spinofflive
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivers his first statement to the White House Press Core, flanked by photos of the Trump presidency, January 21, 2017. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivers his first statement to the White House Press Core, flanked by photos of the Trump presidency, January 21, 2017. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

MediaJanuary 27, 2017

There’s always a bright side: How the Trump presidency could save journalism

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivers his first statement to the White House Press Core, flanked by photos of the Trump presidency, January 21, 2017. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivers his first statement to the White House Press Core, flanked by photos of the Trump presidency, January 21, 2017. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

If the first week is anything to go by, the relationship between the Donald J Trump administration and the press will be anything but cosy. That’s excellent news for journalism, argues Paul Brislen.

Day One of Trumpton got off to a rocky start with the new press secretary for The Donald taking to the podium not to impart news of the new administration’s first day in office but instead to lambast media for daring to suggest Donald’s inauguration wasn’t the best there’s ever been. If that wasn’t bad enough, another Trump staffer then had to clarify what the Press Secretary had meant by his shouting, giving us the immortal “alternative facts”, a coinage that would do George Orwell proud.

Day Two (actually, Day Five but time is clearly standing still for @PressSec) went no better with an actual press conference (referred to as the “first press conference”, thus assigning the previous day’s rant to the dustbin of “did that actually happen?”) that ended with questions being taken from the softest of friendly reporters and even then proceeding with few answers.

Sean Spice Chris Geidner tweets

This is a great opportunity for journalism and may just be the saving of mainstream media as we know it.

Mainstream Media (MSM to us hep cats in the digital space) has been stumbling along without a clue for quite some time now. Since the advent of Google, Facebook and social media in general, MSM has been rudderless, powerless to stop the steady crumbling of its business model.

Actually, I’d say the rot set in a lot earlier. When I was a reporter (note to young reporters: when you start saying things like this it’s time to hand in your notebook and pencil and switch to public relations because you’re done), this newfangled website thing called TradeMe had not long launched and was looking for a buyer. It offered itself to Buy Sell and Exchange, the weekly classified advertising rag that consisted of roughly three million pieces of advertising every single week, but BSE declined the kind offer.

Morgan and co were pushing a sale for $1 million. Eventually TradeMe sold to Fairfax for $700 million – a number so outrageous I declined to run the story until I had verification that there wasn’t a decimal point missing from the number.

Today it’s hard to really remember what life was like before TradeMe came along but I do recall one New Zealand Herald edition with so many ads in its car section that it didn’t have room for any copy. No story at all – just ads.

It was a licence to print money and APN and Fairfax and others treated it in just that way.

They could have invested in TradeMe. They could have built their own version. They could have cornered the market for classifieds, for house sales, for jobs, for all of these things because they already had cornered the market. But when the market moved they declined to spend and compete and so were crushed like bugs under the internet’s wheel of fortune.

Eventually these media behemoths set up their own websites and gave away their product for free. For reasons as yet uncovered, this led to a lot of people not paying to buy their newspapers, which led to calls for cost reductions, which led to the number of journalists gainfully employed by said newspapers being slashed, which led to fewer readers, which led to more panic, more cost reductions, more layoffs and so on until today.

This has happened in newsrooms around the world. Entire publications have vanished into the ether and yet the readers remain. People want news and they want more of it. Yet we are defunding news coverage steadily right around the world.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivers his first statement to the White House Press Core, flanked by photos of the Trump presidency, January 21, 2017. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer delivers his first statement to the White House Press Core, flanked by photos of the Trump presidency, January 21, 2017. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Now, thanks to Donald and company, suddenly MSM has a real opponent, someone they can obviously and clearly call out. Mainstream media’s output of truth, accuracy and verifiable facts were thrust into the limelight by a president who believes in none of these things.

Trump’s is an administration that actively contradicts the stance it took the day before. An administration that refuses to cite its sources when claiming millions of illegal voters were involved in the presidential election, that attacks individual journalists for doing their job (both on Twitter, in person and by having them arrested) and which is so eager to control the message that it has stopped various government science bodies from releasing factual statements.

This is all so garish and over the top, so outlandish a set of behaviours that were a script writer on the next Bond film to include a villain so transparently vile as Trump it would be rejected as being implausible and obvious. Bring us more subtlety, the producers would cry, this is too Jared Leto’s Joker to be believed.

Basically, this is a perfect foil for the journalists of America to rail against.

CNN started strong, refusing to screen Spicer’s stand up rant until it had fact checked it (turns out most of what he said was inaccurate at best and provably false at worst). The New York Times followed up by using the “lie” word instead of referring to “inaccuracies” and even the UK’s Guardian has got in on the act, with a piece devoted to rallying the media troops to its cause. Let’s work together, it says, to defeat this common foe.

Readers want reporting. They want news. They want to know what’s going on behind the scenes and they want to know someone is being held to account. I was taught that journalism is about afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. Now more than ever, it is essential that journalism holds true to that.

Newspapers can do that but lately they seem to have lost the plot. When you look at the front page of either main New Zealand news website you’ll find columns of “Most Read” stories and articles syndicated from Outbrain, which specialises in the clickbait stories that Buzzfeed and co have rejected for being too pointless.

In the rush to get more clicks to support their failing business models, newspapers have forgotten why people read them in the first place: for impartial news. Instead we’ve been given BREAKING NEWS banners for stories that are barely newsworthy let alone breaking, lifestyle stories and more junk news than we can handle. We readers should be fed a diet of quality information put together thoughtfully and with concern for the truth. Instead, like hummingbirds fed on Nutrasweet, we’re given stories about the Kardashians and what John Key is up to now he’s no longer PM. We’ve had to turn to comedians to fill in the blanks, to provide the analysis and the understanding – but as much as I love watching John Oliver et al, lampooning is not journalism. That shouldn’t be their job.

Mainstream media needs to do more than just regurgitate what’s put in front of them in the hopes of attracting a few clicks. It needs to do more than re-run stories we all read yesterday on the internet. Newspapers don’t need to put BREAKING NEWS banners up unless it actually is breaking news. In marketing speak, it devalues its own brand by doing so and it breaks its promise to the reader that newspapers are filled with news.

If they can keep up this barrage of accurate reporting, of actual news, MSM might well survive the transition from print to digital. Sure, they need a new payment model but subscriber numbers are rising for the first time in a long while and people seem willing to pay actual money for news .

If we are in a post-truth world journalism need to accept that and raise the bar higher. We need to move to a post-truthiness world, one where facts are checked, hypocrisy is called out and where we do indeed hold the bastards to account for their actions.

Keep going!
Afghan women protest the burqa ban in the Moroccan capital Rabat, on 15 January 2017. 
 (Photo by Jalal Morchidi/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Afghan women protest the burqa ban in the Moroccan capital Rabat, on 15 January 2017. (Photo by Jalal Morchidi/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

MediaJanuary 23, 2017

Ban the burqa? An Iranian-New Zealander on why it would be undemocratic and counterproductive

Afghan women protest the burqa ban in the Moroccan capital Rabat, on 15 January 2017. 
 (Photo by Jalal Morchidi/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Afghan women protest the burqa ban in the Moroccan capital Rabat, on 15 January 2017. (Photo by Jalal Morchidi/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

Burqas are so rare in New Zealand that most of us have likely never seen one in real life, but that didn’t stop TVNZ asking online readers whether they should be banned outright. Let’s worry less about how women choose to dress and more about the ongoing vilification of Muslims in the media, says Donna Miles-Mojab.

There’s a lot of irresponsible coverage of Muslim issues in the media, and TVNZ News online’s recent poll on the burqa was a prize example. In response to Morocco’s burqa ban, it encouraged readers to vote on whether there should be a similar ban in New Zealand.

If public opinion polling is justified simply because a law exists in a different country, then I challenge TVNZ to poll on whether or not we should behead people like they do in Saudi Arabia.

Polling on issues like the New Zealand flag made sense because there was an active debate on the issue. People had a chance to hear all sides of the argument and to form an informed view.

But Muslims are almost invisible in Western media unless they appear behind a gun. As a result, we do not hear Muslims telling us what veiling means to them and why a very small number of Muslim women in the West decide to wear the burqa which, except for their eyes, covers them from head to toe.

Afghan women protest the burqa ban in the Moroccan capital Rabat, on 15 January 2017. (Photo by Jalal Morchidi/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
Afghan women protest the burqa ban in the Moroccan capital Rabat, on 15 January 2017.
(Photo by Jalal Morchidi/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

I used to hate burqa-wearing women because my entire teenage years were spent in fear of women who were fully veiled.

You see, I grew up in Iran, where after the 1979 revolution, despite vehement opposition from Iranian women, the hijab (a scarf that covers the hair) became compulsory.

Begrudgingly, and in fear of acid attacks, we started wearing the hijab but never quite to the satisfaction of the Islamic morality guards who used to stop us frequently on the street and hassle us about our bad hijab and how we dressed.

So, our lives became a sort of cat and mouse game with the morality police.

We used to refer to the female members of the morality guards as ‘religious penguins’ because they wore a long black cloth (chador) that covered their bodies from head to toe leaving only their faces exposed.

The religious police were often very abusive and sometimes violent. We knew we had to avoid getting arrested because of the horrific treatment of women in jail.

I never forget the day my sister and I left the suppressive mullahs and their religious penguins behind. As soon as we stepped inside the safety of Heathrow Airport we took off our hijabs and threw them into the first bin we came across.

We felt liberated and free. For us the hijab had become the symbol of post-revolutionary Iran: oppressive and backwards.

Interestingly, the Iranian hijab law has been remarkably unsuccessful, failing to transform Iranian women into pious and obedient soldiers of Islam.

For instance, there has been an explosion of plastic surgery in Iran. Tehran is the nose job capital of the world and some reports suggest that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fast becoming the Erotic Republic of Iran.

The Facebook page “My Stealthy Freedom” which allows Iranian women to post photos of themselves without hijab, has over one million “likes”, mostly from Iranians living inside and outside of Iran. The success of this Facebook page is a huge embarrassment to the Iranian government which sees the veil as a symbol of its power in Iran.

But it’s not just the forced veiling of women that can produce the opposite of the intended result; forced unveiling of women can be equally counterproductive.

In 1936, Iran’s ruling king, Reza Khan, forced women to unveil in public. I remember my grandmother telling us how women who wore the hijab in public were arrested and shot at.

She told us about the fear women felt and how the compulsory uncovering made them feel violated. As a result, many women vowed never to leave their house again.

In the years leading to the Islamic revolution, the religious mullahs capitalized on the hatred of forced Westernisation and paved the path to the Islamic revolution that came in 1979.

New Zealand should learn from this important lesson and never be tempted to follow the countries which have passed specific laws to ban or limit women from wearing the face covering.

Such a ban would only isolate and marginalise our Muslim population, making them vulnerable to extremist elements.

Of course we should oppose the forced veiling of women whenever and wherever it is practised, but when women choose freely to veil themselves, we have to recognise it as their human and religious right to do so.

If you consider some of the most common arguments against burqa, you find that none of them stand up to close scrutiny.

Here are some of the most common reasons cited in support of banning the burqa:

1. Security reasons

Security is often given as a reason for burqa bans. But women who choose to wear the burqa say that they are happy to show their faces whenever it is required for security reasons.

In fact, Muslim women are required by Quran to show their faces whenever giving testimony in courts.

2. Enslavement and invisibility

The French Government, when banning the burqa, referred to it as “a new form of enslavement”.

Interestingly, many of the very small number of Muslims in the West who choose to wear the burqa are converts to Islam who find the burqa empowering.

In a society that reduces a woman’s value to her sexual allure, these Muslim women say the burqa diverts the attention from their bodies and gives more visibility to their character and beliefs.

3. An expression of fundamentalism

The only way to reject fundamentalism is to encourage diversity in Islamic beliefs. That diversity includes secular Muslims like me who do not wear the hijab, as well as those who choose to partially or fully veil themselves.

If we choose to dictate to women how they should dress or practise their own religion then we are not any better than ISIS or the Taliban, are we?

Why is this even an issue?

If we are truly concerned about the oppressive situation of women, we should be talking about pay inequality, objectification, eating disorder, sexism, and violence against women, instead of dictating to women how to dress.

We need to be honest with ourselves and accept that our fear of the burqa is about our fear of Muslims, who are constantly vilified in the media.

Look at it from a different perspective

One of art’s most powerful functions is the way it gets us to see ordinary things differently. Monet’s A Bunch Of Asparagus, Hopper’s Nighthawks and Vermeer’s The Little Street give us a fresh perspective on seemingly ordinary things, forcing us to pay closer attention to things that matter.

Artists Christo and Jeanne Claude completely covered their projects in white fabric. Their wrappings included Reichstag in Berlin and the Pont-Neuf bridge in Paris.

Their work was always controversial and to some people shocking. Art critic David Bourdon described the artists’ work as a “revelation through concealment”.

Think of women who choose to wear the burqa as revealing their consciousness and beliefs through concealment of their bodies.

Think of them as artists who have chosen a different perspective in liberating themselves and practising their religion.

Our mental association with what we see matters.  Our brains have been trained to see black-clad women as oppressed ISIS supporters because that is what we see in the media all the time.

Train your brain to see black-clad women as creative and courageous artists like Christo and Jeanne Claude. That way, you won’t fall into the trap of thinking that all burqa-wearing women are oppressed.

And finally …

Never respond to an opinion poll before familarising yourself with the main arguments from both sides first. All of us need to demand more from the media than the cheap click-bait they have been feeding us.