World Editors Director Sees Fox, Al-Jazeera Similarities
Key Quote: The work done by Fox TV or Al-Jazeera during the Iraqi war was quite similar: propaganda enveloped in breaking news (or if you prefer breaking news enveloped in propaganda). – Bertrand Pecquerie
Bertrand Pecquerie , is director of the World Editors Forum with its headquarters in France. To learn more about him click here and then go to the bottom of that page.
Recently he started a weblog for editors worldwide so I thought it would be interesting to do a Leonard Witt IM Interview with him about the “world” of journalism.
Leonard Witt: Hi Bertrand, welcome to the IM interviews. First question: The way news gathering is practiced differs from country to country. How do you find common ground when you bring together 300 senior editors at your conference?
Bertrand Pecquerie: In fact, guidelines, by-laws and ethics are generally the same in the different newsrooms around the world. Even when you want to do some propaganda work, you are well aware that it is propaganda and not objective journalism. From the 18th century onwards the story of journalism is predominantly straightforward, even if each media has its own rules. I must emphasize that the real differences are in the newspapers’ business models and the levels of development, not really in the organization of the newsroom or the journalistic standards. In Africa, over 30 people read the same copy of a newspaper because they are obliged to buy it in common. When a newspaper in Cameroon or Ghana sells more than 15,000 copies, it is very successful. How can a newspaper thrive (or even survive) with such figures? How can journalists be independent?
Witt: What do you mean when you say: Even when you want to do some propaganda? Thats a very derogatory word in US journalism circles.
Pecquerie: As an example, to me, the work done by Fox TV or Al-Jazeera during the Iraqi war was quite similar: propaganda enveloped in breaking news (or if you prefer breaking news enveloped in propaganda). Due to the fact that it is a newcomer, Al-Jazeera is considered less objective, but people are unaware that in reality 70 percent of the Al-Jareeza staff came from the BBC Arab channel. These journalists know more about ethics than the majority of European journalists! Sorry to say that to American readers, but in my opinion Al-Jazeera was in some extent more professional than Fox TV!
Witt: What about news institutions like the New York Times or Washington Post? Do you, as someone living in France, see propaganda wrapped in information there too?
Pecquerie: Definitely not. However, I am a bit surprised at the lack of articles (in these same newspapers) addressing issues like how to show the graves of soldiers killed in Iraq. It is a total blackout, as if these graves did not even really exist! In my opinion, it is a sort of propaganda by omission… Oh wait, I did find one article on this topic in The Oregonian, probably not the most widely-read newspaper in the US.
Witt: You mentioned that at newspapers the ethics and standards are fairly universal. Really? Arent objectivity and neutrality seen as more the important factors in US journalism?
Pecquerie: The news gathering process is more complex in the US, which
contributes to a level of seriousness that few newspapers around the world have the ability to reach. I am also in agreement that proper verification of
facts does not exist in many countries. Bravo lAmérique! I do want to point out one major difference – and to me, it is a problem; you live in a country
where consensus is incredibly high. The decision to wage war on Iraq was never
really discussed by the newspapers community, which is surprising in an established democracy like the United States. The consequence of such a high
level of consensus is that a lot of issues and debates are not addressed.
Witt: How is that different in for example, a country like France?
Pecquerie: The difference is that the spectrum of opinions is much larger and the media concentration is lower. Perhaps the American situation will be our future…
Witt: If you had the power, how might you change the US journalism model?
Pecquerie: Whew! My modest contribution would be to comment that you have very big newspapers and upmarket journalism with a sort of principle of authority: nobody can discuss or contradict what is written in the New York Times, the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times. At the other end of the spectrum you have the Drudge Report and the gossip sites. In between these two extremes, where is the American mid-market journalism?
Witt: Excellent question. How might that in-between journalism manifest itself?
Pecquerie: In my opinion it would require questioning the American consensus on a lot of hidden issues. It is difficult to find a country with so many freedom spaces, but at the same time, these freedom spaces are not used because Americans (and American journalists) are convinced of the general superiority of their countrys model. Ask a German or an Italian journalist; he is convinced that he has to modify something, his perception of his work is totally different.
I take another example: since two years American medias and think-tanks have
invented the “participatory journalism.” To me, it is the modern interpretation of the American Dream, a continuation of the legend of the wild west. The result is that you are giving the impression that the we media is a real concept and that everyone is a valid content provider. From a European perspective, this concept is quite bizarre, as if American journalists need to invent – each 30 years – new frontiers for traditional journalism.
Witt: Lets get back to the journalism internationally. What are the top concerns among editors worldwide?
Pecquerie: I think that their main concern is to recreate a space between their publishers and their readers (minus 1 percent for circulation each year in many countries, minus 5 percent for the five quality newspapers in England, even with the tabloid boom in 2003). Thirty years ago, editors were charismatic people. Technological and financial restraints have since considerably reduced their power and capacity to invent: they are obliged to work with fewer journalists, fewer foreign correspondents etc. All of the resources had been redirected into marketing, circulation, and the new print machines. In the last two years, publishers are beginning to understand that editorial quality (and editorial credibility) is the main asset (with the brand). As a
result there is a tentative shift to give more power to editors.
Regarding the readers, I say setting up an American readership institute was very smart. The publishers and the Newspaper Association of American (NAA) understood that journalists and readers werent speaking the same language and didnt even have the same values. Hence there is a huge effort to understand what the readers want. My apologies for making a lesson of history, but the average readers now are much more educated than 30 years ago, a circumstance that modifies everything: before, they had a lot of respect for journalists, now they consider them less intelligent.
Witt: Interesting. And as someone who watches journalism worldwide, are you feeling good about what you are seeing, or are you feeling pessimistic, and why?
Pecquerie: That is the first time you have mentioned that it is interesting! It has not been a waste then. About the worldwide outlook, there are three areas to consider. The first is China and South Asia. There are millions of new and well-educated readers in this area each year. They need newspapers, and the journalistic standards are the same as in western countries, therefore the feeling is very optimistic.
The second area is Europe, a relatively depressed area (except the Northern
Europe). Newspapers are loosing readers and they have not created new business models (not true at all for Finland and Norway with Nokia, Telenor
and the new wireless business models). Here they are fighting le dos contre
le mur – the back against the wall. Perhaps the only solution is to create multimedia groups interested in the newspapers.
The third area is the United States and Canada, where media are concentrated
and are inventing new revenues. The problem in this area is that it wouldnt
matter if their print division (the newspapers) eventually disappeared,
because TV and other mediums are enough to generate profit.
Witt: Do you see big media groups eliminating their print divisions?
Pecquerie: Not immediately, and not for magazines. But what about daily newspapers? I am always surprised to read that online journalism and traditional journalism are the same, and that it is most important to maintain
journalism standards. Without print editions these standards would be
impossible to maintain. Compare the organization of an online newsroom with
a traditional newsroom: power relations between journalists, editors,
publishers and the marketing team are not even remotely the same.
Furthermore, I am not convinced of the independence of online services and
their capacity to resist advertising constraints.
Witt: Okay, we have covered a lot of ground. Anything else you want to add?
Pecquerie: My intention was not to shock anyone, just to add a point of view from Paris, France.
Editor’s Note from Leonard Witt: I asked all questions in real time, but since English is Pecquerie’s second language I gave him the oppotunity to polish his language with the help of his assistant Jennifer Winstanley. It got to be more than 2,000 words so I have two versions, this cut one you just read and then the unedited version.
Go here for more Leonard Witt IM Interviews.
