Journalism is not the same as truth.
What?!
I know, I know, it was a shock to me too. For years, numerous comms classes have drilled in my brain that the most important element of journalism is truth - but what I didn't realize is that truth, in fact, is not journalism. Indeed the discussion of journalistic objectivity has become a trap, and as the book says, "the term has become so misunderstood and battered."
While I believe journalists should be as objective as possible, it is rarely possible to report a story free of bias. Depending on the intent of the reporter, I don't necessarily think that a reporter's subjectivity is a negative thing. If journalists were too cautious about reporting strict "truth", society would never get any real information. Journalists give stories a personal perspective, informing us and letting us have insight to things we weren't able to experience ourselves. As Bill Keller said, "We strive for coverage that aims as much as possible to present the reader with enough information to make up his or her own mind. That's our fine ideal."
How lucky are we to live in the United States of America, where we have a right to free speech?? The U.S. liberal model of media allows us to be watchdogs of society. I believe this is incredibly important in keeping the government in check. The right to free speech secures as a nation of the people. We have a variety of liberal and conservative news to choose from. I think that in other places around the world where government controls speech, those people are at a disadvantage of being heard, and being heard objectively.
In reading more about the different models of journalism, I came across this article that I found quite interesting regarding the "convergence hypothesis": http://jou.sagepub.com/content/10/3/332.extract
No comments:
Post a Comment