An Unseen World How the Media Portrays the Poor

BY Greg Philo| IN Media Practice | 16/04/2002
One reason for these changes has been the greatly increased competition for audiences following the rise of satellite and cabl

One reason for these changes has been the greatly increased competition for audiences following the rise of satellite and cable channels. Combined with the onset of a free market from the 1980s and general television "de-regulation," this has led to a commercial obsession with grabbing viewers` attention-a kind of "watch me and buy something culture."

Yet this is not necessarily what television viewers want. When we actually interviewed audience groups, we found that people`s attitudes were rather different from what the broadcasters had assumed. Some people were completely "turned off" from the developing world (about 25 percent of the sample), but the reason was in part the constant negative diet of images they were given. As one interviewee put it: "Well every time you turn on the TV or pick up a paper, there`s another (war) starting or there is more poverty or destruction. It is all too much."

Nearly all the people interviewed recalled negative images since that was largely what they had been exposed to on television. Levels of interest, however, were not nearly so uniform. What actually bothered a majority of viewers was that they simply did not understand the images they were being shown. As one put it: "I have a constant sense of not being properly informed about background to issues and things like that."

A frequent complaint was that journalists merely took for granted that the audience knew what the story was about. In the course of this study, we worked very closely with journalists and some confirmed what the viewers were saying. One commented to us that news reporters were effectively told not to focus on explanation, but to go for eye-catching events like fighting, shooting or riots. As he put it, they had been stopped from doing "explainers"-now it was "all bang, bang stuff."

As a result of this work, we began to discuss with journalists how TV coverage might be improved. We agreed that we would conduct a new pilot study in which BBC journalists joined a focus group of "ordinary" TV watchers. The purpose was to examine what these viewers understood (or didn`t) from a TV news report, and then to discuss this with the journalists who had actually made the news item. We also wanted to find out how much the viewers` understanding of the story affected their level of interest in it. David Shukman from the BBC was one of the journalists present, and we began by watching two news reports that he had presented on the continuing war in Angola and the terrible effects which land mines had on the local population.

His report contained very distressing images and had a strong impact, producing great sympathy from the viewers. Yet it also had the normal negative effect of being interpreted as one more set of war images from Africa. The viewers` response was that it was sad, but nothing really to do with them since nothing could be done. The news report had noted that the oil and diamond trades financed the crisis, and that because of corruption within Angola, people in that country profited from the war. This fitted the viewers` notions that it was basically an "African" problem, because as they saw it, African people were simply not very good at governing themselves.

At this point I intervened in the discussion and introduced some new information. I asked the group where the mines and munitions had come from. The group reasoned that they came from industrialized countries, and that Britain, America and Eastern Europe sold armaments. I then asked how they thought the weapons were paid for. The answer was through the sale of diamonds, oil and by money laundering, all of which had been mentioned in the news item. I drew their attention to suggestions that the City of London was involved in the illicit transfer of large sums of money from Africa (e.g. London Evening Standard 20/10/00). I proceeded to ask them if anyone was wearing a diamond.

We eventually did this exercise with three different groups and in each of them there was a very surprised reaction to this question and great shock at the implication that if they purchased a