Peek-A-Boo! Catholicism and Christianity in Media Around the World

A cross adorned obelisk at the Vatican in
Rome, Italy.  

Media coverage on Christianity (and especially Catholicism) in the United States is constantly full of controversies and arguments. Before my trip, I was not sure if this would also be the case in other countries.  While in Europe, I saw a wide variety of tones towards Christianity within media; many of them vastly different than what is in the United States. Some parts of Europe were full of stories related to Christianity, while others seemed to have no coverage of Christianity at all. I was amazed specifically by the vast differences between the U.S, Italy and Belgium.

Living in the United States, Christianity in the media has become a very touchy subject. Our media often sees Christianity as a controversial issue, especially when stories focus on the Catholic Church. We now mostly reflect Christianity when it becomes a controversial subject, such as whether to allow the Ten Commandments outside courthouses or crosses marking deaths along roadsides. The Catholic Church has constantly been in the news with stories about sex scandals and abuse. The media tends to paint either a negative or positive picture of organizations, and the Catholic Church has taken a hard hit by the U.S media. Discussions about other religions are welcome in the U.S media, but Christianity and Catholicism have been met with a cold shoulder. We have tried to keep the Christian version of “God” out of the picture while trying to encompass all other religions.

 While in Europe, I noticed how differently their media handles Christianity. Christianity is still a reigning part of the culture and media in most parts of Europe. Christianity and Christian influence, especially of Catholic affiliation, can be found easily in European journalism. There are many stories about Christian leaders, media outlets basing themselves in Christian values or solely on Christian issues, or focusing on stories related to churches and religious foundations. Europe’s media seems to acknowledge its Christian population and background while the U.S media seems to ignore it.

I saw the most extreme differences Brussels, Belgium and Rome, Italy.  Brussels is steeped in Christian monuments and churches while Rome is the center of the Catholic world, being the home of the Vatican and the pope. Christianity is prevalent in both of these cities, yet the media coverage in each is completely different.  

While in Brussels, I saw a city filled with Christian monuments and churches are scattered throughout the city. Yet, to my surprise, religion in Brussels is crumbling. According to our tour guide in Brussels, Gareth Harding, Brussels is a city “losing its’ religion.” Although steeped in Christianity, most people in Brussels do not partake in any type of religion. Some churches are beginning to fall apart because they are no longer in use; some are even used as an area upon which men urinate.  Most people in Belgium see themselves as indifferent towards religion. The media there does not have much of a focus on religion, whether positive or negative. It is almost completely left out of the picture. The media focus is generally directed toward the European Union, which is headquartered in Brussels. Regional, national and international politics take the main stage in Brussels media.

Our Brussels tour guide, Gareth Harding,
enjoying a mussels and frites lunch with us.  

Churches in Brussels. 

Visiting Rome showed me a completely different view towards Christianity, especially with regard to the Catholic church. Rome’s media outlets are constantly consumed with stories relating to Christianity, Catholicism and the pope. While in Rome, we learned about two religious-based media outlets, Vatican Radio and Rome Reports. Christianity is not a taboo or controversial issue within Rome’s media; it is a normal, everyday occurrence. Discussing Christianity does not cause any disturbances or arguments; it is expected. Consumers of Rome’s media expect to see news relating to Christianity and the Catholic world. There is little public or private backlash against the reflection of Christian or Catholic tones in media. There are many businesses that report solely upon the Vatican and the pope. This brought up a question that was intensely debated during one of our group coffee chats: Can these outlets still be considered reliable news sources?

                                                     Rome Reports Official Website

People await at the Vatican to hear Pope Benedict XVI speak.

Pope Benedict XVI gives a speech from the window of
the Vatican.
Vatican Radio Official Website

Sign for the Vatican Radio inside their studio.

I believe the answer is not clear-cut. Some in our group argued that those outlets cannot be trusted to report unbiased, trustworthy news because they are affiliated or connected to organizations upon which they report. Some argued that these outlets cannot be considered true “journalism” because it is not being a “watchdog” for society, it is not reporting from all sides and it only focuses on one part of the story. But some of us wondered, does journalism have to fulfill these duties? Can a story be created with one focus, one prospective and still be worthwhile? Should these outlets be considered journalism or propaganda? It depends who you ask. Some of my group said those outlets are biased, do not fulfill the purpose of journalism and write only what they want readers or viewers to hear. Others argued that it is perfectly fine for a media group to be based upon one idea, such as reporting upon a religion or social issue. We came to an agreement that the most important aspect is if these outlets report the truth, such as actual events, quotes and stories, without adding a personal bias or opinions. It is possible to create a media outlet with a religious or social cause behind it, but one must be careful to not cross lines between reporting stories objectively and defending a particular viewpoint.

Overall, my experience in Europe in regards to journalism helped me open my eyes to the differences in journalism found throughout the world. A subject such as Christianity can be viewed differently anywhere. I believe that journalism is what you make of it and you must be accountable for your work and how you approach it. I feel I have a much broader view of international journalism now and appreciate how subjects take an entirely different tone depending upon where you are consuming or writing the news.

From left: Europe Tour 2011 group members
 Lindsay Laderoute, Katelyn Young and Kelsey Kennedy
in Rome, Italy.

Written by: Lindsay Laderoute
University of Missouri-Columbia
Journalism-Strategic Communication 

Mass Media Used to Combat Declining Church Membership in Europe

Going to Europe and experiencing its religiosity was an extremely eye opening experience. In some parts of Europe, signs of religion were very prevalent. In others, they were barely visible.

Though I am a man with roots in the Christian faith, I did my best to maintain an objective eye when learning about the different beliefs held in various cities I visited. There were some things about religious expression that were directly stated to me, and other observations merely inferred, but I came away with insight on the role of religion in Europe. Initially, I was inclined to believe the Christian church was strong worldwide and had some type of place in the lives of Europeans citizens, but reality soon settled in. 

Mary holding Jesus after his death. Very beautiful artwork.

Statistics affirm that church attendance in Europe is declining. While in Rome, I visited numerous churches that had been turned into museums or even commercial locations. Some churches have sold their properties in fear that they would loose the church completely, reasoning that it was better than barricade the doors from lack of use. Some churches are seen as famous landmarks and nothing else. Even though these landmarks were once holy and sacred places, they have been turned into museums and tourists locations that have maintained little moral relevance in the eyes of many tourists and Europeans.

Personally, I wanted to believe that church attendance wasn’t too sparse in Europe, but it is easy to see numbers are declining. The Religious Trends News Blog says that in 1970, “Austria was more than 87 percent Catholic. By 1991, the figure had dropped to 78 percent and by 2001, to 74 percent.” It was also said that in Spain, “where 81 percent of the population is Catholic, two-thirds of respondents in a 2002 survey said they rarely or never attend services”. Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela said that half of Spaniards ignore religious teachings. Statistics from Eastern Europe affirm youth 18-29 years of age who say they are “without religion” increased from 20% in 1989 to 29% in 1999.

These statistics were consistent with what our Brussels instructor, Gareth Harding, told my class during lecture. He said he does not know anyone that attends a church service and he has lived in Brussels for almost a decade.  He also stated that most Europeans are not religious. During a conversation focused on marriage, we were told most Europeans take advantage of civil unions which share the same financial benefits or marriage, but do not require the same moral standards found in the Bible. Same sex marriage is also legal in Belgium, the capital of Brussels, while the U.S. continues to debate the legalization of same sex marriage. He also stated there are more children born out of wedlock in Europe than in the U.S.

To me, these revelations were stunning. Being a citizen of the United States, a relatively young country in comparison to Europe, it was pointed out to me that my country’s religious presence might be a sign of its youth. The U.S. has seen a great shift in morals in terms of what is seen as decent and permissible in advertising. There once was a time, only a few decades ago where a woman’s belly button being shown in the media was morally offensive to the masses. Now, woman often appear in advertising scantily dressed and shown as sexualized objects of desire. Although, there has been change in the United States, it still did not compare to the level of sexuality I witnessed in Europe.

While in Prague, I noted the correlation between a sexualized culture and the absence of a religious presence. In gift shops there were dice that displayed sexual positions on each side of the die and condoms with sayings such as “I love Prague.” At news stands I saw scantily dressed women on the covers of magazines which were not hidden or placed in the back of the street stand, but proudly showcased as “flagship” magazines. Also, at an eyewear shop, the photos on the glass of the store showed pairs of glasses hanging out of plump red lips. I discussed this particular ad with one of my instructors, Laura Johnston, and she agreed that sex is a dominant advertising tool used in Europe. On the Charles Bridge, there were artists that drew caricatures of visitors and many of their displays were often as sexualized women with their breasts showing.

Paris is known as a city of romance and I saw plenty of it during my stay. Parisians were very open to public displays of affection, even more so than I had ever seen in the United States United States. 

Jesus giving the keys of the church to St. Peter

Rome, the home of the Pope, was a little different. I did not feel an intense sexualized culture, but instead experienced a religious atmosphere that seemed to permeate the city. Although, there are many priests and ministers championing the beliefs of Catholicism membership is declining. Perhaps this is why the Pope is appealing to a younger generation to use mass media to spread their religious views to halt declining membership.

 On the 45^th World Communications Day, Pope Benedict the IVX, urges Christians to use social networks to spread the news about God that he beliefs can change the lives of men.

The Pope said to via the Vatican media outlet, “I would like then to invite Christians, confidently and with an informed and responsible creativity, to join the network of relationships which the digital era has made possible. This is not simply to satisfy the desire to be present, but because this network is an integral part of human life. The web is contributing to the development of new and more complex intellectual and spiritual horizons, new forms of shared awareness. In this field too we are called to proclaim our faith that Christ is God, the Saviour of humanity and of history, the one in whom all things find their fulfillment.”

“I invite young people above all to make good use of their presence in the digital world…where the new technologies are contributing greatly to the preparations.”

Me enjoying the Vatican!

Tristian Williams

Strategic Communications

The Ideals of Objectivity

            The United States is different. We know that. We broke off into our own little colony, took time to grow, and then disowned Mother England to take our collective life into our own hands with nothing but some timber and a whole lot of ambition. We expanded, created and enslaved. But we took some time to develop, to flourish, and we at least tried to right our wrongs. We haven’t reached perfection yet, but we’re striving.

            This description paints a romantic picture, doesn’t it? Can’t you just picture the Wild West? The booming industrial cities? The apple pie?

            Though life obviously doesn’t always resemble this idealistic paradise, we take our principles (or delusions, depending on how you look at it) pretty seriously here. Blame the fact that, historically, we as a single entity are much younger than, well, everyone else. We’re just so darn optimistic, and that fact permeates our lives.

We obsess over health because we want to live as long as possible. We encourage our kids to play sports, ban public smoking and air public service announcements. We encourage our children to stay innocent, so we stress abstinence, rate movies and restrict what can be played on television using parental controls. We have strict age limits on potentially harmful life decisions: 16 to drive, 18 to smoke, 21 to drink.

We are America.

The distinctions that separate us from across the pond can seem as vast and wide as the ocean that’s between.

With the array of differences to be observed, what is a journalism student from the No. 1 J-school, well, ever (yes, I went there) to do? Ask questions.

There are a few hot button topics in the journalism school that spark debate in just about every class, but possibly the most interesting is the idea of objectivity. Is it possible for a human being to be truly objective? How does one measure objectivity? What is objectivity?

What I’m saying is, getting the international perspective on this issue was 100 percent necessary, especially when visiting a political powerhouse (Brussels, home of the European Union) and the Catholic Mecca (Rome).

For any readers that aren’t a part of the almost-daily discussions on objectivity that take place here in Columbia, let’s outline objectivity so the comparison will be in full context.

Here in the good ol’ U.S.of.A., we journalists think of ourselves as a pretty noble lot, exposing the truth, leaving no stone unturned. Our job is to present the facts so the viewer/reader/consumer can make an informed decision based on his or her own ideals, not ours. We aren’t to affiliate with a political party or even any clubs that might imply even the slightest bias toward any person or cause. Not every journalist takes this so seriously, but you’d be surprised at the number who do. One false step can ruin a journalist’s credibility, a.k.a. career. Not kidding.

So these are the ideals of traditional American journalists–people who have no opinions, bias, or vested interest in what they are reporting. Nearly robots.

But there are issues with these ideals, other than the questions presented previously. If reporters are in charge of dealing with possibly hundreds of facts, they have to use their (hopefully) good judgment to decide which facts make it into the story, which is often limited by space and time. Which facts don’t make the cut? Those the journalist deems unworthy. Hence, conflict. And there’s literally no way around this fact, because to present every fact, every facet of a story would be painstaking, not to mention impossible.

But with these noble ideals so engrained into our little journalistic heads, going abroad and hearing them say that oh, this newspaper is geared toward this political view and oh, this one goes the opposite way, and when they cover the same issues, they present very different stories­–well, let’s just say it’s initially shocking. You get more used to the idea as you go, but that first admission of bias is rough. Probably the biggest question of objectivity, though, was when our group visited Vatican Radio.

Students took turns grilling the speaker, Sean, a charming, grey-haired, pocket-sized British man who used eccentric hand motions when he spoke. When questioned, he replied that the Vatican Radio’s job was to take what the pope says and the general happenings around the Vatican, and to interpret them for the common man, making them accessible to all. In our group meeting after the visit, many of us brought up that there lacked a critical air that was crucial to watchdog objectivity. Could they even be called journalists for God’s sake? Sorry, that pun/wordplay was too fun to pass up for this Catholic (and that’s called transparency).

However, Nicholas Jain then made a good point. When journalists write for a trade magazine in the United States, we know they have a bias, it’s obvious. But do we respect what they are doing any less? No, they are just making a living in alternative media. Do we question their worth as a journalist? No, someone has to write for whatever organization he or she is a part of or employed by. So what makes Vatican Radio any different?

In the general news media, where the American counterparts are to be neutral and silent, journalists work for a newspaper/TV station/website that they agree with and maintain transparency about their views. At one newspaper, jokes were made about politicians sleeping with reporters, and not just for good publicity.

The separation of life and work just isn’t the same for journalists in Europe as it is for Americans. The audience knows the reporters have natural bias and are expected to find journalists they trust or read a variety of articles to collect facts and (look at that) make an informed decision of their own. Guess we aren't so different in the end, it’s just the means that cause controversy.

The questions surrounding objectivity aren't just an issue at the Missouri School of Journalism, this is a national (and international) topic for discussion and we haven’t seen the last of it. Could there be a lean toward European “objectivity” or will our American ideals prevail? The only way to find out is to watch the media–how journalists present themselves, how stories are conveyed, because the thing about objectivity is that all the rules (those ever-strict, career-breaking rules) are unwritten, subject to the whimsy of both the audience and the industry.

Reporters have to test the boundaries carefully, especially in times of change.

Kelsey Kennedy

Magazine Journalism/Theatre Performance

University of Missouri–Columbia

Reporting on the Vatican

There is a fine line between journalism and public relations work, and those who cover the Vatican seem to blur this line. A correspondent’s job, as defined by one, is to transport news being as honest and clear as possible, while still being loyal to the pope.  This raises the question of whether or not this can really be considered objective journalism since it is being reported through a certain agenda.  In order to answer this, it is important to look at examples of the work put out by Vatican correspondents: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/vatican/vatican.htm, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/headlines/vatican/

            Most stories on these sites deal with the goings on in Vatican City and the Catholic community. They keep the public updated on the activity of the pope and his views on different things going on in the world.  Through exploring the stories put out by these and other Catholic media outlets, it is clear that the stories depict the pope and the Vatican community in a positive light.  However, the agencies are also upfront about this.  They clearly state their mission statement as the mission of the Catholic Church itself. (http://www.catholicnews.com/aboutcns.htm)  They are upfront about what they are doing and what kind of reporting one can expect from them.  While they may not fairly report all sides of an issue, they are not trying to deceive their audience into thinking that they do. 

            Because they are reporting for and about a specific institution, Vatican reporters do seem to be more like PR workers.  They are not pushing the message of the church in the sense of publishing teachings from the church, but they are presenting the information as seen through the eyes of the pope and the religious community. In America we are taught that the role of the media is to be watchdogs on the government, to question everything, and to report a story from as many sides as possible and from a neutral point of view, despite our own feelings on the topic.  While there are certain networks and publications that take a more conservative or liberal view on issues in America, there is still a good representation of both sides of the spectrum, and it is widely known which outlets and more conservative and which are more liberal.  Similarly, there are religious and non-religious media outlets in Rome, and they clearly state their point of view in their mission statements.

            However, I believe it is hard for us, as Americans, to be able to decide whether this work should be considered journalism, because it is so unlike anything that we have here.  Without spending time living in Rome and visiting the Vatican City and understanding the way of life there, it is hard for us to judge the work their reporters put out.  While it may be considered PR work from an American point of view, these correspondents are considered reputable journalists to the citizens of Rome.

            Another interesting side to this issue is the work the pope does himself in relation to spreading his message.  Vatican Radio (http://vaticanradio.com/) was founded in 1931 under the time of Pope Pius XI.  The station grew under each subsequent pope, as each had his own ideas for how to make use of the radio and how to expand its purpose.  The first significant use of the station was under Pope Pius XII with his Christmas Addresses during World War II, when he used the radio to provide information regarding the condition of the church in Poland. In 1948, it expanded to broadcast in 18 different languages.  In 1950, it was one of the founding broadcasting organizations of the European Broadcasting Union.  Vatican Radio has just recently started broadcasting advertisements, as of July 2009, but it requires that all ads meet high moral standards.

            An interesting question raised in the meeting with the Vatican correspondent was whether it was necessary to be a Catholic in order to do this line of work.  It would seem like it would be an important requirement of the job, because how could someone spread a message and point of view that he or she does not believe in?  Interestingly, Allen, the correspondent we met with, said that he has a few co-workers who do not believe in the message of the Church, but did not think that was an issue.  He said his non-religious co-workers felt that it was not necessary and they didn’t see their lack of faith as an obstacle.  However, he felt that he could never do the work he does if he didn’t have faith.  He felt that he would get bored doing the reporting and would not be able to connect with the material on which he was reporting.  He said he thinks he might get fed up with the work and find it irrelevant.  This seems like a good point.  From and American point of view, it can be comparable to a public relations worker who works for a company that they do not support and has to put out pro-company messaging every day.

            Beyond the issues of not believing in the message, it can also be questioned how well a reporter can spread a message from a point of view that they do not hold.  Allen said that while he does believe these correspondents can still report in an honest and fair way, he feels that non-Catholic reporters might not understand the full message.  Since they don’t hold the same beliefs as the pope, it is possible that parts of his message might be lost on them, thus decreasing the value of their work.  So, while being Catholic is not a requirement of the job, it seems like an important component to getting the full story across.

            Although there is no set guideline to determine exactly where the division is between PR work and journalistic reporting, there are many criteria to consider, such as whether or not the issue is being covered from all sides and whether or not the issue is presented in a certain light.  While Vatican correspondents do tend to report from a specific standpoint, they are clear about what their beliefs and mission statement are.  Although as Americans we may consider this media to not be objective, it is important to understand the Roman culture and views on media and objectivity before making a judgment.

--Nicole Heisick
Magazine Journalism

The European Socialized Media Scene and the Lessons It Can Teach America

In Europe, I made frequent jabs at the strategic communications majors for learning the arts of manipulation and deception for profit, a theme that followed me over here from America.  I, the journalism major with my integrity and honesty and lack of bias, held a vast moral superiority to their drive and ambition for naught but a full wallet and a stuffed bank account.  I wanted to do work for the populace, while they viewed their household as the only possible benefactor of their talents.  How pedantic, how greedy, how insipid . . .

Strategic communications majors are taught that this (Academie Nationale de Musique, Paris) is a modest early goal in terms of a residence.

            And then I came crashing back down to Earth after remembering that most news organizations do the exact same thing.

            Before we talk about the berets and baguettes of Europe, let’s examine the homefront.  After all, it’s important to know the problem at home before one offers a solution from abroad.

And where better to begin than with perhaps the hyperbolic example of bias and slanted reporting that is FOX News, the highest rated cable news channel in the United States, (a point they love to bring up repeatedly, when people question their veracity, you know, because if a lot of people are listening to you, then you can’t be lying).  The network appeals to a right-wing audience by begging for attention like a toddler that wants to show his mother the booger he just found in his nose.  Sean Hannity villainizes the left to such an extent, you’d think the pillars of liberal philosophy would be to eradicate every kitty and puppy on Earth, demand churches replace their crosses with swastikas and pentagrams, and execute anyone with skin lighter than the color of chocolate milk.  Beck draws on a chalkboard to appeal to old people that don’t understand whiteboards, and he uses it for such purposes as proving the evil relationship between Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign and the Holocaust or the Egyptian revolution and the end times, describing scenes right out of the Book of Revelations.  Why?  They want the attention, and, as the saying goes, “Never let facts get in the way of a good story.”

            On the other side of the political spectrum, you have MSNBC, who loves to call FOX News out on its hogwash, while sometimes making a bit of its own.  I have a lot of respect for Rachel Maddow, as I’ve never seen her actually go after anyone unfairly.  On the other hand, even though he’s not there anymore, I can’t say the same for Keith Olbermann.  I remember one particularly stark example during the senate race in Massachusetts between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley to take over the seat of the late Ted Kennedy.  A few nights before the election, Olbermann started “Countdown” by stating that Brown had called for the anal rape of Coakley.  I thought two things right then: 1) That’s a pretty damning accusation, and I wonder what proof he’s got to back that up, and 2) Scott Brown has officially replaced Joe Biden as the new “King of Gaffes.”  I stayed tuned to the segment where Brown gave one of his trademark impassioned and admirable stump speeches that he gave during that campaign, while some bozo in the audience, over the din of the crowd, yelled something to the extent of “We’ll shove a boot up her ass!” to which Brown “replied,” “We can do this.”  It was clear that Olbermann had played up this innocent "answer" to a pretty colloquial insult (I doubt Brown even heard it) as an egregious point of misinformation to please his base, although I sure hope no one fell for it.  In fighting the monster that was FOX News for so long, Olbermann became what he hated most, trying to defeat his opponent with its own tricks.  I never watched “Countdown” again.

            CNN, takes a bit of a different approach, not so much supporting a specific political bias, but instead a bias towards people who have ADHD.  In their 2008 presidential election coverage, they unveiled what every connoisseur of science fiction has known would one day come to the planet: the hologram.  Kind of.  It was actually just a bunch of cameras making a 3D image and projecting it on green screen.  It’s widely regarded as one of the stupidest things about the 2008 elections (barring that god-awful bulldog with lipstick “joke” the media latched onto like.  . . well, a bulldog).  They also have their special touch screen technology.  It’s a bit cooler and more realistic, but it doesn’t really do much more than my MacBook could with appropriate preparation (and, yes, I did just compliment a MacBook in a way, so, mark this day as “historic” on your calendars, folks).

Well, not THAT historic.  (Pictured: Venus de Milo, Louvre Museum, Paris)

            All of their websites aren’t much better.  FOX News’s has actually gotten substantially better in the last few months.  Underneath the more important headlines, they used to have a gossip and celebrities section and that was about it.  It was embarrassing, to say the least.  Now, it’s at least a fairly respectable looking news website.  MSNBC’s is probably the best; it doesn’t even seem that left wing most of the time.  CNN’s, however, usually baffles me with its story and headline choices, although the coverage they do offer, when it’s good, is really good.  But when I log on to CNN.com one day in the month of November and see three separate major headlines that include Justin Beiber, I have to shake my head a bit, possibly because of the brain damage suffered from slamming my face into my laptop screen.  I don’t care if your news day is running slower than a 600-pound man drowning in molasses; you can do better than that.  Even better are some of the misleading headlines that use stupid little plays on words, enticing people to read them and then reveling in their gullibility when the story clicked upon turns out to be nothing special.  And if I see one more headline that says Sarah Palin “blasts” one of the Obama’s policies or ideas or sentences, I’m going to quit the Internet.  I don’t care about the content, just change the verb in that headline, for once. 

            So, cable news organizations are failing miserably in the ideal quest for both objectivity and relevance.   While MSNBC and FOX News both shun impartiality like the plague in their opinions programs, and with a bit more subtlety in their actual reporting, you can’t fault them too much for not being relevant.  On the other hand, CNN doesn’t seem to be too slanted to the right or the left, but sometimes, it’s not the most pertinent reporting in the world either, relying on gimmicks and tricks to entice audiences.  The question, though, is why?  Why not tell the truth?  Why pump your budgets into graphics and attention grabbing techniques instead of true reporting?  Why not adhere to ethical journalism?

            Probably because they can get more money by being more inflammatory.  The ratings support this notion, as well.  This graph illustrates that “The O’Reilly Factor” got a vastly larger number of viewers than “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” which got more than “Nancy Grace” which got more than “Campbell Brown.”  This figure indicates a positive correlation between more sensationalist reporting and ratings.  And the more people watch these channels, the more networks can demand from advertisers . . .

Courtesy of TV by the Numbers

            Plus, these audiences are probably going to be viewers for life.  It’s a way to preach to the choir and incite or excite people.  I was amazed that Vatican Radio in Rome called itself a journalistic enterprise when, in reality, it was more of a PR firm for the Pope.  While Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t call for Catholics to quench upon the blood of the infidels and heretics, unlike some past popes (I’m looking at you Pope Urban II) and is, by most definitions and preconceptions, an honorable man, it’s a bit shocking that he simply isn’t questioned by the press that is in closest relation to him.  But it’s a great way for the station to make money by promoting a cause instead of just giving people facts and figures with which they would have to draw their own conclusions.  I mean, can you imagine a society of people thinking for themselves?  The horror . . .

            In a way, cable news organizations have become more of a public relations firm, assuring the American people of whatever news they want to hear while simultaneously, making money by pumping misinformation, half-truths and sub-standard reporting over the airwaves.  Yes, there are some great reporters out there, such as, Anderson Cooper, Shepherd Smith, Brian Williams (along with all of the NBC Nightly News team) and Rachel Maddow, one of the few opinion reporters to not be mired by gaudiness or rampant deception to achieve her own ends, but the country is really speaking out when the most trusted reporter in the country (according to a TIME Online poll taken after Walter Kronkite's death in 2009) is Jon Stewart, a man who rejects that title with all of his being.

            But how can we remove commercial bias, which is perhaps the only bias more dangerous to this country’s journalistic integrity than political bias?  We have to look overseas to find the answer to that question.  But I didn’t necessarily find it in one of our briefings or meetings with some of the finest journalism establishments in the world.  Instead, it was in my hotel room every morning . . . no, not my roommate.

Unfortunately, the answer to our media's woes is not Nicholas Jain, as much as I would like it to be that simple (and stylish).

            The BBC.  The British Broadcasting Corporation.  One of those incredible public institutions that really is the prime example of its kind around the world.  When you want a military, you go to America.  When you want the best health care system, it’s hard to beat the French method, in terms of freedom and fairness.  When you want a system of media that is independent from commercial bias, look no further than the BBC.  The beauty of the BBC comes mostly from its public funding (a tax which costs around £150 (about $250) a year per household), but it distinctly lacks the catering to the government that defines a controlled press in countries where the news is restricted, like a totalitarian society.  It still performs the essential watchdog functions of the press and contributes to the marketplace of ideas.  But the most important thing is, unlike its American counterparts, it doesn’t force this information down people’s throats or make decisions for them (although, shoving things down a goose’s throat is quite alright judging by the foie gras I had in Paris).  The BBC treats its viewers with respect and intelligence, something that many cable news organizations here should begin to strive for.

            All across Europe, and even in the United States, public broadcasting is an essential part of the media.

            Take the Czech Republic, for example.  Until the Iron Curtain fell, the nation had little to go off of, in terms of a free press.  But after some practice, the country got a grasp on forming media.  While some of the state-run systems under communism became privatized, the Czech Republic has a balance of both public and private broadcasting.  The public media was founded by law, and it’s indirectly controlled by the Czech Parliament.  According to Jan Kirak, a journalist in Prague, a public media is considered a point of dignity in Europe, like a cultural institution to display national pride.  He also said that was the reason the United States doesn’t see a need for such a large emphasis in public broadcasting.  We just don’t have to impress anyone that much, but I disagree with that to an extent.  It feels like an explanation for why the US doesn’t have a good public media outlet, not a reason for why we shouldn’t have a good public broadcasting sector.

            Experience from Paris, however, introduces another roadblock on the way to powerful public media in the United States: money.  Bernard Volker, Vice Dean of Journalism at the École de Journalisme de Sciences Po in Paris, stated that public media is very costly to the government and, therefore, the taxpayers.  Because of this, he says, good, in-depth, analytical reporting is hard to come by.  With less money, the stations don’t get to investigate stories with the same level of detail and examination that American outlets achieve.  In an op-ed by Steve Coll, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and former managing editor of the Washington Post, it states that Britain spends about $87 per capita on public broadcasting (about the same as the French total after a little personal research).  Canada pays $27 per capita.  The United States?  $1.40 per capita.  And interestingly enough, Coll says that NPR does extremely well given its funding.  Imagine if we doubled it.  Spending almost a whole three dollars per person could change everything.  We currently spend less than half a billion dollars on public broadcasting.  Honestly, even in the hard economic times we’re in, broadcasting is an institution that needs to be cherished, no matter the price.  And if the private options are failing the American viewer, then a public option is necessary (like health care, but that’s another debate).

Much like my public option to buy the cutest bear in all of existence.  (I just wanted to show a picture of Barlteby . . .)

            Although I’ve only briefly outlined my experiences in Europe, I truly feel that this is what I took away from my time there.  Their systematized state-funded media, even with its problems, which are mainly monetary anyway, has qualities that Americans should latch on to.  Now, I’m not saying that Europe is better in every respect when it comes to news.  The United States focuses on ethics and comes down hard on those who cross the fine line reporters walk with every story.  For example, if NBC hired Bill Clinton to report on the actions of the Secretary of State (you know, his wife), everyone would be screaming for his resignation.  Oh, and that is the case in France, but they don’t really bother with it.  It just seems to fit that the stricter, more controlled and, in my opinion, more intelligent ideals of journalism that Americans have would mesh extremely well with a news organization that was impartial to profit and party. 

            I’m going to get a major impediment to my argument out of the way early because I bet you, the reader, is asking yourself, “But Travis, what about NPR and PBS?  Aren’t they public broadcasts?  In fact, doesn’t PBS actually stand for Public Broadcasting Service?”  It does, that’s true, but oddly enough, PBS gets no direct funding from the federal government.  And the states give it very little.  And the content of the channel is actually created by various member stations all across the United States, not a dedicated team in a single place with one set goal of broadcasting in mind like the BBC.  Additionally, they don’t have a 24-hour news team to compete with the cable news organizations.  NPR, on the other hand, has tons of great news reporters and readers, with great reporting abroad, remarkable human-interest pieces and smart, fair coverage of current events.  But it’s primarily a radio station and a website.  To truly compete, you can’t just target the demographic that’s driving to work in the morning.  Television is a powerful medium, and its almost no contest.  According to a PEW survey in 2010, television attracts almost 150% the audience that radio does.

            But it doesn’t have to be this way.  Imagine a televised NPR with the same solid reporting that it has on the radio.  It’s a powerful idea, and one that this country should invest in.

            Of course, as I write this, the House of Representatives is signaling a desire to cut off funding for public media, like NPR and PBS.  Critics have largely called it a political maneuver, since conservatives tend to believe that NPR and PBS lean to the left on the political spectrum.  Either way, it’s a pretty disgraceful move by Republicans to take away important segments of America’s media scene, especially since commercial, privatized media systems don’t seem to be working.

            Really, we, as Americans, don’t have another option.  Either we keep listening to a press corrupted by the dollar sign, or we start relying on the stations that rely on us.

Travis Zimpfer
University of Missouri Undergraduate
Journalism/English Dual Major

Advertising Around the World

        In 2008, advertising, marketing, promotions, public relations and sales managers accounted for about 623,800 jobs in the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Overall, employment for these positions is expected to increase by more than 13 percent through the year 2018 because of increasing competition and the need to break through the clutter of the marketplace.  According to Plunkett Research, global advertising spending reached $445 billion in 2009 and this number is expected to increase, as well.   
        While advertising is an important aspect around the world, there are noticeable differences and similarities within the field from country to country.  For example, Michael Kimmelman wrote in the New York Times how  “American commercials go from the head to the wallet, British ones from the head to the heart, French from the heart to the head." Money in France typically implies corruption and the French view advertising as a kind of manipulation.   In the United States, advertising is meant to inform and persuade, but advertising in France is meant to fascinate, charm, entice or tempt.  Unlike in the United States, advertisers in France are not allowed to attack their competitors and they usually do not include a direct-response phone number. Romance and humor are major qualities of French advertising.  Hard-sell tactics, which are often used in the United States, do not go over well in France and culture is stressed in every advertisement.   For example, French advertisements often depict images of French food, restaurants, specialty stores or well-known celebrities.  Sex and wit are often emphasized because “advertising is about presenting an idealized view of its audience.  And this is who we would like to think we are” says Stephane Martin, director of the French Union for Television Advertisements.
        At the Sciences Po University lecture in Paris, Bernard Volker explained that the public relations school is separate from the rest of the journalism courses.  While public relations is included in the Strategic Communications emphasis area at the University of Missouri, public relations, in France is not associated with journalism. 
        Another major advertising difference is that digital media is still not utilized fully because of the fact that France is such an old country.  One example of this is the Paris Opera, which controversially uses traditional advertising in attempt to raise money in order to renovate the building. Currently, hanging on the outside of the beautiful opera house is a giant Ralph Lauren advertisement.  It is understandable that the renovations will cost a huge amount of money, but in this day and age there must be a different way to raise money, other than an unattractive advertisement on the outside of such a magnificent building.  
        Furthermore, the advertising in Rome, Italy has several similarities and differences compared to the advertising market in the United States, as well. For example, Italian advertising focuses on design and views the image as everything.  Unlike advertising in France, Italian advertisers are investing more and more in online campaigns.  Their love of images and aesthetically pleasing content, though, often make the websites slow to load and difficult to navigate, which tends to irritate the consumer.
        Also in Rome is Vatican City, which houses the Vatican Radio.  It was created in 1931, offers broadcasts in 47 different languages and has more than 200 journalists located around the world.  In May 2009, it was announced that the Vatican Radio would begin broadcasting commercial advertisements in July for the first time in order to meet the rising costs.  All advertisements must be carefully chosen and meet the “high moral standards” of the Vatican Radio.  Furthermore, outside of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican, there was an interesting advertisement displayed.  It was a giant billboard that was primarily white space, with one line of text.  Our guide, Father John, explained that the advertisement was simply asking for money for the church.  
        Another interesting form of advertising found in Rome was one that is rarely seen in the United States. The cafes and bistros around the city each had their menu outside for pedestrians to look at and decide if they wanted to eat there.  Most restaurants even had an employee standing outside trying to convince passersby to enter the establishment.  This type of advertising by the company means that the employees must promote the brand image well and be able to sell their products to individuals who have not yet stepped foot inside the business.  This type of advertising was also prominent with the street vendors.  Tourist shops around the city would create displays outside of their doors in order to entice individuals to enter and look around. 
        Brussels, Belgium also has interesting similarities and differences in their advertising industry.  One reason for this is the fact that Belgium has two official languages: French and Flemish.  Advertising agencies generally have to create advertisements in both.  At the Belgium Communications School, our lecturer, Gareth Harding, explained that there is a major tension between the French and Flemish populations.  In order to create a campaign, two teams work independently on the project--one group in Flemish and the other in French.  They compare their campaigns and decide which is the best to fulfill the client’s needs.  Although Belgium is a small country consisting of 10 million people, many nationalities are represented.  In the advertising industry, all cultural attitudes must be accommodated and represented, because the people of Belgium see themselves as belonging to either the Flemish culture or the French culture, but not to a general Belgian culture.  Advertisements have to use distinguishing qualities and characteristics in order to describe cultural differences.  The only visible difference between the French and Flemish is their way of dress (the French tend to have a more sophisticated style).  Topics such as food and lifestyles are treated differently in advertising for the two cultures, as well.
        Furthermore, at the Czech Media Scene Talk at Charles University, Jan Kirak explained that there is an ongoing tension between journalism, public relations and marketing communications in the Czech Republic.  Universities do not encourage the study of these fields together because of the strong ethical tension, much like in Paris. There is also a high level of skepticism about advertising in the Czech Republic because of the communism propaganda emphasized in previous decades.  Because of this, society has a very weak identification with journalism.  Typically, a job in journalism is a good start in order to make contacts, but it is considered a real failure in life to retire as a journalist.  On the other hand, the advertising market is very stable and constantly increasing.  
        McCann-Erickson has been one of the leading communications agencies in Prague, Czech Republic since 1926 and it upholds many of the advertising ideologies that we promote in the United States, as well.  McCann-Erickson operates creatively using the “Truth Well Told” slogan and the agency uses strategic integrity in every aspect of their work.  At McCann-Erickson, Vladka Dolezelova explained that their mission is to “create solutions that will give you more than five minutes of fame” and they believe that “a good idea doesn’t know who thought of it,” meaning that everyone in the agency participates in the creative work.  The key point of the work done at McCann-Erickson is to listen to the consumer and understand the client’s needs in order to effectively sell their product.  Insights, or views into the consumers’ mind, lead to the creative ideas.  The agency believes that a “brand footprint” must always be utilized in order to project the brand onto the consumer and successfully position the brand.  They also believe that marketing is not a battle about products, but instead a battle about the consumer’s perception.  In the end, an intense emotional experience is what wins the battle of consumers’ perception.
        In general, direct, simple messages are the most desirable advertising in the Czech Republic and humor and clever approaches are very important.  Czech consumers increasingly feel that they are exposed to too many television commercials, print and direct mail advertisements.  One major difference between advertising in Prague and the United States is that Czech advertising is known for its collectivistic themes.  In the United States, consumers want to see how a product or brand will better themselves and increase independence, while the Czech population prefers to see what they can do with a group and how a brand will help to better their relationships.
        Advertising around the world varies from country to country.  Having the chance to immerse myself in these different cultures gave me a better understanding of the nuisances that cannot be learned in a textbook or classroom.  Learning about advertising overseas increased my understanding of advertising in the United States and will improve my work in the field.                                                                                                      


Sammie Powell 
University of Missouri-Columbia
Strategic Communications Major
Business Marketing Minor