Ch. 4) Fighting Evil: Terror, Community, and Networked Journalism

Charlie Beckett’s chapter Fighting Evil: Terror, Community, and Networked Journalism begins by laying out the general flow for his examination of the topics contained. His organization takes readers through terror, public security, and community cohesion. Beckett’s introduction, and his conclusion emphasize that the process of understanding terror requires more than knowledge of who the terrorists are and what motivates them. I really enjoy this direction because he humanizes journalism a bit in its exploration. Journalism is subject to the same morals as greater society. Beckett begins to establish that it is the media’s job to get the facts right, and when they fail to get the whole picture, they are failing the community they serve. Additionally, Beckett relates that terrorism has to take hold of the hearts and minds of members of the community it grows in. An attentive and well-informed media can curb the growth of extremist ideals by ensuring that reporting comes from both sides. Furthermore, by representing all of the diversity of a community in a fair, accurate, and thorough manner, journalism acts as a glue to hold communities together.

In talking about bias and ignorance, Beckett uses the example of Molly Campbell, or Misbah Rana, to make a point about how engrained opinions can condemn the accuracy of a report from the beginning. I think he is absolutely right, and that he cannot emphasize this point enough. So often in making judgments, or relating stories, people take a position without all of the facts. As Mona mentioned in her presentation, if you have a question about Islamic life, ask a Muslim. The papers failure to acknowledge the possibility that someone might choose to live in Pakistan over the UK is an example of an extreme failure to exercise the flexibility of worldview necessary to get things right in today’s media environment. Beckett also articulates rather eloquently that being an informed reporter is a big prerequisite to being a tough and responsible reporter. I love this statement because it reflects my feelings about good reporting to a T.

In talking a bit about community cohesion, Beckett pulls out his old discussion of fragmentation. That there is danger in people moving from the “daily-we” to the “daily-me” is undeniable. However, I do not think there is actually any risk in more and more specialized communities taking shape on the Internet. Information generation for a specialty depends on so much more than just the information within that particular specialty that there will always be a necessity, even for the most niche content providers, to collect information from other sources. An extremist website may condemn the content of a news report, but the mere mention of the news report drives my point home… they are consuming the other content as well. As long as the media can maintain a position of accuracy, fairness, and thoroughness on a diverse body of topics, there is no danger is the forming of niche markets that explore certain issues to their foundations. Media is already taking steps to ensure they maintain a position of accuracy by linking up with niche media organizations to get more specialized information on topics they may not have expertise in.

Beckett also raises the importance of news organizations needing to maintain a genuine interest in international affairs, and stresses the importance of maintaining a desire to understand those affairs as well. To deal with terrorism, Americans cannot just declare hatred against all terrorists and move on, the problem still exists. Additionally, the problem cannot be dealt with by military power alone. Americans need to gain an understanding of what terrorism is, why it exists, and what role the US plays in the wider world to even begin a thoughtful discussion. Just as condemnation of terrorism is not a solution for the people of the world, the media needs to recognize that reporting the mere existence of terrorists does little to help the world understand the reasons for their existence.

Beckett gives a pretty detailed treatment to the Danish cartoon happening. The Danish media was deliberately trying to be controversial, and extremists were deliberately trying to make an example out of them. The dilemma that Beckett discusses is not whether it was right to publish the cartoon in the first place, but whether or not to republish it for news about the events it sparked. This is a direct attack on freedom of expression; we don’t want to upset anyone now... In this case, I am okay with the fact that most organizations deigned to avoid the footage since it was widely available online, and the reaction the Muslim world had to the Danish cartoon could easily be foreseen; the comic was designed to be controversial after all. Beckett says, and I agree, that this respect given to the religion actually strengthens the media’s position should a situation arise when they must show something offensive. In an instance where the Islamic world is legitimately in the wrong, say one sect slaughters another because they worship idols, the media will be able to show a picture of the idol in controversy with their feet on firm, justifiable ground.

Finally, Beckett talks about misunderstanding Muslims. I boiled his points down to their simplest in this section. Muslims need to articulate themselves more, and the media needs to listen, learn, and relay. And, the media needs to stop trying to group the ungroup-able. Islam is not a line drawn in the sand; it is not even the sand itself; the diversities among Muslim populations are as numerous as the shapes of a snowflake, and as such, there is no way in hell anyone can make accurate generalizations about all of them.

In conclusion, and as I mentioned before, Beckett stresses that we need to understand more. To me there is no beginning or end to understanding… it is a life process. I do not think that I will ever reach a point where I understand enough. However, I do think it is a good start that we all strive for accuracy, fairness, and thoroughness in making decisions and reporting information. Taken to their terminal degree, I think that each of those traits could lead us to a pretty good world.

Questions to ponder:
Do you think reporters can just be reporters now?
Do scholarly explorations have any place in understanding/reporting?
Is breaking news the only kind of news and is there room/time for a more participatory/comprehensive exploration of the topics involved?
Is fragmentation a danger to public security and community cohesion?
As new media provides a voice to so many more of the world's population, should the mainstream media take the position of listener?