30th December 2012, 03:12 PM
Greetings to you all and Happy New Year in advance!
Interesting thread.......Historically, Mankind has suffered from an unquenchable desire to be recognised and/or held aloft by the masses for millennia. Media exposure can be positive but unfortunately, our collective failure (as an industry) of reaching out to society and providing them with factual narrative has led to an environment just gagging for sensationalism and wildly inaccurate dialogue. Hold on a minute........ actually, as a profession, we do provide factual narrative in the form of reports and submit them to Local Government repositories. Is our obligation to the wider public not met by these submissions? Could it be as simple as directing media representatives to Local Government for their stories? If contractual Archaeology is to be bound by the dictat of Planning Law then surely, any wildly inaccurate reporting by a media agency should be taken to task in the interests of the Client. The excavation reports are a legal document duly strained through quality control systems (ahem), accepted by the Client and Local Government Officers (ahem) before storage. Whilst "control" of the media is a moot point at the minute, there has to be some mileage in the concept that where a media agency deliberately misrepresents a legal document from a controlled system then there can be due process.
"Research" excavations by Universities around the world are a different matter mostly as they have a very different legal standing but also as professional standards can vary from absurdly incompetent to vaguely coherent. In my humble opinion, when "Research" excavations find themselves amidst a media cartoon flurry, they often deserve everything they get. No doubt this can be quite embarrassing for the University and the host nation who issued excavation licenses but there is usually no contractual Client in this equation. I still believe that media games could be curtailed by using available Law as it currently stands.
The alternative is to accept the way things are and carry on producing Press Releases instead of directing the media to the final reports. I have absolutely no doubt that Archaeology has an awful lot to say about climate change and if the media are interested, perhaps they should take the time to read before going down the "28 Days Later" route and stating that the earth will be overrun by ferocious and distinctly miffed Polar Bears by March. On a personal note, I didn`t get into archaeology to take part in fabrication and neither did I sign up to assist in the career progression of those clearly challenged by the thrill of fantasy. In short- I have fulfilled my obligation to the masses (under current archaic Laws) by submitting and storing a legal document through due processes. Should a media agency choose to wildly misrepresent that document I would advise my Client to take appropriate action. The longer we allow unqualified, work-shy hacks to define what we do, we will perpetuate the myth that archaeology is just a game of make-believe. :face-stir:
Interesting thread.......Historically, Mankind has suffered from an unquenchable desire to be recognised and/or held aloft by the masses for millennia. Media exposure can be positive but unfortunately, our collective failure (as an industry) of reaching out to society and providing them with factual narrative has led to an environment just gagging for sensationalism and wildly inaccurate dialogue. Hold on a minute........ actually, as a profession, we do provide factual narrative in the form of reports and submit them to Local Government repositories. Is our obligation to the wider public not met by these submissions? Could it be as simple as directing media representatives to Local Government for their stories? If contractual Archaeology is to be bound by the dictat of Planning Law then surely, any wildly inaccurate reporting by a media agency should be taken to task in the interests of the Client. The excavation reports are a legal document duly strained through quality control systems (ahem), accepted by the Client and Local Government Officers (ahem) before storage. Whilst "control" of the media is a moot point at the minute, there has to be some mileage in the concept that where a media agency deliberately misrepresents a legal document from a controlled system then there can be due process.
"Research" excavations by Universities around the world are a different matter mostly as they have a very different legal standing but also as professional standards can vary from absurdly incompetent to vaguely coherent. In my humble opinion, when "Research" excavations find themselves amidst a media cartoon flurry, they often deserve everything they get. No doubt this can be quite embarrassing for the University and the host nation who issued excavation licenses but there is usually no contractual Client in this equation. I still believe that media games could be curtailed by using available Law as it currently stands.
The alternative is to accept the way things are and carry on producing Press Releases instead of directing the media to the final reports. I have absolutely no doubt that Archaeology has an awful lot to say about climate change and if the media are interested, perhaps they should take the time to read before going down the "28 Days Later" route and stating that the earth will be overrun by ferocious and distinctly miffed Polar Bears by March. On a personal note, I didn`t get into archaeology to take part in fabrication and neither did I sign up to assist in the career progression of those clearly challenged by the thrill of fantasy. In short- I have fulfilled my obligation to the masses (under current archaic Laws) by submitting and storing a legal document through due processes. Should a media agency choose to wildly misrepresent that document I would advise my Client to take appropriate action. The longer we allow unqualified, work-shy hacks to define what we do, we will perpetuate the myth that archaeology is just a game of make-believe. :face-stir: