1 Why Media Researchers Don't Care About Teletext

1 Why Media Researchers Don’t Care About Teletext Hilde Van den Bulck & Hallvard Moe Abstract This chapter tackles the paradoxical observation that teletext in Europe can look back on a long and successful history but has attracted very little academic interest. The chapter suggests and discusses reasons why media and commu- nications researchers have paid so little attention to teletext and argue why we should not ignore it. To this end, it dissects the features of teletext, its history, and contextualizes these in a discussion of media research as a field. It first discusses institutional (sender) aspects of teletext, focusing on the perceived lack of attention to teletext from a political economic and policy analysis perspective. Next, the chapter looks at the characteristics of teletext content (message) and reasons why this failed to attract the attention of scholars from a journalism studies and a methodological perspective. Finally, it discusses issues relating to the uses of teletext (receivers), reflecting on the discrepancy between the large numbers of teletext users and the lack of scholarly attention from traditions such as effect research and audience studies. Throughout, the chapter points to instances in the development of teletext that constitute so- called pre-echoes of debates that are considered pressing today. These issues are illustrated throughout with the case of the first (est.1974) and, for a long time, leading teletext service Ceefax of the BBC and the wider development of teletext in the UK. Keywords: teletext, communication studies, research gaps, media history, Ceefax, BBC Introduction When we first started thinking about a book on teletext, a medium that has been very much part of people’s everyday lives across Europe for over forty years, we were surprised by the lack of scholarly attention or even interest. We could find very few studies or even general reflections on the medium, and asking colleagues about their knowledge of work on teletext not only confirmed the lack of interest but created disbelief (and even laughter) at our interest in 15 Journalism and the New World Order. Studying War and the Media Vol.2 Journalism and the New World Order Studying War and the Media Wilhelm Kempf & Heikki Luostarinen (eds.) NORDICOM Vol II Journalism and the New World Order Studying War and the Media Wilhelm Kempf & Heikki Luostarinen (eds.) ISBN 91-89471-10-5 © 2002 the authors and NORDICOM, Göteborg University Printed in Sweden by Grafikerna Livréna i Kungälv AB 2002 Nordicom Göteborg University Box 713 SE-405 30 Göteborg http://www.nordicom.gu.se phone 031-773 10 00, fax 031-773 46 55 Contents Introduction 7 I. The Role of the Media in Conflicts Chapter 1 Heikki Luostarinen Propaganda Analysis 17 Chapter 2 Heikki Luostarinen & Rune Ottosen The Changing Role of the Media in Conflicts. From the Cold War to the Net Age 39 Chapter 3 Wilhelm Kempf Conflict Coverage and Conflict Escalation 59 Chapter 4 Oddgeir Tveiten TV Wars, the Audience and the Public 73 II. How Did We Get Here? Chapter 5 Heikki Luostarinen Propaganda and Reporting in Total Wars 89 Chapter 6 Heikki Luostarinen The US Media and the Vietnam War. Sparks for a Fire 101 Chapter 7 Heikki Luostarinen & Rune Ottosen Propaganda and War Reporting after the Vietnam War 113 5 III. Methodological Approaches Chapter 8 Oddgeir Tveiten & Stig A. Nohrstedt News, Discourse, Rhetoric, Propaganda. Conflict Journalism from a Multi-Methodological Perspective 131 Chapter 9 Wilhelm Kempf Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Content Analysis in Media Research 145 Chapter 10 Michael Reimann Communication Disorders in Conflict Coverage 173 IV. Studies on the Gulf War and the Bosnia Conflict Chapter 11 Stig A. Nohrstedt Images of the UN in Dagens Nyheter and the Washington Post during the Gulf War 1990–91 185 Chapter 12 Wilhelm Kempf & Michael Reimann The Presentation of Alternative Ways of Settling the Gulf Conflict in German, Norwegian and Finnish Media 203 Chapter 13 Wilhelm Kempf Escalating and Deescalating Aspects in the Coverage of the Bosnia Conflict. A Comparative Study 227 V. Beyond Wishful Thinking Chapter 14 Johan Galtung Peace Journalism – A Challenge 259 Chapter 15 Heikki Luostarinen Journalism and Cultural Preconditions of War 273 References 285 About the Authors 295 Introduction Why study war and the media? Before we move on to the problems of studying media coverage of wars and crises, there are three major issues which we would like to consider and discuss. First, there is a long tradition in Western civilization – though not only there – of glorifying and mystifying war. Innumerable products of popular culture, journalism, fine arts, architecture and oral tradition embody this longstanding mythology. Nor do depictions and accounts of the misery caused by warfare necessarily work against this mythology: endeavours that claim to reveal ‘the true face of war’ – with the destruction, strain, pain and suffering it entails – are most often part of the cultural glorification of war, because the danger and excitement portrayed therein are inte- gral parts of the very enchantment of war. In addition, most cultural products which exploit enthusiasm for war are marketed by saying that the product is ‘anti-war’ and intended to turn its audience against war culture. This dualism is caused by the nature of the emotions created by war: comradeship gets its value from commonly borne stress and strain; heroism gets its value from danger; sacrifice gets its value from the importance of what is sacrificed. Positive and desirable emotions and expe- riences would lose some of their value without extreme violence as a counterpart. When commencing research on media and violence then, it must be asked in what way the work could be presented so that it does not – intentionally or uninten- tionally – reproduce the mythology of war. And scholars must ask themselves whether they really are interested in the issues involved because of human rights, equality, peace, etc. or whether they are simply fascinated by war culture. In our view, one way to avoid the dual trap described above is to analyse war and its violence in their historical, social and political contexts – to analyse the reasons and structures be- hind aggression and violence. Mystification can be deconstructed and demystified; war is basically about politics, economy, and authoritarian and unequal relation- ships between individuals and social groups. The second issue concerns the political and ethical foundations of research. Academic research never takes place without ethical and political preconditions. Scholars are members of the surrounding society; consciously or unconsciously their methods and their objects of interest are influenced by that society. This was particu- larly true in the case of studies on international communication during the Cold War era. While superpowers fought about control of media images, media scholars were drawn in part into the ideological battle. In this battle, the very concept of peace was exploited by both superpowers, who politicized it for their own purposes. 7 Wilhelm Kempf & Heikki Luostarinen Now, ten years after the end of the superpowers’ struggle, the question of peace can be touched upon from a more profound and principled point of view. Almost all nations and many international organizations of professional vocational groups – such as doctors, scientists, journalists, etc. – are committed to protecting human rights, freedom, democracy and nonviolent conflict solution – as expressed for in- stance in the United Nations Charter. If these principles are taken seriously, this means that academic research also should advance humanity and fairness. This prin- ciple naturally does not mean that the researchers are allowed to manipulate their results – the production of facts and their interpretation must happen according to the basic principles of scientific ethics – but it does mean that ‘peace’ as a concept can be used and discussed without the burdens of the Cold War. We do not refer to ‘peace’ as some fictive state of harmony, but rather as a process which is defined by the modes in which conflicts are dealt with. Many peace researchers share an understanding of peace as meaning the reduction of violence by nonviolent means. This is a practical purpose, and manipulation of results would jeopardize its pursuit. On the other hand, however, is the problem that analytical and critical studies of media coverage of wars and crises can also be used by those people who are preparing new means for even more effective war propaganda and manipulation of the media. This problem, unfortunately, cannot be avoided. The third question asks: What emphasis should media studies as a whole give to coverage of war and crises as compared to other issues in international and domestic life, and what forms of organized violence should be preferred in the studies as an object of analysis? After the Persian Gulf War in 1990–91 an extraordinary scholarly effort was in- vested to analyse the military media-management strategies utilized by the Coalition forces. On the other hand there are several ‘forgotten wars’ and many forms of organized violence (such as state terrorism, uncontrolled use of violence by police and other security authorities, violence against women, etc.) in which the human and material casualties can be even bigger and more longstanding than in the Gulf crisis, but where the journalistic or academic attention paid to them is minimal or marginal. Who is to decide which wars and what forms of violence will be covered extensively and studied afterwards and which ones not? There are several possible answers to these questions. First, media research only follows the media agenda, which is primarily defined by the media organizations. These organizations, being mainly commercial enterprises, cover issues and wars which sell. Easy access, journalistically interesting material, dramatic David-and-Goliath constellations and public relations efforts – as in the Gulf War – influence decisions made by the media outlets.

Load more