Sunday morning, 7.05 AM. Most people are still asleep. I am playing with my son and listening to the radio, and it is the first time this week that I hear some substantial radio coverage of the “2007 World Social Forum”:http://wsf2007.org/. I had no time this week to watch the evening television news more than once or twice, and hence do not know whether the Dutch television paid more attention. But I did read the newspaper, and listened to the radio, and heard almost nothing about the WSF.
So no attention to the WSF on primetime. Perhaps it’s just my impression? Or perhaps it’s just the Netherlands? (Not that there is important local news here – the government formation is happening behind closed doors, with no gossip spreading to the People). I hope I am wrong, since the WSF offers a good opportunity for the mainstream press to report on structural issues of global injustice and poverty, instead of only reporting on natural disasters, flaming wars, and other cases of instant misery.
{ 22 comments }
a very public sociologist 01.28.07 at 10:30 am
It’s not just the radio – I’ve heard nothing about the WSF on the left forums and blogs I frequent.
P O'Neill 01.28.07 at 11:02 am
It was ignored. I saw one semi-mocking story noting that some slum children had run through the open conference area “stealing” the packed lunches. The only Nairobi thing since in the news is the still mysterious killing of 2 US Embassy personnel yesterday.
Gene O'Grady 01.28.07 at 12:11 pm
Actually I heard quite a bit of coverage of it on what seemed to be relayed BBC broadcasts on one of the local (Oregon) public radio stations for most of the morning one day this week.
P O'Neill 01.28.07 at 12:33 pm
With similar emphasis as Davos?
nick s 01.28.07 at 1:59 pm
Consider the number of reporters wanting to cover Davos, compared to those wanting a junket to… Nairobi. Sadly, news agendas are often set by the holiday plans (and the preferred expenses reports) of the journo class.
grackel 01.28.07 at 3:09 pm
A google news search gives few results from the past week – one NYT article which obliquely mentions it in an article on Chavez, Castro and Ortega; the San Diego Union had an article a few days ago in which the WSF was described as anti-capitalist; a few other references in which it is described as anti- globalization. The net impression given in all of these mass media references is that this characterization is all that the reader needs to know, or would even be interested to know – just a minor little meet-up of unimportant opposition figures, ho hum. With no more information one might well think that is true.
Ingrid Robeyns 01.28.07 at 3:33 pm
I was not so much thinking about a comparison with Davos 2007, but rather with the WSF in the previous years. I remember that the previous ones got much more covering in the mainstream news, including very good background reporting (for example, through interviews) on some of the more strcutural problems for developing countries in the world trade system.
Dan Simon 01.29.07 at 12:34 am
Isn’t it the entire “anti-globalization” movement, not just the WSF, that’s no longer getting much attention? And is it really such a mystery why it’s not getting the attention it used to?
ingrid 01.29.07 at 3:25 am
dan simon, would you mind elaborating?
Teddy 01.29.07 at 4:32 am
Ingrid, you are complaining that the media did not show much interest in the WSF meeting. But what exactly are these new and interesting ideas proposed or dicussed in Nairobi that would show that the event does deserve interest?
Dan Simon 01.29.07 at 10:22 am
Ingrid, the first WSF was held in early 2001. At that time, globalization and opposition to it were (rightly or wrongly) at or near the top of the international affairs agenda in Europe, and possibly in America as well.
Since then events have caused other issues to displace globalization on the priority list. I assume I don’t need to identify those events and issues…
John Quiggin 01.29.07 at 7:38 pm
There’s some BBC coverage here.
Jim Johnson 01.29.07 at 8:51 pm
I made mention of the media neglect last week while calling attention to a couple mentions of WSF. The post is here:
http://politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com/
2007/01/another-world-is-possible-world-social.html
As for the press ignoring “globalization” The Economist cover story last week focused on the very same. And, I did see repeated mainstream coverage of the World Economic Forum – especially coverage of which celebs were and were not attending as well as wich dignitaries got front row seats and which were consigned to back bench status.
The only comment I received on my post was from the Africa correspondent from The Economist who calimed to be working on some stories in Nairobi.
Ingrid Robeyns 01.30.07 at 2:12 am
Teddy and Dan Simon, my concern is with the lack of media attention for the structural issues that cause poverty in the global south and global injustice. There is nothing “new” about them, but they are nevertheless not less important. As Dan rightly points out, other events have crowded out mainstream press coverage. Journalists generally need an “event” (and something that gives them good pictures) before they report on anything; well, they could have used the WSF, as they did in most of the previous years, to discuss some of the strucutral features of the global economic system, trade rules, etc. These are issues that are very difficult to convey to the masses, and the WSF offers an opportunity. Of course, you may disagree with me that these structural causes of world poverty and global injustice need regular attention, in which case my “complaint” might not be justified.
Ingrid Robeyns 01.30.07 at 2:17 am
Jim Johnson, thanks for the link. I had not seen it (will watch more carefully in the future!) — it’s interesting that we’ve had a similar observation about the lack of attention.
Dan Simon 01.30.07 at 9:51 am
Journalists generally need an “event†(and something that gives them good pictures) before they report on anything; well, they could have used the WSF, as they did in most of the previous years, to discuss some of the strucutral features of the global economic system, trade rules, etc. These are issues that are very difficult to convey to the masses, and the WSF offers an opportunity. Of course, you may disagree with me that these structural causes of world poverty and global injustice need regular attention, in which case my “complaint†might not be justified.
As a matter of fact, I do–but that’s not really relevant. Our immediate point of disagreement is over the role of journalism. I see journalism as providing a service to its audience, providing them with information that they would like to be provided with, or that they would appreciate being provided with. I do not consider it journalists’ job to decide what issue “needs” attention, whether in their own eyes or in the eyes of academics or politicians or anyone else except the audience they’re supposed to be serving.
The events and issues that have crowded out the WSF from the news are ones that are of more immediate and pressing concern to the European and North American news-consuming public. The idea that journalists should “convey to the masses” a bunch of issues that the latter show no inclination to hear about, “using” talk-talk non-events like the WSF as an “opportunity”, frankly belongs to the world of propaganda, not journalism.
abb1 01.30.07 at 12:26 pm
How do you know the WSF (852 hits) is a talk-talk non-event, compare to, say, the WEF talk-talk thing (8,578 hits)?
How did the news-consuming public manage to request this lopsidedness?
nick s 01.30.07 at 1:57 pm
The events and issues that have crowded out the WSF from the news are ones that are of more immediate and pressing concern to the European and North American news-consuming public.
Oh, how amusingly naive. You really think that the journalists heading off to Davos don’t give one whit about the starfuckery and freebie-gathering of the event? It’s a deductible junket to die for. (The WSF appears to have received more coverage when it’s been in more junket-worthy locations, particularly Porto Alegre.)
Dan Simon 01.30.07 at 2:28 pm
Davos has lots and lots of celebrities, and the public’s appetite for news about celebrities is (regrettably, in my view) insatiable. The “A-list” for WSF 2007, on the other hand, has a decidedly “B” quality to it.
abb1 01.30.07 at 3:14 pm
But how exactly does the public communicate their appetite for reading about Bill Gates opining about women’s power, as opposed to a host of Nobel laureates talking about the same thing? I haven’t met yet (nor can I imagine) a single member of the news-consuming public interested in Bill Gates’ opinion about Saudi Arabia. Something’s wrong with your explanation, Dan.
Dan Simon 01.30.07 at 5:41 pm
But how exactly does the public communicate their appetite for reading about Bill Gates opining about women’s power, as opposed to a host of Nobel laureates talking about the same thing?
Oh, for pity’s sake…
Six-letter word. Starts with “m”. Means, “something you really, really hate, and would love to abolish.” Sometimes referred to as sending “signals”. (Can’t say more–don’t want to get people around here angry by suggesting that one of these things might actually be useful for something…)
abb1 01.31.07 at 4:22 am
Again, I don’t know anyone who is even remotely interested in the Davos non-event and would pay a penny to read about it. What gives?
Comments on this entry are closed.