Hello Davids,
I am a regular reader and enjoy your discussions.
I posted your "About Us" section in a thread on a political forum where the
topic was bias in journalism. It included this line:
"We do not believe that passively observing human misery without attempting
to intervene constitutes 'neutrality'."
To which a regular poster replied:
"........it appears to suggest that journalism is supposed to be proactive
and champion a cause, rather than be objective. It seems to undermine the
ideal they are trying to espouse, to suggest that journalism SHOULD champion
a cause, just THEIR cause and not one they dislike."
I was wondering how you usually respond to this (assuming you have heard the
charge before) ?
Name Withheld
Many thanks. A couple of responses...
First, objectivity is impossible. The historian Howard Zinn has pointed out
that behind any presented fact is a judgement: "the judgement that this fact
is important to put forward (and, by implication, other facts may be
ignored). And any such judgement reflects the beliefs, the values of the
historian [or journalist], however he or she pretends to 'objectivity'".
(The Zinn Reader - Writings on Disobedience and Democracy, Seven Stories
Press, Howard Zinn, 1997, p.16)
Not only is objectivity impossible, it is morally indefensible. Zinn again:
"As I told my students at the start of my courses, 'You can't be neutral on
a moving train.' The world is already moving in certain directions - many of
them are horrifying. Children are going hungry, people are dying in wars. To
be neutral in such a situation is to collaborate with what is going on."
(Ibid, p.17)
The main concern, as I see it, is the extent to which journalism is rational
and honest - do the arguments make sense? Are the facts and sources credible
and reliable? These are judgements we always have to make for ourselves - we
will never encounter an 'objective', 'neutral' journalist whose words can
somehow be taken on trust.
I also agree with Zinn (and Buddhism) that reason and honesty are enhanced
by compassion and compromised by greed and hatred. A journalist who is
sincerely motivated by concern for the suffering of others is more likely to
report honestly than someone motivated by self-interested concern for
wealth, status and power.
Finally, of course we should be pro-active, doing everything we can to
address and relieve the causes of suffering. No one expects a doctor to be
neutral, or a firefighter standing beside a school full of children buring
alive. We are all firefighters in a world of burning children.
Best wishes
David Edwards
3 comments:
Dear David,
It is a pity you can't read Dutch. You wouldn't believe the (mostly neo-conservative) propaganda the main Dutch newspapers are spreading since 9/11. For instance, today a correspondent/historian wrote in an 'analysis' that terrorists blow themselves up, not because of anger about poverty and injustice in the world, but because they can't get along with their parents. Mind you, this used to be a leftist intelligent newspaper (De Volkskrant, transl. The People's Newspaper). The same newspaper who's chief editor Pieter Broertjes recently stated (my translation attempts):
"As far back in history as we can remember, newspapers write about the profound conflict between the Jews and the Arabs - and what good does it do. With these ingredients one doesn't make exiting newspapers. Especially not for young readers."
The same chief editor comments on a dissident journalist who left his staff and later published a book about journalism in the Netherlands and in general, Joris Luyendijk:
"He (Luyendijk) unveils mechanisms we are aware of, but we don't want to be reminded of them on a daily basis. The strength of his argument lies in his examples. The experienced observer knows that the truth is distorted many times, also by journalists. That it is this bad, even surprised me."
"Luyendijks' critical pleas against contemporary journalistic codes are also threatening. They make our players in the field vulnerable."
Two reknown journalists of the same newspaper who seriously slaundered two television colleagues in a book with quotations they claim they have never said, nor have been asked if this was correct, state:
"We are convinced that it is the job of the journalist himself to decide in which cases it is useful and neccesary to check with the source wether his information is correct. To include a negation makes it harder for the reader to decide what is true or what is credible."
I think the overall problem with Dutch reporting (equally left and right) is that the news is presented - mostly bought in bulk from press agencies and published without even reading it, it seems - without any context. For example, hardly any of the main newspapers ever mentioned some kind of relationship between what's going on in Iraq, and oil. The Israël-Palestine conflict reporting is simply garbage. 'Hamas fires rockets on Siderot' - according to Israeli officials... etcetera, and that's it. No mention of why that happened, no background information whatsoever. No wonder the chief editor thinks it's boring.
The real venom you can find in the 'analysis' and stories from correspondents, in op-eds and columns. Here, news is not reported, but sculpted around personal ideas, or rewritten to an ideological stance instead of describing what is going on and how it came to be that way. Orwell's palimpsest, is an expression I use in my language.
I'll leave you with the very last sentences from the main story today, when our (new) minister of Foreign Affairs visited Abbas in Palestine.
"Wednesday morning Verhagen (the minister) visited a Palestinian refugee camp accompanied by ten Dutch students. There he saw what the daily consequences are from the disputed Israeli separation wall. Because of the meters-high concrete wall some small Palestinian houses ended up on Israeli soil. Therefor it is sometimes hard for Palestinian children to go to school."
regards,
Anneke Auer
Visual artist and web designer
Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Surely the best way to conduct a journalistic investigation is to remain neutral. The reporting of both sides of a situation equally, without concentrating on one aspect or another. Isn't it? Is this really possible?
Personally i can't imagine remaining objective, neutral, when faced with certain situations, e.g. witnessing first hand mass graves in DC Congo or children going hungry.
A journalist must surely be passionate about what he/she is investigating / reporting. With that passion must come an opinion. How is it possible not to form an opinion, whether voiced or kept to oneself, when faced with such realities.
Surely it is possible to write an impartial article on a situation, but is that what a journalist should do? What is more important - giving the people the facts, then let them form their own opinions, or say what you really think while making sure your audience knows it's only an informed opinion?
If you're truely passionate about your subject, as you must be, are you really able to remain impartial in reporting that subject? Surely it is not possible, and to do so would be a lie. It would be possible to report both sides of a situation equally, without opinion in writing, but is that real journalism?
Does it boil down to whether you trust your audience to form the right opinion? In your mind as a journalist there has to be a right and wrong opinion, thats why you're so passionate about what you report, that's why you're there.
So, then, if everyone holds an opinion, is there really any truth? No-one can be truely objective, therefore they must have an opinion, and must voice that opinion. Otherwise what's the point? Isn't the media just a whole lot of opinions, all mixed in together, trying to pull you this way, then the other way? Most people well intended, but misleading nontheless?
As an aspiring photojournalist all this plays on my mind. Is impartiality in a complex situation (and therefore what is widely called 'good' journalism) more truthfull than voicing your own opinion that you believe in your heart to be true? Is there any truth at all?
Medialens has a noticeably interesting ethos I have a incline that 2006 book will be good, I'm looking into it now. I'm currently studying Media at London Met. Are you still blogging, maybe at a different address. Found the site through a Tube tube link to site, however the true link did not work so I just went to your home-page. Then googled here. From a very curious student, have a pleasant week.
Yours sincerely,
Post a Comment