Media and the representation of Others

Elfriede Fürsich

Contemporary mass media operate as a normal-ising forum for the social construction of reality.They are important agents in the public processof constructing, contesting or maintainingthe civic discourse on social cohesion, integra-tion, tolerance and international understand-ing. Moreover, the media’s power to steerattention to and from public issues oftendetermines which problems will be tackled orignored by society. Only those issues that gainpublicity have the potentialto make people think aboutsocial and political ramifica-tions beyond their immediateexperience and arouse politi-cal interest.

Over centuries, the massmedia – starting with news-papers – have played acentral role in defining and illustrating thenation-state in Europe and the Americas. Inpost-colonial countries, the media were usedas important tools in nation-building efforts.Often the media formed a mediated nationalidentity in limited ways by defining the bound-aries of a community considered to be partof a nation and by excluding minorities as‘‘Others’’. Contemporary geopolitical constella-tions add another component to the mediateddiscourse of the Other. Intensifying globalisa-tion has led to an increasing connectednessbetween economies and political entities anda need for people to know about the world.A major dimension of globalisation is thevoluntary and forced mobility of people. Busi-ness travellers, tourists, migrants and refugeesconstitute a growing number of people on the

move. At the heart of the matter is the struggle,often played out in the media, over defining andsituating the Others amongst ‘‘us’’.

This report will evaluate what role the massmedia have played in constructing this dis-course. In what ways do the media promote orhinder a positive outlook on cultural diversity?Based on a review of the scholarly debate on therole of media in representing Others, I identify aset of current obstacles (both in media systems

and in media content) tofair media representations.

This review providesthe foundation for a set ofconclusions and strategiesthat can lead to a frame-work for rethinking therelationship between themedia and cultural diver-

sity. While every effort will be made tocontribute examples from a wide variety ofcountries, the main academic statements arebased on mass communication scholarship inthe USA, the UK and other English-speakingcountries and, to a lesser degree, other Europeancountries and non-western countries. Thisreflects my scholarly training and area ofexpertise as a German media scholar workingat a US university with some experience of livingand teaching in India.

This inquiry into professional practices andmedia content in a globalising world intends topromote mass media that bring about a newcivic discourse within and across nationalboundaries towards a more democratic globalmedia environment, fair media practices andmore critical media use.

Elfriede Fürsich is Associate Professor ofCommunication and Sociology at BostonCollege. She currently is a visiting profes-sor at Freie Universität Berlin. Herresearch focuses on media globalisationand mobility and their relationship toculture and civil society.Email: [email protected]

ISSJ 199 r UNESCO 2010. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DK, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Current trends in studies ofmedia and representation

In this section, I outline diverse approaches tostudying the representation of Others. I define andexplain the use of the concept, ‘‘representing theOther’’ and establish its relevance to actualjournalism practice and media content. In additionto my own scholarship in this area, I highlightimportant contributions from scholars in culturalstudies, journalism studies, media sociology,anthropology and social linguistics. Overall, thescholarship in this area dealing with the mediarepresentations of the Other is eclectic and mostlydisconnected. My contribution here is to linkvarious interdisciplinary approaches to a cohesiveargument about the current relationship betweenmedia representation and cultural diversity. Beforedelving into this topic, I give a brief overview ofpast and current scholarship on media’s effect onsociety and how representation became an impor-tant concept for understanding media.

Do the media have any impact?1

While it is commonly assumed that the massmedia have an effect on their audiences, thisquestion has been of central concern throughoutthe history of academic mass communicationresearch. Maybe surprisingly, there have beenlong-lasting disputes as to whether the massmedia indeed have such an impact. The earliestacademic writing on media before the SecondWorld War was informed by mass society theoryand the fear that western democracies could beeasily destabilised by extremist political frac-tions and the emerging fascist movementsthrough their successful employment of mediapropaganda through newspapers, movies andradio. US intellectuals (for example, WalterLippmann), on the one hand, understood themedia to be a dangerous propaganda tool thatneeded to be controlled by a technocracy fordemocratic use. Neo-Marxist cultural theorists(for example, the Frankfurt School) arrivingfrom Europe, on the other hand, saw the mediaas a dangerous part of the cultural industry thatoften only provided mass escapism and rein-forced a repressive status quo. Both approachesunited a strong sense that the media had a directand immediate effect on a passive and easily

manipulated audience. This idea is now oftencalled the ‘‘magic bullet theory’’.

However, with the establishment of masscommunication research as an empirical socialscience at the end of the Second World War,scholars struggled to measure any such mediaeffects. Neither laboratory experiments by mediapsychologists nor large-scale surveys on theimpact of the media on voting or consumerdecisions found significant behaviour or attitudeeffects. This research led to a radical rethinking ofmedia impact in what is now called the limited-effects paradigm in US mass communicationresearch from 1940 until the 1970s. The mediawere considered to influence people only indir-ectly. Instead, psychological predispositions, peo-ple’s socioeconomic characteristics, cognitiveselective processes and the influence of interperso-nal contact were all assumed to hinder any directimpact by the media. At most, the media onlyreinforced existing values, attitudes and opinions.

The rising household penetration of televi-sion sets and increasing television viewing in theUSA and other developed countries during the1960s and 1970s, however, triggered new wavesof scholarship that tried to explain the everydayobservation that television seemed to createchanges in the political process (for example,campaigning and elections). Moreover, theproliferation of problematic visual images (espe-cially violent ones) caused concern amongstparents and educators. The latter concernseemed to become especially urgent after educa-tional psychologists established that people canlearn behaviour and change their attitudes afterwatching television or films (that is, socialcognitive theory). Several major researchstreams during the late 1960s then pushed thequestion of media effects into new directions.For example, agenda-setting theorists estab-lished the central role of the media in definingthe issues that the public accepted as important.Spiral-of-silence theorists argued that the mediacan contribute significantly to a climate ofopinion that can obfuscate the general popula-tion’s real attitudes on an issue while stoppingpeople with dissenting views from speaking up.Cultivation theory, moreover, argued that tele-vision had little influence in the short term.Instead, life-long immersion in television seemedto lead viewers, especially heavy viewers, to taketelevision’s constructed reality as actual social

114 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

reality (for example, viewers starting to see theworld as a very violent and dangerous place).

The latest wave in the social-scientificparadigm of mass communication research,called ‘‘framing research’’, has further helpedto establish that the media play a stronger role indefining and shaping topics of public debate.Since the 1990s, this stream of research hastended to show that the media play a role indefining how audiences understand an issueof public concern. Importantly, this streamof research also theorises on the capacity ofgovernmental and non-governmental lobbies toinfluence the media’s coverage of events.

All approaches that assign the media astronger impact than the limited or moderateeffects school have received intense criticism fromestablished scholars, and to this day methodolo-gical and theoretical issues are a matter of greatdebate. However, one can argue that, currently,many social-scientific scholars of mass commu-nication ascribe to the media a central or at leastan important role in contemporary society whenit comes to defining and explaining issues of civicconcern (for more details on the history of social-scientific mass communication research see Baranand Davis, 2006).

In addition to the social-scientific paradigmanother important approach to media studieshas developed during the last thirty years. As areaction to the limited-effect paradigm in com-munication scholarship, a new cultural-criticalparadigm emerged in the 1960s, first in UK andabout 15 years later in the USA. This scholar-ship has been informed by the humanistictraditions of cultural criticism, semiotics andlinguistics as well as by cultural anthropologyand political economy. Its impetus was tocounter the idea that the media have no impact;thus, early scholarship often states that themedia are institutions that reinforce a hegemo-nic status quo. Soon, however, audience-focusedresearch in this group influenced by the inter-disciplinary cultural studies movement, coun-tered this idea by establishing the dominance ofactive audiences and their ability to appropriateor even resist dominant messages. A decades-long debate ensued amongst scholars using thisparadigm as to whether the media, as part ofcultural industries, reproduce and maintainthe status quo and control public discoursein problematic ways or whether audiences

successfully negotiate or even resist culturaldomination. While some traces of these debatespersist, many scholars using the paradigm ofcultural critique now understand the media to besignificant and often problematic cultural forces,limited by their need to maximise profit andappeal to mainstream audiences, while audi-ences actively and independently accept, appro-priate and, at times, even undermine dominantdiscourses (for more details on cultural-criticalmedia studies see Durham and Kellner, 2001).

Another important research area furtherprioritised audience activity in this equation bychampioning media literacy as a strategy forcountering the problematic impact of the mediaand popular culture on individuals, especiallychildren and adolescents.

What is representation?

It is within this cultural-critical paradigm ofmedia studies that scholars created and studiedthe idea of representation. This concept helpedscholars to move beyond understanding mediamessages as simply a portrayal or reflection ofreality. Instead, representations are embedded inthe 24-hour saturated media stream and estab-lish norms and common sense about people,groups and institutions in contemporary society.The media create representations as centralsignifying practices for producing shared mean-ing (Hall, 1997). The representations are con-stitutive of culture, meaning and knowledgeabout ourselves and the world around us.Beyond just mirroring reality, representationsin the media such as in film, television, photo-graphy and print journalism create reality andnormalise specific world-views or ideologies.This view understands the concept of ideologyas a hegemonic, normalising force in contem-porary societies, as developed by culturaltheorists (Eagleton, 1991; %ižek, 1989).

Cultural media scholars are especiallyinterested in representations as constructedimages that carry ideological connotations.Since representations can produce shared cul-tural meaning, problematic (that is, limited)representations can have negative consequencesfor political and social decision-making and canbe implicated in sustaining social and politicalinequalities. Following the cultural turn in manyhumanistic disciplines and the seminal influence

Media and the representation of Others 115

r UNESCO 2010.

of semiotic and post-structural theory (seeFürsich, 2002b), representations of Others(ethnic, racial, gender or sexual minorities,international Others) have become a focal pointfor critical-cultural media studies. Many cultur-al studies scholars inside and outside masscommunication programmes followed EdwardSaid’s (1978) work on the historical contingen-cies of problematic western ‘‘Othering’’ to usemedia texts such as newspaper articles, televisionprogrammes or advertisements to show evidenceof this Othering. Later, Said’s concepts wereoften challenged. His tendency to establish newbinaries (the west versus the Orient) whilerebuking others has come under special attack(for a critical, if irreverent evaluation, seeVarisco, 2007). Shohat and Stam (1994), inparticular, provided an important extendedapproach to analysing Eurocentric media repre-sentation by advocating what they call a ‘‘radicalpedagogy of the mass media’’ (p. 356). Thisstrategy allows for a critique of problematicrepresentation in the media and popular culturewhile using emancipatory moments in popularculture for ‘‘an indispensable re-envisioning ofthe global politics of culture’’ (p. 359).

Current challenges to fairmedia representations ofOthers

The overwhelming tenor of the research on themediated representation of Others is scepticalabout the ability of contemporary media toportray cultural diversity. This section explainsthe central concerns brought forward by thisscholarship. Two forms of Othering will beaddressed: firstly, media representations of mino-rities as Others in a nation (that is, ethnic,linguistic, racial, religious or sexual minorities);secondly, the media’s role in explaining interna-tional relations, conflict and culture. Here Ievaluate the limitations of international reportingas well as other types of journalism (such as traveljournalism) about Others outside the borders.

The media representations of Othersin a nation

The media representations of minoritieshave been a central concern for media scholars

in the cultural-critical paradigm (for example,Castaneda and Campbell, 2006; Dines andHumez, 2003). For more than 25 years thisresearch has explained the role the media play inupholding problematic stereotypes. Especially inan environment increasingly saturated by visualcommunication the sheer propensity of imageryworks to maintain, confirm and recreate proble-matic representations ad infinitum.

Cultural media scholarship has oftendemonstrated that news and entertainmentmedia stereotype non-white, non-elite groupsand other minorities by excluding them fromcoverage or by offering a limited range ofrepresentations. Media imagery across variousplatforms, from news journalism to fictionalmovies, has often portrayed minorities asdifferent, exotic, special, essentialised or evenabnormal. It is especially striking that therepertoire of representations of diverse mino-rities that contemporary media offer is oftenlinked to historically established racist imagin-aries such as in colonial literature and science(for example, slave imaginary or Orientalism).Moreover, as post-colonial, race, and genderstudies have shown, the long history of visualmass media production that started with theinvention of film more than 100 years ago hascreated a stockpile of mediated representationtypes that are constantly recycled in a variety ofmedia outlets. Even if the contemporary mediaseem to avoid outright stereotypical portrayalsand racial or ethnic defamation, genre conven-tions (such as the inflexibility of characterdevelopment in sitcoms), production practices(such as the use of news conventions underdeadline pressure) or economic pressure (forexample, the drive by commercial TV networksto attract a large mainstream audience) continuethis problematic construction (for example,Entman and Rojecki, 2000). Even shows andmedia content that openly tried to counter-stereotype prevalent negative representations bypresenting opposing roles and characters wereoften seen as limited approaches still linked toearlier problematic versions that were oftenbroadcast in tandem with them (for example,Gray, 1995). In addition, new media technolo-gies have tremendously increased channel capa-city and stimulated niche marketing andnarrowcasting. This development has resultedin more media outlets for earlier silenced

116 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

minorities (for example, the US network BETfor African–American viewers; easy access tosatellite television or Internet publications from‘‘home’’ for migrants). Yet critics have arguedthat these new opportunities further separateaudiences in new media ghettos and even releasethe remaining mainstream media from construc-tively engaging with minorities.

The reasons for the persistence of traditionalrepresentation are threefold. Firstly, the ubiquity,saturation and repetitiveness of the mass mediaseem to reinforce the longevity of these represen-tations. Secondly, profit-driven commercial med-ia industries that aim at large mainstreamaudiences were often blamed for being unableto initiate more complex representations toundermine problematic ones. Thirdly, the mediawere seen as being too closely aligned to the elitesin society (or directly controlled by elites) to beinterested in a change of the status quo. Evenscholars sympathetic to the idea that the mediaare a cultural forum (Newcomb and Hirsch,1983) that has the potential to introduce ideasfor progressive social change tended to findthat, at best, the media’s role was to push theenvelope of inclusion at times but ultimately tomainstream (that is, contain) a new socio-political situation (such as the coverage of theemancipatory struggle of western women sincethe 1960s).

Lately, a debate has emerged as to whetherdigital technology and the Internet can under-mine traditional repressive systems of represen-tation by adding new outlets for representation.In addition, growing audience fragmentationcaused by the increasing number of channelsavailable to audiences in nearly all countries ofthe world may also diminish the impact ofnegative representations. However, since repre-sentation speaks to a sustained image deliveredacross media channels and outlets rather than toindividual problematic media portrayals, long-established representations may survive acrossgenres and media platforms.

Media representations ofinternational Others

In this globalising world it is also important toexplain how cultural diversity across nations is

portrayed in the media. Two main areas ofconcern are highlighted here. Firstly, I summar-ise traditional problems of international report-ing; secondly, I introduce some of my ownresearch to delineate how the current intensifiedlevel of globalisation aggravates problematicrepresentation of Others by journalists.

Traditional problems of internationalreporting

Ever since Galtung and Ruge’s (1965) seminalstudy on news selection in Norwegian news-papers it has been established that journaliststend to favour cultural proximity by preferringstories that are close to their own and theiraudiences’ perceived cultural background. Com-bined with a preference for conflict, a lack ofambiguity and a focus on elite nations, thismakes for a very limited international newsselections. Gans (1979) called this news valueethnocentrism, explaining that US journalistsreport any event from an American angle.Ample research on international news coveragesince then has shown that western reporting,especially of the developing world is almostexclusively triggered by crises, catastrophes andnatural disasters – thereby re-emphasising animage of the developing world as is chaoticbeyond relief and in constant need for supportby the west. International reporting tends tofollow – to index (Bennett, 1991) – the agenda ofits current government’s foreign policy doctrinesand relies on elite national sources to explaininternational events.

Scholars who understand journalists notjust as information selectors and gatekeepers butas narrators and producers of culture havefurther outlined the limited parameters of thestory of the Other told in journalism. Lule(2001), for example, explains in a case study onThe New York Times coverage of Haiti hownegative news myths such as ‘‘the Other World’’are invoked over long periods of time tonegatively frame an underdeveloped nation.Another persistent news frame, the Cold War(Entman, 2004) and its related filter anti-communism (Herman and Chomsky, 1998) havegoverned international news reporters’ dichot-omising news outline for almost four decadesand seems to be more resilient (Carragee, 2003)than many scholars had expected.

Media and the representation of Others 117

r UNESCO 2010.

In some of his later work, Edward Said(1981) suggested that Orientalism, as a historicand hegemonic discourse for addressing anddefining the Other produces effects not just inliterature and in art but also on contemporarynews coverage of the Middle East. Whenextending this idea to the news filter anti-terrorism (Chomsky has recently updated hispropaganda model), the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab aspects of this frame seem to revive andextend the historical oriental Other.

Overall, journalism researchers oftenemphasise that traditional journalism is not upto the task of covering the complexities ofinternational events. The biggest accomplish-ment of print journalism over the years has beento help define the nation as an imaginedcommunity (Anderson, 1991). Similarly,national TV newscasts have been essential forconnecting an audience to its nation (Gans,1979). Yet journalism’s biggest failure has beenthat this national integration was often createdin the negative – by suppressing regional, localand minority audience interests and access(Rantanen, 2005), and by Othering anyoneoutside national borders.

New problems in a global mediaworld

If we agree that while globalisation as a historicprocess has intensified over the last 25 years,then what is the story of globalisation to becovered? Globalisation is a complex issue; it is apolitical story, a business story and an environ-mental story, but it is also a human rights andsocial justice topic, in addition to the alwaysneeded human interest story. In my work I havetried to touch on many of these aspects (forexample, Fürsich, 2002c); I highlight here someof my findings as starting points for furtherdiscussion.

In a series of studies I have moved beyondnational media outlets to explore a type offactual media content that is produced for globalaudiences. This led me to investigate mediaproduction on a global level, starting with mystudy of Discovery Communication Internationaland its cable outlet Travel Channel by examiningthe informative potential of travel programmesproduced for global television. I analysed three

internationally-popular travel shows calledLonely Planet, Travellers, and Rough Guide.Situating these three shows within their globalproduction and distribution demonstrates thelimitations of this type of programming.

As global media products they present aculturally ambivalent text. As they need to workfor an international audience, these shows couldwiden narrow representations of the Other andcounter the reliance of traditional televisionnews journalism on narrow demarcations ofnational(istic) distinctions. These shows couldbreak the problematic narrative of traditionalforeign reporting, which has concentrated oncrises and catastrophe, by presenting a morepositive image of the Other. Because these showsfocus on travel, they could exemplify thecomplex representation work on either side ofthe tourism exchange, thus in due coursechallenging cultural dichotomies in such repre-sentations.

Yet I found that travel journalism isfundamentally structured by the search fordifference (as the ultimate motivation of tourismin general), which results in the perpetual replayof manufacturing, celebrating and exoticisingdifference. These discursive strategies rely onessentialising cultural groups. Often the showspresent a sanitised or static idea of multiculturalunderstanding devoid of political connotations.In the worst case, this strategy leaves locals (astourism workers and interviewed ‘‘representa-tives’’ of a country) only as essentialised types:nameless, voiceless or poorly translated. Allshows ultimately hide the privileged and proble-matic situation of all tourists, travel showproducers and the tourism industry in generalwhen packaging culture as a commodity. Theirnarratives, which stress individual pleasure andpersonalised travel as programmes that have towork across borders, often neglect the broaderpolitical, social and economic problems ofcontemporary tourism and international rela-tions in general (for more details see Fürsich,2002a, 2003).

My concerns are echoed in a more recentargument doubting the capacity of the nationalmedia or border-crossing programming in anincreasingly globalised media environment toreflect an enlightened and humanistic cosmopo-litism in the media (Rantanen, 2005; Waisbord,2004).

118 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

Overall, three main reasons hinder moreopen and complex media representations ofinternational Others:

1. The national media tend to cater to nationalaudiences whether they follow a commercialor public service model. Foreigners aredepicted as Others. Global media produc-tions often target only affluent cosmopolitanelites; thus, cross-border diversity is pro-duced as a sanitised celebration of culturebut lacks critical approaches to political,cultural and economic inequalities.

2. Intrinsic and traditional work routines ofjournalists, producers and other media workersthat have been developed over centuries (afterall, newspapers have been around for 400years) have only recently been challenged ontheir ability to represent diversity. Even thesocial responsibility model (which underlies theidea of public service broadcasting) or nation-building efforts in the development of mediasystems allow the media to function mainly as aforce of integration and assimilation and less asa presenter of multiple diversities.

3. The relationship between the media, govern-ments and elites is another issue to beevaluated. This relationship is always closein authoritarian systems and often in thedeveloping world but it has become clear thateven journalists in western (free-market andsocially responsible) media systems stay closeto elite perspectives and official foreign policywhen describing international people.

Representation reconsidered:possible new strategies andrecommendations

The above scholarship outlined on representa-tion mainly diagnoses problematic portrayals.In this section, I move beyond this criticism todevelop new strategies that break up proble-matic representations. The areas of possiblechange outlined in this section connect to thethree main domains of mediated communica-tion: production, content and audiences.

Media production

While the potential for more open representa-tions of the media within larger organisational

frameworks is not the main focus of this article,it deserves a brief mention. Macro-level andmicro-level aspects have to be considered whenevaluating whether media outlets are set up toencourage cultural diversity. On the interna-tional level, many countries have been experien-cing foreign media imports as a threat to localand national cultures. A central concern ofinternational media policy initiatives has been toregulate the flow of media content acrossborders. Over the years, media policy has beengoverned by two main conceptual models (seeHamelink, 2002). On the one side, the mediawere understood as a public good (includingearlier UNESCO efforts such as the McBrideReport). This viewpoint asked for regulatorymeasures to protect national cultures and diver-sity. On the other side, media products have beentreated as commodities (such as in GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade and WorldTrade Organization documents). This positionhas emphasised the deregulation of media sys-tems in combination with optimism that econom-ic competition among media outlets wouldguarantee diversity in a marketplace of ideas.

Both approaches have shortcomings. Theeconomic model often fails to take into accountthe uniqueness of media production and dis-tribution (such as the benefit of economies ofscale since the reproduction costs of mediaproducts are extremely low or the complicatedbut central situation of copyright especially in adigital media environment). Moreover, the factthat more than 50 binding and non-bindinginternational agreements and resolutions(Hamelink, 2002; Magder, 2004) currentlygovern international media exchange shows thata purely market-oriented global media environ-ment is a pipe dream. In addition, a sustainedresearch effort by political economists in masscommunication research has diagnosed theshortcomings of market-driven media withregard to cultural diversity in a global mediasystem dominated by consolidated transnationalmedia conglomerates. It is not part of thetraditional commercial media business modelto cater to diverse audiences if they are notmarketable target groups for advertisers orsponsors.

However, the public good model, withits protectionist tendencies has also often beenunsuccessful in protecting cultural diversity.

Media and the representation of Others 119

r UNESCO 2010.

As Magder (2004) explained, these nationalefforts have too often been based on a verylimited idea of diversity as a conglomerate ofstatic and essentialised cultural groups. In thebest case, any regulatory efforts to ensurecultural diversity – whether across or withinnational borders – have to position the medianot as preservers of cultural diversity, byfreezing cultural groups in time, but as enablersof cultural diversity and free, creative expressionin the future:

We should be less concerned about processing and

promoting particular a priori cultures and more concerned

about creating the conditions that allow individuals and

groups to determine and express themselves alone and

collectively. Instruments that promote diversity in media,

diversity in cultural expression, and diversity in the form of

content of public expression within and across borders

should be permitted and encouraged. Instruments that seek

to control and fetter expression should be circumscribed.

(Magder, 2004, p.384)

On a more micro-level, which strategies mighthelp reform media institutions to promotecultural diversity? Which strategies for journal-ists and media workers will help overcome thecurrent static representations? For some time,one possible solution has been to hire a morediverse media workforce. In the USA thepercentage of minorities in journalism and othermedia production has been increasing over theyears, although minority participation in theseprofessions is still not equal to the majority shareof the general population. In addition, self-directed support organisations (such as, in theUSA, the organisation UNITY [n.d.]) act asimportant lobbying groups for a more diverseworkforce. Public broadcasters across the worldalso often follow specific hiring strategies thataim at workforce variety (for example, withregard to regional origin, political affiliation orgender). However, governmental bodies havesometimes tried to promote or mandate propor-tional representation in broadcasting or othermedia institutions. This strategy has often led tocomplaints of governmental interference andhas undermined the neutrality mandates ofpublic broadcasters.

While a more diverse workforce is in itselfa worthwhile goal, it is less clear whetherthe assumption holds true that a more diversemedia workforce will automatically lead to

distinctively different media content. Forexample, research is not conclusive as to whethera more diverse pool of journalists produces abetter coverage of minority issues. Benson(2005), for example, complained that in anincreasingly competitive situation for journalistsin the USA, most of the recent rise in ethniccoverage has reflected an economic necessitymore than a civic urgency. He argued that thiscoverage, generated by a more diverse workforcein some of the most prestigious US newspapers,has tended to favour informative or evencelebratory ethnic multiculturalism coveragethat has crowded out or masked economic andclass issues related to racial inequality (Benson,2005). So, while these types of articles have givenpreviously ignored minority groups an impor-tant voice and spotlight, the coverage mainlyhelped to target new multicultural consumergroups that advertisers wanted to reach. Ulti-mately, diversity hiring alone may not be able toovercome the systemic shortcomings of thejournalistic field mentioned earlier. As a longtradition of news research has shown, ‘‘the newsproduct is ultimately shaped far more byeconomic and organizational constraints thanthe personal characteristics – race, class, sexualorientation or even ideology – of individualjournalists’’ (Benson, 2005, p.17).

Similarly, the hope that minority groupsmight find new outlets in a commercially drivenmulti-channel, narrowcasting media systemhave mostly remained unfulfilled. New nichechannels tend to draw in diverse audiences asconsumers, but they have split audiences andcannot provide them with a new public positionas citizens in civic discourse.

Also on the micro-level, media education isan important site for change. Parallel to theefforts of diversity officers in many major mediacompanies, an increasing number of journalismschools and programmes in the USA, Australia,the UK, and other countries have intensifiedtheir attention on minority students. Through-out the 1990s, many schools started includingclasses on diversity issues, founded studentgroups or hired minority faculty. Whileresearchers have lamented the slow progress ofmulticultural journalism education at least in theUSA (Kern-Foxworth and Miller, 1993), otherscholars have presented more positive casestudies, for example, of journalism education

120 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

in The Netherlands, which has taken the‘‘contextualization of knowledge and socialresponsibilities of journalism students intoaccount’’ (Deuze, 2006, p.390).

A focus on minority students alone will notbe sufficient: the whole student body needs to bemade aware of the importance of culturaldiversity. Journalism and media education arecrucial sites for changing routines and practicesof journalists and media workers at a time whenstudents are not yet socialised into establishedprofessional strategies. Journalism schools andmedia production programmes should turnaway from basic skills education to a morereflective theoretical evaluation of current pro-fessional strategies. Journalism education is acontested field. The perceived importance ofjournalism for democracy and the impact of themedia on society make it an area in which manygroups invest considerable interest. For years,academic journalism educators have criticisedmedia education for its undifferentiating advo-cacy of short-term industry expectations, itsemphasis of technology over theory, its relianceon out-dated professional standards and its lackof pedagogical strategies such as critical think-ing. Professional journalism schools usuallyhave a strong connection to the media industryand traditionally support a skills-based educa-tional model based on the simulation of how it isdone in the industry. This has led many journal-ism schools to become high-tech institutionswhere pedagogical success is measured by howmany non-linear editing stations, digital cam-eras, scanners or graphic terminals are availablein a classroom. While it is important for studentsto learn the ins and outs of professionalstrategies, colleges should also be innovativetraining places. Journalism schools should allowstudents to develop critical and unusual creativesolutions to a journalistic task. An assignmentthat allows them to develop an alternativenewscast, or a newspaper section that has neverbeen there before will make them aware of theconstraints of the media and can also generate acritical perspective on current media representa-tions of cultural diversity (see Fürsich andRaman, 2000).

Another important area for reformingjournalistic and media practice is recent norma-tive models of journalism based on humanisticvalues. Two important proposals in this respect

are Tehranian’s model of ‘‘peace journalism’’(Tehranian, 2002), which includes an institu-tional and systematic ethical response to over-coming biases of international crisis reporting,and Shah’s ‘‘emancipatory journalism’’ as a newmodel for media workers in developing nations.Shah has proposed a theoretical model that asksjournalists locally to ‘‘contribute to participa-tory democracy, security, peace, and otherhumanistic values’’ (Shah, 1996, p.143). Onsimilar lines to the subsequent US concept ofpublic journalism, Shah advocated a reconfi-gured relationship between journalists, politicalelites and audiences. Free from governmentcontrol, emancipatory journalists provide infor-mation that improves audiences’ ability to‘‘establish control over their immediate socialconditions’’ (p.160).

Media content

Since critique of representations often focuseson textual constraints, media content is a majoraspect that needs to be questioned here. In myscholarship I have moved beyond providingevidence of problematic Othering to a moreactive approach to media change. By analysingmedia such as international travel programmes,business news, African Web sites and migrationcoverage, I have tried to go beyond the textualanalyses of problematic representations to high-light moments in this coverage that seems to hintat new content strategies. I have developed thesemoments further into a more unified set ofstrategies that can be used by media workers andjournalists to overcome the old predicaments.

Simple solutions will not solve the problem.Media representations are often entrenched andpredefined ways of portraying Others. At times,representations may leave out whole populationssimply by ignoring them or their viewpoints. In amedia-saturated culture, this lack of attentionmeans silencing – a dilemma that culturalscholars call symbolic annihilation. Annihilationcan also be a result of very limited or stereo-typical portrayal of a group. At other times,representations essentialise Others as ‘‘exotic’’,or even worse, as abnormal and even deviant.

A common representational move to over-come outright stereotyping has been to counter-stereotype, that is, to take a previously stereo-typed minority and create media content that

Media and the representation of Others 121

r UNESCO 2010.

presents this minority in a positive light. Theinternationally successful US situation comedy,The Cosby Show, is an example of this strategy.However, as cultural scholars have pointed out,counter-stereotyping always runs the risk ofindirectly referring back to the negative por-trayal. Moreover, some of this coverage maycome across as too didactical or even inauthentic(see Grey, 1995; Means Coleman, 2002).

The cultural scholar Stuart Hall (1997)provides some suggestions for trying to contesta dominant regime of representation throughtrans-coding. His premise for the analysis ofrepresentation is the poststructural principlethat ‘‘meaning can never be finally fixed’’(p.270). Trans-coding then can be used for‘‘taking an existing meaning and re-appropriat-ing it for new meanings’’ (p.270). However,Hall’s strategy is difficult to implement as anactual media strategy. It assumes that it is clearwhich representations are positive or negative,while in fact many media content producershave to make quick decisions about ambiguousrepresentations. Also, Hall understands thisstrategy mostly as an audience-driven activity.I would argue that trans-coding can also be usedfor producing content. For instance, someimportant avenues for trans-coding might bestory lines that open up representations andbreak stereotypes through the use of humourand exaggeration to present the dominantposition in a new light (such as portrayingWhiteness as ‘‘ethnic,’’ as opposed to construct-ing is as a latent and normalised category).

Another approach to finding alternative,non-essentialising representational strategies isto examine whether there have been previousmoments of transformations in media textsabout the Other. This idea has been a centralfocus of my work. Based on the concepts ofcritical visual anthropology and postmoderntheory, I developed three interrelated themesthat are taken up in the following proposals fornew journalistic strategies. Fixed media repre-sentations can be broken up by showing theproduction conditions of programmes; by pro-viding space for other voices and by workingtoward a fluid rather than static and fixedproduction logic. The underlying idea is thatdespite limitations, the media in a global systemdo allow for some creative latitude evenin a commercially driven environment. Most

examples are drawn from studies I have con-ducted over the years, especially of travelprogrammes. Most of the observations andstrategies relate to television, but they can beeasily adapted to other journalistic forms.

Contextualising coverage. In order to opentexts and representations, an important step forjournalists and producers will be to contextua-lise coverage as much as possible. Individualisa-tion and personalisation, as the typical strategiesof Anglo-American journalism, often focus toonarrowly on the individual case and lose track ofwider systemic implications. While the persona-lised story of a migrant, for example, may beuseful in illuminating a difficult life situation formainstream audiences, it will not necessarilyallow time to focus on the underlying globaleconomic inequalities that generate migration.Also, when these ideas are applied to generalmedia production, the trend towards specialisa-tion and narrow casting may hinder the con-textualisation of representations and limit theopenness of media texts. Nevertheless, the latestdevelopments in the digital media environmentmay offer interesting new solutions. An increas-ing number of print and broadcasting topics arenow tied into online sites that offer, at least tointerested audiences, important backgroundmaterial. It remains to be seen, however, to whatextent audiences use these external materials.

Verfremdung (alienation). In order to con-front entrenched journalistic and aesthetic workroutines that lead to negative representations,media workers have to be able to look to otherartistic productions for new ideas. The Germandramatist and playwright Bertolt Brecht devel-oped the alienation effect for his epic theatre inthe 1920s. He used theatrical devices such as anon-emotional acting style, unrealistic dialogueor anachronistic costumes to disturb the audi-ence’s emotional connection to the play, insteadforcing them into an attitude of critical distance(Banham, 1995). Brecht favoured an anti-representational style of theatre in which theaudience should be prevented from identifyingwith the actors. He hoped to stimulate a rationalcritique of contemporary economic, politicaland social practices. The weight and effective-ness of these methods has been questioned withregard to the theatre. Also, postmodern critiquechallenged Brecht’s idea that rational critiquewill automatically lead to change.

122 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

Nonetheless, television could effectively useBrecht’s method to problematise its practice.This strategy also relates to Nolley (1997) andother visual anthropologists’ preference foraesthetic strategies that break with viewers’expectations. Verfremdung can break a journal-istic narrative by displaying its productionmethods. This can be done directly by producersand journalists or indirectly through the selec-tion of ambiguous scenes. The internationaltravel shows I analysed, for example, alreadyincluded small moments of Verfremdung, oftenmore passively than Brecht’s active stagedevices. The strongest cases of alienationoccurred when locals did not play along. Manybroadcast journalists would edit these ‘‘flaws’’,but by including them, these shows created abreak in the narrative.

For instance, a moment of probably invo-luntary Verfremdung was aired in the interna-tionally popular travel programme LonelyPlanet’s visit to Namibia. The host AndrewDatta strongly emphasised in his narration theremoteness of the part of Namibia (Ovambo-land) he was in and of its tribes (‘‘Some tribeshave never seen white people’’). At the village,the visit was framed like an anthropologicalcontact. Through two translators Datta nego-tiated with the chief. Then he asked the chiefwhat he thought about whites. The chief firmlypointed out that while it is clear to him that thewhites are from beyond his area, he has learnedhow to cooperate: ‘‘you are coming from veryfar for making a lot of money with this film’’.Datta, flabbergasted, could only answer with afunny grimace and the remark that it was not hewho was making the money but rather ‘‘them’’(pointing at the camera). Showing the poignantcomments of the chief breaks the anthropologi-cal narrative that positioned this tribe (throughimages and voice-overs) as an uncivilised andless intelligent Other. Even Andrew’s condes-cending voice-over ‘‘Back in civilisation’’ whichprovides the transition into the next scene in aNamibian city, may become less effective as aconsequence of this alienation.

Postmodern play with representations.Critics of the postmodern aesthetic tend tocondemn the postmodern trend to self-referenti-ality (that is, the media relating back to othermedia constructions) as an indication of super-ficiality and simulated hyper-reality. However,

as an aesthetic principle it can help illuminate theconstructedness of television productions thatsome visual anthropologists favour in their workas well. For example, tourism has alwaysdepended on the successful creation of images.Juxtaposing traditional images with fluid hybridimages smashes the monolithic totality of thoseimages. For example, in an episode on Hawaii,Rough Guide host Magenta de Vine pointed outa poster with a traditional looking ‘‘Hawaiianbeauty’’ and compared this image to thecontemporary situation of women on theislands, while the camera cut rapidly to imagesof modern Hawaiian women of diverse ethnicand class backgrounds. If programmesemployed these types of strategy more aggres-sively, then travel journalism and internationaljournalism in general could exemplify an openstruggle over representation similar to that ofClifford’s (1988) idea of exhibitions in multi-cultural junctures:

The relations of power whereby one position of humanity

can select, value, and collect the pure products of others

need to be criticised and transformed. This is no small task.

In the meantime one can at least imagine shows [here

exhibitions] that feature the impure, ‘inauthentic’ produc-

tions of past and present tribal life; exhibitions radically

heterogeneous in their global mix of styles; exhibitions that

locate themselves in special multicultural junctures; exhibi-

tions in which nature remains ‘unnatural’; exhibitions

whose principles of incorporation are openly questionable.

(Clifford, 1988, p. 213)

Play with representations can become amethod of critique. Another level of self-reflexivity that would help to open up theconditions of production (similar to somestrategies of visual anthropology) is to invitethe production crew into the scene. By showingthe camera and the production staff, andthrough specific editing techniques, the con-structedness of the shows and its representationscould become more visible.Rough Guide, for example, revealed the produc-tion teams on several occasions; one of theirpromotional trailers referred to the camera andshowed the camera team. Both anchors alsocarried a Hi-8 tourist video camera that theymostly used in transitions travelling from onelocation to another. With this camera theynormally filmed each other and the shots arealways on locations that, contrary to typical

Media and the representation of Others 123

r UNESCO 2010.

photo opportunities, appear to be boring, routineplaces (such as airports and stations). Seeingsomeone filming in a television programme tendsto break the closed logic of the television screenas a window to the world. A similar effect isachieved when Rough Guide occasionally usesstand-up shots of the co-anchors in two or moreversions including outtakes with slips of thetongue or other errors. Another step would be toilluminate production and research principleseven further. For example, it would be importantto know why the producers chose certainlocations and how they chose certain ‘‘locals’’as sources and interview partners. Again, newtechnology now makes these strategies veryfeasible for traditional news journalists as well.Journalists’ blogs that comment on the circum-stances of latest assignments can fulfil this role.

Other voices. One of the most commonsuggestions to overcome the dominance ofwestern media representations is to providemore space and time for other voices (Spurr,1993). Therefore journalists need to developcreative ways of integrating the voices of others.To what degree does journalistic content reflectthe unequal power situation between film-makers and subjects? Travel journalists andinternational correspondents always deal withOthers (not only indigenous communities). Ofcourse, the power of representing the Other isalways on the side of the production team (thosewho hold the microphone or the camera);therefore producers should be conscious of theimpact of these strategies.

Most international journalism deals withpeople in crisis, which places them at anautomatic disadvantage. One positive aspect ofthe travel shows I analysed was that they alsoprovided images of Others as not just as victims,threats or exotic, unlike in most regular newsreporting. At best, some of these programmespresented a wide variety of people and oftenjuxtaposed different perspectives showing theOther as part of the social formations ofcontradictory and hybrid cultures. The interviewsituation in Rough Guide, however, was the onlyprogramme that named all interviewees andallowed them to speak in their native languageor dialect with translations provided in subtitles.Relying on speakers of English as a secondlanguage or ad hoc translations, as other showsdid, diminishes the impact of their statements.

Although struggling with language may some-times reflect the situation of actual tourists, in atelevision close-up it intensifies the demeaningportrayal, denigrating the intellectual capabil-ities of locals. Speaking in front of a camera,even for native speakers, is an intimidatingsituation, and for others, in a language otherthan their mother tongue, it can be devastating.

Another problem of television is that it hasthe inherent tendency to fixate; its traditionallogic of production and editing as well as itsnarrative structure forces closure (Dahlgren,1995). However, the postmodern aestheticexemplified by music videos (MTV) and othershas opened up more flexible and ambiguousmodes of representation. Instead of ‘‘packagingculture’’ travel shows should embrace a moreopen ‘‘unpacking of cultures’’, by displayingmany different aspects of the country covered.By giving up the search for the typical and theauthentic, one can hold the representation insuspense as Clifford suggests:

If all essentializing modes of thought must . . . be held in

suspense, then we should attempt to think of cultures not as

organically unified or traditionally continuous but rather as

negotiated, present processes. (Clifford 1988, p.273)

The liminoid position of journalists. Strategies foropening representations seem to diminish thecontrol of journalists and producers over apreferred reading of the text. In fact, thisstrategy can engage the journalist, the produc-tion, the system and the subject and object ofjournalism in the struggle of representation. Thisis contrary to the idea of the realist school ofvisual anthropology and experimental docu-mentary work that producers’ interferenceshould be avoided as much as possible in orderto catch on film ‘‘what really happened’’ (Rony,1996, p.193). But the technical interference ofvideo equipment and production requirementsforces its logic on the final film even if (orperhaps especially when) it is invisible. Evenmore, the professional rules of television jour-nalism always shape the programme. Therecannot be an objective journalistic (or anthro-pological) perspective free from influence by therespective producers; representations are alwaysdeveloped within a hegemonic cultural system.

Yet travel journalism, like internationaljournalism in general, places media practitioners

124 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

in a special journalistic role outside their usualsystem of reference. In close direct contact withthe Other, the intricacies of this existentialmoment should not be overlooked. Instead ofretreating to a seemingly safe position ofobjective journalism, I suggest journalists shouldactively embrace an intermediate role. Theanthropologist Victor Turner, in his work onrituals and pilgrimages, emphasises the liminoidsituation of travels (Turner, 1969). Liminoidsituations allow the challenging of statusboundaries and role expectations and fosterplayfulness and moments of strong social bond-ing communitas (experiences). The idea of anactively liminoid journalism suggests that mediapractitioners use their position to challenge thetraditional modes of journalistic representation.They should also enthusiastically integrate theirown perspective into the programme. This is theonly way for audiences and locals to understandthe ideological point of reference of bothjournalists and journalism. In television pro-grammes anchors are often presented withouthistory, class, or ethnicity (except what may bedeciphered from their use of colloquial English).Instead of just categorising Others, they need tobe aware of their own position.

Moreover, the liminoid stage extends fromthe travellers (travel journalists and interna-tional journalists) to the foreign people who arefeatured in a show: to be under the camera gazeis a complex situation. Most travel and interna-tional journalism pretends that the people in thehost country are represented as they really are.But the subjects of travel and tourism (tourismworkers and locals) as well as local sources ofnews reports, are performing in an extraordinarysituation. Journalists can accept and depict thismutual out-of-place situation. Ultimately, Ihope that a new journalism practiced in betweencan problematise its situation in the contact zone(Pratt 1992). It should become a model for alljournalists, since all journalism represents.

Recently, media scholar Simon Cottle(2007) has also taken up the call to ‘‘acknowl-edge and bolster more politically productiverepresentations of mainstream journalism’’(p.34). He analysed reports by the AustralianBroadcasting Corporation. As a public broad-caster the range of engagement by the Corpora-tion is wider than that of the commercial cableshows I analysed. In particular, Cottle argued

that in recent coverage on societal Others such asmigrants and Aboriginal people, Australianmedia were capable of ‘‘producing representa-tions that give voice to the voiceless and identityto image’’ (p.34), noting, ‘‘We need to besensitised to the multiple ways in which wordsand talk, discourses and debate, claims andcounter-claims publicly define and defend inter-ests and identities’’ (p.37) He described fiveprocedures of deliberation and display as effec-tive ways to undermine problematic representa-tions and to avoid symbolic annihilation. Firstly,the journalist can become the champion ofOthers, giving them a voice by increasing pre-established modes of reporting on Others orwidening the public debate on controversialissues. Secondly, the journalist can intervenemore actively as a public interlocutor by counter-ing established government policy-makers ininterviews and undermining frames of coveragegenerated by official policy-holders. Journaliststhereby work on a more democratic exchange.

Thirdly, Cottle also emphasised the impor-tance of supporting and airing programmes thatallow previously silenced Others to tell their sideof the story. These programmes help humanisethe lived experience of marginalised groups,thereby contributing to their ‘‘mediatised recog-nition’’ (p.35). Fourthly, the airing of memorialsand ceremonial events of Others aided ininforming mainstream audiences about thehistoric contingencies of current racial andethnic divides. In his final point, Cottle empha-sised the importance of media reflexivity (simi-larly to the previously mentioned self-reflexivity)and stressed how this coverage can transformentrenched media representations:

[Journalists] can do so by ‘‘fleshing out’’ – that is,

embodying and humanizing – the status of former

‘‘others’’, repositioning them inside the imagined social

universe of collective care and politics and acknowledging

their denied humanity. In such ways, ‘‘others’’ can become

symbolically rehabilitated, past stereotypes can be frac-

tured and identities repositioned as active subjects – and

not simply as the object of someone else’s discourse. (p.35).

Media audiences

In order to truly sustain any efforts towards amore diverse media environment, it is important

Media and the representation of Others 125

r UNESCO 2010.

to integrate the audiences as important partnersin these efforts. Three issues are of centralimportance: media literacy, access and creativeaudience activity.

Media literacy is an important effort thataims at educating audiences to be more criticalwhen consuming the media. In the USA, themedia literacy movement seems to focus on K-12education and the college level. Paradoxically,journalism schools as major institutions ofmedia production still seem to be more or lessunaffected by it. This may be a result of thespecific version of media literacy popular in theUSA, which constructs media literacy effortsmostly as an individual defence mechanismagainst media practices that appear unchange-able and permanent. However, as Lewis andJhally (1998) argue, ‘‘media literacy should beabout helping people to become sophisticatedcitizens rather than sophisticated consumers’’(p.109). They explain how media literacy has tomove beyond a simply text-centred decipheringof media messages to understanding aspects ofproduction and reception. If one positionsmedia literacy in this context, journalism andproduction students should be the first to knowabout it. The interdisciplinary cultural studiesmovement is also an important factor in thesemedia literacy efforts. Concepts such as hege-mony, ideology, representation and culturalappropriation provide a vocabulary that cansupport a systematic critique of the normalisingimpact of mass media. Active audiences canindependently decode problematic representa-tions (see also McLaren et al. 1995). As Shohatand Stam (1994) argued, media products fromnon-western countries can, in particular, suc-cessfully be used to lead audiences away fromEurocentric representation to a ‘‘polycentricmulticulturalism’’ (p.46).

New technology, however, challenges tradi-tional approaches to media literacy. No longerare media audiences simply recipients of mediamessages. They increasingly become participantsand creators in a digital world. This developmenthas started an important new approach to medialiteracy that integrates production and receptionsituations (Livingstone, 2004).

Moreover, media literacy can easily beextended from individualistic pedagogicalefforts to grassroots movements of critical mediaaudiences who try to translate media criticism

into lobbying efforts and policy influence. Thelast 15 years have seen an increasing number ofmovements across the globe engage criticallywith what they have seen as a limited mediaenvironment. These groups are now aided by thealternative networking strategies in the Internet.Some of these groups use email campaigns toinform politicians and media producers of theirconcerns. Others try to engage in media literacyefforts, raise awareness and develop proposalsfor cultural policy. Among the earliest groupswas the now defunct ‘‘Cultural EnvironmentalMovement’’ founded by US professor GeorgeGerbner in 1990; more recent groups are theumbrella organisation ‘‘Voices21’’ (Comunica,n.d.) and ‘‘Communication Rights in the Infor-mation Society’’. This grassroots movementculminated in a two-part UN-sponsored WorldSummit on the Information Society in 2003 and2005 (Padovani 2004) where more than 10,000delegates debated issues of ‘‘connectivity, devel-opment, and digital divide’’ (p.158). This sum-mit has been criticised for its vast variety oftopics and proposals, for narrowly definingaccess in technological terms and for theuntested assumption that new technology willovercome all given societal, economic andpolitical constraints on cultural diversity (Hame-link 2004). However, one should not overlookthe fact that all these efforts, from local grass-roots movements to global conferences, will helpto raise awareness and bring to a critical massthe concern over unfair media representation.

Media access is another important factor ofgauging diversity. Scholars often define mediaaccess simply as an issue of access to mediatechnology. Research on the digital divide, forexample, has demonstrated the problems ofunequal distribution and use of digital mediawithin and across nations. When one considersthat only a minority of the world population(fewer than 25 per cent) actually uses onlinemedia, the issue of access is undoubtedly stillpressing. However, access also needs to beunderstood as an active concept of audienceparticipation in the media.

Changing video and audio technologies(equipment that is lighter, cheaper, easier touse) has opened up additional channels ofcommunication. Indigenous people all over theworld use the media (radio, television, audio andvideo and now also the Internet) to present and

126 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

to preserve marginalised cultural practices(Kummels, 2010). Visual anthropologists havebeen using and researching these techniques inthe field for many years and theorised theirproblems (Ginsburg, 1991; Tomaselli, 1996).Moreover, Brown (1996) indicates how ‘‘indi-genous’’ no longer just means tribal commu-nities ‘‘out there’’; cultural endangerment isoften a problem at home (in the west). Awardsand special grants successfully launched suchalternative programming in various countries(Leuthold, 1996). In general, public-servicebroadcasting systems are more likely to takeup these forms of indigenous presentation to addvoices and fulfil established mandates on diver-sity. Thus, the government of Canada’s decisionto instruct cable operators to carry the ‘‘Abori-ginal Peoples Television Network’’ is an inter-esting example of representational recognition(Roth, 2000). The history, variety, impact andpotential of community media across the worldwas succinctly explained in a recent book byRennie (2006). Community media initiativesshould be understood as an important partnerin ensuring cultural diversity.

Finally, the resourceful use of new technol-ogy by audiences is where some of the mostencouraging ideas for breaking representationare developed. Some of my earlier work hasemphasised that new technology does not auto-matically free us from often long-establisheddependencies on textual representations (Fürsichand Robins 2002). However, it is encouraging toobserve how contemporary globalising mediatechnology is used by diasporic communitiesaround the globe in original ways to createspecific empowered hybrid mediascapes (Karim2003). These interesting new usage patterns giveus a glimpse into the potential media environ-ments of the future. However, it will be up tocommunication scholars to evaluate whether thecurrent trend towards digital, global but frag-mented media use creates a more holisticallymediated reality. At best, there will be new mediaplatforms for diverse audiences to see themselvesrepresented in their unique lived experiences,concerns and successes. At worst, the fragmenta-tion of audiences will lead to tribalisation alongdemarcations of ethnic, religious, sexual or othercultural identities; these types of niche mediamay hinder a civic discourse that is consideredvital for democracy.

Conclusion andrecommendations

The global media industry is currently under-going revolutionary changes. The rise of digitalmedia has started to challenge traditional busi-ness models of the industry, undermined estab-lished work routines of media workers andchanged the way audiences interact with themedia. This is a perfect moment to reconsidersome of the long-held assumptions and routinesof media work, to interrogate problematicrepresentations and to develop alternative stra-tegies for media production. Overall, I haveattempted to clarify the connection betweencultural diversity and media, which is morecomplicated than often theorised. The represen-tation of Others has been tied up in long-established signifying practices that are slow tochange because of systemic media constraints.My advice on transforming media representa-tions entails a serious rethinking of mediapractice. However, I am hopeful that the currentupheaval in the global media industries, in whichmany traditional models have become obsolete, isa golden moment for creative and pro-activerethinking by media critics and media practi-tioners alike. I also hope to have made it clearthat issues of representation do not reside justwithin media content but must be connected to allaspects of media practices – from more systemicissues such as the conditions of production andregulation, to the work routines of media workersand audience integration. Based on this review, Idistil a set of recommendations that can informactual policy recommendations for creatingmedia systems that foster cultural diversity.

If culture is understood as a dynamicprocess as opposed to static and essential, themedia should be situated as institutions thatallow for cultural development: as enablers andnot simply as preservers of cultural diversity.

Moreover, media policy and regulationaimed at securing cultural diversity need to beaware of the detrimental effect of censorship andrestriction on expression of cultural diversity. AsMagder (2004) pointed out:

Cultural diversity is enhanced when individuals can express

themselves freely and receive forms of expression from the

broadest possible range of sources, within and across

frontiers. Public policy – whether domestic or international

– should respect this principle, first and foremost. (p.393)

Media and the representation of Others 127

r UNESCO 2010.

As this article has demonstrated, representationof Others in the media is not just a matter ofcontent. All content is produced in a specificcontext of production and reception; all thesecommunicative moments can be included instrategies for change. Measures that alterproblematic media representations of Othersneed to be resourceful and creatively rethinkmany established routines of media workers.Not only must established media workers butalso journalism and media educators andstudents be integrated in these efforts. Inaddition, media literacy for general audiencesis an important correlate to efforts to trans-codeproblematic representations.

Not all initiatives have to be new, butestablished alternatives to mainstream mediarepresentations such as community media andminority integration mandates typical for publicbroadcasters can inform future ideas of change.

The new digital media environment hasbegun to offer new outlets for the creativeintegration of the voices of Others. Thus,providing access for traditionally underservedcommunities to new media technologies andproduction facilities is an important goal. How-ever, given that most of the world population isnot online, digital technology is limited in itspotential to create an impact across the globe.Traditional media such as radio and print mediacontinue to be important forums for culturalexpression. Access should be understood not justas the opportunity to buy media technology but

also as direct access to producing content andother forms of programming participation thatallow minorities to be heard. Despite thegrowing focus on globalisation, cultural diver-sity is a concept that relates to social issueswithin and across borders. Media strategies needto take into account many diverse situations.Strong solutions will be local and flexible.

Overall, this article advocates a softapproach. While new aesthetic and textualmodels for representing have to be found,successful strategies are likely to be subtle ratherthan radical and to present distinct approachesthat work from within the contemporary eco-nomic and professional media structure. Animportant starting point is the critical analysis ofcurrently used strategies that already breakproduction conventions.

At the end of this article, I want to highlighta predictable bias of communication scholars:We tend to understand the media not just as onebut as the central impetus for societal develop-ments. It should be noted that any strategies forimproving the role that the media play inproviding cultural diversity always have to beseen in a wider economic, social and geopoliticalcontext. To put it bluntly, fixing the media alonewill not aid in establishing more just relationsamong diverse groups within and betweensocieties. Cultural diversity is not just a com-munication or image problem; the lived experi-ences of various groups are based on actualsocial and economic injustices.

Notes

1. This overview presents mainlyUS approaches to masscommunication research. Tworeasons justify this selectivere-telling of communicationsscholarship. Firstly, US

scholarship has arguably been atthe forefront of developing socialscientific approaches to masscommunication as a discipline,especially since the Second WorldWar, and its results have been used

in many other countries. Secondly,the main point here is todemonstrate the complicatedhistory of empirically establishingmedia effects, and US scholarshipprovides a typical example.

References

ANDERSON, B., 1991. Imaginedcommunities. (2nd edn). London:Verso.

BANHAM, M., 1995. The Cambridgeguide to theatre. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

BARAN, S. J., AND DAVIS, D. K.,2006. Mass communication theory:foundations, ferment, and future.

128 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

Belmont, CA: Thomson andWadsworth.

BENNETT, W. L., 1991. Toward atheory of press–state relations.Journal of Communication, 40 (2),103–125.

BENSON, R., 2005. Americanjournalism and the politics ofdiversity. Media, Culture andSociety, 27 (1), 5–20.

BROWN, D. R., 1996. Electronicmedia and indigenous peoples: a voiceof our own? Ames: IA: Iowa StateUniversity.

CARRAGEE, K. M., 2003. Evaluatingpolysemy: an analysis of The NewYork Times’ coverage of the end ofthe cold war. PoliticalCommunication, 20 (3), 287–308.

CASTANEDA, L. AND CAMPBELL, S.,eds 2006. News and sexuality: mediaportraits of diversity. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

CLIFFORD, J., 1988. The predicamentof culture: twentieth-centuryethnography, literature, and art.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

COTTLE, S., 2007. The mediatisedrecognition and the ‘Other’. MediaInternational AustraliaIncorporating Culture and Policy,123, 34–48.

DAHLGREN, P., 1995. Television andthe public sphere: citizenship,democracy and the media. London:Sage.

DEUZE, M., 2006. Multiculturaljournalism education in theNetherlands: a case study.Journalism and MassCommunication Educator, 60 (4),390–401.

DINES, G. AND HUMEZ, J. M., eds2003. Gender, race, and class in themedia: a text–reader. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

DURHAM, M. G. AND KELLNER,D. M., eds 2001. The media andcultural studies: keyworks. Malden,MA: Blackwell.

EAGLETON, T., 1991. Ideology: anintroduction. Verso.

ENTMAN, R.M., 2004. Projections ofpower: framing news, public opinionand U.S. foreign policy. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

ENTMAN, R. M. AND ROJECKI, A.,2000. The black image in the whitemind: the media and race in America.Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

FÜRSICH, E., 2002a. Packagingculture: the potential and limitationsof travel journalism on globaltelevision. CommunicationQuarterly, 50 (2), 203–225.

FÜRSICH, E., 2002b. How can globaljournalists represent ‘the Other’? Acritical assessment of the culturalstudies concept for journalisticpractice. Journalism, 3 (1), 57–84.

FÜRSICH, E., 2002c. Nation,capitalism, myth: covering news ofeconomic globalization. Journalismand Mass Communication Quarterly,79 (2), 353–373.

FÜRSICH, E., 2003. Betweencredibility and commodification:nonfiction entertainment as a globalmedia genre. International Journal ofCultural Studies, 6 (2), 131–153.

FÜRSICH, E., AND RAMAN, U., 2000.Cultural studies goes to J-school:opportunities for bringing culturalcritique into the skills classroom.Paper presented at the InternationalCrossroads in Cultural StudiesConference, Birmingham, UK.

FÜRSICH, E., AND ROBINS, M., 2002.Africa.com: the self-representationof sub-Saharan nations on the worldwide web. Critical Studies in MediaCommunication, 19 (2), 190–211.

GALTUNG, J., AND RUGE, M. H.,1965. The structure of foreign news.Journal of Peace Research, 2 (1),64–91.

GANS, H. J., 1979. Deciding what’snews: a study of CBS evening news,NBC nightly news, Newsweek, andTime. New York: Pantheon Books.

GINSBURG, F., 1991. Indigenousmedia: Faustian contract or globalvillage?. Cultural Anthropology, 6(1), 92–112.

GRAY, H., 1995. Watching race:television and the struggle for‘‘blackness’’. Minneapolis, MI:University of Minnesota Press.

HALL, S., ed. 1997. Representation:cultural representations andsignifying practices. London: Sage.

HAMELINK, C. J., 2002. The politicsof global communication. In: Y. R.,Kamalipour, ed. Globalcommunication. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth and ThomsonLearning, 161–187.

HAMELINK, C. J., 2004. Did WSISachieve anything at all?. Gazette:The International Journal forCommunication Studies, 66 (3–4),281–290.

HERMAN, E. S., AND CHOMSKY, N.,1998. Manufacturing consent. NewYork: Pantheon Books.

KARIM, K. H., ed. 2003. The media ofdiaspora: mapping the globe. NewYork: Routledge.

KERN-FOXWORTH, M. AND MILLER,D. A., 1993. Multiculturaljournalism education revisited:1982–1991. Journalism Educator, 48(2), 46–55.

KUMMELS, I., 2010. Video Indı́gena:Migration und Gender aus der Sichtindigener Filmemacher/innen imtransnationalen Raum Mexiko/USA[Migration and gender from theperspective of indigenous filmmakers in the transnational spaceMexico/USA] In: S. Kron, G. M.Zapata and B. zur Nieden, edsGender, Migration und Diaspora inLateinamerika [Gender, migrationand diaspora in Latin America].Berlin: Tranvı́a.

LEUTHOLD, S., 1996. Representingtruth and history in NativeAmerican documentary: indigenousefforts to counter mass mediastereotypes. Film and History, 26(1–4), 30–39.

LEWIS, J. AND JHALLY, S., 1998. Thestruggle over media literacy. Journalof Communication, 48 (1), 109–120.

LIVINGSTONE, S., 2004. Medialiteracy and the challenge of newinformation and communication

Media and the representation of Others 129

r UNESCO 2010.

technologies. The CommunicationReview, 7 (1), 3–14.

LULE, J., 2001. Daily News, eternalstories: the mythological role ofjournalism. New York: GuilfordPress.

MCLAREN, P., HAMMER, R., SHOLLE,D. AND REILLEY, S. S., eds 1995.Rethinking media literacy: a criticalpedagogy of representation. NewYork: Peter Lang.

MAGDER, T., 2004. Transnationalmedia, intercultural trade and theidea of cultural diversity.Continuum: Journal of Media andCultural Studies, 18 (3), 380–397.

MEANS COLEMAN, R. R., 2002. Say itloud! African–American audiences,the media and identity. New York:Routledge.

NEWCOMB, H. M. AND, HIRSCH, P.,1983. Television as a cultural forum:implications for research. QuarterlyReview of Film Studies, 8 (3), 44–55.

NOLLEY, K., 1997. Findingalternatives to gossip: reflexivity andthe paradigm of traditionaldocumentary. Visual Anthropology,9 (3–4), 267–284.

PADOVANI, C., 2004. The worldsummit on the information society:setting the communication agendafor the 21

stcentury? An ongoing

exercise. Gazette: The InternationalJournal for Communication Studies,66 (3–4), 187–191.

PRATT, M. L., 1992. Imperial eyes:travel writing and transculturation.London: Routledge.

RANTANEN, T., 2005. The media andglobalization. London: Sage.

RENNIE, E., 2006. Communitymedia: a global perspective.Lanham, MA: Rowman &Littlefields.

RONY, F. T., 1996. The third eye:race, cinema, and ethnographicspectacle. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

ROTH, L., 2000. Bypassing ofborders and building of bridges:steps in the construction of theaboriginal people’s televisionnetwork in Canada. Gazette:International Journal forCommunication Studies, 62 (3),251–269.

SAID, E., 1978. Orientalism. NewYork: Random House.

SAID, E. W., 1981. Covering Islam:how the media and the expertsdetermine how we see the rest of theworld. New York: Pantheon Books.

SHAH, H., 1996. Modernization,marginalization, and emancipation:towards a model of journalism andnational development.Communication Theory, 6 (2),143–166.

SHOHAT, E. AND STAM, R., 1994.Unthinking Eurocentrism:

multiculturalism and the media.London: Routledge.

SPURR, D., 1993. The rhetoric ofempire: colonial discourse injournalism, travel writing, andimperial administration. Durham,NC: Duke University Press.

TEHRANIAN, M., 2002. Peacejournalism: negotiating globalmedia ethics. Harvard InternationalJournal of Press/Politics, 7 (2),58–83.

TOMASELLI, K. G., 1996.Appropriating images: the semioticsof visual representation. Hojbjerg:Intervention.

TURNER, V., 1969. The ritualprocess: structure and anti-structure.Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.

UNITY (n.d.) Journalists of colour.Home page. Available from:www.unityjournalists.org [23 June2010])

VARISCO, D. M., 2007. Readingorientalism: Said and the unsaid.Seattle, WA: University ofWashington Press.

WAISBORD, S., 2004. Media and thereinvention of the nation. In:J. Downing, D. McQuail,P. Schlesinger and E. Wartella, edsThe Sage handbook of media studies.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 375–392.

%IŽEK, S., 1989. The sublime object ofideology. London: Verso.

130 Elfriede Fürsich

r UNESCO 2010.

Copyright of International Social Science Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.