kisch and stereotypes

For some time, I've been intrigued by the question why contemporary media so often follow and even strengthen stereotypes especially when it comes to covering other countries. (I did a small study once on how German newspapers wrote about Pakistan after 9/11, with results that were disillusioning: There was hardly anything in the papers except terrorism and dangers, and the image created was totally different from what I had experienced Pakistan to be like.) 

Is it because of the process in which journalists produce their work? The way manuscripts are edited and streamlined and reporters with deviant approaches don't even get a chance to start working because their editors will push them in another direction?

Or do the reporters limit their focus themselves? Are certain discourses (e.g. about "Islam") so powerful that one "automatically" sees the world in a certain way?

Reading some of the reporting done by Egon Erwin Kisch from the Soviet Union and China in the 1920s these days, I was struck how much journalism has changed over the last 80 years. Kisch was the German reporter of his time. A Jew from Prague who was equally fluent in Czech and German, he had (similarly to Franz Kafka) opted for German as the language he wrote in. After the First World War, he moved to Berlin and worked for German papers, traveling all over the world, then fled to live in exile after 1933. I find his pieces still interesting to read after all these years. His writing style is totally literary, i.e. he tries to be original in all his descriptions, inventing new words and images in almost every sentence. Another very obvious difference from most of today's journalists is how many random observations he includes in his articles.

When the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" ran a series about famous journalists five years ago, Jakob Augstein (himself the son of another journalist icon, Rudolf Augstein of "Der Spiegel") observed that today, much of Kisch's writings would be rejected by desk editors as literature, not reporting. Some of the texts would be regarded as not relevant enough; some of his writing (e.g. about Soviet Russia) is clearly partial, although Kisch always held up the ideal of "objectivity" - but he was a Communist and this shows; and Augstein also points out that Kisch was quite good at marketing himself. Is or was Kisch over-rated then?

Well, whereas it is certainly interesting to read Kisch with the eyes of the contemporary journalist, we could also take a look at today's journalism with Kisch in mind. How has it become so different? I think the biggest difference is the sheer amount of media exposure we have ourselves. From the desk editor to the reporter, we all know how this or that competitor has approached this topic we are doing now. We follow the news agencies and let them decide our agendas. We might then be looking for a slightly new angle and imagine we are doing something "different" - but have actually become much more cautious. 

And I believe this is how we all keep reproducing stereotypes, both the reporters and the desk editors. We believe that we have to leave out observations on the side, which are not relevant to "our story" (in fact, they might complete the picture). We think it is safer and easier to repeat set phrases and images (just take the bearded Muslim fundamentalists), instead of inventing our own language and imagery (it's the same with TV visuals). We have become less imaginative and less curious. I'm sure much of the output of our news media industry is totally boring for the consumers, and that's why new forms of communication like citizen journalism and blogs are becoming so popular.