Introduction

The phrase and concept of ‘global crisis reporting’ is very provoking. It enables discussion about our understanding of what ‘global crisis’ and ‘global crisis reporting’ really are. However, to go further, there is a need to firstly answer what is actually meant by the phrase. ‘Global crisis reporting’ merges three different words which have its own meaning: ‘global’, ‘crisis’, and ‘reporting’. Each of those terms needs to be understood in order to understand the larger picture when all of those words are merged and become a phrase. Therefore, based on the marriage of the terms, what actually ‘global crisis reporting’ is. If there is such an idea, then what ‘global crisis’ is? And to better understand what is considered ‘global crisis’, what kind of event that can be categorized as a global crisis therefore enable global crisis reporting to exist?

In this essay, I will elucidate the idea of ‘global crisis’ to answer a question whether ‘global crisis’ does really exist or not. In this regard, I will argue that there is no such thing as ‘global crisis reporting’. What we may understand as a ‘global crisis reporting’ is merely a ‘local crisis reporting’. I mean, what we perceive as a ‘global crisis’ is actually a ‘local crisis’ that is being reported from one particular locality to other localities, or from the local to the local(s).

To elucidate the notion, I will firstly examine the term of ‘global crisis reporting’, word by word, and finally as a phrase. Therefore I will try to answer these questions, such as: what is ‘global’?; what is ‘crisis’?; what is ‘reporting?; what is ‘global crisis? And finally what is ‘global crisis reporting’? Within this context, I will also examine the ethical and moral issues in responding to the mediatized distant suffering; gate-keeping; foreign correspondent; and the idea of objectivity.

Discussion

Understanding the term(s)

Putting forward the term of ‘global’ is impossible without bringing into light the term of ‘local’ because the later would never exist without the former, and vice versa (Robertson, 1995). As a term, global has become a prominent currency, from ‘global vision’ to ‘global brands’ and from ‘global public sphere’ to ‘global village’ (Chan, 2005; Cottle, 2008).

Chan argues that the term of ‘global’ becomes difficult to be defined as it has three characters: (1) the global is always becoming, therefore it suggest the volatility of the global; (2) the global will always be under the influence of the local, as the global can be localized and the local can be globalized, therefore, the boundary between the two becomes blur; (3) the global is the result of the interplay of diverging human activities (Chan, 2005). If the concept of the global is very complex, then what is actually ‘global’ means?

Literally, global is defined as “relating to, or involving the entire world”(Merriam-Webster, 2013); and “relating to the whole world; worldwide (Oxford, 2013b). Therefore, I argue, ‘global’ is something that is related to the ‘world’. Understanding the global is to understand its existence as a world phenomenon that happens everywhere. This understanding is implied in a book written by van Ginneken, entitled; “Understanding Global News: a critical introduction” (1998). In the book, he frequently uses the term of ‘world’ similar to the term of ‘global’. What we can find in the book is not ‘global news’, but ‘world news’. I argue that it also can be applied for ‘global crisis reporting’; therefore, it becomes ‘world crisis reporting’.

Then, what is ‘crisis’? Crisis is defined as “a time of intense difficulty or danger” (Oxford, 2013a). In management, crisis has very broad synonym such as disaster, catastrophe, jolt, problem, threat, and turning point. I also has been defined such as a situation which is harmful, disruptive, high magnitude, sudden, unexpected, acute, and demanding a timely response (Reilly, 1993). In journalism, crisis is an important ingredient for a story as its ‘negativity’ corresponds to the general news framework (Ginneken, 1998) such as the most referred classical journalistic framework that sees bad news as a good news (Galician & Pasternack, 1987). In journalism, crisis has been continually used to describe wars, riots, terrorism, illnesses, and diseases (Lee & Bottomley, 2010).

If ‘global’ can be synonymised to ‘world’ and ‘crisis’ can be defined as a time of intense difficulty such as war and terrorism, then what ‘global crisis’ is? Simon Cottle defines ‘global crises’ as crises that “encompass or move across geographical terrains and political territories” (2008, p. 2). He also argues that an event needs ‘claim makers’ to be defined as crisis. Furthermore, to be recognized as a global crisis, it needs widespread and intensified media exposure as it is the only way to garner great number of public attention and therefore having wider public endorsement.

Global crisis can be identified from their level and significance of impacts, not only during its occurrence but also its potential severity in the future. Climate change, natural disasters, humanitarian emergencies, human rights, weapons of mass distraction, world poverty, forced migrants, transnational pandemics, and financial meltdown are among the examples that can be categorized as global crises (Lilie Chouliaraki, 2010; Cottle, 2008; Kitch & Hume, 2008; Nash, 2008; Pinchevski & Frosh, 2008).

Based on explanation above, ‘global crisis reporting’ can be understood as mediating a crisis to the global public through intensive mass media coverage in order to achieve public endorsement in enabling it to becoming a globally-perceived crisis. This definition offers notions that crisis will never be perceived as a global crisis without intensive mass media coverage and global public endorsement. It then raises a question whether global crisis is truly out there, or it is just a collection of public endorsement from different localities. In this context, therefore, I will argue that global crisis is a vague conception.

Does ‘global crisis’ really exist?

To become a global crisis, a crisis needs claim maker, intense and wide mass media coverage and some kind of ‘approval’ from the global public. If crisis needs all of those things to be perceived as a global crisis, therefore, I argue that there isn’t any crisis that intrinsically ‘global crisis’.

If we look at carefully to all crises, mostly are embedded to certain localities, such as war, disaster, and famine. There has never been such a global war, global disaster, or global poverty. For examples: The September 11, happened in New York; Tsunami in March 2011 happened in Japan; the Gaza war in 2008-2009 happened in Gaza, Palestine; and the famine in Ethiopia in 1983-1985 happened in Ethiopia. Climate change might be the only crisis that could penetrate the global public consciousness as its symptoms can be experienced everywhere, from Alaska to Patagonia, from Himalaya in Nepal to Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania (Gore, 2006).

Despite its ‘global approval’ and its global identity as reflected by the scientific consensus (Dennis; Oreskes, 2004), the issue of climate change has always been under local constraints. The issue should be understood based on its local context within its political, social, and economical frameworks. This kind of approach that will make us understand why, for example, the US hasn’t ratified Kyoto Protocol. This is what I call by local constraints. In order to make the issue grounded, it should be articulated to its local circumstances.

Questioning spectators’ ethical and moral obligation for the distant others

Global crises can also be understood in relation to the idea of global village in which we are actually destined to be the people of the world, transgressing the boundaries of the nation-state (Sreberny-Mohammadi, 1997). It implies a notion that we are ethically and morally bounded to act and be responsible for the plight of distant others who are directly affected by crises. This kind of approach is suggested by Chouliaraki (2006). She also criticizes pessimistic approaches offered by Baudrillard and Habermas who view the suffering of distant others as merely a spectacle of suffering (L. Chouliaraki, 2008). Based on her theoretical approach, global crisis reporting can be seen as the mediation of moral education in which people have freedom, choices, and abilities to act for the distant others.

However, in this regard, I also prefer to be as pessimistic as Baudrillard and Habermas. Their ideas imply a notion that, no matter what, we actually in totally different circumstances to the distant suffering. They suggest that we are merely spectators. We are bound to our localities; therefore our capacity to respond is limited as we can only watch the spectacle of suffering of distant others. Baudillard sees the mediation as merely an image, whilst Habermas sees the mediation of suffering as a gruesome reality which is, for him, merely a gruesome spectacle. Here are their statements as mentioned in Chouliararki.

…in this Manhattan disaster movie, the two 20th-century elements of mass fascination are intertwined to the greatest degree: the white magic of cinema and the black magic of terror. The white light of the image and the black light of violence. (2008, p. 833)

....though we saw the same thing’, he says, referring to an eyewitness in physical proximity to the World Trade Center, ‘no doubt it [her experience] was something completely different from what I experienced in Germany in front of the television’. (2008, p. 835)

Global crisis reporting may expose us to the idea of global vision in which we are the global citizens who live in this global village. This idea is in line with cosmopolitanism (Ong, 2009). However, I suggest that this idea seems vague as it confronts the fact that we are actually bound to our localities. Questions should be firstly addressed, such as: where do we live, in what country; what we can actually do for the distant others; what about our own direct neighbours; what our priority actually is; and finally what does really matter? What kind of identity that confronts us the most?

During the Gaza war in 2009, I have observed, that in Indonesia there has been a debate whether supporting and donating for people in Palestine is priority or not. This debate occurred as there were still many major problems in Indonesia that were perceived should be firstly prioritized and took into consideration rather than the Palestine issue. It has been argued that Gaza war has attracted international coverage (Orgad, 2011). Despite its globality, when the issue is exported to other localities, it is ruled by the local constraints. This is a process of making sense the foreign occurrence for the local audiences. Within this local context, the perceived crisis should be tested and criticized. Therefore, the notion of [global] morality as Chouliaraki has suggested, could be banal when the suffering of distant others juxtaposed to the suffering of the close others, such as our neighbours or our fellow citizen in our own country. This kind of logic that may explain the US public outrage over the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina juxtaposed to the perceived success of war on terror [in Iraq and Afghanistan] (Katz, 2006).

The critic even becomes much clearer if we take a look at an idea that what we perceive as a crisis is actually socially constructed by the defining role of the media. This kind of process has made some crises to be much more important than the others. It has been argued that there are much more tragic deaths (if we see it as a kind of crisis) that has been overlooked by the media (Ginneken, 1998). Here, the media is the major player in the process of shaping into being the superiority of a certain crisis over the other crises. In this regard, it also becomes an ethical and moral issues if we, as a global citizen, can easily be compelled to act for the crisis of distant others just because it is reported by the media, while at the same time, there are many crises in our own (closer) neighbourhood that are overlooked just because it doesn’t attract media coverage.

Gatekeeper as crises definer

As a news producer in an Indonesian private news television in 2008-2009, I had had full access to Associated Press (AP), Reuters, and Agence France-Presse (AFP) news wires. Every day I skimmed through the list of news they have. As global media news networks, clearly they try to offer the global perspective into their news, including crisis issues (Ginneken, 1998). Despite the effort, I still need to reshape and rearticulate the news in order to make it fit with Indonesian local audiences because providing the news as it is can dissociate the story to the audiences. This process was very crucial as through this process the local audiences could comprehend what actually the issue was. It was not only involving translation process, but: an adaptation process, which is the most important. For example, during the world financial crisis in 2007-2008, it was difficult to make the news easily understood by Indonesian, as during that time Indonesian economy was doing well. And when the Black Saturday occurred in Australia, I focussed on reporting Indonesian people in Australia who were affected by the disaster. Thus, my experience implies that certain crisis resonates differently in different localities.

In this context, a debate over objectivity and subjectivity in news reporting becomes relevant. If a certain crisis can be interpreted differently by different audiences, what actually objectivity in news reporting is? Van Ginneken argues that the notion of objectivity (or even inter-subjectivity) is always implicitly related to the notion of (an agreement between) relevant audiences. Therefore, what might appear as ‘objectivity’ to Western audiences (all relevant groups agreeing about that point of view), may appear as pure ‘subjectivity’ to non-Western audiences. (Ginneken, 1998, p. 43)

The stark example can be examined during the coverage of 9/11. While generally the event was seen as a bleak tragedy, in contrast, some people in Palestine were reported celebrating the event as if it was a good news for them (Fahmy, Sooyoung, Wanta, & Yonghoi, 2006; Matar, 2006; News, 2001). This phenomenon can only be better understood if we look at the news through the local and broader perspective in which the hatred of Palestinian towards the US, as the strong alliance of Israel, was very intense during the second Intifada. In this kind of situation journalist has the ability to making sense an issue that may be understood differently by distant others. As it has been argued that, making sense of the news story is a complex social, familial and political activity, and understanding it requires taking into account the historical, social and political contexts surrounding such events. (Matar, 2006, p. 1040)

In relation to that, foreign correspondence becomes crucial to be discussed. Basically, foreign correspondents are assigned to report events from certain countries for their home countries audiences. Therefore, foreign correspondents have the full authority to assess and reconstruct an event based on to what they may perceive as the most suitable frame for their home audiences. As, a German journalist, Cornelia Fuch says:

…you can read American newspapers from Germany but that doesn’t mean that you understand what the Tea Party is all about, you know? Because the newspapers in New York or Washington write for American audiences, and American audiences know about a lot of things that German audiences have never heard about. (Archetti, 2013, p. 431)

There are pessimistic views about the future of foreign correspondents. Their arguments rely to at least two major reasons: the fact that information and telecommunication technology has made global communication easier, faster, and cheaper; and the fact that having foreign correspondents is very expensive and redundant. However, it has been argued that despite all of those challenges, foreign correspondent is still needed and even has brighter future (Archetti, 2013). If a crisis as a distant event can be instantly understood globally without mediatized, then why foreign correspondent is still needed?

Conclusion

What I want to put forward here is an idea that a crisis has always been mediatized by journalist. As a result, I argue, there is no single event in this world that can be seen as a same crisis to different audiences (in different localities, countries, etc.). Therefore, what we understand as ‘global crisis reporting’ is actually about a certain local crisis which is reported for other local audiences. The ethical and moral aspects in acting for the distant others also become invalid as it is paralysed by the local constraints.

I also suggest that the more a crisis is reported to many other localities, the more it will be perceived as a global crisis. However, I want to again reiterate that there isn’t such ‘global crisis’ but ‘local crisis’. Therefore, instead of using ‘global crisis reporting’, I suggest, it might also be best to use ‘crisis reporting’, as I may argue that the only global crisis would be: the doomsday (if we believe it will happen).