In response to "Words I Never Said"

Here's a paper I wrote for my Human Rights and the Journalist class. For the paper I received an A, but what is even more interesting is the fact that I wrote this paper weeks before I published my last blog post, "Words I Never Said." I guess I have been thinking about frames and their negative consequence for a while. Interesting how a bunch of small ideas add up in a way that allows you to form a set of beliefs. That's one of the many values of metacognition: if you take time to think about what it is that you think about, specifically how frequently you think about certain things, you can actually figure out what it is that you truly believe. And it might surprise you! 

In my opinion, listening to your heart and letting your mind go free is the only way eliminate external influences and concentrate on your true beliefs. In order to do this, I meditate. I meditate always. I don't set aside an hour of my day, and make a big to do about it. When I need it, no matter where I am, or who I'm with, I close my eyes and regroup. I remember what is important and I put things into perspective.

I'm rambling.

Here's the paper:

Jess Johnson

CCJN

Professor Kraeplin

6 May 2011

Response Paper Four (Optional): The Importance of Multiple Perspectives

Never before has the world been more globalized than it is now. While globalization affords us the opportunity to connect with distant cultures, it also provides us with more opportunities for conflict. Human nature expects man to react with fear and anxiety when confronted with the unknown. If the initial fear is not replaced with increased and truthful knowledge, it is likely that the fear will manifest itself into resentment, and eventually hatred. It is the understanding of the unknown that I believe prevents conflict. Therefore, I believe the most significant reading of the past semester is Amy E. Potter’s “Voodoo, Zombies, and Mermaids: U.S. Newspaper Coverage of Haiti.”

In “Voodoo,” Potter discusses the importance of frames, or perspectives, in the international news arena. While Potter admits that frames can be useful for simplifying complex ideas, she warns journalists of their simultaneous ability to limit the emergence of differing view points. Potter illustrates the evils of frames by discussing their impact on Haiti.

On March 14, 2004, Potter encountered a New York Times article entitled “Life Is Hard and Short in Haiti’s Bleak Villages” (Weiner 2004). The article’s copy described Haiti as a “failed state” “unable to properly govern itself” because of its own actions and those of “nature.” The article failed to address the United States’ own involvement in Haiti’s demise.

Disgusted by the Times’ portrayal of Haiti, Potter made it her mission to uncover the truth from behind all the frames. In order to do so, Potter empirically examined all the articles published on Haiti by a specific group of five newspapers throughout the year 2004. What she uncovered was the pain and confusion felt by the actual Haitians themselves in response to US media coverage of their country.

Until I read Potter’s article, I can honestly say that I had never considered the news as intrusive, or offensive to the foreign subjects. I am able to turn on my television whenever I want, expose myself to whichever messages I choose, and then proceed to turn off my television or change channels when I have had enough of a certain message. I never considered the possibility that the people I watch suffering on the news every day actually may hate being on camera. It may embarrass them, or make them feel like a spectacle. I can’t imagine fighting for my life while watching a cameraman stand by and snap impressive angles for National Geographic. It seems so dehumanizing to me, the idea of Western journalists swarming to the site of the latest human catastrophe pointing their cameras at whatever they please. Until I read Potter’s article, I never considered how unfair the coverage of human suffering could be.

When journalists report on any happening, it is inevitable that they will do so through the vantage point of their own frames. Then they send the news story back home, wrapped in the packaging of their own perspective. If enough journalists, each with a different frame, cover the same story, it becomes easy for the intended message to become muddled and eventually misconstrued. If enough journalists cover the same story with a similar frame, then that perspective becomes dominant, and other perspectives are ignored.

I understand the motive of many photographers is to raise awareness about human suffering through the distribution of images. In fact, that is why, until I read Potter’s article, I had no moral issues with the news. I truly believed that every international journalist was a champion of human rights, working long hours and dangerous locations to try to make a change.

But, then, thanks to Potter, I looked at the news from a different angle, the angle of the people across the lens from the cameraman. I finally looked at the news from a victim’s angle. 

As a young woman in the advertising industry, Potter’s article allowed me to look at the necessity for multiple perspectives in a way I have never done before. The advertising industry looks for new talent with a diverse background and an open mind, because those are the characteristics that suggest a person’s ability to come up with good ideas. The more perspectives through which a given problem is analyzed, the better the advertisement.

I learned through reading Potter’s article that this same strategy, that of multiple perspectives, can be applied when analyzing issues of human rights. I look forward to applying multiple perspectives to all areas of my life, not just advertising. In the end, Potter’s article gave me a new perspective on multiple perspectives!