Journalism, Audiences and Diaspora

O. Ogunyemi

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781137457233
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Journalism
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This collection takes the study of diasporic communication beyond the level of simply praising its existence, to offering critical engagements and analysis with the systems of journalistic production, process and consumption practices as they relate to people who are living outside the borders of their birth nation.

1

Introduction: Conceptualizing the Media of Diaspora

Ola Ogunyemi

Diasporic media are a platform for self-expression, the representation of cultural artefacts and the contestation of negative stereotypes by migrant people in the public sphere. In the context of this anthology, diasporic media are perceived ‘as the media that are produced by and for migrants and deal with issues that are of specific interest for the members of diasporic communities’ (Bozdag et al., 2012, p. 97). Their functions have been articulated in previous literature, including the production of ‘culturally relevant and locally vital information to immigrants in the host society’ (Yin, 2013, p. 3); ‘orientation and connective roles’ (Ogunyemi, 2012b); ‘open space for a self-reflective discourse among migrants’ (Bozdag et al., 2012); ‘reinforce identities and sense of belonging’ (Georgiou, 2006); ‘the (re-)creation of alternative imaginative space alongside existing mappings’ (Karim, 2003); and contribution ‘to the ethnic diversity of a multi-ethnic public sphere’ (Husband, 2000, p. 206). However, we know very little about their production practices because they are hardly used in empirical studies. This hiatus in the literature is evident in the observation made by Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch that ‘the work of US news organizations is extremely well charted, whereas we know excruciatingly little about what goes on in newsrooms and media content in Africa, Asia and Latin America’ (Wahl-Jorgensen and Hanitzsch, 2009, p. 8).

Diasporic media have proliferated in the past two decades, thanks to advances in information technology and to other factors, such as increased audience demand and enabling political climates. The latter are partly driven by the awareness among policy-makers in the developed world to connect not just to the mainstream but also to the ‘ethnic media to get their message across to increasingly multi-ethnic constituencies’ (see Matsaganis et al., 2011, p. xiv). However, the tendency to regard ethnic media as speaking for and representing the diasporic groups undermines the visibility of the diasporic media and of the need for policy-makers to use them to get their message across to diasporic groups. This is evident in the lack of invitation to their practitioners to attend official press briefings or to be sent embargoed press releases. Consequently, the sourcing routine of most diasporic media revolves around monitoring the mainstream media for breaking news (see Ogunyemi, 2012a).

The theoretical framework for conceptualizing the appropriation of media by diasporic groups is interdisciplinary. For instance, some scholars have examined it from the lens of race – that is, ‘ “non-white” peoples who remain distinct as minorities in their countries of residence’ (Karim, 2003, p. 2). Some have explored it from the lens of migration – that is, involuntary relocation and displacement (see Cohen, 1997; Safran, 1991; Skrbis, 2008). And some have researched it from the lens of the politically marginalized or powerless. However, Qui cautions that ‘today, we can easily find diasporas that do not fit into any of the traditional classifications of diaspora’ (Qui, 2003, p. 148). Hence she proposes that the appropriation of media by diasporic groups be examined from the lens of ‘knowledge diasporas’ – that is, ‘who are not forced abroad by armies or persecution. Rather, they are pushed into exile because the absence of a high-technology environment at home deprives them of substantial opportunity and free choice for personal development’ (ibid., p. 148). These divergent but complementary theoretical frameworks led Georgiou to conclude that ‘the diasporic condition has become much more complex and diverse, with some groups still living on the margin, but with most being in a position of inside-outsider’ (Georgiou, 2006, p. 3).

However, I would argue that the lens of the active audience is the missing link in literature in these conceptualizations of the appropriation of media by diasporic groups. This theoretical framework is a pertinent research enquiry because diasporic groups use their media not ‘as a result of a political consciousness of belonging to a certain community and looking for, or producing political representation, but . . . more in relation to broader fields of practices: information, entertainment, engagement, commerce and faith’ (Bozdag et al., 2012, pp. 99–100). Moreover, the diasporic media do not only ‘aspire to mainstream status in terms of both programming and philosophy’ (Forde et al., 2003, p. 317) but also become a ‘hybrid of alternative and mainstream media’ (Ogunyemi, 2012b, p. 179) in dealing with issues that are of specific interest to their members.

Diasporic media

The conceptualization of diasporic media is mostly underpinned by theoretical frameworks such as the public sphere, alternative media and identity. For instance, Cunningham and Sinclair argue that diasporic media ‘share many of the characteristics of the classically conceived public sphere – they provide a central site for public communication in globally dispersed communities, stage communal difference and discord productively, and work to articulate insider ethno-specific identities – which are by definition “multi-national”, even global – to the wider “host” environments’ (Cunningham and Sinclair, 2001, pp. 134–135). Meanwhile Fraser contends that diasporic media inhabit the ‘subaltern counter-publics’ – that is, the ‘discursive arenas where members of subordinate social groups can invent and circulate “counter-discourses” through which to formulate “oppositional interpretations” of their identities, interests, and needs’ (Fraser, 1990, p. 67). However, Bozdag et al. caution that ‘the metaphor of diasporic media as the focus of diasporic networking is a more useful concept for understanding their role for diasporic communities than alternative public spheres or alternative media’ (Bozdag et al., 2012, p. 111).

Some scholars conceptualize diasporic media from the perspective of alternative media and identity. For example, Karim argues that ‘much of the cultural production of diasporas involves the (re-)creation of alternative imaginative space alongside existing mappings’ (Karim, 2003, p. 9). And Nacify (2003) contends that their content is a mixture of programmes produced in the host country and imported from the home country. In terms of identity, scholars claim that ‘they offer relevant and contemporary cultural references for people to actively renew and reinvent their identities and sense of belonging’ (Georgiou, 2006, p. 79). This conceptualization gives us an insight into the appeals of diasporic media, including ‘fostering an identity that is embedded in the local experience specific to a migrant’s physical location’ (Yin, 2013, p. 3) and ‘preserving ethnic culture and identity – promoting ethnic pride, presenting symbolic ethnicity and unifying subgroups’ (Johnson, 2000, p. 246; see also Jeffres, 1999; Yin, 2013; Zhang and Hao, 1999).

However, there is a gap in the literature on the production practices of diasporic media, its news-processing and its consumption by the diasporic communities. Hence this anthology argues that diasporic media are a bona fide media entity and, as such, there is a need to understand their production practices, news-processing and audience consumption.

Production practices

The culture, practice and ethics of diasporic media have not been adequately interrogated in the scholarly literature, unlike their mainstream, ethnic and alternative media counterparts. However, in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry (2012) on the culture, practice and ethics of the press in the UK, it is pertinent to examine and understand how the diasporic media meets their ‘responsibilities to the public interest: to respect the truth, to obey the law and to uphold the rights and liberties of individuals’ (ibid., p. 5). Such scholarly enquiry entails an exploration of how their practitioners adhere to professional norms – that is, ‘the duty to protect confidential sources, objectivity, balance and neutrality, separation between advertising and editorial content, between facts and opinion, and the obligation to hear both sides of a story or argument’ (Brants and Haan, 2010, p. 424).

The scholarly enquiry also encompasses an exploration of the diversity of skills in the newsrooms and its impact on the quality of production and the appropriation of professional norms. For instance, the quality of production in the African diasporic media is affected by the finding that only a small minority have a background in journalism, leading staff members to perform multiple designated roles (Ogunyemi, 2012b, p. 72). And Skjerdal’s study gives an insight into the impact on their professional values by noting that

many of the managers of diaspora websites are not professional journalists in the common western sense of the term. They may not belong to established media houses, they have not been educated as journalists, they are rarely members of a professional media organization, their main occupation is something else than the media venture, and so forth.

(Skjerdal, 2011, p. 728)

A scholarly enquiry into the institutional roles of diasporic media will give us an insight into the similarities and divergence in journalism practice across the media sector. For instance, the findings of Hanitzsch et al.’s study are instructive in noting ‘that journalists across the globe pay high regard to the normative ideals of detachment, providing political information, and acting as a watchdog of the government’ (Hanitzsch et al., 2011, p. 280). And Shoemaker et al.’s study sets the parameters for exploring their gatekeeping routine by emphasizing that the concept should ‘be seen as the overall process through which the social reality transmitted by the news media is constructed, and is not just a series of “in” and “out” decisions’ (Shoemaker et al., 2001). Hence Hanitzsch cautions that ‘the conceptualization of journalism’s institutional roles is deeply coloured by a Western understanding of news making and does not echo cultural variation across the globe’ (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 372).

Scholarly enquiry needs to focus on how diasporic media distance themselves from political power because Hanitzsch argues that at ‘one end of the power distance dimension is represented by the “adversary” pole (high); the other end should be labelled “loyal” (low). The adversary pole of the continuum captures a kind of journalism that openly challenges the powers that be’ (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 373). A comparative study reveals that a ‘relatively weak power distance, indicated by the willingness of journalists to convey a positive image of political and business leadership, exists among journalists in China, Russia and Uganda’ (Hanitzsch et al., 2011, p. 281). While there is limited research on power distance from the perspective of diasporic media, Skjerdal’s study is instructive in noting that the Ethiopian diaspora websites distance themselves from power by adopting three strategies: ‘the first favours a self-proclaimed “peaceful struggle” against the government in power’ (Skjerdal, 2011, p. 737); the second favours a militant strategy, ‘which constitutes a close ally to the opposition party Ginbot 7 and which more than once has declared armed struggle as the only viable means to overthrow the Ethiopian government’ (ibid.); and the third ‘is less obvious in its political orientation, but still carries a large amount of material critical of the government’ (ibid.).

Finally, scholarly enquiry should encompass the market orientation of diasporic media. Previous studies note that market orientation ‘is high in journalism cultures that subordinate their goals to the logic of the market; it is low in cultures that produce the news primarily in the “public interest” ’ (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 374). But while there is a paucity of research on the market orientation of diasporic media, we get a sense that their market orientation sways towards a hybrid of market logic and public interest in trying to balance two competing needs – that is, the need for survival and to provide information for their niche audience. Hence Callahan cautions that ‘economic interests in increasing profits pressure news media to give people what they want, not the information they need. Journalism already aims for lively communication, and desire for popularity can override the duty to provide serious news reporting’ (Callahan, 2009, p. 7).

News production and processing

Scholarly enquiry on the news production and processing of the diasporic media needs to focus on epistemologies in order to gain an understanding of the orientation of their journalists. For instance, Hanitzsch’s found a tendency for journalists to gravitate towards ‘interventionist, socially committed, and motivated’ (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 372) or ‘detached and uninvolved, dedicated to objectivity and impartiality’ (ibid.). From the perspective of diasporic journalists, Skjerdal’s study of the Ethiopian diaspora websites found that ‘the websites contest the objectivity dimension through a proclaimed political bias in reporting and analysis’ (Skjerdal, 2011, p. 738). This finding is consistent with previous studies which claim that the concept of epistemology ‘in journalism raise the question of whether or not the news can provide an objective and value-free account of the truth and, if so, how such truth claims are to be justified’ (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 376). However, Matsaganis et al. note that ethnic media journalists temper objectivity with considerations for ‘the interests of the community they serve and the country they live in simultaneously’ (Matsaganis et al., 2011, p. 237).

Scholarly enquiry should also focus on ethical ideologies from the perspective of diasporic media. For instance, a comparative study found ‘that most journalists in the surveyed countries tend to obey universal principles regardless of situation and context. They also agree on the importance of avoiding questionable methods of reporting, even if this means not getting the story’ (Hanitzsch et al., 2011, p. 284). This finding is consistent with Skjerdal’s study of the editors of Ethiopian diasporic websites which found that ‘the editors express that they belong to an occupational community characterized by shared ethical norms and professional demarcations’ (Skjerdal, 2011, p. 738). However, Callahan argues that ‘the universality of ethics is called into question when we think of the differences in generations. For that matter, existing differences in cultures and the present diversity between and within societies challenges an ideal of a universal ethics of journalism’ (Callahan, 2009, p. 11).

Reception and consumption

The paucity of scholarly enquiry on the reception and consumption of diasporic media could be attributed to the challenges of profiling diaspora audiences. According to Cunningham, a diaspora audience is ‘typically a citizen of a western country, who is not stateless and is not seeking the recognition of a separate national status in their “new” country, like the prototypal instances in the European context such as the Basques, the Scots or the Welsh’ (Cunningham, 2001, p. 137). It could also be attributed to the discourse of media consumption. Hence Georgiou notes that

diasporic media consumption might facilitate the emergence of discourses that lead to the reinvention and redefinition of particular identities. As media consumption is never singularly defined by particularistic media, nor is it shared in its characteristics across a group, the construction of identities in media cultures is complex and involves different communication processes, appropriations of various media and involvement in the production of various mediated discourses on the consumption side.

(Georgiou, 2006, p. 72)

And it could be attributed to the pattern of their media consumption leading to the evolution ‘of “digital diaspora” which reflects the engagement of its members in activities related to information technology’ (Laguerre, 2010, p. 49).

Our understanding of the reception and consumption of diasporic media is also limited by the lack of reliable statistics about their audience reach, an important measurement which is useful to both the media organizations and the advertisers. This is because they are not certified by the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC), they are excluded from the National Readership Survey and they have a short lifespan. Despite these factors, scholarly enquiry should focus on their

available/potential audience; the paying audience (especially for some diasporic channels on BSkyB); the attentive audience (those that actually read, watch, listen...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Foreword by Prof. Ralph Negrine
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. Introduction: Conceptualizing the Media of Diaspora
• Part I: Production Practices
• Part II: News Production and Processing
• Part III. Reception and Consumption
• Postscript: Prospects for Future Research
• Index