I look forward to the first full week in October every year, as announcement of the Nobel prizes introduce me to some of the greatest accomplishments of humanity. For a moment, I can have a glimpse at the most impressive work in the sciences, literature, and human rights. The awardees - often recognised for work completed decades earlier - remind us of the immense body of effort behind the scenes that underpin the technologies we use every day. Last year’s winner of the prize in medicine, Katalin Karikó, was never granted tenure by the University of Pennsylvania, and yet she persisted.
Dates like these are helpful to media professionals. They simplify the process of newsgathering, as they can be added to a calendar well in advance, and space can be set aside for the predictable content from news agencies (Reuters, Agence France Press, the Associated Press and other providers of syndicated content ), or from the organisers themselves (www.nobelprize.org is full of content that can be readily repurposed by media outlets ).
Put bluntly, this saves money, and reduces risk. While The New York Times trumpets its mantra “all the news that’s fit to print”, it is no coincidence that that news fits exactly into the ‘news hole’, the portion of the newspaper that’s left over after advertising and other must-run content.
Money talks
Our news media are increasingly subject to significant commercial pressures, and each cost must justify itself. A journalist attending an event may or may not generate compelling content, and why risk it when the organisers will in any event provide a news release including significant details? Increasingly only Sports, where the format means even an uneventful game may result in a predictable word count, generates a reliable Return On Investment.
And yet we expect our news outlets to be our eyes and ears at events that require an impartial witness, whatever the commercial reality. Court sittings, city council meetings - these require consistent, seasoned observers sitting through long periods of boredom to capture the brief moments of excitement, and also interpret the significance of what does not happen; what is not said.
Beyond the beat reporting of courts and councils, there is the important work of seeking out stories, sometimes through feature journalism, sometimes through investigative reporting. These are even less predictable than the beat, and require an even bigger investment, albeit with the potential for greater reward.
We have seen in recent years that some stories are so large that even the established behemoths of international reporting have been unable to address them individually. Leaks of millions of pages of documents, linked to international tax evasion and avoidance, have required collaboration between dozens of outlets. Commercial instincts, where everyone else is a competitor to be beaten, must be set aside, requiring trust, an eye to the public minded goal, and commitment of resources.
Nostalgia of repetition
And so, dates matter. Warnings about fireworks, and nostalgia about tradition in October. Gift guides in December. Dieting tips in January. Valentine’s Day. Pictures from St Patrick’s Day. Back to school in August. The rhythm of our lives.
I’m writing this column a few days before you read it on October 7. Space carved out in innumerable media outlets, for what is now a tragic anniversary that finds its place in that cycle.
But an anniversary of what? As a media scholar, I know that framing matters. Whether we talk of immigration in the context of an increasingly rich diversity of traditions, cultures, and perspectives, or as a threat to a calcified fixed vision of ‘Irishness’. Housing in terms of unbearable rents and families forced onto the streets, or a market in which vulture funds deserve large returns on their investments?
The keen observer will argue that I’ve put my thumb on the scales in the above examples, using pathos to force a false dichotomy. I admit the charge. Framing, as in the above, is often used not just to promote one version of history, of the world, but also to reduce all alternatives to a single patently absurd, or even heartless, perspective.
So it is, that too many argue that we can either decry the killings of October 7, or the genocide that followed: “You are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” It makes for fiery media content that attracts and excites audiences. But - as we know too well on this island - it doesn’t get us closer to some sort of sustainable peace.
We must bear witness, refuse those who would have us wipe the memory of this or that group from history. ‘Be strong and take heart’ (Psalm 27 ) and work for a just peace.
Dr Andrew Ó Baoill is a lecturer at the School of English, Media and Creative Arts at University of Galway.
