internet. The answer was direct and clear: "There is a site called media democracy that has everything about this topic." And then he changed the subject.