Wednesday, October 22, 2008

journalistic framing

This week as I read chapter 9 in Web Journalism: Practice and Promise of a New Medium, the author discussed the responsibility of web journalists to report clearly, concisely, and conversationally.

"Good broadcast writers employ clear, precise language that contains no ambiguity."

Last night in my Radio and TV Journalism class, instructor Shannon Gore played two DVDs for the class: A documentary discussing 20/20, ABC's news magazine show and how they covered the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, an journalist who has been on death row since 1981.


(indymedia.com)

Born Wesley Cook, he was a rising journalist with hopes for a continued successful future. One night in Philadelphia in 1981, he was involved in a multi-person altercation which ended with police officer Daniel Faulkner dead and Mumia wounded in the chest.


(totallydelco.com)

The details of the case were discussed and debated and tried in a court of law, which immediately found Abu-Jamal guilty, despite inconclusive evidence and a biased jury. Many contend that he did not receive a fair trial due to many reasons (lack of witness credibility, conflicting evidence, incongruent ballistic analysis, racism), and it caused an uproar. Dubbed a "political prisoner," Abu-Jamal's case was supported (and his conviction protested) by millions of people across the world, and especially by Hollywood stars and activists.


(daylife.com)

Faulkner's widow, along with the Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, have naturally lauded a huge case AGAINST Mumia and his supporters, pushing for his execution.



Connecting these two incidences, the book speaks about broadcast news coverage:

"Casual or conversational style, however, does not give the writer freedom to break the rules of grammar, to use slang or off-color phrasing, or to use language that might be offensive to listeners...focus attention on the content of the writing and not in the writing itself."

The first DVD that Ms. Gore played for us was a documentary about how ABC didn't report the case, but was rather building it up against him. Using phrases such as, "Abu-Jamal executed Faulkner," editing interview footage of the defense lawyer, portraying Faulkner's widow in white as the damsel in distress, and calling Mumia's supporters "his disciples" all lend a hand to biased reporting, created to cast an image in the viewers' mind--one of his guilt.


(enquirer.com)

They called him the "dreadlocked journalist." They severely distorted footage of his voice on the radio to sound haunting, "demonic," and echo-ey. They showed footage of "typical black" rastafarian types with dreadlocks and headscarves speaking about how Mumia "is like Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King," which also plays against him--he's obviously not, but they used the not-so-credible supporters with extreme positions to back him up. They also made Edward Asner and other celebrities who supported him look like idiots. They used his activism in the Black Panther Party against him.


So we watched the documentary about the 20/20 news special, and then we watched the actual episode without all the added commentary. Their bias and unfair reporting is blatantly obvious.


I know that 20/20 is a news magazine, always looking for the juicy stories and presenting them with dramatic flair. However, as a respectable news source that's been on the air for decades, I would expect a little more realistic reporting from Sam Donaldson and the like.

As of today, Mumia Abu-Jamal has had countless appeals denied, but is still alive and well in the State Correctional Institution Greene near Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. He has also published several books and other commentaries, notably Live from Death Row.


(phillyimc.org)

1 comment:

Natalie Tolomeo said...

Of course when a person looses a loved one unexpectedly, they want answers. Depending on the cause of death, they also want someone to blame. Although Mumia did not intentionally murder Faulkner, he was a small part of the problem but I don't think his sentanceing was justified.

As for the biased jury, there have been cases in the past in which a new trial ocurrs several years later because the defense proved the jury was not impartial i.e. biased, able to decide based on both sides' evidence brought in the case.

Mumia's situation sucks. They should continue to appeal for a different jury and different location.