Framing the Tibet coverage

There was a strange unanimity a few weeks ago when many Western media announced the imminent radicalization of the pro-Tibet movement, or the “abandonment by the Dalai Lama of the dialogue with Beijing”. Suddenly the non-violence option that had characterized the Tibetan cause seemed to be on the verge of unravelling in favour of a more rebellious and intransigent faction.
In an op-ed published on November 28 in the Brussels liberal daily Le Soir, Vincent Metten, the European director of the International Campaign for Tibet, debunked these forecasts by highlighting the victory of moderation in the wake of the Tibetan diaspora assembly that took place in Dharamsala, in late November.
However, this example that shows a disconnect between media and NGO reporting makes one wonder how issues are framed in the media, what pushes most journalists to adopt together and at the same time a shared view of particular events.
This phenomenon of “groupthink” can be triggered by a “news wholesaler” (world news agencies) or a respected international newspaper. What Reuters, CNN or the New York Times report on and their “reading” of particular events have immediate repercussions on the rest of the world media. The responsibility of these “elite media” is therefore immense. Sometimes they have been wrong and have “misguided” world news coverage. Their reputation for general excellence does not completely protect them against mistakes or biases.
Why would allegedly independent and free thinking journalists massage a particular message? Sometimes it is just a question of circumstances : the reportage by a particular journalist that takes a particular line, a tribute to the journalist’s right to subjectivity.
Sometimes it is the result of “opinion framing”, the impact of opinion leaders in government, business or leading NGOs eager to frame an issue and inspire the angle of a story. For instance, selling the idea that at a time of a profound economic crisis the West needs all the help it can get from China has a corollary: any other irritant –read human rights, Tibet – should be evacuated from the serious public agora.
Global public relations agencies can also have an impact. Most authoritarian governments have hired the big guns in the communications agencies to polish their image and sell their message. Beijing in particular has secured the expertise of Hill & Knowlton or Ogilvy during the Olympic Games. And many journalists have been more than happy to take their cue from their press releases and other gimmicks.
A lesson should be drawn. Human rights are not only vulnerable to government manipulation but also to media framing. For human rights NGOs the need to analyse how and why the media report, select, interpret the news is as fundamental as the development of communications skills and tools.