Since the rise of journalism as a
profession there have been many shifts and changes in what is perceived as
‘human interest’. Initially newspapers would report on political issues and
address only a small part of society. Carrabine (2008) argues that journalism
in the late 19th Century laid the foundations of modern (or rather:
contemporary) news reporting, moving “towards a more sensational mode of
address” (p.102). Looking at most popular news shows and considering the
success of tabloids over ‘serious’ newspapers, it becomes clear how
sensationalism wins over the need to be informed objectively (although I am
aware that there is no such thing as pure objectivity, though I believe it is
possible to strive for it, by offering and allowing different perspectives and
opinions). Speaking only of the societies that I know and have lived in: do we
really want to be entertained rather than informed? How does our sensationalism
affect the need to see and to be seen – in other words: are we a synoptical
society?
In the Dictionary
of Mass Communication and Media Research Demers describes infotainment as
"information-based media content or programming that also includes
entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with audiences and consumers"
(Demers, 2005, p.143). While one has to keep in mind that any news stories and
event reports are always representations
of reality, and therefore inevitably distorted, the element of entertainment
reduces the factual accuracy further.
When I first came to Australia it struck me
how different TV channels would advertise their news shows with promises such
as “We show it first”, offering their viewers the opportunity to see events
‘live’ and ‘first-hand’. I grew up watching only news shows that were shown on
the public-sector broadcaster (comparable to abc or sbs in Australia),
where the news programs are not advertised but rather simply announced. At
first this fact made me downgrade Australian TV news to a certain extend;
sensationalism in this context equals to me in a severe loss of sincerity and
credibility. However, I now realise that infotainment and sensationalism are
neither an Australian phenomenon, nor are they limited to TV news programs.
I feel that the need to be entertained
results from different aspects of our contemporary society: for one, we are
constantly bombarded with information, advertisement, moving and non-moving
images, sounds, stories and ‘breaking news’. This causes an overload, and thus
our brains try to filter out the ‘unimportant’, creating an apparent need to
make media even more attracting, more colourful and louder. Secondly, a lot of
the perceived information, especially news reports, is negative. Infotainment
offers us a possibility to detach ourselves from the reality of the negative,
while still feeling informed and knowing. In both aspects, infotainment acts as
a form of self-protection.
Simultaneously, infotainment and
sensationalism show how media is more and more controlling our society, or
rather, our life and perceptions of how we should live it. In his work,
Mathiesen (1997) argues that Foucault’s concept of panopticism, where the few
see and thus control the many, has in some way been replaced with synoptical
processes: “The mass media, and especially television, which today bring the
many — literally hundreds of millions of people at the same time — with great
force to see and admire the few. In contrast to Foucault's panoptical process,
the latter process is referred to as synoptical” (p.215). I find it especially
interesting how he develops his argument towards a society that is no longer
controlled by physical punishment, but rather by psychological impacts. While
this type of surveillance seems more humane at first, it is also more dangerous
and extensive. “Gone are the days of open brutality and the
uncontrolled infliction of physical pain; instead, there is a carefully
developed system of rules regulating life in full and complete detail”
(Mathiesen, 1997, p.216). The dangerous part about this system, in my eyes, is
the fact that most people are unaware of it, despite the fact that they are not
only the receiving part of it, but moreover an acting entity. We all want to
believe that we can free ourselves of some of ‘society’s expectations’, that we
are independent individuals who choose how to live freely.
In this context, a discussion about the
‘autonomous self’ (e.g. Blackman, 2006), or rather the fiction or non-existence
of the same would be very useful and insightful, yet I have to limit myself to
referring to the idea at this point.
This discussion and findings are as much
inconclusive as they are incomplete and open-ended. The term infotainment has a
very negative connotation, however, I showed that it can be seen as a form of
self-protection in this crazy world we live in, where we are controlled by
technology and invisible mind doctors who shape our thinking and steal our
autonomy while making us believe we are all self-empowered and
independent......
References
Carrabine, Eamonn. 2008. Entertaining the Nation. Course Reader, Week 10.
Demers, David. 2005. Dictionary of Mass Communication and Media Research: a guide for
students, scholars and professionals. Marquette, p.143.
Mathiesen, Thomas. 1997. ‘The Viewer
Society: Michel Foucault’s “Panopticon Revisited”’. In: Theoretical Criminology, pp. 215–234. Available online: http://tcr.sagepub.com/content/1/2/215.abstract
