Stereotyping in Sports Photo (Reflection paper)

Almost every photo in the newspaper is highly selective view of the actual world on whatever subject it is. However, when we read a newspaper and look at pictures we do not think about selection. We just accept photos as they are. We get used to see sports photos expressing Joy of victory or Agony of Defeat. I, personally, like such photos because it is like they bring me into an action and make me feel the same way: be happy or sad.

Sports pictures are very strong. They inspire people the most of the time. I love to see pictures of young and energetic people (athletes) in newspapers and magazines. Honestly, I never thought about stereotypes created by those pictures till I read Dianne Hagaman’s article. As the author wrote “Newspaper photographers solve this problem (to have sufficient “impact” to catch the readers’ eye) by making highly conventionalized images, using a limited number of visual components and compositional devices to illustrate a limited number of ideas or “stories”. In this problem solving process a photographer is not along. Editors and reporters play important roles, too: assigning and telling a story idea.

In the International Issues Reporting class, we talked a lot about stereotypes of certain countries and nationalities. We have learned that the stereotypes are considered to be “pictures in the head” of individuals looking out into their social worlds (Lippmann, 1922). In this sense, the pictures of athletes are already in our heads and photographers just are reinforcing those thoughts by offering pictures from certain places. People already know there will be a happy winner, a sad loser, an angry coach and emotional fans.

There are two kinds of approaches in stereotyping: individual and collective. In general, mass media are important collective repository for group stereotypes. For example, stereotyping in pictures from Sport land is provided by group values and group behavior and it is culturally shared with the people. Regarding to sport celebrities, there could be individual approach to their stereotyping. For example, picture of flying Michael Jordan.

A.Oyungerel

February, 2001

Photography in Science (Reflection paper)

Photography as a scientific tool. I did know about it, but I never thought about it deeply until those readings in the book “The power of the Photography” by Vicki Goldberg. Things, not people are dominated in scientific pictures. But those things are situated in different places: on the Earth or in the Space and inside or outside of a body… Some of them are gigantic and some of them are invisible objects. The most of them are movable and changeable. Those characteristics make difficult to shoot objects. Therefore, some pictures are taken accidentally and some pictures are taken with careful preparations.

Goldberg pointed out historical perspectives of scientific pictures which was very interesting to read. She What she used as a single fact or an example could be a topic of a whole story or book. For instance, how Fox Talbot took pictures through a solar microscope or how Henry Draper photographed the Sun is worth of a book. There might be separate books about those events. Just I wanted to say that Goldberg’s book makes me thirsty for further readings.

The photograph is a lobbyist. The photograph is an evidence. Those were other interesting points described from historical perspective as well. She gave several examples of using photographs in setting up National Parks in America. A set of photos was sent to the President and legislators and they approved the bill. Photos contributed to creation of National Parks because they were “influential scientific report” (p.40).

Another thing I liked in this reading is international perspective in using photography in various field. And I started to think about my country as usual connecting to this subject. As I know American naturalist, explorer and author Roy Chapman Andrews (1884-1960) made expedition to Central Asia at the beginning of the last century. He discovered the first known fossil dinosaur eggs in Mongolia and brought them to the American Museum of Natural History. He was one of the first foreign scientists who took not only pictures of his discoveries but also pictures of ordinary people. Before coming foreigners on the Mongolian land people had no idea about photography. Thanks to those pictures, we know how were Mongolian people a century ago. People were very shy in front of the camera. Even, it seemed, they were scared. As I read in the book, some people thought their spirit was gone with the sound from the camera.

A.Oyungerel

March, 2001

Family photography

Introduction

Family photographs are taken to remember and to be remembered. They represent individuals who share ties and kinship or household. Family photographs and albums are a medium of interpersonal, small group communication. In this sense, we first offer to our guests the family photo albums. Actually, we serve the guests with the tea (To serve visitors first with hot tea with milk and salt is a tradition in my country) and then give the albums. This way we usually begin our interaction with others. When the guests drink tea, they change just a few words of greetings. While they start to look at the pictures, they ask many things to know or clarify. They may find common things to share or different things seemed exciting. The light discussion based on photographs help me a lot to interact with other people. By nature I am not a talkative person. It is always been hard for me to start discussion with people even I know them very well. Therefore, to offer my guests to see the family albums became a habit for me. Photos can talk on behalf of me because a picture may be “worth of a 1000 words”.

On the other hand, family photographs function as cultural documents serving the needs of social continuity and integration (Chalfen, p.15). We get a lot of information from previously taken family photos and transfer a lot of information by our family photos. My family has many photos albums back in Mongolia, but we brought here several of them. Physically, it was difficult to bring all of them because they would not fit in the luggage. My twin daughters, 13 who came to America five months later than me, selected photos from our family albums. They decided to bring here photos of their grandparents, relatives, cousins, their classmates and our nuclear family photos. They left photos of our friends and pictures of my and their father’s childhood or student hood. They selected dominantly color pictures except three or four black and white pictures. Therefore, this paper will be based on highly selected pictures. By nature, family photos “…are not simple mechanical records of real events”, they are “carefully selected and socially patterned representations of different features of family life” (Musello, p.106). However, my family albums brought to America even more selective; they went through two gate keeping processes: one is by photographers who took the pictures and another is by my daughters who decided what pictures to bring.

As Matthews and Wexler wrote, “Family photographs can be formal or informal, made by professionals or intimates, and taken in a studio, at home or in another location” (p.81). The photos for analysis in this paper are mostly informal pictures taken by amateur photographs including me and my family members except several. Those informal pictures had been taken since 1992 when we possessed an automatic Nikon camera. By that time, a camera was considered one of the luxury things in Mongolian society. Not every family had a camera. But now things are changed. I think families with cameras are more than families without cameras. Before having a camera, we went to studios to be photographed or asked someone to come to our family gatherings. According to Chalfen, “Historically, the production of personal imagery has been the province of the political, aristocratic, or otherwise influential elite. However, the making of snapshots and family albums allows ordinary people to participate in this means of documentation, preservation and communication” (P.15).

Family photography were studied from many perspectives: as a form of folklore (Kotkin 1978), from social class differences (Gardner) and in cross cultural contexts (Chalfen1987) etc. A researcher Kotkin defined three levels of family photography. First, Photographs evoke stories and expressions. Second, they derive from widely shared values and aesthetics. Third, they become part of the rituals (P.6). I am trying to classify my family photos by these three levels and analyze them in this paper.

Photographs evoking stories and expressions

Viewed over time, photographs evoke stories and expressions, and may even serve as the basis for family legends. Among the pictures we brought, our nuclear family pictures are dominating. We did not have a camera when my twin daughters were born. When we first time to bring them to the studio they were five and half months. It was a sudden decision during our walks in the fresh air. Five people are on this pictures (August, 1987) including my husband, my kids, me and my husband’s younger sister who helped us to grow my twins(Figure 1). A few days after this picture a scary thing happened in my family: one of my twins had a terrible stomachache. She got in emergency room and then she spent a month in a hospital mostly with her father. I was between a hospital and home because I suppose to breast feed another one and look after the sick daughter. It was a hard time for me. I thought that I was going to lose her. My mother-in law is very superstitious woman. She believed that we brought my daughters to the studio at wrong time. She had own justification to say that because one boy of her eight children died when he was infant. Some days before his death, she brought him to the studio. He was healthy by that time, but after taking pictures he got sick and doctors could not save his life. His nude picture is still in the family album of my parents-in-law. Fortunately, my daughter’s life was saved. She recovered very slowly. Her teeth came out late and she did her first steps later than another one.

Her late development reflected on the second picture which was taken in 1989, one and half year apart from the first picture of my twins. One of my twins looks smaller and thinner than another one (Figure 2). This was their second birthday. According to Mongolian tradition, we should cut hair of girls when they reach even ages and hair of boys when they reach odd ages starting from three. We intentionally brought them to be photographed. This was not only an expression of parental affection but also a culturally defined duty to the young. This individual photo highlights that their hair was cut of which is very important for Mongolians who traditionally believe that not cutting infant hair brings many downs in a person’s life. A photographer who all day spent to take pictures in the background settings of Sukhbaatar Square, a main square in Ulaanbaatar city, took this picture. When we came to pick up this picture, we found a white spot on the forehead of one daughter. We were very frustrated. The photographer suggested to bring my kids again for taking of another picture. But for my husband and I, it was important to keep the birthday’s picture of my daughters with shiny heads to show them later.

Also, without this picture my twins would hardly believe that they were bow-legged because of deficiency of calcium in their bodies. Currently, they look at this picture and laugh. After that, we went to the studio at least once a year.

Until one of my twins said me “I want to be photographed along”, I did not realize that we are treating the twins like one person: dressing the same clothes, taking their pictures always together and suggesting them to do the same thing. Philosophically, there is no exactly the same people even though they are twins or brothers and sisters. I did think about it but I do not remember did I take a separate picture when she asked. Even teachers at the day care center treated them not separable. Once they invited a studio photographer to the center. The photographer brought male and female national costumes. Each girl and boy was photographed separately but not my twins. To take their photo together they dressed one of the twins like a man and took the picture (Figure 3).

After their younger sister was born, all three of them became subjects on many pictures. My youngest daughter was photographed when she had a hair cut as well but not in studio. Nancy Holm, an American journalist took her picture while we were traveling in the rural area. (Figure 4) This picture has more quality. It was processed in Denmark. Since that time, my youngest daughter became a single subject of our family photography. Her picture taken in July 1999 by a professional photographer Dorjiin Dygar took first place in the photo contest organized by a Japanese photo agency Konica. At that time I was in America and I got this news when I called home. My husband told a history of this photograph after coming here to join me.

Initially, my Japanese friend Norica Sato who gave a kimono to my youngest daughter asked me to send my daughter’s photo wearing the kimono. I wrote e-mail to my husband to send such picture. He asked Dygar to take picture of my daughter. Even though my husband had a camera, he wanted more nice picture relying on an ability of a professional photographer. Dygar took some pictures inside and outside. Then he asked my husband if he could photograph my daughter for the photo contest. His idea was to take a picture on the top of the building. My husband agreed and they got a permission to go to the roof of the building from the manager. (I am sure that if I were at home by that time and if they asked me to take my kid to the top, I would not give a permission.) Some my nephews followed them to support my kid who was only six. He tried several shots and send them to the contest commission. A month later he and my daughter got invitations to come to the ceremony where they found out the picture called “The prayer” took the first place. It is very colorful picture. My daughter in yellow kimono is staying on the roof of the nine story building close to the blue sky. Behind her images of blurred mountains and roofs of other buildings (Figure 5). “Mom, I was scared. It was very windy there” she told me later.

Each photo has own history because “cameras don’t take pictures, people do” (Byer, p.27). Everything related to certain photos on people who take those photos. When my husband do photographing he tends to make nice photos. He is very careful in choosing background settings. In contrast, I prefer to take action photos because they are very natural looking. I don’t like organized photos or juxtapositions. I want to be more agressive than my husband while taking photos. Now my twins already have learned how to photograph and they take pictures they want. We bought them one small digital camera to encourage them in photographing.

As single photographs represent one way that a family images itself in particular time in space, the album is a way of organizing those images into cohesive record of shared experience.

Photographs shared values and aesthetics

People pose in similar ways and have similar settings in their photos. It means those photos derive from widely shared values and aesthetics. Many images in my family albums are made with considerable deliberation. For instance, no matter who was a photographer, subjects in the photos were posed in important background settings as in many tourist snapshots. My husband and his friend (1992) chose a big Budda Statue as a backgound in Taiwan (Fiqure 6). Brigitte, a librarian of the Danish School of Journalism and I (1996) were standing in front of a traditional house made of straw at Arhus natural museum in Denmark (Fiqure 7). My sister in-law with her niece (1998) at the Red Square in Moscow (Fiqure 8). The Mongolians have a proverb saying that “ It is better to see once than to hear a thousand times”. Usually we take photographs not only to keep for ourselves but also to show others and to prove of what we have seeing or where we have been to. When we travel abroad, we try to include famous constructions or buildings as background settings. Since my country is landlocked and it does not have exit to ocean, to see ocean or sea was always my dream. Therefore, I take pictures if I go to see big waters. And I have two pictures taken on the bank of sea. But water is not an attractive background for people seeing those photos. That is why, I explain “This is a photo made on the bank of Northern Sea with Brigitte” or “This is Nurgul, a Mongolian journalist and I in front of the Japan Sea”. Just after that explanation people started to look carefully.

But sometimes background settings can confuse people. There are two photos to concern about that. One is made in Tokyo in 1998. But the appearance of the Statue of Liberty behind Nurgul and I always confuse people (Fiqure 9). By that time I never went to the U.S. But some people who did not have any idea where the Statue of Liberty is situated could think I really was in New York. Another photo taken in Chicago in front of the building alike the Babel Tower gives to some people understanding that I have been to Italy (Fiqure 10). Once a friend of mine asked me “When did you go to Italy?”.

Many photographs in our family albums represent Mongolian culture which is unique by its nomadic style. Even though we live in the city at least two or three times a year we go to rural area sometimes with whole family and sometimes with foreign journalists. People in the nature is one of the main subjects of my family photographing. My husband feels like a child when he rides a horse. That is why I took his picture. But his photo taking by a Danish student specialized as a photographer is more clearly shows his happiness. From this picture we can see his full face. My daughters are interested in everything in rural area. They pictures could great series named “City girls in the rural area.” They want to try everything: to ride a horse or reindeer, to touch baby goat or to sleep in a tent. My husband and I tried to reflect their excitement in pictures. But it is impossible to reflect everything and every moment.

Because we are from family oriented culture, kinship photographs are most important assets of my family. My husband and I both from extended family. He is the third child among seven siblings and I am the third one too but among nine children. In Mongolian culture family gathering is important thing. Both my mother and my mother-in-law always want to have small kids around themselves. When my kids were small they expected to come us on every weekend. If we escaped one weekend they were offended. It became a habit for us to take my kids to their grandparents homes. Obviously, they always wanted to spend holidays together with all their children and grandchildren. Sometimes, we took pictures on the family gatherings where everybody was happy to pose. Hardest thing is to make copy available for all families on the pictures.

Photographs become part of the rituals

Photographs capture the common folkloric events in the family such as birthdays, weddings, and holidays. We do not imagine such events without people photographing or recording. This way photographs become part of the rituals they record.

Historically, in Mongolia, it was a tradition to celebrate 50-th, 60-th and 80-th anniversaries of the birthday of a person. It was not convention to celebrate children’s birthdays except a ritual for newborn child which is similar to baptizing in Christian countries. However, under the influence of Western culture Mongolian families started to celebrate their children’s birthdays. We celebrated several time s the birthdays of my kids. Only picture of my youngest daughter’s birthday celebration was kept in our family album. She was turning five years and she was like Snow White (Fiqure 11). Coming here changed the way of celebration of birthdays in our family. Here even my husband and I celebrated our birthdays.

We had series of our wedding photos. They were all in black and white. In 1987, the Wedding Palace did not take color pictures. Here we brought only one picture of our wedding. Recently, we received pictures of the wedding of the youngest sister of my husband (Fiqure 12). It is very nice and bright picture I ever seeing. Apparently, photographing of wedding at the Wedding Palace became so professional. Wedding photos are becoming art photos.

In my family album we have local or nonlocal photographs. It is different classification from Gardner’s which means “Local photographs comprised those taken within the immediate vicinity of the respondent’s home or within an adjacent community and, in either case, within a 20-mile radius of the home. If the boundary of picture-taking extended beyond this parameter, the picture was classified as nonlocal.” Concerning geographic boundaries, the pictures taken in my country are considered to be local and the pictures abroad are nonlocal. Living in America expands our family pictures. Everybody in my family is alert to take pictures wherever we go to Chicago, Jefferson or to Saint-Louis. Although photography takes time and costs money, it is becoming one of the characteristics of my family along with traveling.

References:

Chalfen. R (1987). Snapshot Versions. 71-99

Chalfen. R. Japanese American Family Photography: A brief Report of Research on home Mode Communication in Cross-Cultural Contexts. 12-16

Gardner. S. Exploring the Family album: Social class Differences in Images of Family life. 243-250

Kotkin. A. (1978). The family Photo Album as a Form of Folklore. 4-8

Musello. C. (1977). Family Photography in Images of Information. 101-119

A.Oyungerel

February, 2001

Princess Diana, Press and paparazzi

Introduction

Diana was the first Princess of Wales in a long time, and she became a powerful national symbol in the United Kingdom. As John Taylor (2000) characterizes her, “She had personal qualities that appealed very broadly, but she was more than a celebrity.” Public reaction to her unexpected death in 1997 was clearly something more than adulation for a popular public figure. The New York Times (September 5, 1997) wrote that not since Britain’s victory in the Second World War had such powerful emotion swept London, the capital. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister (1997), said the public had an almost religious reverence because she “symbolized something about humanity and the way we would like to be.”

Diana was a condensed symbol of love, divorce, fragmented families, stardom and failure, beauty and eating disorders, also of marginalized groups like AIDS, leprosy, and landmine victims. In addition, she had the charisma that only certain royal have an undoubted regality that sets apart, along with the ability to connect with ordinary people through touch and look. (Walter, p.17)

During the massive public grief and since then, the public intensely criticized both the monarchy and the press. There are certain reasons why the public would condemn these two insitutions in the unexpected death of the Princess of Wales

National and personal identity

Obviously, the Queen and the Prince had no intention to kill Diana. However, two factors had formed public opinion that they were hostile to her. First factor is the Diana‘s active role in transvaluation of national values. Second is the image of the Princess framed by the media.

The marriage of Lady Diana Spenser to Charles, Prince of Wales, in 1981, and Diana’s funeral, in 1997, defined a period during which British values shifted or transformed themselves. The marriage betokened long-established moderate Protestant and secular values that centered on household and that required the sacrifice of private interest for public good. The funeral is the most notable and truly extraordinary British event of the decade, which showed that British values now sanction self-interested and autonomous individuals.

Britain forged a very strong community with secular values of sacrifice for the public good. Margaret Thatcher broke this postwar consensus when she became a Prime Minister in 1979. Primarily, she intended only to unleash economic self-interest and to crush socialism, not to make changes in British values of family and household. But autonomous individuals, each of, whom claimed a right to seek personal profit, benefit, or advantage, reconstructed moderate Protestant and secular values. For instance, women, people of color, and male homosexuals were among those whom previous British values had marginalized and oppressed. So they claimed their rights to self-interest and individual autonomy during the Thatcher’s years. Diana was a vivid example for them because she was an individual who had a love-and-hate relationship with the old system of values.

According to German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies in the nineteenth century, there are two types of social values: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. He meant by Gemeinschaft “a social relationship between individuals based on affection, kinship, or membership of a community, as within a family or group of friends.” He meant by Gesellschaft “ a social relationship between individuals based on duty to society or to an organization (Taylor, p.7).” Those two parameters present in any society and no more than preponderance or imbalance of one or other.

In a case of Diana, her marriage was a celebration of Gemeinschaft values because monarchy as family meant monarchy as household. During the 1980s and 1990s, there was a major diminution of Gemeinschaft values. Diana’s later assertion of self-interest made her a symbol of change in the status of women. Finally, Diana’s funeral was a signal that the balance of British values had decisively shifted to the side of Gesellschaft.

The press coverage of Diana showed the analogy between her life and fairy tales. Although she came from a noble family, she often had been depicted as a Cinderella by the press. Her funeral has been showed in a parallel with the tale Snow White. Many journalists used the fairy-tale parallel when writing about her marriage. For example, Journalist Diane Clehane (1998) thought the fairy tale symbolism was mirrored by Diana’s clothes: something new (silk from Lulingstone, the only silk farm in England), something old (diamond drop earnings of her mother), something borrowed (tiara from Spencer family), and something blue (bow adorned her waist). Further, the press brought many times the subject of Diana’s clothes onto the arena of public discussion.

Like a good fairy tale, the Princess was not only young and beautiful but also winsome and sweet and good and kind. In a word, she was a champion of the oppressed and common people. Diana associated with underdogs who loved her, but the royal family was jealous of her. Fairy tales often portray active older women as evil. So the press, particularly tabloids, transformed Queen Elizabeth II into a wicked stepmother after Diana’s death. Readers imagined that wicked Queen Elizabeth pursued Diana and, in fear for her life, Diana ran away. The handsome Prince, claim the tabloids, did not save her. In contrast, the Prince was weak, indifferent, and mostly absent.

The tabloid coverage about Diana’s life was factually implausible, but the factual errors were only half the faults. The tabloid authors depicted Diana as passive, victimized, but also the good woman. This way they reinforced Gemeinschaft values. They did not recognize Diana as a symbol of a new transvalued gender role. Even a year after her death the tabloid newspapers are using her ambiguous phrase “The palace is out to get me!” In addition, they had supplied the details said by Morton Andrew, the Diana’s own-chosen biographer. Morton said, “Diana fully expected a murder attempt. At the very least, she thought she’d be committed to a mental institution (Freilich, 1998).”

In reality, Diana symbolized the new balance of values. The views in the tabloids were old-fashioned because of changes in British values. Diana’s example led women away from Cinderella or Snow White and away from the damaged female identity in those and other classic fairy tales. She led nation away from a narrow conception of liberty that denied people of color and homosexuals their rights.

Relationship between Diana and the Press

Researchers Billig (1992) and Watson (1997) strongly concluded about the relationship between Diana and the Press. They pointed out that nor does the argument stand up that Diana was simply a creation of the media, like Hollywood stars and soap opera characters. Diana’s royal status existed prior to her ‘Hollywoodization,’ and indeed without this status she would never have entered the world of stardom. Media commentator Merrin (1999) said the same thesis: Diana was herself no more than a media image, and the mourning and the funeral were likewise no more than a media event. Walter (1999) wrote that in adding charisma and media-nouce to a public office that existed independent of the media, Diana was more like John F. Kennedy than the stars of cinema and television that are nothing without these media.

The pictures evidently showed that before the separation from Prince Charles in 1992 she was shy in front of the camera. The pictures of her after 1992 showed her as an active and stylish woman. Why there were such changes? First, a little biography.

Diana was born on July 1, 1961, at Park House, Sandrinham, in the English County of Norfolk. Diana’s father, Edward John Spencer, Viscount Anthrop with his family rented the house from the Queen. Diana was her parents’ third child, and her birth disappointed them because they hoped for a son. Later, they had a son, Charles, in 1964. In turn, Diana resented bitterly both her parents’ hope she had been a boy and their subsequent divorce. She was a childhood playmate of royal Princess, especially the present Duke of York and his brother, Prince Edward. She had a fine education, including boarding schools in England and Monteux, on Lake Geneva, in Switzerland. She never attended university. It was a point that her opponents later used to taunt her. Her contacts with royal family, and especially with Prince Charles, determined the course of her life.

On February 24, 1981, Prince Charles and Diana announced their engagement, and on July 29, 1981, they were married in St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. Hundreds of millions of people around the world watched the ceremony on television. Prince William, their first son, was born on June 21, 1982, and Prince Henry, the second son, on September 15, 1984. Diana was unhappy in the marriage, however, because her husband carried on his old relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles. As a result, Diana suffered various emotional illnesses. Appealing to the public, she allowed Andrew Morton, a journalist, to write out her troubles in a book, including her fear at one stage that the royal family would have her judged insane. Spokesman for the royal family taunted her in public. “Princess Diana could never have won a university place, but she won a prince and failed to keep him. She addicted to the limelight her marriage brought her. It’s like a drug.”

Diana and Charles made a formal separation in 1992, but both maintained a façade of cooperation in order to raise jointly their two sons. They divorced on August 28, 1996, and Charles gave Diana a substantial financial payment. After the separation and the divorce, Diana remained astonishingly popular. Millions adored her, and she used her popularity to assist many charities, especially those for sick children, battered women, land-mine victims, and AIDS patients. She was the most famous and most photographed woman in the twentieth century. Journalists hounded her, especially the freelance photographers known as paparazzi. Diana died on August 31, 1997, in Paris in an auto wreck. Her lover, Dodi Al Fayed, and the driver, Henri Paul, died in the same wreck. Diana’s and Dodi’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, was seriously injured but survived.

Applying to personal identity theory, Taylor interpreted Diana’s identity crisis, which happened, twice in her life (p.36). Diana had a crisis when she failed her exams at school and could not get into university. She had eating disorders then. Denied intellectual status and university place, Diana decided she had to marry a notable man. Morton revealed that Diana pushed to marry to the Prince of Wales, not he to marry her. So the marriage to Prince Charles was a result of Diana’s young adult identity crisis, not its cause. She wished to play an independent and important role, equal to her talants, but royal marriage did not supply her opportunities, she thought. Diana had another crisis of identity diffusion under the stress of her marriage. Having heavy duties as Princess of Wales, she had sought refuge in pregnancy despite Prince Charles wanted to wait three years before having children so that the marriage would grow and be solid. Having children could not help her to escape the pressures of official life.

She consulted with psychotherapist Susie Orbach who opposed monarchy and supported British republic. Orbach’s view deeply influenced Diana. Orbach recommended that Diana assert self-interest as the cure for psychological and physical problems. Diana did turn from naïve confusion to a bold and mature assertion of self-interest. She was confused just before and after the separation. She acted decisively in making any revelations to Morton at all because she had broken palace tradition and angered her husband and the Queen. (She had a lover James Hewitt, an army officer). Her clear goal was to earn the public’s whole sympathy, and she never lost it. She was much more skillful in the context of obtaining a divorce settlement of thirty million dollars.

According to old court traditions, royal men were allowed adultery, but women were not. Courtiers maintain the connection between the royal court and outside world. They control the monarchy’s publicity or public relations. Hostile to Sarah, the Duches of York, they used their public relations power and deliberately exposed her adultery to press photographers and to her husband. As a result Sarah’s connection to the royal family was destroyed. Diana realized that what courtiers had done to Sarah they could do to her. Courtiers required her to sacrifice private will and to maintain the public image of the monarchy.

Hollywood public relations specialist Michael Levine (1998) wrote that Diana managed one brilliant public relations coup after another so called a ‘package’ of public relations products. She avowed her behavior and at the same time emphasized her children and her important charity work. This skill was native to her. During the television news show Panorama on BBC, she told to news analyst Martin Bashir about her complications and fears that the palace would pronounce her mad or incompetent and deprive her status and access to her sons. That interview was a turning point that led to divorce on terms favorable to the Princess. Far from being mad, Diana became candid and competent. Benefiting from Orbach’s theraphy, Diana transcended her mother’s model. Accused of adultery, her mother had been unable to assert her rights. Unlike her mother, Diana was able to retain custody of her children. She also transcended the example of Sarah, Duches of York, who got a very small settlement from the Duke of York. She received 1.4 million pound sterling in trust for her two daughters and 600, 000 pound sterling for herself and was reduced to doing cranberry juice and Weight Watcher commercial advertisements. She had to give up her royal title. Diana, on the other hand, obtained nearly thirty million dollars from the Prince.

However, Queen Elizabeth II ordered that Diana’s name not to be mentioned in the Queen’s presence again, and her majesty deprived the Princess of the title “Her Royal Highness.” The Queen did allow aircraft to fetch Diana’s body back to Britain, but she did it with very great reluctance.

Childhood friends, Sarah and Diana defied court etiquette together. Press photographs showed them laughing at royal functions and poking people with umbrellas. To allow herself a royal public role as a divorced woman and confessed adulteress, to allow herself, that is, to assert her self-interest, Diana had to break the royal family’s long tradition. Her actions coincided with the shift to a new equilibrium of British values, an equilibrium of which she became the symbol. As Lady Colin Campbell (1997) noted, Diana was not intellectual, but she was intelligent. So she did know how to use media to create a public adoration for her. Diana understood that the British, and specially the English, have always used discussion of monarchy as sort of national shorthand for discussions of moral rules, identity, and national direction.

Diana perfected consumer culture because she displayed magnificent patterns of consumption. Also, she made few references to high culture but many to the consumer culture. Diana’s interaction with consumer image made her resemble pop artists such as Andy Warhol. Pop art was a movement of the 1950s that constructed a middle ground between high art and low art. According to Taylor, high art is of exalted quality or style, lofty, elevated, or superior. Low art means advertising or ordinary media. In other words, pop art is both a movement of ideas and a clearly defined subsection in a larger, inchoate consumer culture.

Paparazzi

At the Diana’s funeral, her brother Earl Spencer spoke against media. On the other hand, critics have suggested that ‘the people’ were crudely manipulated by the media, notably by television and the tabloids. The tabloids immediately attacked for causing Diana’s death, needed to rehabilitate themselves. They did this in a number of ways. First, they ran the story that the driver was drunk, thus absolving the paparazzi of significant responsibility. Second, as the week progressed, main news story not Princess’s death but the public responses to her death, which was thereby amplified as more and more people decided to join in the mourning portrayed in the media pictures that saturated the week. Third, this enabled the press to point the finger at the Royal Family for being out of touch with ‘the people’.

A French magistrate ruled that Henri Paul had been driving while intoxicated. However, the photographers were blamed most from the side of the public. For instance, Mohammed Al Fayed’s (Dodi’s father) attorney Georges Kiejman argued “Paul’s alcohol level does not change the problem. Certainly alcohol played a role in the sharing of responsibilities. But the initial responsibility is that of the photographers whose behavior required him to take a route that was not the normal route, at a speed that he should not have driving at. No paparazzi, no accident (Sancton and Mcleod, p.299).”

After Diana’s death, ten photographers faced the voluntary homicide charges that were dropped latter half of 1998 and several of them faced non-assistance charges (?)

Diana’s behavior and appearance were reportable and camera worthy all the times since she became the Princess of Wales. As Goldberg pointed out, the camera is a particularly exacting taskmaster of the famous (p.133).

Diana’s paparazzi phobia was getting to Dodi as well. The couple had a secret six-day vacation in July 1997 in the Mediterranean on the board of the Jonikal. When they flew back to London, Dodi dropped off Diana by helicopter at Kensington Palace. They were back on British soil before anybody knew about their trip. Anyone, that is, except for a pair of photographers named Mario Brenna and Jason Fraser. Brenna, the Italian based in Monaco, had already made a name for himself as a celebrity photographer. Fraser was the British photojournalist who brokered their publication in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. On August 1997, the Sunday Mirror put the six-by-seven inch color picture with the headline “The kiss” and the subhead “Locked in her lover’s arms, the princess finds happiness at last.” Inside of the Sunday Mirror another ten pages of photographs were published from Brenna’s shoot. Technical quality was not great, but the scoop was all that mattered. The Sunday Mirror paid 250,000 pounds for the first rights; The Sun and the Daily Mail paid 100, 000 pound sterling each for the second rights, available the next day.

It was more complicated to avoid paparazzi every day. One Greek newspaper had offered 280 million drachmas for a picture of Diana. The captain of their small cruiser would call his friends around Greece to learn the whereabouts of paparazzi, and then he would motor in the opposite direction. Once they had eluded the media, Diana said to her Rosa Monckton who had a vacation together “It’s a hunt, Rosa, it’s a hunt.“ But truth is, despite all Diana’s dramatizing about the hunt, no paparazzi ever came within miles of them (Sancton and McLeod, p.136).

Diana did not object to the photos per se -- as long as she could exert some direct or indirect control over what pictures were taken. Images of her looking tanned; healthy, relaxed, and happy did not seem to trouble her. What she detested was being constantly hunted by any job with a camera and a motorbike that fancied her as easy prey for a quick quid. Diana clearly adored the results when she agreed to photo shoots with glamour photographers like Snowden, Terrence Donovan, Patrick Demarchelier, and Maria Testino. Paparazzi were the wolf pack she hated, not pictures.

At the very last day, when they arrived at Le Bourget airport Dodi could see the paparazzi from the window and asked the Transair personnel if they could help them to avoid cameras. There was not much anyone could do about it. As soon as the door opened, the cameras started clicking. The resulting pictures along with other following photographs later became evidences for the investigation and the court process.

Not every photographer can deal with paparazzi. So who were those ten photographers hunting after the Princess Di and her lover Dodi and what they told about themselves?

Jacques L angevin, 44. He was sent to the Ritz on August 30 because he was Sygma’s duty man that weekend. He said, “ it’s not shameful to do photos of people. It is not my choice, but I do consider myself a versatile photographer.” His prize-winning work from such far-flung places as Rwanda, Lebanon, China, the Gulf War, and the Atlanta Olympics attests to his versatility. He was wounded by a bullet in the leg while covering the Romanian revolution in 1989.

Romuald Rat, 24. He is remembered as the guy who leaned into the wrecked Mercedes and put his hand on Diana’s neck to take her pulse. “Romauld is a nice guy, there is never a problem with him,” said a limousine driver who often drives stars around France. “Whenever he does a star, he will give me copies of the photos.” “He’ll come up to me and ask where we’re headed next.”

Christian Martinez, 41, is true paparazzi. He works for the Angeli agency. He is a 15-year veteran on the business. A newspaper editor who worked with him said, “Martinez is a good professional-but sometimes he tries too hard and goes too far.” A French reporter who had worked with him on numerous assignments called him “ a truculent, mean-spirited guy always ready to punch it out.” He described himself as a “ nervous guy ready to jump into action at the drop of a hat.” Martinez admitted that he had exchanged sharp words with Rat in the Alma Tunnel because Rat tried to prevent him and others from taking close-up pictures of the victims.

Serge Benhamou, 44. He works with the well-known celebrity photographer Laszlo Veres. He is less paparazzo than a groupie is. He always rides a scooter. He left the scene earlier than others because he “could not stand it.” He told police he did not want to see the pictures he had taken “because I took photos and now I know that people are dead. It is a horrible memory.”

Laszlo Veres, 50 is a native Hungarian, runs own agency specializing in celebrity and fashion photography. He came to the scene because Benhamou called him on a portable phone. When he heard about the accident he thought it was a banal fender bender. “I was amazed when I saw the car. I took a few photos of the overall scene from about thirty meters away.” Some years ago, Alain Delon’s car collided with him during an abortive chase. “He is wily, gruff, ans secretive, but basically a good egg,” said an American celebrity journalist.

Serge Arnal, 35, is celebrity specialist, too. “Our photographer was only a ‘people’ photographer, who usually does festivals and parties,” said his boss Bruno Calin, head of the Stills agency. Pursuing Di and Dodi in his black Fiat Uno, with Martinez at his side, Arnal lost sight of the Mercedes. Several minutes later, he came upon the wreck. He parked his car 30 meters down the road. Martinez jumped out and hurried towards the wreck. Arnal, who was afraid of blood, hung back. He dialed 112 emergency number. He was only photographer to make this effort.

Fabrice Chassery, 30, and David Oderkerken, 26. They work for an authentic paparazzo agency, LS Presse. They took several rolls of film and left just at the moment when police started pushing photographers back. They drove directly to the office of Laurent Sola, the head of the agency, and dropped film off for processing. Sola had developed pictures immediately and selected five photographs of Diana being treated by medics. The pictures were transmitted by computer to his agent in London. Orders from Britain, Spain, Italy, and Germany totaled more than a million pound sterling. Then at 5:44 a.m. Agence France-Presse, the French National wire service ran its first dispatch on Diana’s death. Oderkerken and Chassery immediately phoned Sola and asked not to sell the pictures.

Lionel Cherruault, 37. He is a London based french photographer from Sipa. In order to track down copies of the accident photos that had made their way to England, British authorities sent someone to Cherruault’s apartment. The visitors took credit cards, cash and keys from Mrs. Cherruault’s purse. They also removed two external hard disk drives and a laptop computer, leaving the photographer’s negatives, papers, and other electronic gadgets untouched. Despite such extraordinary efforts, accident pictures appeared in the German tabloid Bild-Zeitung, and the Italian newsweekly Panaroma.

Nikola Arsov, 38. He was never blamed for selling Diana photos to a tabloid because he forgot to turn on his electronic flash in the heat of the action and not a single one of his pictures came out. He emigrated from Macedonia to France 20 years ago. He worked as a Sipa motorcycle driver for seven years before taking up the camera himself a year ago. “Any photographer would have done the same thing. TV cameramen would have done it if they’d been there. I’m no paparazzo. I just photographed Tony Blair. What the hell is this all about? Everything is all mixed up!” he said.

Those ten different men with different experiences in the business and representing different agencies were blamed in causing accident led to the three persons’ death: Diana, Dodi and Henri.

Conclusion

Relationship between a public figure/famous person and the media is complex. When their interests coincide, they have love-relationship like Diana’s interview to Martin Bashir on BBC or her specially posing pictures for the media. When they have different interests, they hate each other. In terms of paparazzi, a hate relationship might reach the highest level. On one hand, a public figure has two sides in her/his life: private and public. As far as the public life concerns, a public figure wants more publicity and allows the media to cover. Often he/she invites media people to follow his/her public appearance. However, a public figure does not want his/her private life is publicized. On the other hand, the media wants cover every step of a public figure for their audience. As a former Turkish journalist Sipahioglu said, “I am saddened, because someone we adored is dead. But when you become Lady Di, you become a public person. She was posing all the time in St. Tropez, in Bosnia. We can’t be hypocrites about this.” He added: “The only thing that might slow them down is that there are no more personalities like Lady Di.”

Reference

Campbell, C. (1998). The real Diana. New York:St Martin’s,

Clehance, D. (1998). Diana: The secrets of Her Style. New York: GT Publishing

Freilich, L. (1998, October 20) Diana’s secret fear: Palace is out to get me! They will stop at nothing. Star

Warren, H. (1997, September 5). Diana Buried as a Capital Mourns. New York Times, Midwest edition

Sancton, T. & Macleod, S. (1998.) Death of a Princess: The investigation. St. Martin’s Press

Taylor, J. (2000) Diana, Self-Interest, and British National Identity.Westport. Connecticut

Blair, T. (1997, September 26). interview by David Frost, Talkng with David Frost, Burrels Information Services. Livingston, NJ,

Walter, T. (1999). The Mourning for Diana. Oxford. New York,

A.Oyungerel

April, 2001

Төгсөгчдөдөө хандаж хэлэх нь

Дөнгөж сая "Сэтгүүлч" коллежийн 2009 оны төгсөлтийн ёслолын ажиллагаанд онлайнаар оролцон мэндчилгээ дэвшүүллээ. Төгсөж буй оюутнууддаа хандаж хэлсэн үгээ блог дээрээ тавьчихъя. Аливаа төгсөлтийн ёслол дээр үг хэлэхээр сэтгэл хөдлөөд хоолой, зангирч нулимс гараад явчихдаг юм. Энэ удаа уйлахаасаа өмнө амжиж үгээ дуусгалаа.

Энэхүү ёслолын ажиллагаанд хүрэлцэн ирсэн та бүхний амар амгаланг айлтгая.

Монголын сэтгүүлчдийн эгнээнд өнөөдөр “Сэтгүүлч” коллежийг дүүргэсэн арван хүн бүл нэмэн орж ирж байна. Юуны өмнө төгсөгчид та нартаа чин сэтгэлийн халуун баяр хүргэе. Маш олон зүйл хэлмээр байвч заримыг нь хичээлийн явцад хэлснээ санаж энэ удаа хэлээ хазан өнгөрөөе дээ. Харин дараах цөөн хэдэн зүйлийг заавал хэлж захимаар байх юм.

“Ашгүй, ингээд төгсчихлөө. Багш нараасаа дахин гэрийн даалгавар авахгүй дээ” хэмээн та нар дотроо бяцхан баярлаж байгаа. Тийм ээ, биднээс та хэд дахин даалгавар авахгүй. Гэхдээ та нарын гэрийн даалгавар дуусахгүй ээ. Сэтгүүлч хүн ямагт гэрийн даалгавартай явдаг юм. Түүнийг редакц чинь, нийгмийн хэрэгцээ шаардлага болон өөрийн чинь сэтгэл зүрх өгч байх болно. Хугацаанд шахагдсан олон даалгаврыг бичиж толилуулсны чинь дараа биднээс ч олон хүн дүн тавина шүү дээ. Өөрөөр хэлбэл уншигч, үзэгч, сонсогчид л хэр зэрэг сэтгүүлч вэ гэдэг үнэлгээг та нарт өгөх болно. Тэдний дүн биднийхээс илүү хатуу чанга байх болно. Тиймээс даалгавраа сайн хийцгээгээрэй дээ гэж хүсье.

Үргэлж шинэ зүйл рүү тэмүүлж, ихийг мэдэхийн тулд уншиж судалж байхгүй бол сэтгүүлч хүн амархан хоцрогддог юм шүү. Коллежийн дөрөвхөн жилд үндсийг нь тавьж авсан мэдлэг боловсролоо бүхий л талаар тордож, бүр цааш нь дээшлүүлэн ахиулж яваарай гэж хүсэх байна.

Түүнчлэн мэдээ үнэрлэх чадвараа алдахгүй улам сайжруулаарай гэж хэлмээр байна. Энэ чадвар л сэтгүүлчийг бөхөөлгүй барьж байдаг юм шүү. Мэдээг хэрхэн олж, баримтыг хэрхэн цуглуулж бичих талаар багш нар чинь улиг болтол ярьж, та нар ч өөрсдөө уйгагүй хийж багагүй дадал олж авсан байгаа. Мэдээ үнэрлэх чадвар чинь хэр хөгжсөн нь бичиж хийсэн зүйлээс чинь тод харагдах болно.

Тархинд чинь шингэсэн бодол, гутал угласан хөл чинь өнөөдөр та нарыг хааш зүглүүлэхийг мэдэхгүй. Ямар ч газар очиж ажиллалаа ч гэсэн сэтгүүл зүйн төлөө гэсэн сэтгэлээ хэзээ ч, хэнд ч бүү худалдаарай. Та бүхний хүлээн авч буй диплом бол сайхан амьдрахын баталгаа биш. Харин Монголын сэтгүүл зүйд орон зайгаа олж, олон сайхан өөрчлөлт хийхийн баталгаа юм шүү.

Сэтгүүлчийн ажил та бүхнээс нийгэмч, иргэнлиг, зоригтой, шийдэмгий хамтран ажиллагч байхыг шаардана. Энэ бүх шаардлагыг биелүүлэхдээ нэг үзэл санаатантайгаа, ангийнхантайгаа, Хэвлэлийн Хүрээлэн болон “Сэтгүүлч” коллежийн үе үеийн төгсөгчидтэй мэргэжлийн эв нэгдэлтэй ажиллахыг хичээгээрэй.

Хамгийн сүүлд хэлэхэд боломжийг ашиглагтун гэж та нарт уриалмаар байна. Энд би та бүхний олж авсан шинэ сэтгүүл зүйн онолын мэдлэг, цаг үеийн мэдрэмж, технологийн хөгжил, залуу насны чинь сэргэлэн ой ухаан гэсэн боломжуудыг ашиглах тухай ярьж байгаа юм шүү.

Боломжийг ашиглагтун.

Гэрийн даалгавраа сайн хийгээрэй.

Та нартаа амжилт хүсэж гүнээ мэхийн ёсолсон багш А.Оюунгэрэл чинь

АНУ-ын Вашингтон муж

2009 оны 6 дугаар сарын 11*

*Монголд бол 2009 оны 6 дугаар сарын 12 болж байсан.

Сэтгүүл зүйд эрс өөрчлөлт болж байна

"Сэтгүүлч" сэтгүүлийн 2006 оны хоёрдугаарт хэвлүүлж байсан энэ материалыг улам олон хүн уншаасай гэсэн үүднээс блог дээрээ тавилаа.

Дөнгөж нахиалж буй ардчиллыг хамгаалж тулах чөлөөт хэвлэл нь бөмбөрцгийн зүүн бөөрөнд байгаа зарим оронд гүйцэд бэхжээ ч үгүй, хэвлэл мэдээллийн болоод сэтгүүлчдийн ёс зүйн стандарт нь тогтож амжаа ч үгүй байхад барууны орнуудад уламжлалт сэтгүүл зүйнх нь хэм хэмжээ алдагдаж байгаа талаар хүчтэй маргаан хэлцэл өрнөж байна. Тэдний хувьд уламжлалт сэтгүүл зүй гэдэг нь хэдэн зууны турш онолыг нь гаргаж, практикаар хэрэгжүүлж ирсэн, эрх чөлөө болон хариуцлагын хоорондын тэнцвэрийг барьдаг, мэдээ ба зарыг холихгүйгээр ялгаж харуулдаг, мэдээ ба үзэл бодлыг тусгаарладаг, хэвлэл мэдээллийн байгууллага ба сэтгүүлчид нь бие даан ёс зүйн шийдэл хийдэг тэрхүү тэнцвэртэй сэтгүүл зүй нь билээ. Барууны сэтгүүл зүйд гарч байгаа зарим өөрчлөлтийн талаар АНУ-д сүүлийн үед болсон зарим нэг үйл явдлын жишээн дээр тулгуурлан товч тайлбарласу.

Шүгэл үлээгчдийн эрх чөлөөг хязгаарласан нь

Марк Фелт. Энэ бол гуч илүү жил нууцлагдсан нэр. “Вашингтон Пост” сонины сурвалжлагч Боб Вүүдуорд, Карл Бэрнштэйн нар ерөнхийлөгч Ричард Никсоныг огцроход хүргэсэн Уотергэйтийн хэргийн тухай материалдаа олон арван эх сурвалжийн нэрийг дурдсан боловч зөвхөн түүний нэрийг нууцалсан юм. Түүгээр ч барахгүй хоёр сэтгүүлч нас барсан хойно нь л түүний нэрийг хэлнэ гэж эх сурвалждаа амласан байлаа. Гэтэл 91 настай нууц эх сурвалж нь өөрөө 2005 оны тавдугаар сарын 31-нд гэрийнхээ босгон дээрээс өөрийгөө зарлаж орхисон юм. Америкийн сэтгүүл зүйн хамгийн алдартай нууц эх сурвалж бөгөөд төр, засгийн байгууллагад ажиллагсдын хувьд үлгэр жишээ авахуйц шүгэл үлээгч болсон Марк Фелтийн нэр ил гарсан нь зарим маргааныг тасалсан ч нийгэмд шинэ хэлцлийг өрнүүлсэн юм.

Юуны өмнө улс төрч, сэтгүүлчид олон хүний нэрийг гаргаж нууц эх сурвалжаар тодорхойлох гэж хичээж байсныг зогсоов. Марк Фелт тухайн үедээ Холбооны Мөрдөх Товчооны дээрээсээ хоёр дахь даргын алба хашиж байсан болохоор хамт ажиллаж байсан хүмүүс нь түүнийг урвагч гэж дуудав. Харин Марк Фелтийг нийгмийнхээ тусын тулд ажилласан гэж үзсэн үр хүүхдүүдээс нь эхлээд Америкийн олон нийт түүнийг эх оронч гэж хүндэтгэсээр байгаа юм. Ямартаа ч Марк Фелт ерөнхийлөгч нь эсрэг намынхаа байранд тагнах чагнах хэрэгсэл тавиулсан тухай мэдээллийг нийтэд өгснийхөө төлөө хариуцлага хүлээхгүй. Учир нь үг хэлэх эрх чөлөөг нь баталгаажуулсан Үндсэн хуулийнх нь нэгдүгээр нэмэлт өөрчлөлт болон бусад хууль түүнийг хамгаалсан юм.

Харин түүний нэр ил гарснаас яг нэг жилийн хойно байдал өөрчлөгдөж байна. АНУ-ын Дээд Шүүх ажлынхаа алдаа дутагдлын талаар нийтэд мэдээлсэн төр, засгийн байгууллагын ажилтны үг хэлэх эрх чөлөөг хязгаарлах тухай шийдвэрийг 2006 оны тавдугаар сарын 30-нд гаргалаа. Энэ нь олон нийт түүний дотор сэтгүүлчдийн дургүйцлийг маш ихээр хүргэжээ. Учир нь шүгэл үлээгчид мэдээллээ нийтэд хүргэхийн тулд хэвлэл, мэдээллийн байгууллага, сэтгүүлчдэд ханддаг билээ. Ажлаа алдахаас айсан хүмүүс дутагдлын хажуугаар дуугүй өнгөрөхөөс гадна төр, засгийн байгууллагын үйл ажиллагаа улам нууц байдалд орж, ардчилсан нийгэм дэх нээлттэй байдал алдагдаж болзошгүйд хүрнэ.

Америкт төр, засгийн байгууллагад ажилладаг 21 сая гаруй хүн байдаг бөгөөд жил тутам дотоод мэдээллийг гадагш гаргасан асуудлаар 100 орчим хэрэг холбооны шүүхээр хэлэлцэгдэж байдаг аж. Дээд Шүүхийн энэ шийдвэр наад утгаараа зөвхөн мэдээлэл өгөгчдийн эрхийг хязгаарлаж байгаа мэт боловч цаад утгаараа мэдээллийг хүртэх эрхтэй олон нийтийн эрхийг давхар хязгаарлаж байгаа аж. Ийм нөхцөлд сэтгүүлчид ажиллах нь улам хүндрэлтэй болж, эх сурвалжийнхаа талаар улам нарийн шийдэл хийхэд хүрч байна. Ялангуяа эрэн сурвалжлах сэтгүүл зүйд саад тотгор нэлээд гарна. Учир нь шүгэл үлээгчид чухал мэдээллийн сэжүүрийг атгуулах гол эх сурвалж нь болдог билээ.

Интернэт ёс зүйн стандартыг эвдэж байгаа нь

Мэдээллийн хувьсгалын ид дунд яваа барууны сэтгүүл зүй дэх огцом хурдацтай өөрчлөлтүүд нь ёс зүйн стандартыг эвдэж эхэлжээ. Сателлайт ролбоо, кабелийн сувгуудаас эхлэн вэб сайт, текст мессэж хүртэл өнөөгийн хүмүүсийн мэдээллийн хэрэгсэл болж байна. Тэдгээрийг үндэстэн дамнасан компаниуд эзэмшиж, үйлчлүүлэгчдийгээ хэрэгцээ, сонирхлоор нь хуваан өмчилж авсан нь мэдээллийг бүтээж бий болгох, хүлээж авах явцыг уламжлалт сэтгүүл зүйн аргаас эрс өөрчилжээ. Ялангуяа Интернэтийн вэб сайтуудын нэг хэсэг нь бодитой хандахыг эрмэлзэж баримтыг нягтлах авч, нөгөө хэсэг нь тэр чигээрээ үзэл бодлыг тавьж байна. Гэтэл уламжлалт сэтгүүл зүйгээр бол сэтгүүлчид мэдээллийг бие биенээсээ хамаарахгүй эх сурвалжаар хоёр, гурван давхар шалгах зарчимтай. Түүгээрээ ч баталгаажуулдаг сэтгүүл зүй (journalism of verification) гэгдэж олон түмний итгэлийг хүлээж байлаа.

Урбана хот дахь Иллинойсийн их сургуулийн профессор Клиффорд Кристианс:

-Онлайн мэдээллийн хэрэгслүүдийн гарах хугацаа нь тогтмолжоогүй, зарим мэдээ нь тэр дороо тавигддаг, заримдаа редактор нь ч уншиж амжаагүй байдаг. Түүнчлэн зохиогч нь эх материалаа уншиж, иш татаж ашиглахын оронд шууд тэр чигээр нь холболт (hyperlink) хийсэн байдаг Мэргэжлийн бус ийм ёс зүйгүй ажиллагаанаасаа болж уншигчдынхаа итгэлийг алдан шүү дээ гэж Охайогийн их сургууль дээр болсон хурал дээр хэлсэн юм.

Хамгийн аюултай нь вэб сайт дээр тавигдсан зүйлсийн аль нь хатуу мэдээлэл, аль нь үзэл бодол, аль нь зугаа цэнгээний материал болохыг уншигчид ялгахгүй нэлээд төөрдөг байна. Тиймээс цахим мэдээллийн хэрэгслүүд ч өөрсдийн ёс зүйн стандарттай болох хэрэгтэй талаар судлаач, эрдэмтэд санал дэвшүүлж байна.

Сэтгүүл зүйн Юү Би Эс сургуулийн профессор Стифен Уорд шинэ тутам гарч ирсэн мэдээллийн хэрэгслүүд даяарчлагдсан хандлагатай тул хариуцлага нь ч даяарчлагдсан байх ёстой гэж үзэж байгаа юм. Учир нь сэтгүүлчид зөвхөн өөрийн орныхоо төлөө гэсэн эх орончид биш дэлхийн нийт иргэдийн тусын тулд, хүний эрхийн төлөө ажилладаг агентууд болж хувирч байна хэмээн тэрбээр тайлбарлажээ. Сэтгүүлч хүн гэж хэн бэ гэсэн ойлголт өөрчлөгдсөн ч уламжлалт сэтгүүл зүйнхээ гол зарчмуудыг бид орхихгүйгээр харин ч өргөжүүлж бодит байдал ба тайлбар хоёрын тэнцвэрийг зөв барих нь зүйтэй гэж профессор Уорд оюутнууддаа ярьжээ.

Сэтгүүл зүйн Шилдгийн төлөө Төсөл хэмээх байгууллагын өнгөрсөн оны жилийн тайланд Америкийн сэтгүүл зүйд дараах таван зүйлийн чиг хандлага байгааг тодорхойлжээ. Үүнд:

-Батлагдаагүй баримтууд нь хуурамч мэдээллийг ихэсгэж байна.

-Мэдээллийн хэрэглээ нь зөвхөн нэг талыг барьсан хэвлэлийг олшруулж байна.

-Сэтгүүл зүйн үйл ажиллагааг ил тод болгох замаар олон нийтийн итгэлийг олж авах шаардлага гарч ирж байна.

-Олон жилийн түүхтэй уламжлалт хэвлэл мэдээллийн хэрэгслүүд шинэ хэрэглэгчдийг татахын тулд хөрөнгө оруулалт хийхгүй эргэлзэж байна.

-Сүлжээгээр ажилладаг телевизийн сэтгүүл зүй багасаж байна.

Түүнчлэн уг тайланд мэдээллийг түргэн зуур, өргөн хүрээнд, хямд өртөгтэйгээр тараах хэрэгслүүд үүсэж буй ч баримтыг шалгахгүйгээр, эх сурвалжийг баталгаажуулахгүйгээр, болж байгаа үйл явдалд оролцохгүйгээр бичих нь сэтгүүл зүйд хортой гэдгийг дурдаад хэрэглэгчдийнхээ итгэлийг алдсан Дөрөв дэх засаглал нь төр, засаг, сонирхлын бүлэглэлүүд эсвэл хувийн корпорацуудын л хамсаатан болж хувирна шүү дээ гэж тэмдэглэсэн байна.

А.Оюунгэрэл

2006 он