Most modern journalists know that to be a successful journalist, one must follow several key principles-- Objectivity is one of the most important of all. According to an article from U.S.A. Today, objectivity is "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations." However, it's not rare to find bias and slants in the journalism industry today. Take Fox News vs. CNN, for example. Fox is known for spinning the news with a conservative slant, while CNN is oftentimes said to be more liberal.
So, if two of the greatest and most successful TV broadcasting programs are bias and begin to neglect the principle of objectivity, how is the problem solved? Is it possible for a News station to remain completely objective and neutral? Is a news paper or an online news provider any different? How do we decide the standards today? These are questions I will attempt to answer, and that are pivotal to the future of journalism.
In an article from his Mass Media column in U.S.A. Today called "The Search for objectivity in journalism" , Howard Myrick offers advice to journalists on how to avoid bias and how to stick to objectivity. He writes, "In many instances, in fact, it would be sufficient, instructive, and healthy for them simply to imagine their interviewee or information source reciting the adage, "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." The willingness on the part of the journalist or newscaster to accept the wisdom of this adage could prevent further errors of distortion, bias, and various other injuries to objectivity in their reporting."
Oftentimes, as Myrick points out, as did Schudson in Chapter 4, it's the interpretation
of journalists that gets them in trouble. Myrick believes that it is the same, whether the news
be online, in print or on air.
However, broadcast journalists beware: "To broadcast journalists, for example, who rely on the use of video clips from syndicated news services and/or their own electronic news gathering and field production units--a common and unavoidable practice in the fast-paced world of broadcast journalism--it would serve them well to be reminded that failure to analyze the "word" (the narrative) without paying close attention to the "picture" (the visual) can lead to some grievous distortions or misinterpretations. The picture (video) is an iconic code or stream of iconic codes exceedingly subject to variable interpretation, as has been found in research in culture and visual perception," Myrick says.
So, now that we know how to avoid bias and how to stick to objectivity, one question remains. Is it possible to be totally objective?
In his book On Reporting the News, William Burrows says that total objectivity is absolutely impossible. "Total objectivity is impossible in news reporting because... we bring our emotions and prejudices to what we perceive.... Even a reporter who makes desperate efforts at impartiality faces two problems. First, he must not only decide which information to put in the story, but which to leave out. The part that is left out might make the story more objective but there may be no space for it. Second, he must decide which element of the story gets the most "play" (emphasis) and relegate the rest to lesser play. News judgment is the decisive factor, but even the soundest judgment does not mean that all important elements in a story will be represented in exact proportion to their real part in it."
However, of course it can be argued the opposite way- that precisely and accurately delivering all facts adheres to objectivity. In my opinion, total objectivity is not possible. Journalists and editors decide what to put in the papers, they edit it to their standards and they interpret it the best they can. Thus, total objectivity is not possible. That does not mean, though, that journalists should not strive for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment