previous | next | table of contents

LANGUAGES AND PERCEPTIONS ¹
by Donald R. Browne
Charles M. Firestone
Ellen Mickiewicz

Even in the best of all worlds, where money to support expanded ethnic minority broadcasting and coverage of conflict is plentiful, there remains the question of how to go about the reshaping of the electronic media so that they will play more meaningful roles in the creation of more tolerant, peaceful, healthy societies. We have suggested several structural ways of going about the task: councils, training schemes, approaches to information gathering, role-playing, etc. But there remains the most vital step of all: how to depict, through words and visual images, what a healthy society should be.

As we have indicated, it is very difficult to sustain the argument that NOT displaying conflict and intolerance is the best way to meet the goal. Experiences in China, India, the former Soviet Union, and many other places show that such a strategy may keep inter-ethnic tensions under wraps, but it doesn't appear to diminish them. And where there was a seemingly airtight monopoly over the air waves people's fertile minds often created elaborate scenarios out of scraps of rumor, and these may have been far worse than the reality of a given situation. Also, individuals whose everyday experiences contain the usual human mixture of good and bad are unlikely to believe everything they hear and see over a media system which portrays only the positive aspects of national life. That simply is too far removed from the reality of those everyday experiences.

Assume, then, that the electronic media will deal with the realities of a society - "warts and all," as Oliver Cromwell allegedly told his portrait painter. How should they do so in order to be most effective? It sounds simplistic to observe that while much depends upon just what the media choose to tell and show, and how thoroughly and even handedly they choose to cover events, at least as much depends upon how: the specific words and phrases chosen, the specific visual images accompanying or dominating those words and phrases.

The "how" of electronic communication is a vast subject, and a vast amount has been written about it. Furthermore, various studies conducted over time and in many different cultures make it clear that people communicate in a wide variety of ways, which means that they also have many different ways of interpreting what they see and hear. If one picture is worth a thousand words (highly doubtful), they certainly would not be the same words to all people. That is true not only across national borders, but also within nations. What is more, situations involving conflict and tension appear to exaggerate differences in interpretation, as individuals are even more likely to perceive what they want to perceive.

If there is a valid universal observation on the complex subject of words and images, it is this: Electronic media personnel involved with program production and decision-making have the obligation to be especially sensitive to the fact that interpretations of words and images will vary within and between cultures. Increasingly, people around the world receive their first news of events through the electronic media. That alone imposes a special responsibility on media staff. But research on the linkage between televised violence and violence in real life indicates quite clearly that television does play role, and perhaps an important role, in shaping people's attitudes toward violence; and that is still further reason for staff responsibility in any treatment of conflict.

It is quite true that differences in interpretations of words and images often will be slight enough that media staff need not worry about them. It is also true that variation in interpretations can be exceptionally difficult to detect, although it may emerge more clearly if stations turn to their ethnic minority staff and to the resource person they have identified in ethnic minority communities, universities, etc, for advice. If use of those resources still leaves media staff in doubt over whether to use certain words or phrases or to show certain visual images, and if there is considerable tension within society at the moment, it would seem wiser to simply avoid using a term or image that could be taken as slighting, demeaning, racist, or even overly stereotypical. Many broadcast newsrooms have developed detailed guidelines for the use or nonuse of such terms as terrorist, black, yellow, etc. All newsrooms should have them and update them regularly, as the BBC and numerous others have done.

Such guidelines should be developed in light of everyday language use, rather than dictionary definitions of terms. That is particularly important when dealing with emotional situations, where ethnic minorities may appropriate majority culture terms and use them in very different ways. The term "bad" began to be used by African-Americans some years ago to indicate something that commanded respect, rather than something negative. But if a majority culture journalist were to use that term to describe an African-American, there almost certainly would be confusion over the intended meaning.

Nonverbal messages often resist stable definition, as well. A close-up shot of an individual often serves to underline a visual statement. Show a close-up of an identifiable ethnic minority youth at a disturbance of some sort, with eyes blazing, and the likely majority culture reaction will be, "There's another one of those out-of-control *******s who thinks she/he can get away with anything." That might be true, but the eyes also might be blazing because the individual's house has just been burned to the ground by other individuals of the same or another ethnic minority, or the majority. Accompanying audio material might explain that, but often such images are allowed to "speak" for themselves, even if what they "say" isn't what the individual means. If the images are graphic enough, the reporter's words, if any, can easily be ignored, especially when the images reinforce existing visual stereotypes.

That raises yet another important point about the languages of the electronic media. Not only do certain recurring visual and aural images tend to reinforce stereotypes whoever holds them, whether accurate or not ( and "accurate" to whom?). But they also may lose their impact (shock value) with frequent repetition, especially if used often within a brief period of time. U.S. TV coverage of starvation in Somalia may have helped to awaken the U.S. public to the disaster, as well as to the conflict that had caused it, but there were periods when virtually every report about the country showed at least some images of starving individuals, usually children and often in fly-covered close-up shots. Similarly, television coverage of the aftermath of the Los Angeles "riots" in April 1992 concentrated heavily on block after block of burned-out buildings. It was not unusual to hear viewers state, after no more than a week or two of such coverage, "I wish they'd show something else. Those pictures are so boring/sickening/upsetting/repetitious (the list could go on) that I'm tired of seeing them." Such perceptions often appear to be linked to viewer's feelings that TV tends to exaggerate, especially in visual terms.

The same perception also may apply to verbal terms. An April 1993, bombing carried out by the IRA in London was the subject of many call-in programs. A number of individuals specifically stated that they thought the media exaggerated the effectiveness of the bombings, and, in so doing, led the IRA to think that they continued to be useful. Furthermore, said some of the callers, the very language used in media reports on the bombings is at times exaggerated; several referred to a report in one of the more sensationalist British newspapers that said that the bombing had "brought London to a screeching halt." The phrase may have been colourful, but the reality was that most Londoners and visitors were unaffected by the blast and unaware of it until it had been reported.

There is a final note of caution about uses of languages in situations of tension and conflict where ethnic minorities are involved. If one of the sides has a markedly different cultural background, and especially if its members speak a markedly different language, then reporters, editors, and managers should be especially careful to attempt to understand exactly what those individuals are saying. Some will misuse what may be their second language (the language of the majority culture) and, as a result, may employ terms that are far more, or less, hostile or conciliatory than what they really want to express. Some may be showing their very deepest feelings when they speak softly, while others may do some by shouting. Some may avert their eyes as a sign of respect, confusion, or shyness (especially if they're not accustomed to being recorded), while others may look aside out of hatred or for concealment.

If electronic media personnel had to consider every nuance of every verbal and nonverbal expression made in the course of a conflict or at times of interracial tension, then producing the news or entertainment would be a very slow process - and the electronic media, whatever else they may be, are not slow to report, or even to dramatize.

Technology helps to make instant, or nearly instant, production easier than ever. However, it is up to human beings to be sensitive enough to variant uses and interpretations of words and images, especially when connected with conflict and tension in a multi-ethnic society; to know when to slow down the production process so that they might question old habits and stereotypes, and then to get the stories they are relating, whether fact or fiction, as "right" as possible for the promotion of a healthier society.

1. From Television/Radio News and Minorities