As we think of dominance and hegemony in social discourse as a whole in societies, there are also social structures within societies in the nation states that have their own stratifications. These stratifications would be in consonance with the larger normative structure within a society but there might be areas where these have their own course.
Journalism as a profession has become global. One works local, but is influenced by the global in the age of technology and globalisation. But this is not the only stratification. Journalism also has its global south and north within the proverbial ones. The western media’s dominance over the free flow of global information is a long standing unresolved issue. The McBride commission’s report was an indication of this imbalance in the flow of information. Solutions were sought but never achieved. Power is what power is and it is never in a mood to share or let go of the control.
One important contributor to global media economy in the age of escalating conflicts are the local journalists in zones of conflict. These men and women are the foot soldiers, the unsung heroes, the pawns, of the global media enterprise. Where it bleeds, leads, is the mainstay of this relationship between the local media and global giants controlling the flow of information and forming international opinion.
There are a few main questions to answer before one gets into the details of this structure. Why do the Western media need to report distant conflicts? Secondly, if the media needs the coverage of conflicts, why do they do it through local journalists? Why not their own professionals who understand the issues from the Western perspective and could report these according to the policies of their respective organisations? And last but not least, why do the local journalists get involved in the global business of which they have very little understanding?
The West active involvement in the global conflicts is the reason the western media gets involved. It informs the people in the western countries about the contribution of the west in ‘furthering democracy’. War and conflict is the best business for the media, since there is no higher sensation than the destitution of others. It also reassures the western populace that they are far better off than the stupid people around the world who have converted their own abodes into living hell. This is a very important factor because it keeps the underlying jingoism in western policies hidden under the attractive cover of humanity.
The western media’s dominance over the free flow of global information is a long standing unresolved issue. The McBride commission’s report was an indication of this imbalance in the flow of information. Solutions were sought but never achieved
The Western journalists and media used to cover thee conflicts from within the conflict zones but then it became too difficult. This is not but the only reasons. The national media in such countries also reshaped itself according to the global needs and became a window to the dominant western structure.
This has created internal hierarchies within the local, national structures. The new hierarchy had a national figure, an international journalist, at the top in a big media house. The media house had a chain of command going deep into the backward, conflict ridden hotspots. There is yet another advantage of this new scheme. It gives a local touch to the news. The local stringer, called fixer in this case, gets deeper into the story and is easily camouflaged in familiar environment. This is a win win deal for the international media as well as the big local media houses. They get better information without getting any physical and psychological harm. It is also cheap with a local flavour.
The element of localness also indicates the opportunity to spend more time on the story. The problem of the lower threshold of the fixer is solved by remote controlling the whole data collection exercise through the use of modern technology. One can easily create a wish list from a safe and cozy office and ask the fixer in a distant conflict zone to do the leg work.
But what does the fixer get out of it?
The fixers aspire to a lot but get a raw deal. The aspiration to recognition on a global level within the neoliberal media structure that has assigned countries like Pakistan the role of ‘conflict service providers’. The only way to get into the global media system is through covering conflict, war, and violence. A bit more money to make both ends meet is another motivation factor. But does this happen? It’s a mirage! The only probable take-away from working as a fixer is to remain a footnote in global journalism dominated by the bosses of the Western counterparts who sit pretty in their secure workplaces. Their stress and misery, and indeed death, is globally mourned. New lessons are learned and strategies are drawn. One of these is to use the poor fixer more often than before and to even get rid of him by creating direct contacts with media managers in zones of conflict. And yet we believe that the media will save us from a global institutional collapse. How can a system that is unable to see the obvious injustice within its own ranks save the world?
The writer holds a PhD from the Institute of KMW, University of Leipzig, Germany. He has had a long career as a working journalist and trainer. Currently, he is Professor of Journalism at the University of Peshawar
Published in Daily Times, November 7th 2017.