Citizen perception of news disorder: Public television service and media ecosystem

Abstract

Public perception of the public television service (SPT) is a traditionally neglected field. As a result, there are research studies that indicate the SPT needs to be redesigned to build a new relationship with the audience. Reinvention is essential for the SPT to survive, warns Freedman (2016b), who adds, “audiences deserved to be treated more than as just consumers”. Cullinane (2017) points out that an SPT needs legitimacy in a democracy and legitimacy comes from public recognition. Regarding the public, there are studies that explore experiences with new forms of audience participation: Keinone and Klein (2017) via multiplatforms and Vanhaeght (2019), which studies the experience of integrating the public in the production of the programme, “The Monitor”, on the German public television channel, NPO. This author observed that studies are still needed to find out how the audience perceives these results. This research specifically studies public discourse on the perceived function of the SPT in the middle of the media ecosystem. The research is based on data produced from discussion groups. It describes the procedure applied to analysis of the discourse in detail. This analysis was conducted from a sociolinguistic perspective, with a methodological design based on Bourdieu’s economics of linguistic exchanges. One of the central analytical tools is isotopy: the use of terms pertaining to the same or similar references. By discovering isotopies, the shared meaning across a set of discourses can be revealed. Isotopies point to redundancies, convergences, shared visions: “a permanent reference base, by virtue of which the discourse becomes coherent or, in other words, speaks of the same thing” Bueno and Blanco (1980: 36). Thus, this analysis looks at the discourse of the groups to identify what role the SPT plays, according to the public, in the midst of a media ecosystem of increased competition (Levi, 2020:15); when traditional media have lost their ability to control the topics that dominate the attention of the audience every day. (Elías, 2018; Bennett & Linvingston, 2918; Waisbord, 2018). This is an ecosystem where numerous agents – individual, institutional, public, and private – all compete at the same time to dominate the agenda. And, in the midst of this dynamic, fake news can spread faster than real news (Vosoughi et al, 2018); such that a high quality, informative article has no guarantee of enjoying any advantage in the possibility of being disseminated. (Shao et al., 2018: 2). Thus, the old idea of Walter Lippmann applies: a society that lacks the tools to control lies in its public communication forums cannot consider itself free (Kalsnes, 2018, sn). In this context, public discourse produces isotopies around various shared perceptions. I have highlighted six of these. Isotopy of the opaque issuer. The public notes that decision-makers in the media often remain in the shadows: Who is that unknown decision maker? a participant asks. Others talk about something anonymous, not physical, with no visible head. Isotopy of hidden interests. They talk about “economic interests behind them”, of puppets, of intermediaries who obey, of hiding their true identities and of disguise. And they frequently use adverbs to qualify the actions of the issuers: e.g. apparently, supposedly. Isotopy of deception. There is a perception that lies circulate freely through the ecosystem. They are expressed in many different ways. They use verbs like: manipulate, camouflage, hide, contaminate, plant stories, distract. They qualify the media content as: a show, something chosen, controlled, very measured, unreal. Also, they choose particular expressions to describe what the media do: they do not let you see what is really happening, they tiptoe around a subject. Isotopy of a state of war and being hunted. They often describe the media environment in terms of a threat, war, or an attack. They talk about being invaded, of being very careful, of being bombarded or trapped; or you have to find places or programmes to take refuge. Isotopy of overload. The media ecosystem is represented as a saturated territory where you have to have certain skills to avoid danger or risk or to be able to move. They say there are millions of opinion-makers, that you do not know where to go to choose, there is an excess of information, that they grab your attention. They talk about the difficulty of having sufficient capacity to absorb, to handle, to screen, to summarise. And also, of the need to have a medium to act as a reference in the midst of everything. Isotopy of lack of quality. There are public profiles that find a lack of quality in the product features: it is not objective, impartial, or real. While other profiles focus on a lack of quality in the production process: there is little checking, it is a perversion, there are no barriers, information is selectively chosen, sources are not traceable, or it is all a set-up. The analysis notes that this division between focusing on the product and the process coincides with another division: between belief and a lack of belief that objectivity is possible. And, in turn, both are based on two expressive styles. Speakers who prioritise a focus on the product and belief in objectivity often use the passive voice: “The media was informed” or “news was received”. The other expression profile opts for the active format: I found out. Finally, this process-based focus with an active voice also coincides with those who demand that procedural norms be observed, that the media contribute to democracy and guarantee participation, among others. The six isotopies found in the public discourse of the media ecosystem and the role of the SPT show a perception of structural information disorder in the system, which induces feelings of insecurity and mistrust. The media in general, and the SPT in particular, are perceived as a function of democratic power, but poor and unsatisfactory in practice. This tension has been noted by authors such as Fenton (2018). Citizen discourse discusses aspects that renew the traditional academic frameworks for understanding the SPT, while sometimes confirming and expanding upon conclusions from more recent studies. The concern for the reliability and/or quality of media content does not refer only to the final product, as there are public profiles sensitive to the production process quality. Agreement with Larsen (2014:74). The demand for reconfiguration of the SPT is no longer formulated in terms of quantity - more pluralism, access, representation of different voices or culture, diversity, and more inclusion, etc – but a demand for another concept of what is “public”. And not only outside the political parties, but also as a requirement of another concept of citizenship and management of what is common. Another way of exercising public ownership of the SPT is considered as pending. In particular, information professionals are considered as captive subjects of the business or political structure, as a limiting element of their principles and professional skills. As a result of this, the main demands are concerned with increasing transparency in the media production structure, by developing a legal framework for the protection of professional independence and the regulation of quality standards, as measures to guarantee that the media content gains in reliability. Closely linked to reliability, there is also a demand that the media, particularly the SPT, expand the information they provide about themselves to the public as broadcasters as well as regarding the professionals working in them; i.e. that they provide information on the selection processes and criteria that professionals have to overcome to work in the SPT. Also, information about their training and professional careers, both creative and production professionals, as well as managers. This demand should be applied to both public and private media.