In recent years, subjectivity and partisanship in reporting have come under sharp attack—most vigorously from opponents of either Fox News or AL-Jazeera. News hounds moan there isn’t even a pretence to objectivity anymore. They argue that in order for media outlets to rebuild public trust and bring confidence back, journalists must keep impartiality, actively remaining objective at all times.
However, there is a grey line to this too. When Hurricane Katrina happened, the initial hysteria and coverage originated with reporters. They were present before FIMA. They were the first to assess and transmit the extent of misery and desperation taking hold on the ground. Who can forget images of residents forced onto rooftops to seek help from passing helicopters? And who were those poor people frantically waving to? (Especially in those early days when Government help still appeared to be absent)? Did people expect the news crew to remain idle even still? or would they have preferred reporters participate and immerse themselves in the story by helping to airlift people out of there?
Here lies the quandary. In an age where media resources and technologies match that of the Government’s, when is it appropriate for a journalist to offer victims of crisis, aid whilst reporting their story? Does it matter that Katrina took place in the form of a domestic tragedy instead of one taking place abroad? Would for instance, a show of humanity still take priority in Iraq?
This is a heated topic amongst professionals as well. Those opposed to any form of involvement argue it compromises their objectivity, undeniably, a chief journalistic ethic. As a result, a pious journalist may feel compelled that in order to remain objective, he must, at all times remain detached, disinterested in outcome and dedicated wholeheartedly to documenting and relaying the truth. His dilemma appears to be that if he helps someone to safety, even by offering them a drink of water, he is altering the course of the news; the facts as he knows them. Ultimately, any form of intervention alters outcome, so whether a journalist likes it or not, their craft will affect public policy and life too.
No reporter wants to appear amidst a conflict of interest, nor should objectivity be painted with such black, white ardor. For starters, one is wrongly assuming objectivity to be an available human trait. To take such a view clouts a journalist with terrible and repeated moral dilemmas. Besides, should the absence of detachment necessarily mean the presence of improper attachment? Just because an Italian journalist lends his cell phone to an American soldier pleading to borrow it for just one moment to call his family, does not mean the reporter helping him is siding with U.S. policy or liable to give us biased coverage. Such a reporter can be as noble as any other. It is just that he is taking a humanistic approach. Consider the alternative, choosing to deny the US soldier of a cellphone shows such dispassion and contempt for human suffering, that such a reporter could definitely be warranted with loathing towards US troops and US involvement in Iraq. Arguably it is such a reporter, whose journalistic endeavor should be watched closely and with greater suspicion.
A reporter's show of hummanity and comapssion should not decredit from his work and render him less objective for its own sake. In fact, let us look at Hurricane Katrina, where disregarding the community's needs and tragic circumstances would have definitely made a journalist appear animus of the very people he was trying to cover. It would have been uncalled for, dehumanizing the account. To my mind, an announced bias is readily more realistic, palatable and constructive to public information than some highly unrealistic declaration to no bias at all.
Ultimately, the role of a journalistic endeavor should be catered to public interest. Encouraging participation in community politics and engaging people to claim their stake in public life. This all requires reporting to be clear-eyed about the facts yet at the same detached enough to show concern for the outcome of events taking place too.
As it happens, during Hurricane Katrina, journalists who came to the aid of ailing victims were heralded as heroes. They weren’t frowned upon. Perhaps, it would be a different matter had it not been a domestic/patriotic issue. News organizations are unforgiving of un-met deadlines. Failures are costly. In another circumstance, a journalist might risk losing his own livelihood should he/she appear ‘confused’ about professional priorities.
As if to add insult to injury, assistance given is therefore more often than not, entrepreneurially grandstanded and sold to the Public’; as if to satisfy shareholders, not to establish the reporter has demonstrated and adopted a subjective stance towards the matter at hand.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/simpson.html
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3999
http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=5594
http://www.peacecenter.berkeley.edu/greatergood/current_issue/simpson.html
No comments:
Post a Comment