Anti Reuter

In 1883 P. J. Reuter, head of the news agency carrying his name, wrote the following memorandum:

To: Agents and Correspondents
From: P. J. Reuter
Date: 1883

   

Re: Please cover the following:

                “…fires, explosions, floods, inundations, railway accidents, destructivestorms, earthquakes, shipwrecks attended with loss of life, accidents to warvessels and to mail steamers, street riots of a grave character, disturbancesarising from strikes, duels between and suicides of persons of note, social orpolitical, and murders of a sensational or atrocious character.” (I am indebted to Orla Borg of theConstructive Institute of the University of Aarhus, Denmark, for this importantreference.)

Sounds familiar? Yes, it is called “news”.

It is all about action,nothing about structures generating them.

It is about persons high up,”of note, social or political”.

(People low down generate street riots and strikedisturbances.)

It is all negative. Thereis not a single positive thing to “cover”.

(To the contrary: a simple murder is not enough, it has tobe preferably “sensational or atrocious” to merit cover.)

Of course, the media situation we have today, following if not the letter certainly the spirit of P. J. Reuter’s memorandum, does not only derive from this memo from 1883; now 136, in 2033 150 years, ago.

But his ideas have mattered, how much for historians to explore, for instance by tracking the quotation trails generated by that memo.

As said so often in this column: there is no argument that items such as on the Reuter list should not be covered; even if, preferably, with more context than he seems to advocate.

But not only such items.

Imagine an anti Reuter, not being against, like ananti-biotic, but relieving, preventing, counteracting, like an “antidote”.

A positive Reuter, in other words, also covering positives,not only the list of negatives he so strongly recommends in his memo.

What would a positive Anti Reuter have said?

To: Agents and Correspondents
From: Anti P. J. Reuter
Date: 2033

Re: Adding to my memo 150 yearsago, please also cover the following:

“–communities suffering natural disasters–floods-inundations-storms-earthquakes–handling them or not: exploring why-how, and why not.”

“–communities suffering social disasters–fires-explosions-vessel and railaccidents–handling them or not: exploring why-how, and why not.”

“–communities suffering street riots of a grave character anddisturbances arising from strikes: exploring the issues and solutions.”

“–communities with duels between, and suicides of, persons of note,social or political: exploring the issues and conflict solutions.”

“–communities with murders of a sensational or atrocious character, andthose with regular murders: exploring why atrocious, and why not.”

By “exploring” is meant nothing more and nothing less thanthe journalists doing their jobs the way they always do: asking questions, withfollow-up questions, but including the positive angle.

To make that point very clear:

The task of journalists is to mirror reality, empiricalreality, not some potential reality desired by some and-or predicted by some.

The task of journalists is not to mediate to change empiricalreality in favor a new social reality.

The task of journalists mirroring reality would includeinformation about communities handling successfully natural and-or socialdisasters and how; not only all those that did not.

Reuter’s “please cover the following” listis not wrong but dangerously incomplete.  Dangerously so, because:

Reuter generates a mood of pessimism about the world as adangerous place–which it partly is–blind to the positive, peaceful aspects;

People to whom the world is a dangerous place may withdrawto self-family-community, and be unavailable to society-region-world; and

The Reuter approach becomes a self-fulfilling negativeprophecy: a heavy accusation and a terrible responsibility, calling forremedies.

And the remedy, of course, is not to report only the goodnews.

For an example of that look at NHK, the Japanese radio-TV:never a single negative thing reported about Japan.  An important examplebecause that is usually what the media in communist countries are-usuallycorrectly–accused of.  But Cuba is now much more subtle.

The remedy is a well balanced both-and.  Not so easyas it may sound.  “Either”, and “or”, are one-sided, probably made so byall kinds of long lasting polarizations into two “poles”, AND by the idea thatone is right and worth reporting, the other wrong, and is not.

“Both-and” takes the human mind a good step further. Not only the extra work of reporting two sides, at least to whatever, but ofaccepting mentally that such is normal human reality, ambiguous.

Are we ready for ambiguity?  Some more thanothers.  Chinese Daoism, holistic-dialectic, sees “ambiguity”–both-and,yin/yang, forces and counter-forces, pulling in different directions as normal;Western cartesianism as something not yet sorted out in an either-or.

The West forces us to take a stand, for and against, eitherand or; Chinese Daoism forces the ever-changing dialectic on us.

Johan Galtung, a professor of peace studies, is founder of TRANSCEND Internationaland rector of TRANSCEND Peace University.

TRANSCEND Media Service

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nineteen − sixteen =