You often hear the word “objectivity” being thrown around in the company of “ethics” and “quality” – especially in the context of describing or criticising the journalism profession.
Objectivity is expressly mentioned in the media alliance code of ethics…the journalism professions equivalent of the 10 commandments – similarly written by ancient bearded men in robes on a hill (or so I have convinced myself so as to stay interested in it). The code states, (read in booming god-like voice)
“4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.”
The notion of objectivity in journalism involves upholding a standard of reporting that omits all personal/political motivations or beliefs of the author in lieu of a balanced and fair product. The rationale behind this idea is that it allows the consumer to make their own decision after considering the facts presented to them by the impartial journalist.
The idea of objectivity was safeguarded in traditional platforms of journalism through careful writing and editing of stories to ensure bias or underlying subjectivity didn’t exist, a process that’s effectiveness was often debated.
In some cases, especially in recent years, many accused news companies of compromising this objective standard and shaping content to pander to the commercial and political interests of those funding their companies.
Therein lies one of the more prominent of the pro-online supporters arguments as to why news consumption moving online proves to be only positive in the higher purpose of informing the public, that is, that the online world leaves journalists unshackled of commercial interests to report the news as they see it.
While I would agree that the internet has led to a burst of new refreshing opinions and greater opportunities to share fresh perspectives and angles to stories (even though main news companies still obviously do screen their content) it's important that journalists also stay aware of the dangers of these new platforms.
As a great number of sportsman and celebrities have been generous enough to show us (tip of the hat to you Stephanie Rice) with the great freedom of the internet, especially social networking sites, comes a great deal of responsibility and accountability.
Incriminating photos from Saturday night aside, the rise of these online platforms demands that journalists and news companies quickly decide policy for online use to deal with the intermixing of personal and professional life and the potential damage to the company.
Traditionally a writer would finish his column and be home to live his private life, but where a journalists has a Facebook there is the potential for a greater degree of public access to this life outside the newsroom. So when does the expectations of objectivity end and a journalists private life begin? Should a journalists have to conform to company policy about the uses of social networking sites even outside work hours in their personal accounts? Have to censor any potentially controversial content on their own personal blogs in fear that it might impact on their employers and consequently their job stability?
If Andrew Bolt and his recent court drama taught us anything it’s that content in blogs and opinion columns do have the potential to do serious damage both to the community and to the company in which the writer belongs. On that basis I’d suggest that even on private blogs and Facebook/Twitter posts journalists should refrain from posting inflammatory or overly controversial opinions. But on the other hand I don’t think it's fair of news corporations or of the public to expect that a journalist remains completely objective 100% of the time. A sports journalists liking a particular sports team on his personal Facebook doesn’t necessarily mean a bias exists in his writing. The reality is that journalists are human and have opinions (arguable more opinions than most), in some cases political and religious beliefs just like anyone else and becoming a journalist doesn’t mean one loses this right.
An interesting issue I came across during my readings about a journalist’s use of Facebook and Twitter was where journalists and the organisations they worked for were being criticised for who they followed or the opinions they expressed on these pages. This issue probably wasn’t helped by the fact that too follow and receive the updates of a person, for example to get a incriminating quote from Bob Katter you had to “like” or “friend” him first – which gave the impression (to some) that the journalists objectivity was being compromised (when in reality they just needed to do this to get the quotes). The same problem was manifested on Twitter where journalists were forced to explain that re-tweeting something didn’t necessarily mean endorsement of its subject matter.
The thing that these haters need to remember (aside from that their families need them to stop neglecting them to write angry snippy letters to journalists) is that even where it is on their personal profiles outside of work Journalists are humans and while they should be expected to put their opinions and bias aside when writing stories it doesn’t mean they should be encapsulated at all times by a cone of perpetual objectivity ... that would make for far less exciting BBQ’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment