Bill Porter (Photo: Blair Cummock)Those of us who work in the media did not come from another planet to report on the dying days of the Earth's civilisation and then to return from whence we came. We are part of this society with children, grandchildren and loved ones for whom we would like to see a more secure and fairer world.
The Earth's population seems to consist of two groups, the concerned and the indifferent. It is probable that within the ranks of media professionals there is a big percentage of the concerned. Many came into it with a sense of idealism and others developed a high degree of social responsibility as they reacted to the needs and shortcomings of the people whom they were meeting. A few acquired a hardened cynicism that tainted their colleagues and corrupted their audiences.
What is the role of this privileged and intelligent group of humanity in what Samuel Huntington has described as "the clash of civilisations" and in what he goes on to call "the remaking of world order"? In the context of my essay it is important to understand what is meant by "Civilisation". It is not just Western culture rising from the Graeco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian traditions, although they are an important part of it. It is the sum total of the strivings of humankind to find stability, purpose and satisfaction through the emergence of faiths and structures and systems that enable its creative and social aspirations to be achieved. It is rooted in the cultures and religions of Asia and the Arab World. It owes much to the customs and spirituality of the tribes and villagers of Africa, the Americas and Australasia. All these sources add up to Civilisation with a big C. It has never achieved its objectives in totality and it is constantly under threat. That it should achieve those objectives and overcome those threats is the prime purpose and destiny of human life.
Unfortunately, one of the greatest dangers to this Civilisation is the conflict between the smaller civilisations, often religions, ethnic groups and national and regional cultures. The other, more subtle danger, is the greed and ambition of men and women, often manifested through political ideologies, selfish capitalism, the struggle for market domination and international crime.
Rajmohan Gandhi, newspaperman and a grandson of the Mahatma, said "Class hate as an ideology is behind us. But ethnic hate is with us and ahead of us. Who will now expose the illogicality of ethnic enmity? Who will disentangle the love of one's own people, which is a great quality, from disliking of another people? Who will report and interpret reconciliation and forgiveness? Ethnic enmity wins applause and votes and prime ministerships. Many so-called patriots or nationalists say that you cannot love your own people, unless you hate other people. It is an obvious folly. Part of the role of communications is to unseat this folly from the minds and hearts of the millions of the world".
Vaclev Havel, surely one of our best political thinkers of today, wrote, "I think that there are good reasons for suggesting that the modern age has ended. Today many things indicate that we are going through a transitional period, when it seems that something is on the way out and something else is painfully being born. It is as if something were crumbling, decaying, and exhausting itself, while something else, still indistinct, were arising from the rubble".
Much earlier the Canadian stateman, Lester Pearson, said "The future of both peace and Civilisation depend upon understanding and co-operation among the political, spiritual and intellectual forces of the world's major civilisations. In the greater, global 'real clash' between Civilisation and barbarism, the world's civilisations with their rich accomplishments in religion, art, literature and philosophy, science, technology, morality and compassion will hang together or hang separately".
If these assessments are true, and I believe that they are, then the media should be interpreting them to their audiences. A leading, world-level, woman business leader, interviewed on BBC World Radio, said, doubtless under some provocation, "Most journalists cannot tell the difference of significance between a bicycle accident and the decline of civilisation".
Professor Grigory Pomerans, one of Russia's few respected philosophers of today, is convinced that our present bevy of civilisations are in decline and that we have to create a new Civilisation. Personally, I am not sure whether we are in the business of saving a Civilisation or creating a new one. No matter which way, this is the great news story of the millennium, if we have the wit and the prescience to see it.
I am now going to make the comparison of the situation in time of conventional War, when we know who is fighting who and where are the lines of conflict. Today we are concerned with what can be called the Battle Line of Civilisation in which the adversaries are the constructive and the destructive forces at work in the world. There are those striving for good and those who consciously or unknowingly promote evil. Those who are architects and builders and those who are destroyers and underminers. And where are the lines of conflict? Huntington talks about the "fault lines" between religions and national interests and historical legacies. They also run through the hearts and mind of all men and women whenever they are faced with a moral choice.
There is always excitement in war situations. But now we have a situation of even greater excitement, in which we can be reporting and interpreting all news in relation to the destiny of humanity. We would have to ask ourselves the question about all hard news. Is what is happening contributing to the undermining of Civilisation or to the building of a new and just society?" Every Government action, every multi-national company decision, every new book or film, every television programme, every environmental issue could be assessed for their relevance to this basic confrontation.
It should be possible to introduce this element of confrontation and of effort, ground lost or gained, into modern news writing and broadcasting. How can we define this supreme conflict of our time? "Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in the fight twixt truth and falsehood, for the good or evil side". Every journalist will understand that. But it can be further defined as between freedom and bondage, between fairness and injustice, between peace and war, between honesty and lies, between caring and indifference, between wholesomeness and decadence, between family unity and breakdown, between ... the list could go on, and most of us know darned well the right choice to make. In each case a line is drawn on either side of which victory or defeat can be signalled.
Walter Cronkite, the great American newsman, wrote in the concluding chapter of his autobiography, A Reporter's Life, "The new technologies give proof of the human being's intellectual capacity. Can we really believe that we are incapable of applying that same intellectual power to solving the great problems the world faces, overpopulation, pollution and poverty chief among them?
"Can we believe that the beleaguered peoples of the world will long be tolerant of those who possess the tools, but who can't make them work for the good of humankind everywhere?"
"There is going to be social and political and economic revolution, which will explode with such suddenness as to have the character of revolution. The revolutionary forces are already at work today, and they have humankind's dream on their side. We (the media) don't want to be on the other side. It is up to us to assume leadership of that revolution, to channel it in a direction that will ensure freedom's future", Conkrite concluded.
The back-up of the media to this challenge is to inform thoroughly and with balance, our audiences of what is happening in their localities, communities, nations, regions and the world; to encourage and help them to cope with the situation, as it realistically exists; and to work with them for the good to triumph. This concept does not mean the imposition of morality or belief or dogma, but rather an honest presentation of the battle and its issues, plus an encouragement to participate and a pointing of ways in building a better society. Each individual in an audience is free to form his or her opinion and to take or not to take any action that might be indicated, There will always be an indifferent majority, but the future will belong to a motivated, creative minority.
I am thinking here of bringing an element of purpose and excitement into the whole field of news and current affairs reporting and presentation. Of course there are some areas that will not lend themselves to this type of treatment, and they should be handled in accordance with traditional practice. This is also true in times of war, when not all news is related to the conflict. A big problem with most news treatment today is that it is without any context other than its effect on circulation and audience size, and I am not underestimating the importance of that, but, even then, it needs some kind of yardstick against which to make judgments. How is news value estimated today? At its worst by the blood and guts on the floor. At its best by its human appeal, and even that, usually on a sentimental basis, as with Princess Diana, the Woodward case or the behavioural idiosyncrasies of celebrities.
In the recent prominence given to attacks on refugees in prosperous Western countries there was the cry of appeal from a Glasgow housewife, "I wish the media would listen to the decent people, the ordinary people, who so care about the suffering of others".
I think that most of my colleagues in the media will understand what I am getting at, in spite of my struggles to express it. And the concept of a Battle Line of Civilisation gives us a reasonable and purposeful basis on which to work. From "If it bleeds, it leads" to "If it answers needs, it leads" may seem a long way off, but I believe that it is a road we have to take.
William E Porter
Founder President
International Communications Forum
This article was written by William Porter, for the World Association of Newspapers, and appeared as a Guest Column on their web site and is reproduced with WAN’s permission. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Association of Newspapers.
